B747-400 Mtom
Thread Starter
Joined: Apr 2004
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
From: UK
B747-400 Mtom
Hi Guys
I hope this is right area and apologise if this has been answered before but I am looking for CX B747-400 MTOM and A340-600/300 MTOM etc... can any one point me in right direction have looked on CX website no joy
While I am exposing my lack of knowledge can anyone point me in right direction for latest A/c orders etc...
Thanks in advance
CM75
I hope this is right area and apologise if this has been answered before but I am looking for CX B747-400 MTOM and A340-600/300 MTOM etc... can any one point me in right direction have looked on CX website no joy
While I am exposing my lack of knowledge can anyone point me in right direction for latest A/c orders etc...
Thanks in advance
CM75
Joined: Aug 1999
Posts: 300
Likes: 0
From: Hong Kong
Been flying for 13 years...... and i have no idea what MTOM is? I guessing it stands for Maximum Take Off Mass??? If so this is not a term used... not on large jets anyway. Try doing a search on the wannabes forum for MTOW, because i wouldn't have a clue of the weights of the Boeing fleet.
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 107
Likes: 0
From: my desk
Come on guys haven't you been studying!
MTOM is max turn off momentum. The chap is looking for the weight at which you can make the first high speed exit on landing. My guess on most aircraft is the square root of turn burst pressure.
MTOM is max turn off momentum. The chap is looking for the weight at which you can make the first high speed exit on landing. My guess on most aircraft is the square root of turn burst pressure.
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 335
Likes: 0
From: Asia
Slow Down !
Would that be the tire burst pressure of a new tire or a re-treaded tire ?
Would that be the pressure on the outside or inside of the bogie ?
Why wasn't the tire burst pressure (or temperature ) included in my limitations section ?
That's it I am calling Mr. Boeing !!
Would that be the pressure on the outside or inside of the bogie ?
Why wasn't the tire burst pressure (or temperature ) included in my limitations section ?
That's it I am calling Mr. Boeing !!
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 346
Likes: 0
From: Earth
is that the first high speed turn off on the left or the right ???
are all High speed turn off's the same distance from the end of the runway ???
is MTOM measured in thrunge widgets per square thingamyjig
or Kilonewtons per square foot ???
I think if I get to grips with MTOM I will finally have a complete grasp of the totally irrelevant..................
yippeee !!!!!!
are all High speed turn off's the same distance from the end of the runway ???
is MTOM measured in thrunge widgets per square thingamyjig
or Kilonewtons per square foot ???
I think if I get to grips with MTOM I will finally have a complete grasp of the totally irrelevant..................
yippeee !!!!!!
Thread Starter
Joined: Apr 2004
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
From: UK
or MTOW = MAX TAKE OFF WEIGHT.
I know the B747-400 is in region of 395 tonnes but was looking for CX weights they use.......
Thanks for the help...????
CM75

Joined: Sep 2004
Posts: 1,684
Likes: 3
From: Down at the sharp pointy end, where all the weather is made.
Try 394.63 tonnes as an example of one particular 747-400 presently operating between Europe and HKG.
Gawd knows what it is in lbs - who uses those, these days?
Some have said that the -400 represents the MTOW of this variant of the Queen of the Skies, but I'd be surprised if Boeing would've thought of that, being wedded to good ole English units of measurement.
I don't think that MTOM is really going to catch on. Someone calculated the reduction in Concorde's weight in flight because it was operating further away from the Earth's mass than when it was at rest on the ground - I think it could be expressed better in grammes rather than in tonnes!
So, for all intents and purposes, Mass = Weight, so MTOW will be around for some time.
The Odd One
Gawd knows what it is in lbs - who uses those, these days?
Some have said that the -400 represents the MTOW of this variant of the Queen of the Skies, but I'd be surprised if Boeing would've thought of that, being wedded to good ole English units of measurement.
I don't think that MTOM is really going to catch on. Someone calculated the reduction in Concorde's weight in flight because it was operating further away from the Earth's mass than when it was at rest on the ground - I think it could be expressed better in grammes rather than in tonnes!
So, for all intents and purposes, Mass = Weight, so MTOW will be around for some time.
The Odd One
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 740
Likes: 0
From: Over There
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 651
Likes: 0
From: Hong Kong
The odd one
Dont laugh...it has an effect!
If you are flying east over the equator, your relative speed, to a point in space, is your GS of say 480kts and earths rotational speed of 900kts giving a total speed of almost 1400kts...flying west it is around 400kts. Apparently it gives a total differential of almost 0.6% of fuel burn between the two directions, all else being equal!
Dont laugh...it has an effect!
If you are flying east over the equator, your relative speed, to a point in space, is your GS of say 480kts and earths rotational speed of 900kts giving a total speed of almost 1400kts...flying west it is around 400kts. Apparently it gives a total differential of almost 0.6% of fuel burn between the two directions, all else being equal!
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 335
Likes: 0
From: Asia
Which way is up
The odd one
Dont laugh...it has an effect!
If you are flying east over the equator, your relative speed, to a point in space, is your GS of say 480kts and earths rotational speed of 900kts giving a total speed of almost 1400kts...flying west it is around 400kts. Apparently it gives a total differential of almost 0.6% of fuel burn between the two directions, all else being equal!
Dont laugh...it has an effect!
If you are flying east over the equator, your relative speed, to a point in space, is your GS of say 480kts and earths rotational speed of 900kts giving a total speed of almost 1400kts...flying west it is around 400kts. Apparently it gives a total differential of almost 0.6% of fuel burn between the two directions, all else being equal!
Also thought that the equator ran East West....hmmmm




!
