Airbus A340 NEW "tiny" Engines Work Shocked The Aviation Industry! Here's Why

Поділитися
Вставка
  • Опубліковано 24 чер 2024
  • Airbus A340 NEW "tiny" Engines Work Shocked The Aviation Industry! Here's Why
    ===
    00:00 Intro
    00:54 Why four engines?
    03:22 IAE Superfan
    05:04 CFM56
    07:29 The following variations
    09:32 Concluding
    ===
    #fligavia #boeing #airbus #airbus340 #aviations
    ===
    Airbus A340 NEW "tiny" Engines Work Shocked The Aviation Industry! Here's Why
    More than 30 operations but without a single fatal accident, "The Pencil of the Skies" is always in the minds of industry fans as the most elegant aircraft with long slender wings and slim fuselage. Yes, the Airbus A340 makes a strong impression on passengers with its extremely spacious cabin and peaceful experience on board. However, the A340, specifically the -300 version with a more leisurely takeoff than ever, is said to have the weakest engines.
    So why does Airbus put such small engines on the A340's long, bulky fuselage? How do these engines affect the aircraft's performance? Let’s find out in today’s episode!
    Airbus A340 NEW "tiny" Engines Work Shocked The Aviation Industry! Here's Why
    But before we start, if you're new, please leave a like and subscribe to help us build this channel. And you'll also be the first to see our new content in the future! Now let’s dive in!
    Why four engines?
    Well, before now, many people have always wondered: Why does the A3 40-300 have four small engines instead of two large engines? The manufacturer has prioritized redundancy above all when producing this long-range aircraft. To perform long-haul flights over the sea for extended periods of time, aircraft need to be able to maintain flight, even if one engine stalls. A two-engine plane will lose 50% of its power, while a 4-engine plane will only lose 25%. It is clear that in the event of an engine failure, having four engines provides a higher level of safety than an aircraft with only two engines.
    Airbus A340 NEW "tiny" Engines Work Shocked The Aviation Industry! Here's Why
    And also when the A3 40 was designed and introduced in the early 19 90’s, there was still market demand for a four-engine wide-body aircraft for long-haul flights. At that time, the Extended Range Twin Engine Performance Standards regulations were more restrictive. These regulations limit the distance a twin-engine aircraft can fly from the nearest airport, which affects route planning and flexibility, especially over oceans and regions. remote areas.
    And by using four engines, the A3 40 doesn't suffer from these limitations. This allows the A3 40 to operate on long transoceanic routes and other remote areas without the same limitations as twin-engine aircraft.

КОМЕНТАРІ • 70

  • @wyldertaylor41
    @wyldertaylor41 10 днів тому +3

    Ive always loved the A340! Its such an elegant aircraft with a unique design. The four-engine layout is iconic.

    • @FLIGAVIA
      @FLIGAVIA  10 днів тому

      Couldn't agree more!

  • @rtbrtb_dutchy4183
    @rtbrtb_dutchy4183 9 днів тому +5

    I’m type rated on the A340. Most of the numbers in this video is incorrect. No, the airplane doesn’t cruise at M.78. It cruises usually at M.83. Other airplanes don’t cruise anywhere near Mach.92.
    No, the aircraft doesn’t climb to 38000 in 40 min and neither does the b787 do it in 25 min. Not at max take of weight. Except for business jets, no airline can go straight to 38000 feet.
    As to runway length, you can’t compare the 787 with the A340. If you look at a 777, depending on which one, some will need 11000 feet of runway and some need 9000 feet. The 747s need just about the same.
    The 500/600 engines are more powerful because the max weight was increased by 100 tons. Guess what, at max take off weight, it performs the same as the 200/300 and requires the same runway.

  • @tamiramai
    @tamiramai 10 днів тому +2

    I flew on an A340 once and it was such a smooth ride. I miss seeing them around!

    • @FLIGAVIA
      @FLIGAVIA  10 днів тому

      Let’s try it next time my friend

  • @chrisweavers903
    @chrisweavers903 10 днів тому +13

    This about 20 years late of any relevance

  • @avantikahmqj
    @avantikahmqj 10 днів тому +2

    Great explanation on why Airbus chose four smaller engines instead of two larger ones. Makes sense from a safety and regulatory perspective.

  • @kaylanaquach
    @kaylanaquach 10 днів тому +2

    The A340s spacious cabin was always a plus for long-haul flights. Sad to see it disappearing from the skies. 😢

    • @FLIGAVIA
      @FLIGAVIA  10 днів тому

      Humm… I love A340

  • @marcmcreynolds2827
    @marcmcreynolds2827 8 днів тому +2

    "Shocked the aviation industry" with four CFM-56s in the 1990s? I did the brake energy analysis for a 4 x CFM-56 aircraft in 1979. If anyone was shocked, they managed to conceal it.

  • @andylewis210
    @andylewis210 10 днів тому +6

    You should have published this video 20 years ago pal

  • @kimberlynne86
    @kimberlynne86 10 днів тому +1

    Wow, I had no idea about the IAE Superfan! Its fascinating to learn how different engines could have changed the A340s performance.

    • @FLIGAVIA
      @FLIGAVIA  10 днів тому

      Glad you enjoyed it!

  • @kazant5270
    @kazant5270 6 днів тому +2

    Talking of the A340-300 whilst flashing up pics of the A340-500 confirms a lack of attention to detail and accuracy. Disappointing as the article could have been well done and interesting. Edit and post again!

    • @FLIGAVIA
      @FLIGAVIA  6 днів тому

      ✈️✈️✈️

  • @kazant5270
    @kazant5270 6 днів тому

    The A340-300 was Airbus’ well marketed and commercially successful ‘optimized quad’.

    • @FLIGAVIA
      @FLIGAVIA  6 днів тому

      Thanks for your feedback

  • @nasirilyas834
    @nasirilyas834 10 днів тому +4

    This AI voice is convincing but when you say a340 minus 300 then you stop watching it 😂

  • @jacobzimmermann59
    @jacobzimmermann59 9 днів тому +1

    That was not genius, it was a mistake that made the A340 not competitive against the 777. In fact the A340 holds the dubious distinction of being one of the only two Airbus models so far that were inferior to their Boeing rivals (the other being the A330 Neo).

  • @herceg6772
    @herceg6772 10 днів тому +3

    Why mention this at all now? Airbus is not doing this anymore. Not relevant

  • @tonylam9548
    @tonylam9548 9 днів тому +1

    People tunnel visioned on power, losing an engine in a twin means losing 50% of the power, as commonly believed. But the real world effects are more like losing 60% of the power, because that engine that quit, not only it is not producing power, it is dead weight and drag. The only way the power loss is really 50% is if one engine just retarded to flight idle. That is why twin engined airlines climb faster than older planes, because the FAA demand a stricter minimum climb rate with just one engine.

  • @derrickholmes2586
    @derrickholmes2586 9 днів тому +1

    Bollocks! The 340 cruised at .82

  • @CJ-xl3dh
    @CJ-xl3dh 10 днів тому +2

    I love the a340, but sorry fella ;your info is pretty out of date. The engines on the early a340 are the ones that were originally on the A320 family. 4engine large jets are still on their way out and only used to fill the gap from Airbus, Boeing and Russia's UAC order backlogs.

    • @FLIGAVIA
      @FLIGAVIA  10 днів тому

      Yep thanks for your comment ❤

    • @CJ-xl3dh
      @CJ-xl3dh 10 днів тому

      @@FLIGAVIA apologies for the typos in my original message which I've now amended. Look forward you publishing some new content. There is a niche for this topic like Simple flying, Coby Explanes and DJ Aviation. There is a place for your content especially if it's current. Four good areas to delve into could be 1- Boeing and whether it might reconsider the new MMA(Middle Market Aircraft) or will it revisit a buy in, in the form of Embraer; 2-Airbus;considering developing the A220 500 and what that means for the A320 and A319.; China's C919 what it needs (from a service infrastructure perspective) to more marketably export and provide servicing to potential customers outside China, as well as Russia's MC21 and SSJ100; the local development of once foreign components including engines, efficiency, and what that could mean for market share in the east and global South.The world needs a real break to the duopoly.

  • @navajojohn9448
    @navajojohn9448 10 днів тому +2

    I heard a 340 crew tell ATC they had blow driers for motors and unable to increase climb rate.

  • @nigelwatkins558
    @nigelwatkins558 9 днів тому +2

    You are talking a load of Krap

  • @aryaansrivastava3756
    @aryaansrivastava3756 9 днів тому +1

    A340 looks Weird. A380 looks Super Scary. Before Singapore Airlines stopped flying A380s to Melbourne and SQ will NEVER bring back A380s to that City. I flew from Melbourne on 4 Nov 2023. I arrived at Gate 9 and Checked the SQ plane there whether it was a380 or not. Much to my Surprise, it was the A380 and when I found it, I got Super shocked by the Size of that Singapore Airlines plane which took me back to Singapore. It was registered 9V-SKQ.

    • @FLIGAVIA
      @FLIGAVIA  8 днів тому

      nice, thanks for your sharing✈️

  • @StefanWithTrains3222
    @StefanWithTrains3222 10 днів тому +4

    Did you know that like, this whole video is pure garbage. The engines that are fitted on the A340-200 and A340-300 were made for regional airliners? They were severely underpowered and thus needed loads of space to take off and weren't fuel efficient.

    • @rtbrtb_dutchy4183
      @rtbrtb_dutchy4183 9 днів тому

      They didn’t need loads of space to take off. Their runway requirements are no different than other 4 engine aircraft.

  • @aryaansrivastava3756
    @aryaansrivastava3756 9 днів тому +2

    It's Weird to See A340s. I prefer other Tech aircraft like A350 and 777X.

    • @Morecreativemind
      @Morecreativemind 7 днів тому

      Well Of course, newer planes are efficient and sleek, but these older planes are amazing and beautiful

  • @johnbutler3742
    @johnbutler3742 10 днів тому

    the most beautiful 'art deco' style design since the de havilland of '66. if it says RR on the engines I fly it! I do not climb on the Dreamliner with duct tape on the wings, more like a Doomliner; and when surfboard-material cracks? (And I actually ride Kawasaki!)

  • @james_prasanth_w
    @james_prasanth_w 10 днів тому +2

    Why do people post such videos to waste others'time and resources. Such videos should be boycotted

  • @user-vb1xy3kc3o
    @user-vb1xy3kc3o 10 днів тому +2

    What's with the minus ?

  • @francismarshall8201
    @francismarshall8201 9 днів тому +1

    i thik if he did give away his money it will cause inflation to go though the roof

  • @l2etranger
    @l2etranger 10 днів тому

    This video is from another reality. Airbus doesn’t manufacture this plane any longer, but it uses its own existing fleet as a research lab in aeronautics on more specific properties for future applications.

    • @FLIGAVIA
      @FLIGAVIA  10 днів тому

      ✈️✈️✈️

  • @TheChiefEng
    @TheChiefEng 9 днів тому +3

    AI voiced, no thanks.
    To use AI voice for content is a sign of laziness.

  • @navajojohn9448
    @navajojohn9448 10 днів тому +1

    If more engines doesn't the probability of an engine failure increase?

    • @neilpickup237
      @neilpickup237 10 днів тому

      Statistically it does, but the effect of that loss is much lower as there is only a reduction in power of 25% rather than 50% for a twin. This was explained in the video.

  • @wotan10950
    @wotan10950 10 днів тому

    Ooo, wow! I hope USAirways orders the updated 340.

    • @FLIGAVIA
      @FLIGAVIA  10 днів тому

      I think they will

    • @CJ-xl3dh
      @CJ-xl3dh 9 днів тому

      THE Airbus 340 series has been discontinued quite a few years ago. It and the A330 were both made at the same time but with the extention of ETops and the Covid pandemic 4engined large commercial aircraft were rendered obsolete (due to air carrier bottom line).

    • @wotan10950
      @wotan10950 8 днів тому

      @@CJ-xl3dh I guess you don’t recognize sarcasm 😉

    • @CJ-xl3dh
      @CJ-xl3dh 8 днів тому

      @@wotan10950 Oh, sorry;I I do know US Airways is no more but thought someone was genuinely relying on the content. No less, good one😉. I m do think this provider could gain UA-cam markets hare if they do research for real content.

  • @FrewstonBooks
    @FrewstonBooks 10 днів тому

    Today any twin can fly any route in the world. this video must have been produced in the last millennium.

    • @FLIGAVIA
      @FLIGAVIA  10 днів тому

      ✈️✈️✈️

  • @AlfCalson
    @AlfCalson 10 днів тому +1

    ✈️

  • @o0OPioloO0o
    @o0OPioloO0o 4 дні тому

    Compairing, 20 year difference aircraft’s, only talking about required runway and not about performance vs payload capability. In hot and high airfields any bi aircraft has nothing to do with a quad.
    All it’s about maintaining 4 engines instead of 2

    • @FLIGAVIA
      @FLIGAVIA  3 дні тому

      yeah thanks for sharing

  • @Besir355
    @Besir355 10 днів тому

    Its out if date likewise a330!!!

    • @FLIGAVIA
      @FLIGAVIA  10 днів тому

      Yep, we will do more research on it

  • @Besir355
    @Besir355 10 днів тому

    25% lose as u say but probability is double when u compare twin engine aircrafts-more engine more problems more probability of engine lost!!!

  • @ianpatterson3471
    @ianpatterson3471 19 годин тому

    I hate hearing "minus", as in A340-300 - what's wrong with "dash" ? (To my mathematical mind "340 minus 300" ....... equals net 40! :-P)

    • @FLIGAVIA
      @FLIGAVIA  15 годин тому

      many thanks for your feedback, we'll improve it

  • @donsland1610
    @donsland1610 10 днів тому +3

    What a waste of time watching ridiculous videos like this!

  • @peterthorpe7635
    @peterthorpe7635 10 днів тому +1

    Another load of bullshit

  • @Besir355
    @Besir355 10 днів тому +1

    A340 were so weak and unsafe, climb ratio was so low, if u loose engine u almost finished

    • @verttikoo2052
      @verttikoo2052 10 днів тому +3

      Unsafe at the same time when it is the safest?

    • @verttikoo2052
      @verttikoo2052 10 днів тому +1

      The A340 has never been involved in a fatal accident, although there have been six hull losses. No one has ever died flying A340.

    • @rtbrtb_dutchy4183
      @rtbrtb_dutchy4183 9 днів тому

      None of what you said is correct.