even though tha A340 300 may be, underpowered, for air france 2 send an A340 2 st maarten, instead of the larger and more powerful 747 or 777, the aircraft must b able 2 perform in a situation such as this where the runway is shorter thn usual with a decent enough pax load, bottom line, pilots of the a340 300 hardly use the FULL power of the engines, except when they require short runway performance such as at st maarten
@JumboJetBoy1 It's also possible they were doing a similar kind of thing to KLM..taking off to a nearby airport (perhaps Curacao)? I've seen the A343 take off even when doing a relatively short route, like Frankfurt to Cairo. It takes 45 seconds just to get off the ground even then! So my guess is that this had to be an extremely short flight or they made it so as few passengers were on board as possible.
@JumboJetBoy1 It's also possible they were doing a similar kind of thing to KLM..taking off to a nearby airport (perhaps Curacao)? I've seen the A343 take off even when doing a relatively short route, like Frankfurt to Cairo. It takes 45 seconds just to get off the ground even then! So my guess is that this had to be an extremely short flight or they made it so as few passengers were on board as possible.
I am guessing they probably have to use full thrust. I personally can't believe the A340 can get off the ground in Saint Marrten fully loaded in such a short period of time, given its notoriety for having the longest takeoff roll of any plane today.
@jetfreak4 - The plane probably has a low amount of fuel or there's not too many passengers. Takeoff roll was only 20 something seconds, which means it's probably very light.
@jetfreak4 Let's not forget reduced thrust take-offs. The A343's long rolls on longer runways are to reduce engine wear and if the runway is long, why stress out the engines getting off the ground quickly...use it all
@turbofan450 That makes sense except the runway at SXM is very short. Also, what i've generally noticed is that there tends to be only a 10 second difference on a reduced thrust takeoff vs. max thrust takeoff...I just have a really hard time believing that a fully loaded A340 can take off on such a short runway, but a fully loaded 747 or 777 cannot do the same. THe A340 is very underpowered, perhaps the most underpowered commercial airliner ever to fly.
@jetfreak4 I know its short. Thats why i figured the pilots would be using full thrust. It could be that its very light. I just don't like the argument that the A340-300 has "such a long take off roll". Sure it may be longer than other airliners near the same class but using up all of a long rwy is done on purpose (for those who don't know). As for it being underpowered, yea. But Airbus had to know what they wanted the plane to accomplish. I can't speak on what that may be cuz i don't know lol
@turbofan450 A lot of times performance doesn't end up being what it was ended for. Originally, the A340 was supposed to have IAE engines, but it was cancelled, leaving only the CFM engines. The A340 uses up more runway fully loaded than a fully loaded 747 or A380, and it's climb rate is dismal...only 800 feet a minute. It also is slower than airliners of similar size like the 777...the one thing it has going for it is that because it has four engines, it doesn't have to stay close to land.
even though tha A340 300 may be, underpowered, for air france 2 send an A340 2 st maarten, instead of the larger and more powerful 747 or 777, the aircraft must b able 2 perform in a situation such as this where the runway is shorter thn usual with a decent enough pax load, bottom line, pilots of the a340 300 hardly use the FULL power of the engines, except when they require short runway performance such as at st maarten
JKool951 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@JumboJetBoy1 It's also possible they were doing a similar kind of thing to KLM..taking off to a nearby airport (perhaps Curacao)? I've seen the A343 take off even when doing a relatively short route, like Frankfurt to Cairo. It takes 45 seconds just to get off the ground even then! So my guess is that this had to be an extremely short flight or they made it so as few passengers were on board as possible.
jetfreak4 7 months ago
@JumboJetBoy1 It's also possible they were doing a similar kind of thing to KLM..taking off to a nearby airport (perhaps Curacao)? I've seen the A343 take off even when doing a relatively short route, like Frankfurt to Cairo. It takes 45 seconds just to get off the ground even then! So my guess is that this had to be an extremely short flight or they made it so as few passengers were on board as possible.
jetfreak4 7 months ago
magnifique vide a kel siege etais tu comme je part a sint martin au mois de decembre ?
lludo974971 1 year ago
I am guessing they probably have to use full thrust. I personally can't believe the A340 can get off the ground in Saint Marrten fully loaded in such a short period of time, given its notoriety for having the longest takeoff roll of any plane today.
jetfreak4 1 year ago
@jetfreak4 - The plane probably has a low amount of fuel or there's not too many passengers. Takeoff roll was only 20 something seconds, which means it's probably very light.
kozarac5 1 year ago
@jetfreak4 Let's not forget reduced thrust take-offs. The A343's long rolls on longer runways are to reduce engine wear and if the runway is long, why stress out the engines getting off the ground quickly...use it all
turbofan450 3 months ago
@turbofan450 That makes sense except the runway at SXM is very short. Also, what i've generally noticed is that there tends to be only a 10 second difference on a reduced thrust takeoff vs. max thrust takeoff...I just have a really hard time believing that a fully loaded A340 can take off on such a short runway, but a fully loaded 747 or 777 cannot do the same. THe A340 is very underpowered, perhaps the most underpowered commercial airliner ever to fly.
jetfreak4 3 months ago
@jetfreak4 I know its short. Thats why i figured the pilots would be using full thrust. It could be that its very light. I just don't like the argument that the A340-300 has "such a long take off roll". Sure it may be longer than other airliners near the same class but using up all of a long rwy is done on purpose (for those who don't know). As for it being underpowered, yea. But Airbus had to know what they wanted the plane to accomplish. I can't speak on what that may be cuz i don't know lol
turbofan450 3 months ago
@turbofan450 A lot of times performance doesn't end up being what it was ended for. Originally, the A340 was supposed to have IAE engines, but it was cancelled, leaving only the CFM engines. The A340 uses up more runway fully loaded than a fully loaded 747 or A380, and it's climb rate is dismal...only 800 feet a minute. It also is slower than airliners of similar size like the 777...the one thing it has going for it is that because it has four engines, it doesn't have to stay close to land.
jetfreak4 3 months ago
nice!!!!!
nikkofsx 1 year ago
Bravo, excellente vidéo!!
christophe83unam 1 year ago
where were you flying too ??
cakedude063 2 years ago
@cakedude063 AF3515 Sint Maarten - Paris CDG
unknownlanguage 1 year ago
Fantastique! un court decollage pour un avion qui est pas connu pour etre tres puissant
mateohuertas 2 years ago
Seat?
deblss 2 years ago
Magnifique Video! Felicitations
mateohuertas 2 years ago
Good vid.Keep up.
jonjon75000 2 years ago
Great
Frabusne 2 years ago