We have at this moment problems with e-mails coming to us via Microsoft servers (Outlook, Hotmail, Live, etc). We are in contact with Microsoft to solve this issue.

Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

2 Neutral

About TimC340

  • Rank
    Flight Student - Groundwork

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. The wind makes absolutely no difference to fuel flow; it's simply a measure of how much fuel the engines are using in a given time, in this case kg/hr. If it was a measure of fuel used per unit distance, that would be different. The weight does affect it, obviously, and towards the end of the flight (but still in the cruise) it may be down below 4000kg/hr. I would expect to see somewhat lower fuel consumption in the A339 (Neo) when it arrives, which will be much closer to the B787-9. The A346, on the other hand, will start the cruise at around 9 to 9.5T per hour at 350T AUW, reducing to around 7.5T/hr at 240T.
  2. I haven’t managed to get time to try the AS330 Pro yet, as I’m a bit too busy with the real thing. As this flight was on an aircraft represented in the release pack, I thought some may be interested in these pictures, which cover from doing the Pre-Flight walkround at MIA to sitting on the ground at LHR waiting for a gate allocation! Points of interest, given some of the discussion here: note the fuel flows in the cruise. This is a relatively light aircraft (TOW 202 tonnes). We had quite a tailwind! Airbus’s strange offset hold entry (the aircraft flies a ground track in the hold, not a simulation of the wind-corrected flight path you’d manually calculate in GA flying). C056D7FA-6C9B-4964-9056-DC9B3E489B1F.MOV
  3. The ‘please wait’ caption on the DUs during a switch of system is only applicable to the old CRT displays of the early A330/340s. The DMCs and LCD displays of modern A330s (since around 2005) are able to display the new page without delay. We do not ever derate the takeoff as to do so limits the maximum thrust available, which could be problematic in an engine failure situation. We do, however, always use a flex takeoff, which has no such limitation. (Hence a derated takeoff uses a reduced-thrust VMCA, whereas a flex takeoff uses a full-thrust VMCA).
  4. We have quite a lot, Mathijs...! (Photo of VS A350-1000 courtesy of my good friend Capt Chris Pohl)
  5. I have no idea what source Aerosoft has used for its performance calculations. FlySmart is Airbus’s own performance tool. It’s not available to the public - if it were, it would cost many, many thousands of £/€/$. It is the basis on which all of our aircraft get airborne every day. As a current A330/340 pilot, I use it on every flight and obviously have to rely on its accuracy - we do not carry paper performance charts.
  6. V speeds are always related to the circumstances surrounding the airport concerned. It isn’t simply a matter of runway length/temperature/QNH/ac weight. Obstacles, ASDA, contamination, and several other things are also taken into account. However, the speeds you quote do seem a bit low. From FlySmart (Airbus official performance software), using LHR27R as the departure airport and your weather data, the speeds derived are 156/156/158, and Config 1+F is the demanded configuration. Edit; for contrast, using runway 27 at KBOS with the same data, but wet, the figures are 129/133/141 and Config 2. The differences are down to it being a short runway (7000’), with no overrun, and with significant obstacles (ie the city of Boston) in the net take off flight path.
  7. TimC340

    Excessive Fuel use

    The only reason the EFOB would be seriously off in the real aircraft is if there’s a problem with data input, such as winds being inaccurate. Occasionally the FCMCs get their knickers in a twist, but that’s pretty rare (and easily remedied with a reset). It’s not unusual to see up to a tonne difference between the FOB display and the FU calculation, but as long as its steady that’s not a problem. Cruise fuel burn on the 330-343 should be between 2-2.5 tonnes per hour per engine under most circumstances; anything else is an aberration.
  • Create New...