airbus 340-300

[willfly380]

is the A340-300 really that bad when speaking of performance.some even go to the extent of saying the aircraft lifts off only because the earth is round.can 340 pilots out there please take out time to comment.
no its not a bus vs boeing thing,just what i heard .

[Rainboe]

I'm not saying they're bad (they are) or slow (they are) or limited by altitude far more than other jets (they are), but I do know there have been many 747 crews climbing out of Far East stations on a long range critical fuel flight to Europe, who, as they approach cruise and discover there is an A340 labouring at low cruise altitude just above them and ahead of them restricting them horribly when they are already short of fuel, have been known to clasp both hands on their cheeks, look at each other in horror, and scream!

Apart from that, er....I think they boast they have 'the quietest cabin'. I think that's because they have inky dinky engines that don't produce much noise (or thrust).

[norodnik]

but...

they are an accountants dream..

One of the first of a new breed of aircraft that takes the component parts of flying, and economises each and every one of them.

ie: Runways are 10000 ft in length, therefore, minimise weight, thrust, and anything else to ensure we use all of it. (why waste a perfectly good runway with big engines)

End product is a plane that burns 6T of fuel per hour rather than 10.

Even so, they have not sold particularly well, which often makes me wonder how they would do if they had designed the A340-600 with only 2 engines ???

[greciangod]

If these 747's are so much faster why can't they just fly past the A340?

[Rainboe]

End product is a plane that burns 6T of fuel per hour rather than 10.

...and carries 60% (or less) of the load? A 3 class 747-400 can carry 409 in a standard configuration.

A 747 is happiest at M.86. I think Airbi cruise at about M.80+ (or it seems like it). It is maddening to find yourself stuck behind and below one by 30 miles. It takes quite a while to steam say 20 miles ahead to find yourself passing into airspace with no radar and unable to let you leapfrog the thing.

[White Knight]

340-300, love it!! Nice ride through the bumps. Wings designed to cruise at 0.82, and I wouldn't say it's as altitude limited as the 74's and 77's struggling out of the Gulf in the summer
Besides, with such a low fuel burn it makes shedloads of money!!

As for quiet cabin - very nice, much like the 340-500 that has great big motors (as opposed to inky dinky engines )

[Capt. Inop]

340-300, love it!! Nice ride through the bumps.

Boeing handels turbulence a bit better than the Bus,
so with slower speeds bumps should be nicer

[speed freek]

Flew on an A340-300 to Gatwick last summer, with Emirates. It was about 0700 local, despite that as we approached the runway I heard the packs go off - haven't experienced that in a llllooooonnnnnnnggggggg time!!!

One of the flight deck crew over here found out (through various mathmatical computations with figures obtained from official documents) that the 777-300ER can carry 20 tonnes more payload than the A340-500 for the same range, and burn just less than 10 tonnes of fuel doing it. Overall making the new 777s about 30 tonnes better than the competitor.......interesting!

Sorry for the digression

Cheers

[Aussie]

Since were on the topic,

I flew an SQ 343 in 2001 and thought we werent going to get airborne on T/O out of Adelaide to Singapore!!!!

It felt like my car accel. faster!

I Flew on an EK 340-500 2 weeks ago, syd-dubai

and i tell ya, i was expecting more power from the bigger engines, but i think a 737 has more guts!!!

It was still better on T/O than the 343, but seems as though
every Boeing i fly, just ***** on the bus!

Im no expert, just telling how i see it.

Aussie

[Moe Syzlak]

The only metric above safety for any airliner is efficiency. It is a facile argument to go on and on about climb performance and speed as though we were still flying fighters. If some chimp in a 747 or similar is habitualy stuck behind an airbus and hurting for gas, then perhaps they want to think a little more about their planning or timing. I say again, efficiency is the only metric in civilian aviation and thats why the airbus has outsold the boeing! I have been stuck behind (or in front of) lots of boeings that have crawled their way to the level we need , only to wait until they get 10 or 20 minutes ahead to climb-do I moan?

[White Knight]

Aussie, it's all about reduced power if the runway is not limiting to save engine wear!! Believe me, a full thrust take off in a 345 - especially below 300 tonnes is quite spectacular

[Rainboe]

Moe.......what the hell are you talking about? Blithering away, firing abuse, and making not a lot of sense! What's a 'metric'? Tell me again what comes above safety? What are 747 pilots? Really!

[Moe Syzlak]

A metric is something you can measure....chimp!
As for the rest of your juvenile diatribe I think my silence is the best "metric"

[Rainboe]

Well you live and learn. The only thing I'd like to see you 'metric' is how far apart your nostrils can be stretched before parting down the middle.

[Aussie]

White Knight,

Yeah i can believe that, there was no way those engines were producing full thrust! the 340-500 would surely boot harder than it was that evening. We werent full, but not far off it.

I wonder why the boeing drivers always use full thrust?
Maybe its just been the luck of my draw.

Thanks

Aussie

[White Knight]

Aussie, the 345 engines can assume an air temp of 74 degrees at sea level, which is a huge reduction in thrust. Even going out of Sydney or Melbourne on a hot evening, from memory we still set a flex temp of around 50 degrees, so nowhere near full thrust. Even near max take off weight (372 tonnes)
Same principle with a 343, if there's runway length spare then reduce take off power

[Khaosai]

Hi White Knight, can you tell me how much gas both the 3 & 5 hold and give me an idea on an average fuel burn. Rgds.

[carbheatcold]

I had the pleasure of flying both the A345 and the 772 & 773 between Singapore and Jakarta recently and tbh I would use the Airbus over the 777 anyday. The 777 is such a noisy a/c compared to the 345 and 744. The new 777-300ER might go farther but not as quietly surely.

chc

[Photo Finish]

I recall a few years ago when Gulf Air used A340-300's out of Abu Dhabi for Newark that there were 50 seats on the aircraft that they couldn't sell and F280 had to be reserved for them, as they couldn't get the thing any higher. And it took 35 min for the climb.
F260 was blocked for the air patrol over Iraq and if they got stuck at F240 they couldn't make destination.
Wonderful aircraft!

[White Knight]

khaosai - varies a lot dependent upon weight, mach no., and FL. As a figure off the top of my head, between 160kg's and 120 kg's per MINUTE - that was with about 8 hours cruise in between those two numbers as well as level changes
The 343 is a bit less!
As for what they hold I'd have to delve into my FCOM's - but for a 14 hour SYD-DXB we're looking at 130 tonnes with room in the tanks to spare.