LH A340 X Pond With U/C Down??
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: West Yorkshire Zone
Posts: 976
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LH A340 X Pond With U/C Down??
A LH A340 made a 'refuel' stop at MAN on Sat, It was reported on Ringway Reports that the A/C flew the journey from Charlotte - MAN with it's U/C down and locked??
Aircraft was DAIHM enroute to MUC.
Any truth in this?
Cheers for any replies.
Aircraft was DAIHM enroute to MUC.
Any truth in this?
Cheers for any replies.
The 777-300 uses about 120% more fuel gear down, so I guess the 340 would be similar. So how far did it supposidly fly with the gear down? Boeings aren't certified to fly more than 50 miles from land. ( we'll at least the CX ones anyway )
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Rockytop, Tennessee, USA
Posts: 5,898
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Maybe he wants to know how fast you can climb and get to St. Louis.
Whatever the fuel burn, extended flight with gear down is frowned upon by the FAA unless the plane is empty, has a ferry permit and you have the gear down data in your books. I've had a friend burned on this issue for continuing a short flight with lots of fuel and gear that would not retract.
Whatever the fuel burn, extended flight with gear down is frowned upon by the FAA unless the plane is empty, has a ferry permit and you have the gear down data in your books. I've had a friend burned on this issue for continuing a short flight with lots of fuel and gear that would not retract.
how fast I can climb?
Well we would be limited to 270 KIAS with the gear down and I guess the ROC would be around 800 to 1000 FPM? I don't know I've never done it.
The 777-300 ( not the ER ) is thrust limited to about 20,000' ( give or take ) with the gear down.
The kg/anm goes from about 17 for normal ops to as high as 38 to 40 with gear down.
So range is slightly less than half of normal.
So...............The A340 can fly for about 15 to 16 hrs normally? ( just a guess ) So it would be limited to about 7 to 8 with the gear down at maybe 340 KTAS...........So maybe about 2,500 miles range?????
Just a wild guess.
Well we would be limited to 270 KIAS with the gear down and I guess the ROC would be around 800 to 1000 FPM? I don't know I've never done it.
The 777-300 ( not the ER ) is thrust limited to about 20,000' ( give or take ) with the gear down.
The kg/anm goes from about 17 for normal ops to as high as 38 to 40 with gear down.
So range is slightly less than half of normal.
So...............The A340 can fly for about 15 to 16 hrs normally? ( just a guess ) So it would be limited to about 7 to 8 with the gear down at maybe 340 KTAS...........So maybe about 2,500 miles range?????
Just a wild guess.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: UTC +8
Posts: 2,626
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In case of a revenue flight, it would be preposterous to fly across the pond with gear down. Consider performance criteria with an engine failure mid Atlantic. It would certainly be more "fuel efficient" to dump fuel [down to max landing weight] and land, rather than overburning and then still having to make an en route fuel stop.
Glueball - fully concur. If you can't get the gear up on a 340, 330, or 320 series, the fuel factor kept in the backs of minds of most crews was x2.5.
A gear-down ferry across the Atlantic would be bumping up against an extremely tiny box of performance limitations; the walls, floors and ceilings of ZFW plus fuel required for the ferry, which limits altitude requiring more fuel, which increases takeoff weight which may further restrict altitude which...and that's not accounting for temperature - the balance has to be found and the parameters aren't inherently "stable" in the sense that small variations (lower altitude due traffic or higher temperature, colder air for lower TAS etc) can result in steeply increasing variations in fuel flow and speed.
Given the numbers, I doubt if it was actually done, in fact I've used numbers available to me and it can't be done without stops. One post said they got the gear up. Clearly they did because they didn't have to ditch. Regardless, risk outweighs all but emergency benefits in such an operation and even then planning YYR - KEF would be necessary. The airplane wouldn't do Charleston - MAN gear down.
Just for fun (to show when one could get wet), here are some sample numbers:
Gear-down ferry, Airbus A340-300
240kt/M0.52 Cruise Charts
Max certified alt 350
Actual max alt for an Atlantic crossing, empty but with sufficient fuel for the crossing, FL200
Numbers for 210k kgs @ 200:
N1 92.7%
Kg/h/eng 2754kg/hr
NM/1000kg 29.0nm
Mach 0.520
IAS 237kts
TAS 319kts
OEW 130k kg, approx
A shorter leg than Charleston to LHR, YYZ - LHR flight, is about 3200nm or, at 350kts across the water, about 9hrs 30min depending upon holding at BOV...
I could calculate the climb and descent fuel but won't bother because this is academic, so the above cruise fuel numbers might be a bit high, (conservative) but a rough guess at the fuel load using the book numbers for cruise would be a minimum of 120k kg, or more than what it takes to get from YYZ to HKG...at today's prices I can't imagine even the beancounters thinking about it.
A jammed slat/flap condition or even main gear doors down will increase the fuel flow by a factor of about 2.5 as well. In my view, that stops any overseas operations.
Airbubba...heyyyy, that's a trick question, eh?.... ;-)
A gear-down ferry across the Atlantic would be bumping up against an extremely tiny box of performance limitations; the walls, floors and ceilings of ZFW plus fuel required for the ferry, which limits altitude requiring more fuel, which increases takeoff weight which may further restrict altitude which...and that's not accounting for temperature - the balance has to be found and the parameters aren't inherently "stable" in the sense that small variations (lower altitude due traffic or higher temperature, colder air for lower TAS etc) can result in steeply increasing variations in fuel flow and speed.
Given the numbers, I doubt if it was actually done, in fact I've used numbers available to me and it can't be done without stops. One post said they got the gear up. Clearly they did because they didn't have to ditch. Regardless, risk outweighs all but emergency benefits in such an operation and even then planning YYR - KEF would be necessary. The airplane wouldn't do Charleston - MAN gear down.
Just for fun (to show when one could get wet), here are some sample numbers:
Gear-down ferry, Airbus A340-300
240kt/M0.52 Cruise Charts
Max certified alt 350
Actual max alt for an Atlantic crossing, empty but with sufficient fuel for the crossing, FL200
Numbers for 210k kgs @ 200:
N1 92.7%
Kg/h/eng 2754kg/hr
NM/1000kg 29.0nm
Mach 0.520
IAS 237kts
TAS 319kts
OEW 130k kg, approx
A shorter leg than Charleston to LHR, YYZ - LHR flight, is about 3200nm or, at 350kts across the water, about 9hrs 30min depending upon holding at BOV...
I could calculate the climb and descent fuel but won't bother because this is academic, so the above cruise fuel numbers might be a bit high, (conservative) but a rough guess at the fuel load using the book numbers for cruise would be a minimum of 120k kg, or more than what it takes to get from YYZ to HKG...at today's prices I can't imagine even the beancounters thinking about it.A jammed slat/flap condition or even main gear doors down will increase the fuel flow by a factor of about 2.5 as well. In my view, that stops any overseas operations.
Airbubba...heyyyy, that's a trick question, eh?.... ;-)
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: The dark side of the moon
Posts: 345
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
PJ2 is right.
One of Monarch's A330s is in Gander after ferrying from Stanford with the gear down. The Atlantic crossing wasn't taken due to the poor aircraft performance in the event of an engine failure. Airbus engineers and their equipment have been flown out to fix the gear. I'm sure there are a few bean counters passed out on the floor of Mon HQ.
One of Monarch's A330s is in Gander after ferrying from Stanford with the gear down. The Atlantic crossing wasn't taken due to the poor aircraft performance in the event of an engine failure. Airbus engineers and their equipment have been flown out to fix the gear. I'm sure there are a few bean counters passed out on the floor of Mon HQ.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Holland
Posts: 77
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Incident: Lufthansa A346 near Charlotte on Aug 15th 2008, gear did not retract, then problem solved for Atlantic crossing
By Simon Hradecky, created Sunday, Aug 17th 2008 14:25Z, last updated Monday, Aug 18th 2008 20:43Z
The crew of a Lufthansa Airbus A340-600, registration D-AIHM performing flight LH429 from Charlotte,NC (USA) to Munich (Germany) with 272 passengers and 16 crew, considered to divert to Washington International after the gear did not retract on departure from Charlotte.
After about one hour troubleshooting at 10.000 feet while heading towards Washington the problem could be solved and the gear did retract. The crew therefore decided to continue the Atlantic crossing and climbed to FL370.
Due to the troubleshooting at low altitude with increased fuel burn an intermediate stop to refuel was needed at Manchester,EN (UK). After the fuel stop however the gear could again not be retracted. The airplane continued to Munich with the gear down.
The airplane reached Munich with a delay of 3 hours 20 minutes.
By Simon Hradecky, created Sunday, Aug 17th 2008 14:25Z, last updated Monday, Aug 18th 2008 20:43Z
The crew of a Lufthansa Airbus A340-600, registration D-AIHM performing flight LH429 from Charlotte,NC (USA) to Munich (Germany) with 272 passengers and 16 crew, considered to divert to Washington International after the gear did not retract on departure from Charlotte.
After about one hour troubleshooting at 10.000 feet while heading towards Washington the problem could be solved and the gear did retract. The crew therefore decided to continue the Atlantic crossing and climbed to FL370.
Due to the troubleshooting at low altitude with increased fuel burn an intermediate stop to refuel was needed at Manchester,EN (UK). After the fuel stop however the gear could again not be retracted. The airplane continued to Munich with the gear down.
The airplane reached Munich with a delay of 3 hours 20 minutes.
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Raincoast
Posts: 215
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's called customer service and it's perfectly safe.
Lufthansa dispatch would/could have provided a new flight plan in gear down configuration for the crossing if it was necessary. The flight deck drivers could make a clear go or no-go decision. If the flight was only about 3:30 late at final destination and based on what else has been written here so far, then the whole thing was not a big deal at all. Occasionally these thing happen. Good fer them.
Lufthansa dispatch would/could have provided a new flight plan in gear down configuration for the crossing if it was necessary. The flight deck drivers could make a clear go or no-go decision. If the flight was only about 3:30 late at final destination and based on what else has been written here so far, then the whole thing was not a big deal at all. Occasionally these thing happen. Good fer them.
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: uk
Posts: 139
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Touch n oops
The Monarch A330 only stopped in Goose to refuel and was to continue across the Atlantic. Unfortunately further damage to the undercarriage was discovered, hence the reason it stayed in Goose.
Its now back in service!
The Monarch A330 only stopped in Goose to refuel and was to continue across the Atlantic. Unfortunately further damage to the undercarriage was discovered, hence the reason it stayed in Goose.
Its now back in service!
Deja vu?
Ahem....Manchester 6
I did wonder when it climbed out of MAN if the gear went up. Unfortunately it was a bit cloudy....again!
I did wonder when it climbed out of MAN if the gear went up. Unfortunately it was a bit cloudy....again!
Ok then....................about what I said.
The 777-300 achieves about 38 kg/anm at FL200 gear down
The A343 achieves about 34kg/anm gear down. ( from your figures: 11016 kg/hr with 319 TAS )
The 777-300 achieves about 38 kg/anm at FL200 gear down
The A343 achieves about 34kg/anm gear down. ( from your figures: 11016 kg/hr with 319 TAS )
Trash du Blanc
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: KBHM
Posts: 1,185
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's called customer service and it's perfectly safe.
I can think of a bunch of gear failure modes that would cause trouble retracting the gear. And a couple of them would damage things enough that the ensuing landing would be exciting.
And throw a crossing in there - with reduced diversion options, RVSM requirements.... They made it so they look great now but BELIEVE me, had they put it down in Greenland with a couple of inop brakes and full of passengers, the resulting investigation would have been a bear.