Actually, suction has nothing to do with it. It's a difference of pressures above and below the wings. It is Bernoulli's principle (who, I might add, would turn over in his grave at any mention of 'suction' related to this process). But I do agree with Dan. It's amazing to see these things get off the ground, despite the laws of physics that allow them to do it. Absolutely incredible!!
Bernoulli may be a tad overrated here. Yes, high and low pressures do play out here - curved wing surfaces, etc., farther to travel air as it goes over and under a wing. But, planes fly upside down, right? That means the "curved" portion of the wing is on the bottom, right? But, it still stays up in the air. Why isn't it pushed towards the ground? So, what we have is, actually, the wing (right side up, or upside down) "pushing" the air towards the ground, and - Viola! The plane stays in the air. Old Newton's action and reaction principle. Agree?
Singapore's runway is 4000m long, while most runways are around 3000m long. For economic reasons, planes always use as little thrust as possible when they take off (but not less than 75%, as far as I'm aware). The less thrust that is used for take-off, the longer the take-off roll will be. This means that the aircraft will use most of the available runway space. Since Singapore's runway is longer than average, take-offs from Singapore will generally be longer too.
i just came back to brisbane from singapore and we took off where the budget arilines were stationed. My brother said that the 777 used full thrust because the runway was shorter in where the budget airlines were stationed so im not sure, and also my dad told me that changi airport only had one runway...
Often, the A320 will try to use a maximum of 92.2% N1, but for 747, I’m not sure. If they had a long take off run, they might be trying to gain a higher rate of climb.
The sector was 18+ hours long which means the aircraft was operating close to to its MTOW due to the amount of tankered fuel, Payload and other factors hence the long roll was ideal both for performance and engine maintenance. You have to applaud LIDO flight management system for effectively and efficiently dictating the speed, payload and other parameters here...
The aircraft used Changi runway 20R for take off. I counted the side taxiways and utility roads after the plane started to roll and it rotated near the 7th side lane. When you check this runway on Google Map's satellite image, this side lane is approximately 3/4 the distance from start of 20R runway. So, if this runway is 4000m long as mentioned in the comment below, then the plane used nearly 3000m of runway and there was still a 1000m (1/4) left until the end of runway. :D
It must have been heavy with fuel however I could tell from the noise of the engines that not a lot of thrust was used, because of a long long runway. If more thrust were used there would less of a 'groan' from the engine.
First of all, great video and take off. What you've got to consider in this amazing video of one of the best take offs I've ever seen is that A) A340s, like all over large aircraft require long take off due to their shear size alone. B) They have heavy loads their hauling for thousands of miles while flying between 30,000ft and 45,000ft above sea level. C) They are travelling for (as I quoted in point B is that their flying for thousands of miles at extreams hights (aka 30,000ft and 45,000ft) and need as much thrust as possible to make the long journeys
@BigSam3788 i don`t know exactly. it was end of july 2010 and the departure time was about 1pm - as I arrived at the airport it was a very nice and warm day in singapore :-) but the altitude of this airport is low..... so i think the long takeoffrun was due to the heavy aircraft
To respond to the question by the op: a long runway will result in a long take off roll. Its like in a car but in reverse. In a car you don't apply full braking force if you have lots of space before the light turns red. If you are speeding and the light turns yellow at a critical moment, and there are red light cameras, then you apply full braking. Otherwise you apply the minimal required to stop at the stop line.
All A340's were known to be underpowered compared to the other long range aircraft of their time. Long take-off runs and extended times to get to cruising altitude meant air controllers were always pushing them to speed up if possible. I was fortunate enough to be able to fly in business class from Canada to Hong Kong and Japan and boy were they comfortable. I am still amazed that you can get into one of these magnificent aircraft and in 17 hours get off on the other side of the earth while being pampered all the way. Many happy memories from the High Tech days, too bad its all gone to the dogs. By the way a 747-400 fully fueled and loaded is not much better. They could make the Hong Kong west to east trip only in the winter and at the time I flew on this flight I believe it was the longest flight of the scheduled flights.
It's because they are 4-engined aircraft. An aircraft has to be able to lose an engine during take-off and still make it up safely. For twin-engined aircraft, this means that they essentially have to be able to take-off and fly on a single engine, making them overpowered during normal operations. Four-engine aircraft only have a third again as much power as they require, so during regular operations, they are less sprightly.
this one took 53 seconds. the airbus 380 i was in (the day after the biggest blizzard in new york - fully loaded with pax) from a flight to dubai on emirates was 1:00 Takeoff Roll Time: Airbus A380, A330-200, Boeing 777-300 & 737-800 (bottom right) or you can see the entire takeoff here if you do a search for - Inflight Airbus A380-800 Experience on Emirates - Part 1
Flying from USA to Australia takeoff run was about a minute in a Dreamliner. Singapore like australian is far away from USA and europe so many takeoffs will be very long. Also a good distance from other major Asian places.
The slow climb is due to safety reasons. The plane is enourmesly heavy with extremely much fuel on board, therefor, they have to maintain an above safety speed, so if a emergency accure, they have plenty of speed. And that's the reason why so low angle of attack. It's not a problem for the A340-500 to climb faster than this, it got 4 Trent 500 engines wich produces over 60,000lb each. This baby is runnin fiine!! Good video too m8 :)
Wow, that was a very long take off run! You can see it was incredibly heavy by the rate of initial acceleration...very low! Still, it wouldn't have taxied all the way out to the runway if it wasn't going to make it off by the end! :-)
Its true that the A340 does take awhile to catch the maximum takeoff speed because of its long body and 4 wing mounted turbo fans/jets. when i went on the MD 90 it took awhile to catch air but i never been on a plane that has 4 turbofans/jets
Singapore is hot and humid. Takeoff thrust is calculated based on temperature and elevation. On a hot humid day with little wind, the airplane will require more thrust and runway than on a cold dry day
@DAIRX But the thing is A340-500/600s take forever to takeoff because they are really long planes and they need a lot of lift so rotation isnt steep. And i confirm that i got 54 seconds
You know the length of the take off roll is known before it starts, right? The weight, temperature, altitude and length of runway is input in the flight computer and a power setting is calculated. Airlines never use full thrust except in emergencies because it burns more fuel and exponentially increases wear on engines. That is why every take off in a heavy uses most of the runway. That is what the pilots programmed the plane to do.
@fsxpilot21 The longest I've ever seen would have to be either a Lufthansa A340-300 (not an x version, but with the less powerful engines), and the second would have to be an Iran Air 747 classic taking off in the desert/mountainous region of Tehran. Both takeoffs were over a minute long, several seconds longer than this. A low thrust-to-weight ratio plus a takeoff speed of 180 mph (required for both A340 and 747) lead to longer takeoffs and slower climbs, but allow for higher cruise speeds.
Its all a matter of thrust, lift and weight - if this plane had twice the thrust it would take half the time on the to roll - I took SQ 22 and we actually went out at reduced thrust (they will do this to reduce wear and tear on the engines)
Great video. My Lufthansa Boeing 747-400 flight to Frankfurt-Am-Main took about the same time from KMIA, maybe slightly less. But these airbuses have slow climbs, and it's for the fuel economy.
@Captain868 I wouldn't. The long takeoff roll makes perfect sense. It is a very large plane loaded to near its maximum range and flying nonstop from Singapore to Newark. On a heavy plane like this, they probably would use all the runway available to them not only to get off the ground, but also to maximize efficiency and to make it easier on the plane. As long as this takeoff was, they likely did not use maximum thrust. Probably 90%. As far as the climb, again, heavy.
Uhhh, no. That was only about 55 seconds from max thrust to rotation. I have sat through 72 second take-off runs in a 744 from Sydney to LAX in December, where the temperature was over 40C. Runway 34R in Sydney is 3900m and there is not a lot left at rotation.
I´m not that very sure, but last year we took off from Narita in a fully loaded A346. And we went all the way down from one set of piano keys to the other one. And Rwy 16R in Narita is 4000 meters long. So I would suppose it a was longer takoff run.
I think I have seen a longer takeoff run on youtube of an Aerolineas Argentinas B747 taking off from Buenos aires to Madrid but would have to search and check it up again to confirm. Anyway cool vid. :)
The reason is because the pilot didn't want to use full power on takeoff. He only set the throttle to about 75% N1, which is the air pressure coming in through the air compressors. I had to.
Fascinating but not heart-stopping. 55secs. t/o run is fine for a fully-laden quad embarking on an 18 hour flight using a graduated power t/o with plenty of available runway. What matters is not t/o length or climb rate but whether it is smooth, quiet, safe, and uses the fuel optimally. To me the A340-500 is the Queen of the Skies and I wish more of them had been made.
Thin tropical hot air plus a very heavy plane mean long takeoff roll. I have been watching your videos for a while, you seem to be ceaselessly criss-crossing the world on very long flights, what's your job?
I got really nervous when I was flying from Vegas to San Francisco earlier this summer because of our extended take off roll. It felt like we were going at it for so long before it lifted. Was the scariest flight I've ever been on too, there was a horrible rattling sound somewhere on the right side of the fuselage behind where I was sitting but it stopped after a while, then started again. Just after take off as well, the turns were really quick and sharp and I was terrified - usually turns are nice and smooth and gradual, but not this one. Even the guy sat next to me told me after we landed that he does that route a couple of times a month and this was his worst experience on it. It was United Airlines, B737-NG
from someone who flies out of vegas a lot, I also have experienced quite long takeoff rolls, especially for a short flight to vegas. The steep turns are normal operations out of vegas, in which aircraft flying towards the west will perform a left turn around 500 feet above ground, right above the strip.
A long takeoff roll for that trip? Hell, a Cessna 172 flies nonstop further than that...I can't imagine why an airline would load up a commercial flight with a lot of fuel for a 500-mile flight.
Singapore Airlines A345 fleets uses RR engines. Its agreeable that the rate of climb is slow.. But have you consider about the tonnes of Cargo and also the fuel onboard? Its a 17.5 hours flight and the A345 fuel consumption is greater then a B747-400..
Its a very long takeoff run,but it need it becuase its weighing 360-370 tons.The hotter it is and the more humidity it is the more runway it uses,also when it comes to the elevation of the airport.changi is only 7 metres above sea level,but if it is hot,the takeoff roll gets longer.on a cold day,an aircraft use less runway due to more compressed air.and on a hot day the air ofcourse is less compressed making the aircraft use more runway.Low air density also hampers an aircraft's ability to climb
You should have seen the South African Airways 747-200 leaving LHR and heading home. They had to fly out over the South Atlantic because no overfly rights. That was a long take off at highest power.
Looks like they had plenty of runway to me. Anyway, there are a number of factors they consider when calculating a takeoff roll. In densely populated areas they may need to get off the ground and gain altitude quickly to reduce the amount of noise washing over people. They'd use max thrust for that. Other noise procedures require them to use the minimum thrust necessary to take off - just a different way to reduce noise. It also may depend on the particular type of aircraft. Old, loud aircraft may have different required takeoff profiles depending on airport regulations. For example, the USAF C-5 Galaxy with the old engines is often power limited on takeoff. They take off with minimum power necessary, then at a certain altitude they increase to climb power. If a pilot has plenty of runway and no noise abatement procedures to follow, they are likely going to use just enough power to get them off the runway to save fuel, maintenance, etc. No sense in pushing the engines to their limits if you don't have to. Then of course if the airplane is at max gross weight, it's a hot day, the runway is short, or a combination of the three they may have to go balls to the wall no matter what the airport regulations are.
Im surprised they used the 340, normally that is a 777 route. That take off wasnt too bad. Remember its hot and heavy so you are gonna have a longer takeoff roll. There is a video of a singapore airlines 777 taking off from Manchester and you can see they are trying to horse the plane into the air, because you see the nose trying to lift then come back down a few times. Finally they are able to liftoff just before the numbers on the other end of the runway. That was a long takeoff...
there was a lot of runway left maybe a quarter i was once on a 747 ff to Vancouver that took a huge run to get airbourne and climbed super slowly, took nearly an hour to get to cruise altitude
It did seem a little long, but nothing unusual... was it perhaps a hot day?... I dont know the reason, but Im under the impression planes take up more runway on hot days
This A340 probably was completely booked and going a long distance so they probably filled the tanks all the way up. or the pilot pulled up at the last second.
LOVE IT! I LOVE A NICE LONG TAKE OFF ROLL. FEELS LIKE I GOT MY MONEY'S WORTH. HATE THE 5 SECOND ROLL OF A 757. TRUE, THE A340 HAS A SLOWER CLIMB RATE, BUT BEAUTIFUL JUST THE SAME.
try looking up md-11 takeoff in st maarten(from a wingview). and also for a normal "flex" temperature of about 60 degrees Celsius the climb rate on average is about 4000-4500 feet/min with low weight and also pitch angles of over 20 degrees.
WOW 18hs... I really admire engineers, a plane that can fly 18hs. But damn, being a passenger, sitting there 18hs must be hard as hell. My longest flight was 8hs30min, I did longest trips by bus but you can stop and walk. How was your flight?
+E Gino I live in Australia. To Europe its 24hours+ with one stop. Longest commute was 38 hours to Mykonos via Singapore, Frankfort, Athens. Unless you want to eat into your holiday time by stopping, you just do it.
E Gino longest (and only) long haul flight was 10 hours to hong kong with a 4 hour stopover then another 4 hours to tokyo.. i loved every millisecond 😂
Very long indeed, but not the longest I've ever seen. The A340-300 and A340-200 have done the longest take-off rolls I've ever seen. Look up some Royal Jordanian takeoffs of A340s from Amman to Chicago. Those takeoffs are over a minute long.
Multi-engine aircraft must be able to take off with the failure of one engine. Since the A340 is a 4 engine plane, the speed only needs to be 25% above minimum as they will have 3 engines remaining. 2 engine planes take off faster as they will lose 50% of thrust with one engine out and still must be able to take off. Due to fuel costs, they will not go much faster than necessary.
Because of the drag effect of the non-functional engine, combined with thrust asymmetry, loss of a single engine on a twin-engine airframe can mean loss of over 70% available thrust. This is why engine failure on take-off is regarded as a justified "Mayday" incident.
Looked pretty normal to me for a full jet. About like full a 737-800 from Seattle-Dallas. I've been on loud clattering seemingly 15 mile takeoff runs in crappy old dash 8 turboprops though. Yikes!
That's one heavy bird to see lift off. It's always amazed me how these marvelous machines take off with such grace being so heavy.
Simple suction
Actually, suction has nothing to do with it. It's a difference of pressures above and below the wings. It is Bernoulli's principle (who, I might add, would turn over in his grave at any mention of 'suction' related to this process). But I do agree with Dan. It's amazing to see these things get off the ground, despite the laws of physics that allow them to do it. Absolutely incredible!!
Bernoulli may be a tad overrated here. Yes, high and low pressures do play out here - curved wing surfaces, etc., farther to travel air as it goes over and under a wing.
But, planes fly upside down, right? That means the "curved" portion of the wing is on the bottom, right? But, it still stays up in the air. Why isn't it pushed towards the ground?
So, what we have is, actually, the wing (right side up, or upside down) "pushing" the air towards the ground, and - Viola! The plane stays in the air. Old Newton's action and reaction principle.
Agree?
Guys, its 2/3 suction 1/3 pushing. And yes, it is amazing of course!
Michael Donavon dont you mean derate...ok that wasn't funny
We pay for full runway, we use full runway
Infinite Flight JPC *says in Russian accent*
My Aviation Channel The full runway uses you
Looks like they were going to drive to their destination for awhile there.
Singapore's runway is 4000m long, while most runways are around 3000m long.
For economic reasons, planes always use as little thrust as possible when they take off (but not less than 75%, as far as I'm aware).
The less thrust that is used for take-off, the longer the take-off roll will be. This means that the aircraft will use most of the available runway space. Since Singapore's runway is longer than average, take-offs from Singapore will generally be longer too.
i just came back to brisbane from singapore and we took off where the budget arilines were stationed. My brother said that the 777 used full thrust because the runway was shorter in where the budget airlines were stationed so im not sure, and also my dad told me that changi airport only had one runway...
Jehan Kateli unless they're cargo planes... they have used upto 110%
Mexico has a very long runway, high altitude. Takeoffs of 1:15 are not uncommon there, especially for flights to Europe.
Jehan Kateli correct!
Often, the A320 will try to use a maximum of 92.2% N1, but for 747, I’m not sure. If they had a long take off run, they might be trying to gain a higher rate of climb.
The sector was 18+ hours long which means the aircraft was operating close to to its MTOW due to the amount of tankered fuel, Payload and other factors hence the long roll was ideal both for performance and engine maintenance. You have to applaud LIDO flight management system for effectively and efficiently dictating the speed, payload and other parameters here...
That's quick,exclnt takeoff.....for this a lot of runway is required ,I love the a340 ,good video Ty uploader
Quick? bro what kind of planes u have in your country? probably nun, cuz it seems like u know nothing about em
The aircraft used Changi runway 20R for take off. I counted the side taxiways and utility roads after the plane started to roll and it rotated near the 7th side lane. When you check this runway on Google Map's satellite image, this side lane is approximately 3/4 the distance from start of 20R runway. So, if this runway is 4000m long as mentioned in the comment below, then the plane used nearly 3000m of runway and there was still a 1000m (1/4) left until the end of runway. :D
That’s honestly quite impressive. That’s about what most 737-900ERs use here in Seattle on domestic flights.
You are right. I used Google earth to check how long it rolled for taking off.😊
@Captain868 "Ladies and Gentlemen, this is your captain speaking, due to technical issues, we will be taxing to our destination, thank you"
It must have been heavy with fuel however I could tell from the noise of the engines that not a lot of thrust was used, because of a long long runway. If more thrust were used there would less of a 'groan' from the engine.
First of all, great video and take off. What you've got to consider in this amazing video of one of the best take offs I've ever seen is that A) A340s, like all over large aircraft require long take off due to their shear size alone. B) They have heavy loads their hauling for thousands of miles while flying between 30,000ft and 45,000ft above sea level. C) They are travelling for (as I quoted in point B is that their flying for thousands of miles at extreams hights (aka 30,000ft and 45,000ft) and need as much thrust as possible to make the long journeys
man I love the sound when it leaves the ground....
@BigSam3788 i don`t know exactly. it was end of july 2010 and the departure time was about 1pm - as I arrived at the airport it was a very nice and warm day in singapore :-) but the altitude of this airport is low..... so i think the long takeoffrun was due to the heavy aircraft
To respond to the question by the op: a long runway will result in a long take off roll. Its like in a car but in reverse. In a car you don't apply full braking force if you have lots of space before the light turns red. If you are speeding and the light turns yellow at a critical moment, and there are red light cameras, then you apply full braking. Otherwise you apply the minimal required to stop at the stop line.
It took about 55 seconds to get off the ground
A-340-500 RIP. Flying tanker with a few passengers.
The ac is very heavy. You can see the heavy and slow flex of the wingtip on takeoff roll. Nice footage!
All A340's were known to be underpowered compared to the other long range aircraft of their time. Long take-off runs and extended times to get to cruising altitude meant air controllers were always pushing them to speed up if possible. I was fortunate enough to be able to fly in business class from Canada to Hong Kong and Japan and boy were they comfortable. I am still amazed that you can get into one of these magnificent aircraft and in 17 hours get off on the other side of the earth while being pampered all the way. Many happy memories from the High Tech days, too bad its all gone to the dogs. By the way a 747-400 fully fueled and loaded is not much better. They could make the Hong Kong west to east trip only in the winter and at the time I flew on this flight I believe it was the longest flight of the scheduled flights.
Why could they only make the Hong Kong west to east trip only in winter?
Tailwinds.
It's because they are 4-engined aircraft. An aircraft has to be able to lose an engine during take-off and still make it up safely. For twin-engined aircraft, this means that they essentially have to be able to take-off and fly on a single engine, making them overpowered during normal operations. Four-engine aircraft only have a third again as much power as they require, so during regular operations, they are less sprightly.
4 engine aircraft could fly on one engine though, but not during take off.
A 4-engined a/c is very unlikely to fly level flight on one engine, unless it's unusually light.
Wow, that's a long one. And the climb is really slow too. Hot. Heavy. Cool airplane though.
Yeah, flying to the US from Frankfurt on the A340 took us much longer to get to cruising altitude.
Not forgetting a box/coffin to store someone when a person dies mid-flight.
this one took 53 seconds. the airbus 380 i was in (the day after the biggest blizzard in new york - fully loaded with pax) from a flight to dubai on emirates was 1:00 Takeoff Roll Time: Airbus A380, A330-200, Boeing 777-300 & 737-800 (bottom right) or you can see the entire takeoff here if you do a search for - Inflight Airbus A380-800 Experience on Emirates - Part 1
1:35 is a VERY long takeoff! Do you know what the temperature was there when you left?
@deedx when do you begin to count the takeoff run?
Maybe it took lots of runway because fully loded to is maximum capacity
I would think that the hot and humid weather in Singapore would also have something to do with this long takeoff run.
Climbing like a sick angel.
@DAIRX But the thing is A340-500/600s take forever to takeoff because they are really long planes and they need a lot of lift so rotation isnt steep
Flying from USA to Australia takeoff run was about a minute in a Dreamliner. Singapore like australian is far away from USA and europe so many takeoffs will be very long. Also a good distance from other major Asian places.
The slow climb is due to safety reasons. The plane is enourmesly heavy with extremely much fuel on board, therefor, they have to maintain an above safety speed, so if a emergency accure, they have plenty of speed. And that's the reason why so low angle of attack.
It's not a problem for the A340-500 to climb faster than this, it got 4 Trent 500 engines wich produces over 60,000lb each. This baby is runnin fiine!!
Good video too m8 :)
Wow, that was a very long take off run! You can see it was incredibly heavy by the rate of initial acceleration...very low! Still, it wouldn't have taxied all the way out to the runway if it wasn't going to make it off by the end! :-)
Great video.
How long is the flight from Singapore to Newark?
Its true that the A340 does take awhile to catch the maximum takeoff speed because of its long body and 4 wing mounted turbo fans/jets. when i went on the MD 90 it took awhile to catch air but i never been on a plane that has 4 turbofans/jets
Singapore is hot and humid. Takeoff thrust is calculated based on temperature and elevation. On a hot humid day with little wind, the airplane will require more thrust and runway than on a cold dry day
@DAIRX But the thing is A340-500/600s take forever to takeoff because they are really long planes and they need a lot of lift so rotation isnt steep. And i confirm that i got 54 seconds
You know the length of the take off roll is known before it starts, right? The weight, temperature, altitude and length of runway is input in the flight computer and a power setting is calculated. Airlines never use full thrust except in emergencies because it burns more fuel and exponentially increases wear on engines. That is why every take off in a heavy uses most of the runway. That is what the pilots programmed the plane to do.
Legends say they are still taking off...
@fsxpilot21 The longest I've ever seen would have to be either a Lufthansa A340-300 (not an x version, but with the less powerful engines), and the second would have to be an Iran Air 747 classic taking off in the desert/mountainous region of Tehran. Both takeoffs were over a minute long, several seconds longer than this. A low thrust-to-weight ratio plus a takeoff speed of 180 mph (required for both A340 and 747) lead to longer takeoffs and slower climbs, but allow for higher cruise speeds.
That was almost an entire minute. Gotta love those A340s.
Ha, and that awful climb rate. I'm pretty sure I've seen piston twins climb faster.
Yup. The average take off time is 40 to 50 seconds. This took 55 seconds. Very heavy plane. the wings are also bent more than usual.
Its all a matter of thrust, lift and weight - if this plane had twice the thrust it would take half the time on the to roll - I took SQ 22 and we actually went out at reduced thrust (they will do this to reduce wear and tear on the engines)
Great video. My Lufthansa Boeing 747-400 flight to Frankfurt-Am-Main took about the same time from KMIA, maybe slightly less. But these airbuses have slow climbs, and it's for the fuel economy.
@Captain868 I wouldn't. The long takeoff roll makes perfect sense. It is a very large plane loaded to near its maximum range and flying nonstop from Singapore to Newark. On a heavy plane like this, they probably would use all the runway available to them not only to get off the ground, but also to maximize efficiency and to make it easier on the plane. As long as this takeoff was, they likely did not use maximum thrust. Probably 90%. As far as the climb, again, heavy.
Reminds me of a Denver takeoff at Stapleton 1990; thought we were already in Kansas at rotate.
And for the record as well its. V1(GO/NO GO) then VR (which is Rotate), then V2(single engine climb out speed)
Wow you weren't kidding about the long takeoff run
Uhhh, no. That was only about 55 seconds from max thrust to rotation. I have sat through 72 second take-off runs in a 744 from Sydney to LAX in December, where the temperature was over 40C. Runway 34R in Sydney is 3900m and there is not a lot left at rotation.
U remember all that?
sehr schönes Video und wirklich ein schön langer run:D
Yes, it's a shame, I really love the A340's too :(
I´m not that very sure, but last year we took off from Narita in a fully loaded A346. And we went all the way down from one set of piano keys to the other one. And Rwy 16R in Narita is 4000 meters long. So I would suppose it a was longer takoff run.
Timed it at 55 seconds. Very heavy takeoff. You can tell by the climb rate.
The wings are so heavy, that the engines are misaligned relative to each other until they reach a certain speed where the wing lifts
I think I have seen a longer takeoff run on youtube of an Aerolineas Argentinas B747 taking off from Buenos aires to Madrid but would have to search and check it up again to confirm. Anyway cool vid. :)
The reason is because the pilot didn't want to use full power on takeoff. He only set the throttle to about 75% N1, which is the air pressure coming in through the air compressors. I had to.
Fascinating but not heart-stopping. 55secs. t/o run is fine for a fully-laden quad embarking on an 18 hour flight using a graduated power t/o with plenty of available runway. What matters is not t/o length or climb rate but whether it is smooth, quiet, safe, and uses the fuel optimally. To me the A340-500 is the Queen of the Skies and I wish more of them had been made.
Is this true that for this route they are all business class? I flew this route twice in 05 and 07 they still had economy class back then.
Thank You
Thin tropical hot air plus a very heavy plane mean long takeoff roll. I have been watching your videos for a while, you seem to be ceaselessly criss-crossing the world on very long flights, what's your job?
I got really nervous when I was flying from Vegas to San Francisco earlier this summer because of our extended take off roll. It felt like we were going at it for so long before it lifted. Was the scariest flight I've ever been on too, there was a horrible rattling sound somewhere on the right side of the fuselage behind where I was sitting but it stopped after a while, then started again.
Just after take off as well, the turns were really quick and sharp and I was terrified - usually turns are nice and smooth and gradual, but not this one. Even the guy sat next to me told me after we landed that he does that route a couple of times a month and this was his worst experience on it. It was United Airlines, B737-NG
from someone who flies out of vegas a lot, I also have experienced quite long takeoff rolls, especially for a short flight to vegas. The steep turns are normal operations out of vegas, in which aircraft flying towards the west will perform a left turn around 500 feet above ground, right above the strip.
A long takeoff roll for that trip? Hell, a Cessna 172 flies nonstop further than that...I can't imagine why an airline would load up a commercial flight with a lot of fuel for a 500-mile flight.
CL cuz there’s a demand for a medium sized aircraft.
Singapore Airlines A345 fleets uses RR engines. Its agreeable that the rate of climb is slow.. But have you consider about the tonnes of Cargo and also the fuel onboard? Its a 17.5 hours flight and the A345 fuel consumption is greater then a B747-400..
+Danial Iskandar Just a word about the fuel consumption: typical values for the 747-400 is 10'000kg, vs. 8'500kg for the 340-500.
Why does the A320 has an average fuel of 12 or 10k?? And an a345 has 8k like wtf xD
Its a very long takeoff run,but it need it becuase its weighing 360-370 tons.The hotter it is and the more humidity it is the more runway it uses,also when it comes to the elevation of the airport.changi is only 7 metres above sea level,but if it is hot,the takeoff roll gets longer.on a cold day,an aircraft use less runway due to more compressed air.and on a hot day the air ofcourse is less compressed making the aircraft use more runway.Low air density also hampers an aircraft's ability to climb
almost a whole minute takeoff run:P
Must be that long for a flight from Singapore to Newark:P
Well, what do you expect with this weight and OAT?
That's a lot of runway...
Alex Praglowski Aviation it's over 4,000 miles long! That's equivalent to four miles almost
Carlmaster96 bruh u dumb u actually this 4 miles is 4000 miles
You should have seen the South African Airways 747-200 leaving LHR and heading home. They had to fly out over the South Atlantic because no overfly rights. That was a long take off at highest power.
Hot and heavy a380 take off is one of the longest I've experienced felt like it took an age to take off
Waren die Vorflügel nicht ausgefahren ?
@BigSam3788 SIngapore usually has an average temperature of 28-33°C.
Looks like they had plenty of runway to me. Anyway, there are a number of factors they consider when calculating a takeoff roll. In densely populated areas they may need to get off the ground and gain altitude quickly to reduce the amount of noise washing over people. They'd use max thrust for that. Other noise procedures require them to use the minimum thrust necessary to take off - just a different way to reduce noise.
It also may depend on the particular type of aircraft. Old, loud aircraft may have different required takeoff profiles depending on airport regulations. For example, the USAF C-5 Galaxy with the old engines is often power limited on takeoff. They take off with minimum power necessary, then at a certain altitude they increase to climb power.
If a pilot has plenty of runway and no noise abatement procedures to follow, they are likely going to use just enough power to get them off the runway to save fuel, maintenance, etc. No sense in pushing the engines to their limits if you don't have to.
Then of course if the airplane is at max gross weight, it's a hot day, the runway is short, or a combination of the three they may have to go balls to the wall no matter what the airport regulations are.
those engines are straining! very powerful
I hear that SQ22 may return in a few years, but will use an A350 long-range version
Going to be either EWR or JFK. Surprised they used EWR, since JFK's runways are longer and the A345 is known to use a lot of runway to get airborne.
Im surprised they used the 340, normally that is a 777 route. That take off wasnt too bad. Remember its hot and heavy so you are gonna have a longer takeoff roll. There is a video of a singapore airlines 777 taking off from Manchester and you can see they are trying to horse the plane into the air, because you see the nose trying to lift then come back down a few times. Finally they are able to liftoff just before the numbers on the other end of the runway. That was a long takeoff...
Walt Dombrowski on this Route to JFK they Never deployed a777
there was a lot of runway left maybe a quarter
i was once on a 747 ff to Vancouver
that took a huge run to get airbourne and climbed super slowly, took nearly an hour to get to cruise altitude
It did seem a little long, but nothing unusual... was it perhaps a hot day?... I dont know the reason, but Im under the impression planes take up more runway on hot days
1. the runway in SXM is way shorter
2. the KLM-Aircrafts have not much fuel onboard for the short hop to Bonaire....
You really can not compare!
This A340 probably was completely booked and going a long distance so they probably filled the tanks all the way up. or the pilot pulled up at the last second.
LOVE IT! I LOVE A NICE LONG TAKE OFF ROLL. FEELS LIKE I GOT MY MONEY'S WORTH. HATE THE 5 SECOND ROLL OF A 757. TRUE, THE A340 HAS A SLOWER CLIMB RATE, BUT BEAUTIFUL JUST THE SAME.
@ThrogsNck no its not because if it was FSX you would see graphic, and if you look THERE ARE NO GRAPHICS!
@bermudaguy1 No, the airport is near sea level (22' MSL)
Cockpit: V1
Copilot:
Again copilot:
Copilot at the end of the runeway: rotate.
The weather must have been hot or humid
beautiful video thanks for sharing
I think i remember an a340-300 takeoff of mine to be longer. Might be wrong. But i was starting to panic like people probably was here... heh
try looking up md-11 takeoff in st maarten(from a wingview).
and also for a normal "flex" temperature of about 60 degrees Celsius the climb rate on average is about 4000-4500 feet/min with low weight and also pitch angles of over 20 degrees.
The A340 is under powered!
Can you tell me what you mean i am really curious. :)
Time from throttle up to rotation
this airbus is heavy , max fuel is loaded, max pax load. because of the hot air temperature , air is thinner, requiring max takeoff speed for lift.
I do not know what you mean.Could you please explain?
WOW 18hs... I really admire engineers, a plane that can fly 18hs. But damn, being a passenger, sitting there 18hs must be hard as hell. My longest flight was 8hs30min, I did longest trips by bus but you can stop and walk. How was your flight?
+E Gino I live in Australia. To Europe its 24hours+ with one stop. Longest commute was 38 hours to Mykonos via Singapore, Frankfort, Athens. Unless you want to eat into your holiday time by stopping, you just do it.
E Gino longest (and only) long haul flight was 10 hours to hong kong with a 4 hour stopover then another 4 hours to tokyo.. i loved every millisecond 😂
Very long indeed, but not the longest I've ever seen. The A340-300 and A340-200 have done the longest take-off rolls I've ever seen. Look up some Royal Jordanian takeoffs of A340s from Amman to Chicago. Those takeoffs are over a minute long.
@DAIRX when the windows begun shaking?
Pilot 1: V1, V2, VR, Rotate.
Pilot 2:zzzz
Pilot 1: Dude!!!I SAID ROTATE!
Pilot: My bad! fell asleep!
Multi-engine aircraft must be able to take off with the failure of one engine. Since the A340 is a 4 engine plane, the speed only needs to be 25% above minimum as they will have 3 engines remaining. 2 engine planes take off faster as they will lose 50% of thrust with one engine out and still must be able to take off. Due to fuel costs, they will not go much faster than necessary.
Because of the drag effect of the non-functional engine, combined with thrust asymmetry, loss of a single engine on a twin-engine airframe can mean loss of over 70% available thrust. This is why engine failure on take-off is regarded as a justified "Mayday" incident.
I'm glad that earth has got a curvature, otherwhise this heavy A345 would never leave the ground :D
why does the a340 taking off so Long?
Id be scared sitting on the plane thinking why the plane isn't taking off
I don't remember the last take off that was so shallow. She was real heavy!!!
Looked pretty normal to me for a full jet. About like full a 737-800 from Seattle-Dallas. I've been on loud clattering seemingly 15 mile takeoff runs in crappy old dash 8 turboprops though. Yikes!
I didn't see anything unusual about this takeoff.
CLIMB to 3000 ....() SQ22, how you hear me .... CLIMB 3000 ....() ..... SQ22: We are trying sir.
That was about 59 seconds....Very Heavy!!!
No, takeofd starts at 0:44, lifting off at 1:41. So the takeoff is 57 seconds long.
I backed a cake, took a cup off cofee and took a nap before this plane took off...