The A340's performance is on par & even higher than many 4 engine jets. Not that there's a lot of 4 engine jets to compare to, though. With 4 large engines, A340 climbs well & carries an incredible amount of passengers & cargo. It has one of the longest cruise distances of any large passenger jet, which makes it a prime choice (well, *made* it) for long-distance & overseas operations. Lots of U.S. mechanics don't like working on Airbus since they're so different than American planes.
The A340 is by far the most elegant commercial airplane being operated IMO. Also it's a joy to travel in it: it's exceptionally quiet compared to the 747 and all twins. It has an impeccable safety history: not a single fatality in commercial operation.
It's a real pity that's it's not being produced anymore.
Interesting to read the many negative impressions of the A340 and Airbus in general. As a career A&P (aircraft mechanic) and commercial pilot with instrument rating I can tell you that Airbus engineers & builds very high quality aircraft. The A340 in particular has enjoyed a very successful career with a high degree of customer satisfaction. The line is now deceased. Most airlines are favoring more economical and environment- friendly 2 engine birds. In general we'll see less 4 engine jets now.
@ProChoiceJesus - I never flew this one but the A320 many times, also the A320 of its competitor Cebu Pacific. These companies use very tricky commercial practices selling you "promo" flights then afterwards at check-in applying various "fees" and the 15kg limit on checked luggage is one of them. As a consequence, people try to stuff as much as they can in their carry-on. I remember having in total 22 kgs in my large cargo pants pockets and backpack. They never check those.
The longest of MLN's two runways, (RWY 06/24) is 12,261 ft. long. A fully-loaded A340-600 (max takeoff weight is 820,000 pounds) requires approx. 10,500 ft. to get off the ground in "standard" conditions. All kinds of differing airport/airplane/weather conditions increase or decrease takeoff distances, but those are the "standard" numbers published in an airplane ops manual for calculating necessary runway lengths for takeoff & landing. The A340 ceased production Nov 2011.
I don't know a great deal about aircraft, but the only time I was in a 340 (SIN-MUN Lufthansa) is the only time I have ever wondered why we hadn't left the ground yet. Not sure I want to fly on this aircraft type ever again.
@DoubleGauss AF447 was pilot error. Read the press reports on the leaked CVR. Inexperienced co-pilot kept pulling back in a stall. Nothing to do with Airbus.
Not from what I have read. The pitot tubes (required for airspeed measurement) malfunctioned causing autopilot to turn off. And the pilots only guessing at airspeed in turbulent weather slowed the plane to a stall causing it to literally fall into the ocean. Airbus(source of reports) will of course try to pin it on pilots. They have millions of dollars in lawsuits and their reputation at stake.
@DoubleGauss The pitot tubes only malfunctioned for a short time. The pilots (correctly) activated the de-icing on the pitot tubes and the airpseed readings were correct again after a few minutes. The crash was caused by the pilots' inexperience with manual flying and their lack of understanding of the difference between "normal law" and "alternate law" fly-by-wire. They ignored the stall warnings and the inexperienced co-pilot pulled back on the stick, a basic error.
I am not sure what crash your talking about however the pitot tubes do not give air speed they give a barometric pressure reading for things like the altimeter and Attitude indicator not airspeed. airspeed is off of a static air and there are more than one of them.
@captainjustin74 I'm an instrument rated commercial pilot (not a career, though), and in every plane I've flown the pitot tubes are indeed used for airspeed indication. I'm also a career A&P, specializing in sheetmetal & structures & you seem to have your parts reversed. Primarily, pitot tubes are for airspeed, static ports for altitude. Also, pitot tubes give ram-air pressure, which may differ from the "barometric pressure" you mention. Other instruments use the pitot-static system, too.
it's not even near the end of runway though it looks so, the fence is quite close to the runway and it took about 5-6 secs for a plane to reach it when airborne what would cater for 400-500 meters of distance
@mecute333 Runways at this airport is 06/24 that is 3,737m(12,261ft) and 13/31 that 2,258m(7,408ft). Both at MTOW the A380 need a 1100 ft shorter distance than the 747-400ER... A380 needs around 9000ft at MTOW,and 747-400ER need around 10100ft... so there are many planes out there needing more runway than the A380... Among them are A340-200/300/500/600,MD-11,777F,-200ER/-200LR,-300 and 300ER.. -200ER needs the longest of the planes mentioned here :D
wow! felt like a ton of bricks lifting off...is it just me or is the A343 really is somewhat underpowered? Whenever I fly on it the takeoffs always feel so heavy....almost scary at times...
Worst conditions is when you have an averagely short runway and and additionally when there is only low or no wind actually. In that case the runways have to be maxed out commonly because their lengths are optimized to the maximal typesize of Aircraft types to be used with. Optimal T/O condition is 180 deg opposite wind with some tens of knots velocity, then this will shorten the necessary length required.
Pucker Factor about 10. Good thing it went up (sorta) at the end of the runway there. Otherwise the town would have been covered in cell phones and tshirts. Way over loaded. I don't care what the limits are, this exceeded them all. I can envision the pilot and copilot push - pushin the throttles into their stops. Cmon baaaaabyyyyyy ... cliiiiimmmmb !
The Airbus A340-200/300 should have been designed with engines having over 40,000lbs thrust like the PW2000 series or even the Rolls Royce RB211 series instead of those underpowered GE/Snecma CFM56-5Cs that were meant to power the 737 and A320.
The Airbus A340-200/300 should have been designed with engines having over 40,000lbs thrust like the PW2000 series or even the Roll Royce RB211 series instead of those underpowered GE/Snecma CFM56-5Cs that were meant to power the 737 and A320.
The Airbus 340-200/300 should have been designed with engines having over 40,000lbs thrust like the PW2000 series or even the Roll Royce RB211 series instead of those underpowered GE/Snecma CFM56-5Cs that were meant to power the 737 and A320.
It's fully loaded, most likely be bound for Vancouver which usually leaves in the afternoon. The A343 has a reputation for being underpowered compared to its sister A330. But anyway, great clip! ;D
Good video. Keep it up.
cathay1 3 days ago
WHAT THE HELL IS THIS CRAP!!!
loydayjacob 2 weeks ago
@loydayjacob The video?or the aircraft...?
mecute333 2 weeks ago
the co-pilot forgot to mention v1 to the captain
phukemonster 4 weeks ago
Great footage...
83226505 1 month ago
The A340's performance is on par & even higher than many 4 engine jets. Not that there's a lot of 4 engine jets to compare to, though. With 4 large engines, A340 climbs well & carries an incredible amount of passengers & cargo. It has one of the longest cruise distances of any large passenger jet, which makes it a prime choice (well, *made* it) for long-distance & overseas operations. Lots of U.S. mechanics don't like working on Airbus since they're so different than American planes.
ProChoiceJesus 1 month ago
The A340 is by far the most elegant commercial airplane being operated IMO. Also it's a joy to travel in it: it's exceptionally quiet compared to the 747 and all twins. It has an impeccable safety history: not a single fatality in commercial operation.
It's a real pity that's it's not being produced anymore.
lannigthailand 1 month ago
Interesting to read the many negative impressions of the A340 and Airbus in general. As a career A&P (aircraft mechanic) and commercial pilot with instrument rating I can tell you that Airbus engineers & builds very high quality aircraft. The A340 in particular has enjoyed a very successful career with a high degree of customer satisfaction. The line is now deceased. Most airlines are favoring more economical and environment- friendly 2 engine birds. In general we'll see less 4 engine jets now.
ProChoiceJesus 1 month ago
@ProChoiceJesus - I never flew this one but the A320 many times, also the A320 of its competitor Cebu Pacific. These companies use very tricky commercial practices selling you "promo" flights then afterwards at check-in applying various "fees" and the 15kg limit on checked luggage is one of them. As a consequence, people try to stuff as much as they can in their carry-on. I remember having in total 22 kgs in my large cargo pants pockets and backpack. They never check those.
flemishdreams 2 weeks ago
The longest of MLN's two runways, (RWY 06/24) is 12,261 ft. long. A fully-loaded A340-600 (max takeoff weight is 820,000 pounds) requires approx. 10,500 ft. to get off the ground in "standard" conditions. All kinds of differing airport/airplane/weather conditions increase or decrease takeoff distances, but those are the "standard" numbers published in an airplane ops manual for calculating necessary runway lengths for takeoff & landing. The A340 ceased production Nov 2011.
ProChoiceJesus 1 month ago
Comment removed
ProChoiceJesus 1 month ago
LOL A340 sounded like a ..... tricycle?
nexelg 1 month ago 2
@nexelg because its a busy road at the backs thats why you can also here some cars and tricycle...
mecute333 1 month ago
man if i were u i would be staying there
1963ozcan 1 month ago
Looks like he held it down as long as he could get away with. Pretty damn close to the mark though for sure
Lowlightindicator 1 month ago
I don't know a great deal about aircraft, but the only time I was in a 340 (SIN-MUN Lufthansa) is the only time I have ever wondered why we hadn't left the ground yet. Not sure I want to fly on this aircraft type ever again.
logofreetv 1 month ago
@logofreetv Well it has bad climb rate but that does not make it unsafe. It has had 0 fatal accidents in its history, and used widely.
Pvjinflight 1 month ago
Good camera work
dmonte012 1 month ago
jesus christ
mp45318634 1 month ago
@mp45318634 Correction; *J*esus Christ.
ProChoiceJesus 1 month ago
If it aint Boeing, I ain't going.
DoubleGauss 1 month ago
@DoubleGauss You said it. I always check aircraft type when I'm flying, especially internationally.
stereoinferno666 1 month ago
@stereoinferno666
Good idea. AF 447 was just one of many.
DoubleGauss 1 month ago
@DoubleGauss AF447 was pilot error. Read the press reports on the leaked CVR. Inexperienced co-pilot kept pulling back in a stall. Nothing to do with Airbus.
ryanhaart 1 month ago
@ryanhaart
Not from what I have read. The pitot tubes (required for airspeed measurement) malfunctioned causing autopilot to turn off. And the pilots only guessing at airspeed in turbulent weather slowed the plane to a stall causing it to literally fall into the ocean. Airbus(source of reports) will of course try to pin it on pilots. They have millions of dollars in lawsuits and their reputation at stake.
DoubleGauss 1 month ago
@DoubleGauss The pitot tubes only malfunctioned for a short time. The pilots (correctly) activated the de-icing on the pitot tubes and the airpseed readings were correct again after a few minutes. The crash was caused by the pilots' inexperience with manual flying and their lack of understanding of the difference between "normal law" and "alternate law" fly-by-wire. They ignored the stall warnings and the inexperienced co-pilot pulled back on the stick, a basic error.
ryanhaart 1 month ago
@ryanhaart
I am not sure what crash your talking about however the pitot tubes do not give air speed they give a barometric pressure reading for things like the altimeter and Attitude indicator not airspeed. airspeed is off of a static air and there are more than one of them.
captainjustin74 1 month ago
Comment removed
ProChoiceJesus 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@captainjustin74 I'm an instrument rated commercial pilot (not a career, though), and in every plane I've flown the pitot tubes are indeed used for airspeed indication. I'm also a career A&P, specializing in sheetmetal & structures & you seem to have your parts reversed. Primarily, pitot tubes are for airspeed, static ports for altitude. Also, pitot tubes give ram-air pressure, which may differ from the "barometric pressure" you mention. Other instruments use the pitot-static system, too.
ProChoiceJesus 1 month ago
what's this plane takeoff but it sounds like tricicle lol
Jeerwiin 1 month ago
youre right. That is a pretty heavy takeoff
kkdjen 1 month ago
what camera do you have?
wtficantgetausername 1 month ago
a number of ATC controllers have said that the A340's are underpowered....
xTomcatsForeverVF84x 1 month ago
the A340 has the climb perfromance of a rock
JetstreamPhotography 2 months ago 12
I imagine them killing themselves waiting for A2 xD
TheMrDan21 2 months ago
Too much weed in the cargo bay
spankthezebra 2 months ago 9
@spankthezebra LMAO I can relate
Rev11Reyes 2 months ago
is it just me or when that plane took off, it seems like it was going down instead of up.
clintonreid18 2 months ago
multinational entrance ba to?
MrTastytae 2 months ago
Hot, thin air. Full loaded. May be no wind in both directions, Cap. took some extra runway to make good take off. Want extra power? Fly Tu-154
MrCasspir 2 months ago
The 747 would have been off the ground a long time ago XD
DreamFlightPro 2 months ago
The A380 can perform better!
medviation 2 months ago
I hate these planes . I'm glad I haven't really FELT one fly over my house in the last year or so. my entire house would shake for 2 minutes.
KidKlassic91 2 months ago
almost overrun the runway...wew,,
bheicoh21 2 months ago
Mcdonalds was in the plane
Poppinit905 2 months ago
This plane is a waste one of the A330 models can hold the same amount. Besides Airbus sucks IN MY OPINION.
ikolkyo967 2 months ago
it's not even near the end of runway though it looks so, the fence is quite close to the runway and it took about 5-6 secs for a plane to reach it when airborne what would cater for 400-500 meters of distance
rangelso 2 months ago
i think he knew his ex-wife was at the other end so the pilot thought twice about taking off thumbs up if you agree
mythbustered1 3 months ago
ang ingay ng mga sasakyan. heheh mas maingay pa kaysa sa tunog ng eroplano. heheh nice vid by the way!
hannahgrade 3 months ago
Plane was heavy but the pilot also really took his time to make sure before taking off !!!
ehsan83 3 months ago
i think the camera zoom made the unused portion of the runway look shorter, though it's true it took time before the plane lifted off.
jvdurante84 3 months ago
how long is the runway?
dendandavid 3 months ago
Whenever I fly on an A340-600 the takeoff roll seems to take an eternity.
BR1T1SHPR1DE 3 months ago
what is the length of this runway? it seems very short that's why the plane almost ran out of runway.
strepthroatcoccus 3 months ago
@strepthroatcoccus i think because of the weight.this runway can accommodate the A380 so this runway is a bit long..
mecute333 3 months ago 4
@mecute333 Runways at this airport is 06/24 that is 3,737m(12,261ft) and 13/31 that 2,258m(7,408ft). Both at MTOW the A380 need a 1100 ft shorter distance than the 747-400ER... A380 needs around 9000ft at MTOW,and 747-400ER need around 10100ft... so there are many planes out there needing more runway than the A380... Among them are A340-200/300/500/600,MD-11,777F,-200ER/-200LR,-300 and 300ER.. -200ER needs the longest of the planes mentioned here :D
ollo1982 3 months ago
@mecute333 yeah it's right. If you film a runway this way it always seems to be quite short.
Just go to google-earth (or just google) and look for the lengh ;)
ThePfeffi80 2 months ago
@strepthroatcoccus 3410 meters
captmark747 2 months ago
@captmark747 wow! mas mahaba lang ng konte sa runway ng gensan airport. 3,227 meters kasi ang length ng runway sa gensan airport.
hannahgrade 2 months ago
@strepthroatcoccus Judging from the camera view, this was Rwy 24, which is 11,000ft between piano keys. This aircraft was heavy indeed.
gmboy559 1 month ago
@strepthroatcoccus the runway is 12,261 feet long.
LeeskiLeo 1 month ago
@LeeskiLeo thats a long ass runway lol
skbenergy 1 week ago
what type of A340?
7lover1 3 months ago
@7lover1 A340-300
mecute333 3 months ago
i think the engine is not in full power so the airplane have a hard time in take off..
123planking 3 months ago
Comment removed
jvdurante84 3 months ago
what is the name of the airport?
lucksleg 3 months ago
A340 is underpowered.
greetenmax 3 months ago
Mala ti
honest413 3 months ago
Sip SIp Sip Ti Ti Mow LOL
honest413 3 months ago
thats why we have boeing lol
USAFmedtech 4 months ago
how to get to runway 24....
rabajaroeder123 4 months ago
runway 6?
rabajaroeder123 4 months ago
@rabajaroeder123 nope she departed on runway 24
mecute333 4 months ago
@mecute333 "she" Hehe!! Good video!
FlightSimXflyer 3 months ago
wow! felt like a ton of bricks lifting off...is it just me or is the A343 really is somewhat underpowered? Whenever I fly on it the takeoffs always feel so heavy....almost scary at times...
jurruk 4 months ago
Nice crosswind!
patcism 5 months ago
Nice!!
MrBryan86 5 months ago
Looked like an average take off from Caticlan....on steroids.
KTMMotox1 5 months ago
It is all because of the balikbayan boxes that travels back with them with Philippine goods : )
etrnlygr8tful 6 months ago 10
Worst conditions is when you have an averagely short runway and and additionally when there is only low or no wind actually. In that case the runways have to be maxed out commonly because their lengths are optimized to the maximal typesize of Aircraft types to be used with. Optimal T/O condition is 180 deg opposite wind with some tens of knots velocity, then this will shorten the necessary length required.
berndpfe 6 months ago
Pucker Factor about 10. Good thing it went up (sorta) at the end of the runway there. Otherwise the town would have been covered in cell phones and tshirts. Way over loaded. I don't care what the limits are, this exceeded them all. I can envision the pilot and copilot push - pushin the throttles into their stops. Cmon baaaaabyyyyyy ... cliiiiimmmmb !
intrptr 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
is it the video are is thier no flaps down on this plane?
weavhipe 6 months ago
dam bet the pilot had seat sucked up rear
gunplow 6 months ago
Let me get this straight...you are in Manila...and you're making video's of plane take-offs???? I'd be in town, slappin' some bargirls' ass !!!
1594svt98 6 months ago
Runway 06?
apocalyptica099 6 months ago
This seen this kind of take off from MIA for 10 yrs not only PAL but the other airlines doing this kind manuever.
bens259 6 months ago
He certainly ate up all the runway, still i guess thats why it's as long as it is for those heavy take-offs
Moss235 7 months ago
Def made the use of that space.
beaman220 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
PAL has arrogant and rude staff. International FA's are old and grumpy. Very typical Filipino standard of customer service.
ricman46 7 months ago
Comment removed
forprivpass 7 months ago
wooo its looks like its going down..after take-off o.O
madonnafabel 7 months ago
OMG! twas scary...how could the pilots be so sure they had enough runway? they almost ran out of it!
84pblanco 7 months ago
mecute333
maximelsayed 8 months ago
Short Runway?
mojame100 8 months ago
The engines on this plane are Rolls-Royce Trent 500
gcoochy 8 months ago
It's wasteful not to use the whole runway.
Milesco 8 months ago
Great clip! Could have been loaded with Balikbayan boxes, this time to YVR.
skyscraper1026 9 months ago
I'm assuming he was taking off 06/24? Typical with such a heavy load in heat and humidity.
incheon 10 months ago
did the landing gear got stuck?
santana77780 10 months ago
@santana77780 nope its just normal...
mecute333 10 months ago
@mecute333 kailan yan?
justinedimaya 4 months ago
kewl jonel :)
Ahya728 10 months ago
do you live near rpll?
brxkaio 10 months ago
@brxkaio No..it takes me an hour to get in the airport..
mecute333 10 months ago
@mecute333 how come you have lots of vids @ rpll? :))
brxkaio 10 months ago
@brxkaio I just wanted to film some planes to share for the viewers:)
mecute333 10 months ago 9
Wow, how HEAVY is that, almost consumed the whole 3,737-meter runway!
You're right mecute333...full of 264 pax and 23T cargo (based on PAL's configuration probably) for a long flight to Vancouver...
But sadly, PAL's 4-strong A340-300s' CFM56-5C4s must be re-engined to 38,000-40,000lbf instead of 34,000lbf.
learjet748flyer 10 months ago
wow, that was close, very nice video
MrMouns63 11 months ago
BOUND TO VANCOUVER YVR I GUESS
maayos 11 months ago
The pilot did a sleep.
eroen45 1 year ago
The Airbus A340-200/300 should have been designed with engines having over 40,000lbs thrust like the PW2000 series or even the Rolls Royce RB211 series instead of those underpowered GE/Snecma CFM56-5Cs that were meant to power the 737 and A320.
warhawk40 1 year ago
@warhawk40 Swito ka? Xur oii!
SenenGarciaLlanes 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The Airbus A340-200/300 should have been designed with engines having over 40,000lbs thrust like the PW2000 series or even the Roll Royce RB211 series instead of those underpowered GE/Snecma CFM56-5Cs that were meant to power the 737 and A320.
warhawk40 1 year ago
The Airbus 340-200/300 should have been designed with engines having over 40,000lbs thrust like the PW2000 series or even the Roll Royce RB211 series instead of those underpowered GE/Snecma CFM56-5Cs that were meant to power the 737 and A320.
warhawk40 1 year ago
90% of fat people onboard??? ;D
Xylugan2010 1 year ago 51
@Xylugan2010 Hahaha!
mecute333 1 year ago
@Xylugan2010 yeah, many americans for sure
jradetzky 5 months ago
@jradetzky this is why America is superior to others
houshidar558 4 months ago
@houshidar558 it is the wind condition on that time.i dont what is your point in america is superior to others ??????
ghethreeaall 4 months ago
@ghethreeaall he likes to use stereotypes so im using it on him also were fat and we think were superior to all
houshidar558 4 months ago
Yep, very heavy!
MeanGene79 1 year ago
maybe because of the rain and smog..
cutemepo1213 1 year ago 2
@cutemepo1213 There were no rain on that day.i think its full of pax and cargo.
mecute333 1 year ago 16
@mecute333 Hahahahahahaa!!!
jockeyhanes 3 months ago
HEEEEEEAAAAAAAAAAVYYYYY!! urggh!
SenenGarciaLlanes 1 year ago
wow.. ur right. it does look kinda heavy
freakyram1 1 year ago
rw 24 was active on it's takeoff roll? too bad i wasnt able to get inflight vid. wen i rode this a yr. ago, but nice plane spotting vid anyway
spyromatt 1 year ago
It's fully loaded, most likely be bound for Vancouver which usually leaves in the afternoon. The A343 has a reputation for being underpowered compared to its sister A330. But anyway, great clip! ;D
dredmaxx 1 year ago
nice video mate ! :D
not much runway left there :O
i subbed :p
please subb back :D
hejniclas 1 year ago
It almost ran out of runway. :))
truly0phinoy 1 year ago
GREAT A340 TAKEOFF! I think that A340 goes to Vancouver
nikko451 1 year ago