Air France A343 departing St. Maarten (SXM)
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: In OY-VKH
Age: 31
Posts: 154
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bjornhall,
sorry if i react on small things but the A332 has a DOW at 125 t but
the A333 has a higher DOW than the 332 (DOW for A333 is 128 T).
At the second you can't say if the 340 would use max power or not
that depends a lot of the weight and the actual QNH.
sorry if i react on small things but the A332 has a DOW at 125 t but
the A333 has a higher DOW than the 332 (DOW for A333 is 128 T).
At the second you can't say if the 340 would use max power or not
that depends a lot of the weight and the actual QNH.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: north
Posts: 319
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Check Airman,
Like Robini says, they have the same wing. Also, comparing MTOW numbers is a bit academic in this case. The empty weight OEW for the
A343 is 5T more than the A333.
If you look at the ROC tables you will see that the A333 actually has
better climbrate for the same PAYLOAD as the A343 (Lo).
I'm no pilot, but my guess is having 4 engines will give better
performance in an engine out scenario which gives the A340 an edge
in this case.
Like Robini says, they have the same wing. Also, comparing MTOW numbers is a bit academic in this case. The empty weight OEW for the
A343 is 5T more than the A333.
If you look at the ROC tables you will see that the A333 actually has
better climbrate for the same PAYLOAD as the A343 (Lo).
I'm no pilot, but my guess is having 4 engines will give better
performance in an engine out scenario which gives the A340 an edge
in this case.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: USA
Posts: 2,521
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OK, we seem to be moving towards raw performance here...
Robini, you seem to see my point a bit. You can't compare different planes. 767/747 is indeed an extreme case. You MUST minimize all variables in order to make a fair comparison. You can't talk about payload in performance. No performance tables I've ever seen have dealt with payload, only gross weight. The plane only knows what it's weight is, and it will perform accordingly, it doesn't care if the weight is payload, fuel, or part of the structure. Weight is weight.
I can't see the point of comparing the two at MTOW; that is of no help when you try to decide which has the better performance for a given mission.
Can you suggest a more generally applicable value to use?
3) A twin, being more over powered with all engines running, will necessarily appear to have better takeoff performance when there is no engine failure.
This is true. Twins have a 50%surplus, and quads only have a 25% surplus.
After writing that, how can you argue that an A340 will outperform an A330?
Comparing them at the same weight is useless. An A330 at 500,000lb is nearly maxed out. An A340 at the same weight still has a FAR way to go before MTOW.
For the record, I've been discussing the A332, since more have been built. When they're both empty, the 330 is lighter. It will climb faster. When they're full, the A340 is MUCH heavier. It climbs MUCH slower.
This isn't by any means an academic issue. The 340 has a reputation for climbing slowly- hence my initial question.
Robini, you seem to see my point a bit. You can't compare different planes. 767/747 is indeed an extreme case. You MUST minimize all variables in order to make a fair comparison. You can't talk about payload in performance. No performance tables I've ever seen have dealt with payload, only gross weight. The plane only knows what it's weight is, and it will perform accordingly, it doesn't care if the weight is payload, fuel, or part of the structure. Weight is weight.
I can't see the point of comparing the two at MTOW; that is of no help when you try to decide which has the better performance for a given mission.
Can you suggest a more generally applicable value to use?
3) A twin, being more over powered with all engines running, will necessarily appear to have better takeoff performance when there is no engine failure.
This is true. Twins have a 50%surplus, and quads only have a 25% surplus.
After writing that, how can you argue that an A340 will outperform an A330?
Comparing them at the same weight is useless. An A330 at 500,000lb is nearly maxed out. An A340 at the same weight still has a FAR way to go before MTOW.
For the record, I've been discussing the A332, since more have been built. When they're both empty, the 330 is lighter. It will climb faster. When they're full, the A340 is MUCH heavier. It climbs MUCH slower.
This isn't by any means an academic issue. The 340 has a reputation for climbing slowly- hence my initial question.
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Right here
Age: 50
Posts: 420
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You asked about performance when taking off at St. Marteen, and said you thought the A330 would be a better choice due to its better performance.
I believe considering the same payload is the most illustrating and useful comparison to make in order to answer that question.
Doing so, the conclusion is that the A340 can indeed manage St. Marteen - Paris non-stop with a useful payload whereas the A330 can not, and we can readily understand why that is so (right?).
If you compare other weights you might get other answers, but I don't see what that has to do with the ability of the two aircraft to fly from St. Marteen to Paris.
Surely you will agree that the performance that matters when flight planning is the performance you get from the performance tables? And those tables take engine failures into account. To me, "better takeoff performance" means "can take off from shorter runways, or carry more payload from a limiting runway". In that specific sense, the A340 outperforms the A330.
I don't much care about reputations... 
It's the data that matters!
There must be a million threads here that deal with the 'raw performance' and reputation of the A340 and its competitors, maybe we don't have to go there again... I was merely interested in the St. Marteen question.
I believe considering the same payload is the most illustrating and useful comparison to make in order to answer that question.
Doing so, the conclusion is that the A340 can indeed manage St. Marteen - Paris non-stop with a useful payload whereas the A330 can not, and we can readily understand why that is so (right?).
If you compare other weights you might get other answers, but I don't see what that has to do with the ability of the two aircraft to fly from St. Marteen to Paris.
This is true. Twins have a 50%surplus, and quads only have a 25% surplus.
After writing that, how can you argue that an A340 will outperform an A330?
After writing that, how can you argue that an A340 will outperform an A330?
The 340 has a reputation for climbing slowly
It's the data that matters!There must be a million threads here that deal with the 'raw performance' and reputation of the A340 and its competitors, maybe we don't have to go there again... I was merely interested in the St. Marteen question.
