And on a lighter note - A340s....grrr
To get back to the topic , I seem to remember reading somewhere , possibly on this hallowed site , that Airbi are built with optimum fuel economy in mind whilst Mr Boeings best are built with extra welly in reserve .
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Hampshire
Posts: 178
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry this is not directly related to this thread, but wrxflame makes an interesting point re. pprune here.
I started looking on this site because I was a nervous flyer. That helped re-kindle an interest in aviation and now I'm doing my ppl.
Both my flying training and this site have helped me sit more comfortably in the back of several airliners, but if I'm going to fly in something I haven't flown in before, I still check out this site for views and info on the type. For example, I recently took a flight in a 146 for the first time and checked out what ppruners had to say about it. Helpfully, I read about the unusual wind noise on that aircraft as the flaps are set in flight. Now, if I'd heard the banshee noise unexpectedly it it would have scared the life out of me but, since I was expecting it, it was an interesting rather than a scary event.
Maybe we should have a specific forum for 'nervous passengers' to ask the professionals about those things that might otherwise lose the industry customer.
As I said, sorry to go off-thread. Very interesting to see ATCOs struggling at places like LHR (with 777s, 340s etc) in the same way they do with vastly differing performance between Cessna 152s, Tomohawks, Warriors and Duchesses at my training field! But then, life would be boring if we all flew the same planes wouldn't it!
HH
I started looking on this site because I was a nervous flyer. That helped re-kindle an interest in aviation and now I'm doing my ppl.
Both my flying training and this site have helped me sit more comfortably in the back of several airliners, but if I'm going to fly in something I haven't flown in before, I still check out this site for views and info on the type. For example, I recently took a flight in a 146 for the first time and checked out what ppruners had to say about it. Helpfully, I read about the unusual wind noise on that aircraft as the flaps are set in flight. Now, if I'd heard the banshee noise unexpectedly it it would have scared the life out of me but, since I was expecting it, it was an interesting rather than a scary event.
Maybe we should have a specific forum for 'nervous passengers' to ask the professionals about those things that might otherwise lose the industry customer.
As I said, sorry to go off-thread. Very interesting to see ATCOs struggling at places like LHR (with 777s, 340s etc) in the same way they do with vastly differing performance between Cessna 152s, Tomohawks, Warriors and Duchesses at my training field! But then, life would be boring if we all flew the same planes wouldn't it!
HH
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Skagness on the beach
Posts: 882
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LOL, No but you can bet I am going to take that "Osterich" comment all the way to the bank. 
I know exactly how they are going to do that and I can guarantee you pilots are not going to like it. 
I know exactly how they are going to do that and I can guarantee you pilots are not going to like it.
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Adelaide - Sth Australia
Posts: 32
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My apologies for taking the thread off topic and throwing a passengers prespective in where it may not have been wanted or appreciated. I mainly surf the wealth of information here and haven't posted much at all.
I do have an a strong interest in all things aviation mainly due to my Father being in the RAF and then working for Scottish Aviation so it's in the blood.
So how did I find pprune....well you can blame a very good friend and Singapore Airlines 747 (now 777 I think) long haul Captain who shall remain nameless. He suggested I come and visit to see that it's rare to have any serious problems for the number of flights etc....
Thanks to those who replied and I do appreciate how busy it must be up front with no time for a friendly chat with the "SLF" as many of you call us. I thought that the crew would know before departure if there was going to be a need to "back off" based on the departure time but maybe I was wrong, not the first time 8-)
PS: I think the nervouse flyer section is a pretty good idea.
I do have an a strong interest in all things aviation mainly due to my Father being in the RAF and then working for Scottish Aviation so it's in the blood.
So how did I find pprune....well you can blame a very good friend and Singapore Airlines 747 (now 777 I think) long haul Captain who shall remain nameless. He suggested I come and visit to see that it's rare to have any serious problems for the number of flights etc....
Thanks to those who replied and I do appreciate how busy it must be up front with no time for a friendly chat with the "SLF" as many of you call us. I thought that the crew would know before departure if there was going to be a need to "back off" based on the departure time but maybe I was wrong, not the first time 8-)
PS: I think the nervouse flyer section is a pretty good idea.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Southampton
Posts: 99
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No worries WRX, I too like the worried flyers section, my only fear is that mayb the odd unsprupulous individual might set loose the odd cat amongst the proverbial Guinnea Fowl......
I've always loved flying and my first experience of the up 'n' downing was enjoyable, although I fully understand how it could be unnerving for the nervous flyer.
Next time you, if nobody else, will understand the mildly eratic departure! And if in doubt blame ATC, that's what most airlines do !!!
I've always loved flying and my first experience of the up 'n' downing was enjoyable, although I fully understand how it could be unnerving for the nervous flyer.
Next time you, if nobody else, will understand the mildly eratic departure! And if in doubt blame ATC, that's what most airlines do !!!
Oops pardon me
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Manchester England
Posts: 369
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A340
Retrofit all 200/300 with 600 engines. Simple!!!
Best part of that plan would be making all 340's look like proper aeroplanes instead of some drawing board scale nightmare!
Any plans Mr. Airbus???
Interesting to know from you Virgin Jocks how much better the 600 climbs than the 200/300.
The A340-600 is how it's mean't to look whereas the the first attempt looks as though some influence from the IL86 design bureau had crept in.
Incidently, climbing out of Manchester on the Sabre 727 a few years back brought similar frustrations from ATC. Max TOW, full tanks, 187 pax. Even with JT8-17 power gave Cessna 150 climb rates (if you were lucky). Pulling back to 1.65 EPR for noise abate left you with that sinking feeling! Block heights? Sorry Mr. ATC, won't quite make those in time!
So your frustration is nothing new. Just hope those A380 donks have enough suck and blow to lift that small town off the ground with some decent ROC!
Coop & Bear
Best part of that plan would be making all 340's look like proper aeroplanes instead of some drawing board scale nightmare!
Any plans Mr. Airbus???
Interesting to know from you Virgin Jocks how much better the 600 climbs than the 200/300.
The A340-600 is how it's mean't to look whereas the the first attempt looks as though some influence from the IL86 design bureau had crept in.
Incidently, climbing out of Manchester on the Sabre 727 a few years back brought similar frustrations from ATC. Max TOW, full tanks, 187 pax. Even with JT8-17 power gave Cessna 150 climb rates (if you were lucky). Pulling back to 1.65 EPR for noise abate left you with that sinking feeling! Block heights? Sorry Mr. ATC, won't quite make those in time!
So your frustration is nothing new. Just hope those A380 donks have enough suck and blow to lift that small town off the ground with some decent ROC!
Coop & Bear
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Fantasy Island
Posts: 555
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The A340-600 is how it's mean't to look whereas the the first attempt looks as though some influence from the IL86 design bureau had crept in.
Rebel PPRuNer
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Toronto, Canada (formerly EICK)
Age: 50
Posts: 2,834
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
coopervane
RB211-535Cs or E4s would do a somewhat better job of uprating, being in the mid to late 30k lb class, rather than the Trent 500s.
Don't know what that would do for range though - as was pointed out, the CFMs are there for frugality rather than puff!
RB211-535Cs or E4s would do a somewhat better job of uprating, being in the mid to late 30k lb class, rather than the Trent 500s.
Don't know what that would do for range though - as was pointed out, the CFMs are there for frugality rather than puff!
Join Date: Dec 1997
Location: Suffolk UK
Posts: 4,927
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Putting Trent 500s on an A343 would be rather exciting! Over 100 tonnes of thrust on a 260 tonne airliner would solve any climb problems, certainly. Not sure the accountants would like it...
The A346 climbs a great deal better than the A343, even though it weighs 100 tonnes more. I'd say it climbs better than my previous aircraft - the late-model B742 with D4 RR's on.
The A346 climbs a great deal better than the A343, even though it weighs 100 tonnes more. I'd say it climbs better than my previous aircraft - the late-model B742 with D4 RR's on.
MarkD as you said,
"as was pointed out, the CFMs are there for frugality rather than puff!"
And to an extent so are the climb profiles. You could probably get the 340-300 to altitude (lower levels anyway) a bit faster than a lot of operators currently do, but at the expense of some down track distance. The whole thing is cost in the end. If the profile at the higher altitudes is more of a cruise climb than a sprint to cruising level it may well be more economical.
"as was pointed out, the CFMs are there for frugality rather than puff!"
And to an extent so are the climb profiles. You could probably get the 340-300 to altitude (lower levels anyway) a bit faster than a lot of operators currently do, but at the expense of some down track distance. The whole thing is cost in the end. If the profile at the higher altitudes is more of a cruise climb than a sprint to cruising level it may well be more economical.
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: n5318w00857 !
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"ATC: "Oh, just wondering, 'cos you have set a new European record......237Nm to top-of-climb""
"...it joins the exclusive club populated previously by the 747-100 alone of climbing solely due to the curvature of the earth... "
Even worse! Climbing with the curvature of the earth over a distance of 237NM should bring you to about FL500 !
:-)
L.
"...it joins the exclusive club populated previously by the 747-100 alone of climbing solely due to the curvature of the earth... "
Even worse! Climbing with the curvature of the earth over a distance of 237NM should bring you to about FL500 !
:-)
L.
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Krautland
Posts: 49
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Iīm sure most of us in here have heard about the following conversation already, but for those who havenīt yet:
ATC: Lufthansa 1234, are you an A330 or an A340?
DLH1234: Huh? An A340 of course, why?
ATC: Well then, would you mind switching on your other two engines as well and expedite your climb?
ATC: Lufthansa 1234, are you an A330 or an A340?
DLH1234: Huh? An A340 of course, why?
ATC: Well then, would you mind switching on your other two engines as well and expedite your climb?
Paxing All Over The World
CT said earlier in the thread:
A couple of years ago, the flight deck advised that the delay was due to ATC, so I asked in PPRuNe if anyone could verify this. My intention was to learn if the carrier was telling the truth.
I was right Royally flamed for my trouble. I was accused of denigrating those fine people in ATC as well as their cousins and their Aunties.
--------------------
"I tell you, we are here on Earth to fart around, and don't let anybody tell you any different." Kurt Vonnegut, Jr.
Next time you, if nobody else, will understand the mildly eratic departure! And if in doubt blame ATC, that's what most airlines do !!!
I was right Royally flamed for my trouble. I was accused of denigrating those fine people in ATC as well as their cousins and their Aunties.
--------------------
"I tell you, we are here on Earth to fart around, and don't let anybody tell you any different." Kurt Vonnegut, Jr.
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: London
Posts: 182
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think that 'Where are we now' hit the nail on the head.
Any aircraft has to be certified for a single engine failure on take off.
That means, by definition, that with all engines running a twin engined aircraft has double the minimum amount of thrust needed, whereas a four engined one might only have thirty three percent more than the minimum, so comparing an A340 with a B777 is a little unfair.
There are exceptions of course such as Mr Boeings 744, which I once watched taking off from block 79 (half way down 09R) at LHR and he was going non-stop to Tokyo, quite impressive.
Any aircraft has to be certified for a single engine failure on take off.
That means, by definition, that with all engines running a twin engined aircraft has double the minimum amount of thrust needed, whereas a four engined one might only have thirty three percent more than the minimum, so comparing an A340 with a B777 is a little unfair.
There are exceptions of course such as Mr Boeings 744, which I once watched taking off from block 79 (half way down 09R) at LHR and he was going non-stop to Tokyo, quite impressive.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: EGSS
Posts: 943
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interesting,
Being totally impartial working on Airbus/Douglas and Boeing jets i remember whilst attending an Airbus A300-600/310 ground engineers course, i still remember the instructor describing the A340-200/300 as the "only commercial airliner in production that could suffer a birdstrike from behind". This thread makes a little sense of what he was getting at!
Being totally impartial working on Airbus/Douglas and Boeing jets i remember whilst attending an Airbus A300-600/310 ground engineers course, i still remember the instructor describing the A340-200/300 as the "only commercial airliner in production that could suffer a birdstrike from behind". This thread makes a little sense of what he was getting at!
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Genolier, Switzerland
Posts: 198
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There is an advantage...
There is an advantage for those who are measured on aircraft utilization, an A340 takes 30 mins longer to go from Europe to Chicago (for example) than a 747-400. That way you get better utilization on the A340 if you compare two aircraft that just go over and back each day.
Momo
Momo
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Southampton
Posts: 99
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi All,
What an interesting read!!! I love FlightMec's quote - must remember that one!!
Regarding Capt Windsock's remark, your suggestion is quite sensible. I don't think it's likely to happen though. The basic requirment for the classification of Group 3 (the fastest group since Concorde left the skies) is that they can accelerate to, and maintain 250kts. Beyond that, it is the controller's discretion to lift the speed limit and separate the aircraft. The A340 itself is perfectly capable of maintaining 250kts, it just seems to depend upon the crew, their SOPs, the level restrictions and a mild dose of luck as to what actually happens.
As I said previously the Tower controllers are much more aware of the implications for us on radar and they don't try to squeeze to many fast jobbies behind the reverse bird-striker (I love that phrase!!), hence common sense prevails at last!
Good logic though Sir!
What an interesting read!!! I love FlightMec's quote - must remember that one!!
Regarding Capt Windsock's remark, your suggestion is quite sensible. I don't think it's likely to happen though. The basic requirment for the classification of Group 3 (the fastest group since Concorde left the skies) is that they can accelerate to, and maintain 250kts. Beyond that, it is the controller's discretion to lift the speed limit and separate the aircraft. The A340 itself is perfectly capable of maintaining 250kts, it just seems to depend upon the crew, their SOPs, the level restrictions and a mild dose of luck as to what actually happens.
As I said previously the Tower controllers are much more aware of the implications for us on radar and they don't try to squeeze to many fast jobbies behind the reverse bird-striker (I love that phrase!!), hence common sense prevails at last!
Good logic though Sir!
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Dubai - sand land.
Age: 55
Posts: 2,831
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Green dot speed on the 343 when heavy is around 260 knots so that's what you'll accelerate to after take-off and clean up! Our SOP's are to climb at either Green Dot or 250kts (whichever is greater) and then accelerate to en-route climb speed. On current cost index that's around 300kts or so. Does the climb rate really matter anyway once away from the airfield?
Paxing All Over The World
The simplest solution? Build a third parallel runway at LHR for the short hauls to clear space on the main runways.
What somebody suggested that over 25 years ago? That means it should be ready any day now.
--------------------
"I tell you, we are here on Earth to fart around, and don't let anybody tell you any different." Kurt Vonnegut, Jr.
What somebody suggested that over 25 years ago? That means it should be ready any day now.
--------------------
"I tell you, we are here on Earth to fart around, and don't let anybody tell you any different." Kurt Vonnegut, Jr.