The World's WEAKEST Plane
Вставка
- Опубліковано 8 вер 2024
- Airbus put tiny little engines on the A340 - engines that were originally designed to power narrow-bodies like the 737 and A320. Why did they do this, and just how underpowered is the A340? #shorts
#airbus #a340
The A340 was in service 20 years before the 787, so there is a generational difference in technology.
Broooo!! Not this guy comparing new tech to old tech
That's it in a nutshell! Light years apart technologically!
Scrolled for this comment.
Technological limitations did not hinder the ability to create large engines in the 90s. The behemoth of the GE90 was developed in 1990, 3 years before the A340 was put into service. So bigger engines were definitely on the table. The point is that the A340 is underpowered. CFM56’s are tiny lol
@@6z0 the first A340 in service flight was two years before GE90 entered service. Also one GE90 weighs more than three CFM56. So 340 engineers weren’t considering an intake nacelle larger than 3m (IAE engine that was cancelled) so couldn’t bet on 4m because of technology of the time.
My favorite part is when you didn't explain it and then forwarded me to another video to watch. You double dipped the chip.
Seinfeld taught us all that you should never double dip a chip.
Bro shut up
Why have I never heard this saying before? 😂
This is why we need a public dislike count
Thankfully the dislike counter is shown for shorts videos
@@faithfulyoshi no?
@@roowut Never mind, it's because I had a browser extension to restore the dislike count. It's too bad youtube removed it in the first place.
So you could close his channel down? No thank you.
The "Do not recommend this channel" button works good though.
To anyone wondering....the video has 38k likes and 31k dislikes on January 12 European time
How do you find this?
@@devins7likely "bring back dislikes" chrome extension
now its 108k@@_Bob_man_
now its 107k@@PLANECARTRAINCOMMENTFACENASA
I came to watch this video with 0 knowledge
Am going back with -4628463838 knowledge
LIES!
😂😂😂
Comparing a tiny 787 with one of the longest planes in the world 🤣
@Something Something Dark Side so he takes a much smaller plane with bigger engines to illustrate his point 🤔🤦🏽♂️
@Something Something Dark Side how is it dangerous, its never had a fatal accident.
The engines that were chosen for the A340 were the CFM56-5C series, which are indeed relatively small compared to other engines used on large commercial aircraft. This decision was made for a few reasons. Firstly, the CFM56-5C engines are more fuel-efficient than larger engines, which was an important consideration for the A340's long-range capabilities. Secondly, the smaller engines allowed for a more streamlined design, which reduced drag and further improved fuel efficiency. Finally, the use of four smaller engines instead of two larger engines provided greater redundancy and safety in the event of an engine failure.
Despite their small size, the CFM56-5C engines proved to be very reliable and efficient, and the A340 became a popular choice for long-range flights. However, with advances in engine technology and the increasing focus on fuel efficiency, Airbus eventually discontinued the A340 in 2011 in favor of newer, more efficient aircraft such as the A350 and A330neo.
For anyone who wants the reason which was not given in the video.
The original engine that was meant to be put on the A340 boasted much higher efficiency then just about any other engine of its time, this would be great because most 4 engines aircraft aren't super fuel efficient. However, when the time came where the engines were needed, The company building them wasn't ready, in fact, the engine wouldn't be ready for another 10 years. Airbus had already boasted to their customers about how efficient it would be, and to match the efficiency claims they had made, they fitted it with less powerful engines as to not dissapoint their customers
Thanks
*That’s one minute of my life I’ll never get back.*
The A340 has four engines, thus needs a much smaller power reserve for take off with one engine out compared to any twin jet. And the A340 was build using CFM56 engines in order to offset the higher costs of running four engines by using the same engines as the A320/737 families. It still cost much more to operate compared to wide body twin jets.
I watched his UA-cam video explaining why and it was due to an engine manufacturer not building a high efficiency turbo fan engine that was way ahead of its time during those years. I believe it was Safran that builds the Leap engines today. They were stuck with a plane and no engines so in order to keep costs down like you said opted to go with the CFM engines. This is why they didn't fool around when it came to the A340/500/600 variant and opted for the Rollce Royce engines so the mistake was not made.
They could have used the PW4000 or the CF6, which where very popular back then in the A310 and the Boeing 757 and would get the performance. It is just that as a quad jet the costs would be too high and the performance wasn’t required, so they pinched pennies by using the CFM56 instead. The A340-500/600 ended up being a failure due to the really high costs of using a high performance engine for a plane that had four of them, while everyone else wanted a twin engine instead.
When the comment is much more useful than the actual video!!!
🙌🏽🙌🏽
@@sabareesh129 Thanks!
@@andidede3653 PS According to the Wikipedia article on the A340 ”from the start it was intended that the A340 would be powered by four CFM56-5”. So, either the article is wrong or the video shed some light in very early plans Airbus had. However, as much as I know about A340 history, they always designed it to be a CFM56 airplane in order to make the already outdated concept of four engined airliner more palatable for modern airlines in the 90s.
Answer: The engines it was intentionally meant for were not fully ready as the gearbox within the engine was ahead of its time. So, they put those engines on instead
When the comments section is more useful than the OP. Great job guys.
-- the A340 was competition for the B777, not the 787. And the 777 pioneered ETOPS, allowing twins to fly over oceans, causing the A340 to fail.
@@jimmiller5600He didn’t say it was competition with the 787. That wouldn’t even make sense because they’re from completely different generations. He said it most closely matches its passenger capacity, which is completely relevant to how powerful the craft is designed to be.
@@jimmiller5600…and the smaller variants of the 777 have since been superseded by the larger variants of the 787, which also fall into the same market segment as the smaller A340 variants.
I transferred onto the A340 from the 747/400. The underperformance of the A340 was startling. We jokingly referred to the woefully underpowered CFM engines as hair dryers. However, later on the A340/600 came on scene equipped with four Rolls Royce RB211 engines (the same engines on the 747) with 60,000 pounds of thrust per engine. She was delightful to fly.
I always add " watch for part 2 " channels to the don't recommend list
Another one for the collection
Me too!!!
Not even a link to the second part as well.
@@mapleext me 3
I’m also binning this channel.
this is actually a good channel. just not the shorts aspect
video : kindles interest
comments : research library
I like how you crop your video to hide the 4 engines on the A340
That's because this is cut from the full video in 16:9, whereas Shorts have to be between 9:16 and 1:1.
@@deus_ex_machina_that’s not an excuse. Content creator could have shown the full image if he wanted to but he chose not to.
It’s not like it’s gonna affect the video..
@@KhaledTheSaudiHawkIIYou expect them to replace entire pieces of footage and create a virtually new video when the whole purpose of this one is to quickly create a short out of a full length video?
@@NaenaeGamingNo, the footage very much shows 4 engines, but it has been strategically cut out. It isn’t easy to show or at least say there are 4 engines when you are a big UA-camr catering to a huge audience and gaining so many views.
I tell it to you so you don’t have to go to his video.
The a340‘s Build began in 1986. In those days, high bypass ratio turbofans were just beginning to become available. There were no 110″+ diameter turbofans such as Rolls Royce Trent 900 / 1000 (1996) or General Electric GE90s (1993)
So to get this big plane in the air they had to gain enough trust what was only possible with four engines.
What about the A330?
The reason the A340 has four engines in because of ETOPS, only aircraft with 3 to 4 engines could cross the Atlantic so instead of putting in two big engines on the plane (like the A330) they opted to have 4 small ones to give the same power outpost necessary for the plane to fly and get around the ETOPS
As well the A 340s first flight was in the early 90s. And the 787 has 20 years of technological advance in its build.
@@jeffbrien2282 yeah that too
More useful than a damn UA-cam video.
Well twin engines can cross the Atlantic. They just have to be ETOPS certified and be able to fly on only one of two engines. And I don't think these puny engines are ETOPS certified.
@@chasemiller7974 remember that at the time you couldn't do the crossing with a twin engine plane only quad engine planes were viable. Very quickly the regulations changes and the A340 quickly became obsolete.
You make it seem like it only has two tiny engines, when the plane actually has 4.
They are 20 years between them.................
Exactly apples to oranges...
And it was smart for that time until ETOPS changed everything. It was a clever idea to have the possibilities to interchange engine parts with the A320 and body parts with the A330.
SpeedRunning Shorts: Basically the engines that they needed weren’t made at the time of the aircraft’s production and were gonna take a while to make them, so they optted for 4 CFM56’s as mentioned in the vid that were originally made for the smaller A320-200.
didn't even answer your own question
Totally agree
Yeah
That’s because this is a short generated from a full length video
@@NaenaeGamingnot true. Thats because op is gay
How about: the a340 is the better aircraft with its perfect safety rating to date while the 787 has had a few catastrophic problems while it’s still newish
safety isn't all that makes a good aircraft. the A340 burns notably more fuel and likely has higher maintenance costs than the 787.
There have been a few A340 hull losses without any deaths, and none on the 87. The 87 definitely had some teething issues though (battery fires come to mind), however most new airliners have some teething issues in the beginning of their operations.
The airbus A340-300 is a quite old aircraft so airbus didint have a choice to put normal big engines on th massive airliner but when it finaly had the tech they put normal big engines on the airliner so dont blame the aircraft or airbus they didint have choice
@@Mr.Amtrakwhat about the A330?
Wow comparing two fundamentally different jets from completely different time periods. Nice
Also guys for extra reading, if you’re into science look at lift and thrust vs weight and drag, you don’t need massive engines for the engines to work, you just need enough thrust to create enough air movement to make sure the aircraft stays in the air. I’m glad this comment section is coming together, OP is a dog for doing this
I rather search the reason on google than “watch the part 2”
I mean it’s annoying but it’s not a “part 2”
Do keep in mind ur on a site with long and short form content!
This is a good way for creators to get there long form content noticed in fact! It’s hard to so so in the first place
@@EvilNeuro it's a good way to piss people off.
dude you guys are so cringy. he’s a long form content creator and he wants to give huge amounts of info.
Bro compares a 30yr old plane to one of the most technologically advanced aircrafts today. Bruh
This was the quickest subscribe/unsubscribe click I've ever done. And I have no regrets Coby
same lol
Poor coby
Same
unsubbed
why?
Ah yes comparing a plane from the 1980's to the 2010's
The 500/600 variants had a bit more power with the RR Trent 500 engines
a bit??????
when the thrust get double?????????
@@alderlake12th nah the 500/600 is 2x more powerful than the 200 varieny
Yet, they didn’t look as good
They were a lot more than a bit more powerful. They were known for having quite ample power.
@@paulspomer16 double power
Not talking about the A340-500/600 in this is pretty criminal…as well as the mistakes others mention.
You compare two completely different aircraft. The A340 has been designed 20 years before B787. It is like comparing the last iPhone with Nokia 3310.
Finally someone said it!
I find it strange that the A340, which has been on the market for almost 30 years, is being compared to the B787, which has only been on the market since 2011. Incidentally, this is the same year that Airbus stopped building the A340.... it would be very surprising if there had been no innovation in engine development since it was built. Today's engines are much more powerful and at the same time more economical and reliable than the old ones. That's why only two engines are still being installed.
The successor to the A340 is also the B787's direct competitor, the A350, which is also equipped with two engines.
Can you also explain why Windows 10 is better than Windows 95??? Thank you
Windows 10 sucks …
Watch part 2 for more
@@sking2173 ok boomer
lol
I love a video where a question is asked and then they talk about every except the answer to the question
A340 has 4 engines, so each one can be a bit smaller compared to same-sized twin engine jets. The main requirement in certification is that it has to be able to continue a take-off in case one engine quits, so you actually still have 3 more engines running to get you off the ground.
Read somewhere that Europe allowed twin engine planes for long distance flights, whereas Asia did not allow twin engine planes and required 4 engines to cross the Pacific Ocean. As a result, A330 was used in Europe for transatlantic flights, while A340 was meant for Asian carriers to fly over the Pacific Ocean.
Another fully block creator. Thanks for wasting my time
You weren’t spending your time well if it was just scrolling through shorts
Imagine the A340 doing a tug of war with a Boeing 777
It’s because of ETOPS. An old law said aircraft had to have 3 or 4 engines to cross oceans on long routes, so they would put tiny engines on to make it legal.
Fuel efficiency, saved you having to go to the full video
Bit unfair as their is nearly 20 years between them... 20% of the time man have been flying at the dates they first flew. Its a bit like comparing a Boeing 707 and 737... or 727 and A320
The A340-300 as we all know is a pencil with wings with 4 hairdyer engines
Bruh the A340 is in no way a comparison to a 787. The A350 is the ACTUAL modern competitor
No it’s not, the 777 is the comparison to the A350
@@L.Plant1nah a340 600 is actually more similar to 777 200lr
The A340-300 was designed with four smaller engines instead of two larger engines for several reasons:
Engine redundancy: By using four engines instead of two, the A340-300 has redundancy in case one or two engines fail. This provides an extra layer of safety for long-haul flights over remote areas.
Noise regulations: The A340-300 was designed to meet strict noise regulations, particularly for takeoff and landing. Smaller engines tend to be quieter than larger ones, and using four engines allows for a better distribution of noise.
Range and payload: The smaller engines on the A340-300 allowed for a greater payload and longer range than if two larger engines were used. This was important for airlines looking to fly long-haul routes with a high capacity.
Fuel efficiency: While larger engines can be more fuel efficient, the smaller engines used on the A340-300 were still able to provide good fuel efficiency, particularly at cruising altitudes. This helped to reduce operating costs for airlines.
Asks question, talks for little, directs to different video for actual explanation. Channel should be called Cody Prevaricates
An Airbus exec once joked the A340 suffered frequent birdstrikes from behind
You obviously forgot the IL86 exists.
Captains at my airline love to tell stories of back in the day when you saw IL86's climb with 200ft per minute. :')
Gonna be honest even at my fattest of all asses with a full compliment of snacks and miscellaneous cargo I can outdo a +200’ fpm in a C172 😂😂😂
@@dmitrikupryaov7845 Yea. the IL86 was pretty miserable in that regard hahaha
@@EinfachLuap to be fair the entire aircraft is pretty miserable. Basically no export value thanks to its delayed production start, shit engines and avionics, and high operation costs doomed the IL-86 to yet another example of Soviet and communist failure.
That being said I do find the concept behind the IL-86 an ingenious one. Rather than adapt the airport, the Soviet’s sought to adapt the plane and accommodate more passengers without requiring a proper runway and terminal capable of handling 747-esque/jumbo/heavy-class aircraft
@@dmitrikupryaov7845 couldn't agree more!
It's a lot easier to explain this than you make it out. First of all, REGULATIONS FOR ETOPS STATE THAT AN AIRCRAFT MUST BE WITHIN 2000 MILES OF AN ACCOMMODATING AIRFIELD. Second if the aircraft is unable to maintain a 2000 nautical mile distance to an accommodating airfield than a minimum of three engines is required. This is the primary reason for the development of the DC 10. Third answer the question you pose in a video rather than bait viewers into watching something part 2.
A friend, who has flown the 727, 737, 757, and 767, calls the A340 "5 APUs flying in formation."
Well you could have told here so I’ll go look it up on Google 😂
Short answer: because there’s 4 of them, not just 2.
Long answer: commercial airplanes are all designed to be able to fly, or even take off with one engine failure (imagine a bird strike or compressor stall, etc). This means a 25% loss of power on a quad jet, versus a 50% loss on a twin jet. That means just 1 engine on a twin jet has to be able to power the plane, as opposed to 3 on a quad jet.
Less engines still usually means better fuel efficiency because the power-to-weight ratio is better on bigger engines. You wouldn’t have to run the two engines at as high of a rate as you would with the four when you’re climbing or cruising, which means less fuel consumption.
Also half as much engine maintenance required!
Oh, also, this is a comparison between a 50 year old design (the A340 has the same airframe as the A330 which was a stretched A300 which was released in 1972. Fuselage is essentially unchanged) and a 15 year old design (787 was launched in 2009). The 787 is also 50% composite material which is far lighter (and stronger, and more expensive upfront) than aluminum, which means the engines have to work even less to power the plane since it’s lighter - thus saving a lot of fuel.
The A340-200 is among the most “underpowered” commercial airliners but is obviously perfectly safe and the “underpowered” just means the engines run at a higher percentage during flight (engines usually only ever run 100% during takeoff/initial climb, and go-around).
And yet it has a excellent safety record and fits where the A380 can't.
The CFM56 can have as much as 34,000 lbs of thrust, that's a TON of power! So much so that 4 of them can propel a 275 ton aircraft to more than 600 mph.
To say these are tiny engines with a weak amount of power is truly ignorant.
I’m Coby Trains choo choo
plz tell me what is coby train???????????????????????????
lmao
A340 was ahead of its time when it was first produced. Putting it up against a MODERN Aircraft like the Dreamliner is ridiculous, it’s like putting an old Lamborghini against a new 2023 version
Rather put 777-200lr
They fixed it with the A340-500 variant that got larger engines
A340-600 also
It’s because of budget cuts, they have to use tiny engines because, other engines are over the budget and airbus got a budget cut, soooo they have to use tiny engines.
He's comparing a jet made 10 years ago to one made 40 years ago 💀
*Hello*
*Smallest things in the world...*
*4. Molecules*
*3. Atoms*
*2. Electrons*
*1. THE SMALLEST THING EVER is an A340 engine.._*
The airbus doesn’t nose dive into the ground like the Boeing
Indeed
I flew a 737 fitted with CFM engines but what made these engines unique where they were in cooperation withsnecm and I got to tell you this plane took off fast like a fighter and maneuvered like a fighter I will never forget this particular 737
Sounds like quite the ride my guy
well yeah the A340-300 is 18 years older than the 787 😐
no, age isnt the problem here, the engines that the A340 uses was made for smaller planes (like the A320, which is a medium range aircraft) and the 777 is older than the A340 but yet it's still more powerful
That is only true for the A340-300 which is much older than the newer variants.
EXACTLY AND WHY DOESS BEO ALWAYS HATE ON AIRBUS, LIKE I SQEAR IN EVERY VIDEO FROM HIM HE HATES ON AIRBUS
@@PassionForSpeedF1 it's cause of the 60min rule so they needed 4 engines for long distance
@@edan7813 hes not hating, hes just saying that the airbus A340 is really underpowered, you can compare it to the 757 which has really strong engines
A retired Swiss air captain once told me an A340 doesn’t have 4 engines. It has 5 APUs and doesn’t actually rotate. Instead it runs along the runway and eventually finds the curvature of the earth where the ground falls away from the plane and the plane just keeps going in a straight line. 😂😂😂
The deltaeder can cut the matter from 2 nuclear point, that is the left, and right side depending on the gravity, where the deltaeder is moved. The deltaeder has 2 cutting points, one is the side, the other is the molecular structure, because the oxygen is replaced .
That is why airplane wigs look like a deltaeder, not because of the air pressure applied to the wings. When a plane carries explsives, the cutting ability of the bomb affects the nearby huses, a special route is needed.
Thank you
Being a 4 motor plane, the A340 is technically the world's 3rd coolest airliner, only behind the A380 (in 2nd place) and your majesty, the Boeing 747 (ruling them all)
This video was just put together by some AI app probably, but the 340 competes more with the 777 in terms of size and capacity. It was designed to work around etops restrictions that aren't really much of a factor anymore by using 4 tiny little engines that don't burn dramatically more fuel than the 777's massive 2. But when you're running an airline company, every tenth of a percent counts big time. These weren't sold because they were made obsolete essentially by regulators.
You're welcome, and if it was actually you who made this short, you need to do better, because that is just verbal diarrhea.
Comparison of the two aircraft and their turbofan engines? The technological leap in aircraft propulsion systems incorporated in the Dreamliner is evident as a 21st century airliner. But to be honest, I feel safer in A340 than a Deathliner flying coffin ⚰️
To save you time:
Basically the engine manufacturer told AirBus that they came up with a 20% more efficient design that used gearboxes. Then, AirBus was telling the Airlines that they would get that design soon… Sadly, that engine came too late and AirBus didn’t want to disappoint the Airlines. So in the end they used fuel efficent CFM Engines because they wanted to keep the fuel efficiency that they promised the airlines. Thats why the Engines are small and slow.
Me chilling with A340-600 💯💯💯🗣🗣🗣
“Why did airbus put tiny engines on this massive plane?”
“Well, check out my latest UA-cam video to learn the whole story”
Im not 100% sure but when the A340 was build, it was a rule that transatlantic planes need 4 engines, so they just put up 4 smaller ones to check this from the to do list and also have same maintenace line like the short distance Airbus in the fleet of the airlines.
The aircraft manufacturer doesn`t decide which engines to use. The airline does.
even then, an aircraft will only have a handful of engine options to select from
The a340 was built when there was a law that you need 4 or more engines on your aircraft to cross the ocean, but nowadays theres no more law like that
Finally a Useful comment
Short answer for all you people with a life: IT HAS FOUR OF THEM. IF IT DIDNT HAVE FOUR ENGINES THEY WOULD HAVE BEEN BIGGER
It’s because at the time planes required 4 engines to be able to operate on transatlantic flights due to safety reason but shortly after a340s release the “etops” ratings were introduced which allowed planes with 2 engines to go transatlantic making the a340 redundant
I always thought that A340 had difficult to takeoff. Until 747 or 380 are heaviest and they have excellent performance.
the plane matching the a343 the closest is the a333 as they are pretty much identical.
also for those wanting to know:
The 4 engine configuration is a result of etops ratings being too low back in the day to make the a330 cross the atlantic, thus airbus made what can be considered a 4 engine variant of the 330.
Lastly: Pilots' opinion of the a343: it's an a330 with 4 hair-dryers rather than 2 engines.
It was fitted with 4 Pifco Hair Dryer engines to make it the most economical long range plane. In the cruise it used less fuel than a 747 taxiing. Sure it was over an hour slower on the HKG-LHR run but very very cheap to run. That’s all.
What is the fuel consumption per hour for each aircraft? This is what the operators are most interested in. The A340 may need more runway on takeoff and be slower in climb, but if overall fuel consumption is less than the competing models, operator will chose the A-340. The KC-135R (CFM-56) burns roughly 9200 lbs per hour (on average). The KC-135A (turbojets) burned about 18,000 lbs per hour in the first hour of flight, 16000lbs the 2nd hour, and 14,000lbs the 3hr. Two engine jets of equal weight to the A-340 generally have higher burn rates per hour. The CFM-56 engines provide outstanding reliability and efficiency. 4 engine jets do not concern themselves with 2, 3, and 4 hour ETOPS operations or drift down operations in high terrain. A lot of different reasons why operators chose the airframes for the given mission.
The reason: when the airbus a340 was being designed, the normal engine manufacturer failed to produce the engine power needed for the a340. So, airbus had to change to slightly underpowered engines in order to meet the a340s release date, expecting to change them later on. However, they never did.
Thank me later ✌🏾
There’s a subtlety here that is often missed. Yes the 787 gets to its INITIAL cruising altitude in 25 minutes but later would likely have to step climb on a long route. The A340 can reach its max altitude at any time from the takeoff point and so can always operate at optimum. That makes a much bigger difference on long sectors than the extra fuel it uses on a longer climb. It’s essentially a long cruise aeroplane, not a climb aeroplane.
The A340-300 was the weakest plane due to the smaller engine but it was at least better than those Boeing 737 Max series planes where safely is their main issues. Flying in a Boeing 737 Max series plane is like flying in a ⚰️ casket, the risk 💀 is there.
Well, the A340 had its first flight in 1991. and that time point the engines were on top. In 2001 the A340-600 received engines double in power. The 787 with its engines came into services a decade later.
You forget that not only there is the A340-200 ( smaller ? ) but also the A340-500 and the A340-600 which have much bigger and much more powerful engines ( Rolls Royce's Trents 500, Trents 560 or Trents 600 ) and have a range of nearly 18,000 kms
A340: I ain’t weak look at a3.
A3: What ya talking about?
There's no comparison, the 787 is literally the next generation.
"Weakest" is not really a viable word. "Underpowered" is a better word for it. Long story short, the plane was intended to be powered by a proposed engine that never met the light of day, so the plane was forced to use an existing engine originally designed for smaller planes.
To save you having to watch the video: I’ve not watched it but I’ve read that when it was in production, twin engine planes had to be within 1 hour of a diversion point, making transatlantic flights impossible. So this was made to do transatlantic flights. But shortly after it was finished, regulations were changed to twin jets having to be *3 hours* from a diversion point, making transatlantic flights possible. This made most airlines choose more modern twin jets and cancel their a340 engines
Airbus villain arc for putting small engines to big planes
An Air France pilots once said that That the a340 is able to take off because earth is round...
That's because airports like Schiphol are forced by the government to reduce engine noise from its incoming aircrafts. Most likely because the Dutch government thinks that smaller engines means quieter engines.
Ilyushin 86: hold my weaker engines.
The reason of this is because when the a340 was made there was a rule where u needed 4 engines to fly overseas so pilots could use the other 3 engines if a engine fails but then the rule was lifted
A340 and A330 use the same wing/fuselage and it was introduced before EETOPS. A340 was able to fly routes prohibited for twinjets, but the rules changed and the A330 dominated
He isn't weak! He's doing his best. >:(
I'd still choose the Airbus over the boeing!
Basically there were regulations against crossing bodies of water with less than 4 engines so they made this sad aircraft and then in the middle of production the FAA suddenly changed the rules to make it so 2 engine aircraft were able to make flights over oceans but the a340 was already being shipped out to airlines at that point
The reason for it is back when the a340 was created to do a transatlantic full flight above the oceans you needed 4 engines so that it is considered safe to fly. So airbus decided to put 4 small engines instead of 2 big ones and now as technology has advanced 2 engine is safe enough to do a transatlantic flight and powerful enough and that is also the reason why the a340 is getting retired
Fuel efficiency. Everyone in the airline industry knows Airbuses fly like the Good Year blimp
An A340 used to land at DFW airport at about 1800 hrs . It was beautiful and looks like a good aircraft graceful. I worked on mostly Boeing for 30 years. Lufthansa replaced them with 747 eventually on this flight.