A340 Long Takeoff roll?
 

Hello A340 drivers, just watched a Lufthansa A340 (the older one with smaller engines) taking off from DFW today... runway 18L, winds about 170/5 and temperature around 32C. It was shocking to see how much runway that aircraft used up, along with a climb rate that looked almost scary. I would say he used close to 10,000ft and what looked like an 800fpm initial climb. Is this normal for this aircraft? I know it was heavy (DFW-FRA) but when I watch similarly laden 777s they use much less runway and climb better.

Thanks,
73

Part of the reason is the certification climb criteria:

2-engine transport aircraft, OEI (one engine inop) - min. climb gradient = 3.0%

3-engines, OEI, min. climb gradient = 2.7%

4-engines, OEI, min. climb gradient = 2.4%

I have no doubt that DLH could have climbed out faster, but they religiously use flex thrust to set no more than necessary for a safe TO. This lets engines run cooler & last longer.

It's a matter of running their equipment efficiently and economically. :)

Understood re: flex vs max power. However, when we flex on the 767 with a full load, it is a much quicker takeoff roll/climb rate than the 340. It must have to do with the climb certification you mentioned. But I've been told while awaiting the answer here that the older A330s/A340s with the first generation engines are indeed dogs.


73

I think you've got it backwards - 2.4% for 2-engines, 2.7% for 3-engines, and I'm not sure if it's 3.0% for 4-engines :E

I think you've got it right. I found your numbers in "Airplane Design"
By Jan Roskam

:O

pssssst Gentlemen...!
 

2nd segment climb... which iis =
from gear retraction to 400 feet above reference datum...
xxx
2 engine aircraft = 2.4 % gradient
3 engine aircraft = 2.7 % gradient
4 engine aircraft = 3.0 % gradient...
xxx
:8
Happy contrails

A330-300: MTOW 213T 2 x Trent 700 at 67,000lbs thrust each.

A340-300: MTOW 275t 4 X CFM 56 at 32,000 thrust each.

A similar thrust/weight ratio in the one engine out case. The 340 doesn't need so much thrust, which is why it's popular with accountants. It's ideal for long lean routes.

Greetings,
A340 rate of climb :eek: thanks to the earth curvature :}

The WAT climb requirements end up giving the twin an impressive AEO climb .. the excess grunt is necessary to ensure that, on one, the WAT limit is achievable. The twin loses a far greater proportion of the net grunt than does the quad when one stops making desirable noises ...

The joys of Airbus optimized takeoff performance...... They adjust the V2/VS and V1/VR rations to give the most optimum result. Therefore the whole runway will almost always be used. Airlines have the choice to used fixed ratios, but i dont know of any who do........

Mutt

Compared to 767, A340 has 100% more engines. Losing an engine on twin leaves you with 50% of the power and losing an engine on quad leaves you with 75% percent. Or to take a look at the second segment climb requirements from the AEO perspective, during normal take-off, twinjet has to develop 100% more thrust than required to maintain required climb gradient (bar odd types with automatic RTO power), while quad needs only 33% more. So while 340s do climb and cruise slower than comparable twins, their performance is quite adequate and safe.

Do B767 FLEX or ATM? It's only semantics question but I'd like to know if A-speak is starting to permeate B-company.

Uhh never heard of ATM... we here at AA call it "flex" or "standard" as opposed to max, using assumed temperature, or "derated thrust."

ATM = Assumed Temperature Method :ok:

A340-200 from Dallas will have 4.06% 2nd segment climb rate, which will equate to about 700fpm. b777 will have around 8%.

Mutt

Thanks Mutt, now it makes more sense.

Reminds me of an old ATC joke that went something like this.

Swissair 340 climbing out of Zurich:-

"Swissair 123 can you confrim you're an A340?"

"affirm Zurich, we are a 340"

"well, could you start the other 2 Engines please?"

The bottom line is this; all aircraft, 2, 3, or 4 engines, must meet minimum climb gradients with One Engine Inoperative (OEI). As previous posters have stated, these are 2.4%, 2.7%, and 3.0% respectively. There's not a huge difference between these.

On the day that an engine doesn't fail (99.9999% of the time), the 2 engined aircraft has an EXCESS thrust of 100% above minimum requirements, the 3 engined aircraft has an EXCESS thrust of 50% above minimum requirements, and the 4 engined aircraft has an EXCESS thrust of a mere 33% above minimum requirements:eek:

So, if I have an engine failure, I much preferred the times when I flew 4 and 3 engined aircraft. On the 99.9999% of occasions that I don't have an engine failure, I MUCH prefer to be flying an aircraft with a 100% thrust reserve, the twin!:ok:

Things like wind shear, Middle East low altitude inversions etc. come to mind...............

Regards,

Old Smokey

Apparently A340s are so slow they are the only aircraft that get birdstrikes from behind!:ok:

At least we get them but Boeing only gets the bird droppings on the wings and the body!:p

Why do they serve Orange Juice on the Bus?

To prevent Scurvy.:}

Damn it all the good A340 jokes are taken:}:ouch:

PA

Otherwise known as the 2CV (citroen deux chevaux), the little french car that did not like hills!

Otherwise known as the Airbus "Scenic" - you get to see lots of scenery..:}

yeah but you're not supposed to look up at the scenery are you?:}

Well, as the original thread has been sucessfully hijacked...

Do you guys know why Airbus considers to fit the A340 with a WX radar facing backwards?

So pilots can see when they will be overtaken by a cold front! :}

When Yves Rossy crossed the channel in his 4-engine jet pack, was he using A340 engines?

Smokey,
I was about to put pen to paper, but once again you beat me to it and explained it so basically.
It explains why (generally) western, 4-engine airplanes tend to be runway limited and twins to be 2nd-segment limited.
GSV

May I ask a (probably) silly question ?

Doesn't the B747 have the same characteristics ? If not, isn't it over-powered and hence less economical ?

A couple of years ago I departed on a SAS A340 CPH-ORD. I would swear that as we exited the CTR, we were in G airspace for around 30 seconds, actually exactly at a VFR reporting / holding point where I've been many times at 1400 feet in a Piper 28.

From Gargleblaster, "A couple of years ago I departed on a SAS A340 CPH-ORD. I would swear that as we exited the CTR, we were in G airspace for around 30 seconds, actually exactly at a VFR reporting / holding point where I've been many times at 1400 feet in a Piper 28."

If your climb performance indicates that you will leave controlled airspace then most of us delay lowering the nose and accelerating. If it looks really iffy then you also delay coming back to climb thrust. This can all be done and checked on the ground via the flight management computer.

On most hot and high airports it`s pretty much the norm on the 200/300 series.. Still see lots of scenery though, just a little higher :).

Airpussy and climb in the same sentence? The subjects are not related.

Dan Winterland wrote:
 

Is that why the production line is effectively dead? The A340-300 production has all but ceased due to lack of interest from... accountants who usually make the final buy/no buy recommendation for airlines. :}