Question about the A340-313X and -300E....

[UALdave]

I've heard that these models have a better rate of climb then the A340-300-is that true? And what's the difference between these two models?

[Peter Kesternich]

I've heard that these models have a better rate of climb then the A340-300-is that true? And what's the difference between these two models?

Well - rate of climb depends on many things. If you are talking about the same model airplane, i.e. with the same wing geometry, it comes down to weight and power available. Check out what the engine options are on the A340 models you are interested in and then you know which one has the better climb performance.

Suffice it to say, though, that whatever you will find out about eninge options on A340-200/300, they will definitely turn out to be among the lamest ducks on the pond... ermmmm... in the sky. The old A340 models are so underpowered it's scary.

[UALdave]

Well - rate of climb depends on many things. If you are talking about the same model airplane, i.e. with the same wing geometry, it comes down to weight and power available. Check out what the engine options are on the A340 models you are interested in and then you know which one has the better climb performance.

Suffice it to say, though, that whatever you will find out about eninge options on A340-200/300, they will definitely turn out to be among the lamest ducks on the pond... ermmmm... in the sky. The old A340 models are so underpowered it's scary.

But if they are so underpowered, then why does a flight on an A340-200, for example, not take any longer then the same flight done on a 777?

[Peter Kesternich]

But if they are so underpowered, then why does a flight on an A340-200, for example, not take any longer then the same flight done on a 777?

The power of the aircraft engines does not necessarily have anything to do with how fast an aircraft travels at cruise. Even though the older A340 models are underpowered, they can still cruise at the normal M0.76 to M0.84 cruise speeds. It just takes them longer to get of the ground

[UALdave]

The power of the aircraft engines does not necessarily have anything to do with how fast an aircraft travels at cruise. Even though the older A340 models are underpowered, they can still cruise at the normal M0.76 to M0.84 cruise speeds. It just takes them longer to get of the ground

Ok, so they just climb slower-gotcha! Well, from what I've read, those two models I mentioned have 34,000 lb thrust engines, up from the original 32,000lb thrust engines.

[Shanwick]

Glad to see this thread as it has reminded me of something that puzzled me.
Ok so we know the A340-300 srs are underpowered.Why then is it the only aircraft that does SXM to Europe on a daily basis.
All the 747(Corsair and KLM)make a fuel stop after SXM. I d'ont think it is just more passengers that they make another stop .....look at Corsair 747's taking off they use a lot of tarmac even with very little fuel aboard.

[WILCO737]

Glad to see this thread as it has reminded me of something that puzzled me.
Ok so we know the A340-300 srs are underpowered.Why then is it the only aircraft that does SXM to Europe on a daily basis.
All the 747(Corsair and KLM)make a fuel stop after SXM. I d'ont think it is just more passengers that they make another stop .....look at Corsair 747's taking off they use a lot of tarmac even with very little fuel aboard.

The 747 uses a lot more fuel than the 343. The average fuel flow of the 744 is 10 tons per hour. So on a 7 hour flight you have 70 tons of fuel plus reserves on board, so easily 80 tons. The 343 uses less fuel, so needs less fuel so is over all lighter than the 747 on take off.
The 343 is underpowered compared to other airplanes, but still enough power to get out of SXM to Europe.

[Foxtrot]

^I've flown in the 342, the 343/X and believe me, as a passenger it feels almost no different than a 767 or a 744 or any other Boeing/Airbus widebody. Sure, in the base variant, the 343, you do notice the difference in takeoff roll time required and initial climbout, but otherwise, the ascent part is pretty much the same as a passenger.

[Peter Kesternich]

^I've flown in the 342, the 343/X and believe me, as a passenger it feels almost no different than a 767 or a 744 or any other Boeing/Airbus widebody. Sure, in the base variant, the 343, you do notice the difference in takeoff roll time required and initial climbout, but otherwise, the ascent part is pretty much the same as a passenger.

After takeoff and initial climb out speeds are pretty much assigned by ATC and acceleration is rather slow and unnoticable for the passengers in any aircraft. The 747 is also not exactly known as a "hot rod", but then it's way bigger and heavier than the A340-200/300 and still doing better than these Airbusses.
As for the 767, maybe you sat through a heavily derated takeoff My experience in the 767 is that it will give you quite a kick at takeoff (although not as much as the 757).

[WILCO737]

After takeoff and initial climb out speeds are pretty much assigned by ATC and acceleration is rather slow and unnoticable for the passengers in any aircraft.

I chose my own climb out speed. Only if ATC needs us to fly slower or faster they'll tell us, apart from that, I fly the selected speed by the FMS which gives us the best climb out. For the MD11 it is usually 355 KIAS. Below 10,000 feet it is 250 KIAS or minimum clean, whichever is higher. But then I inform ATC that we fly faster than 250 so that we can retract flaps and slats and have less drag and have a proper climb.

[Peter Kesternich]

After takeoff and initial climb out speeds are pretty much assigned by ATC...

I chose my own climb out speed. (...) Below 10,000 feet it is 250 KIAS or minimum clean, whichever is higher. But then I inform ATC that we fly faster than 250 so that we can retract flaps and slats and have less drag and have a proper climb.

Sorry - I should have phrased that better. Actually what you just said, WILCO737, is what I meant. Most aircraft will stick to the 250kts below 10,000ft anyway and once you get above that acceleration isn't readily noticable by the passengers anymore, because it is quite slow.

[TeeVee]

ah yes, the insane power of the 757...my favorite

[Gabriel]

Most aircraft will stick to the 250kts below 10,000ft anyway and once you get above that acceleration isn't readily noticable by the passengers anymore, because it is quite slow.

But below 10000ft and at 250 kias, all the thrust that is not used to get more speed is used to get more climb. You can have two planes at 250kts and climb thrust, one doing 4000fpm and the other 1500fpm. And "climb" feels like "acceleration": You are pushed against your seatback. Examples:

- When a full motion simulator wants to simulate an acceleration (for example during the take-off run) what it does is tilt back.
- Look at the curtains in the cabin. During the take-off run and the initial climb they are tilted back about the same.
- It is a know type of accident an airplane taking off in almost zero ceiling/visibility and crash into the same runway seconds after lift off. The pilot lost pitch awareness and let the nose goes down, which goes undetected because the plane stops climbing but starts accelerating which feels the same.

[Foxtrot]

^So do you mean vertical acceleration "feels" like forward acceleration at the same throttle setting? I think the only planes I've felt this in on a few occasions would be the 744 and the 737NG (variants 700 and 800).

After takeoff and initial climb out speeds are pretty much assigned by ATC and acceleration is rather slow and unnoticable for the passengers in any aircraft. The 747 is also not exactly known as a "hot rod", but then it's way bigger and heavier than the A340-200/300 and still doing better than these Airbusses.
As for the 767, maybe you sat through a heavily derated takeoff My experience in the 767 is that it will give you quite a kick at takeoff (although not as much as the 757).

I think it's probably due to me flying in only the -300ER, as much as I've flown in this plane, all takeoffs have felt pretty much the same.

[Charles022]

I recently flew on the A340-500 twice and the first take-off I did (DXB), I honestly couldnt feel the acceleration at all! But the second take-off (BNE) I could really feel it motoring. Perhaps the first was heavily derated (we all know that EK's A340s like to take-off on idle ) but we got up very quick and the flight was full! The take-off from Brisbane was very long and powerful which I assume is probably due to the warm climate?