Most of the time, I fly Lufthansa, so for Long Haul, it was often A340. So for a long time, it was just the standard Long Haul aircraft for me and the one to compare when I got in a different one. It's fairly good for the passengers. Much more silent than a 747.
The A340 wasn't great for airlines, but it was so damn lovely for passengers - quiet, comfy, fantastic 2-4-2 layout. I absolutely love flying on the 340.
Saying that a340s are "quiet" is funny to me. They might be on board, but from outside of the cabin, these planes are some of the noisiest I've ever heard. The amounts of time they have woken me up is incredible...
@@coconutdreams1238 When I live close to the Miami airport. I was so surprised to hear something that loud climbing over our house. When I get up of bed, then saw it was the a380 from BA. Really that thing make so a noise! The most quiet plane that past over my house was 787 which the GE engines.
Flew on an A340-300 from Brisbane to Frankfurt (via Taiwan) in 2005. Did note the long take-off run, especially in Taiwan, but it was on of the smoothest and quietest flights I have been on. Felt like the engines were on idle during cruise.
@@Roboseal2 that's one *HELL* of a talent you've got there old chap. A mouse sneezing must sound like a howitzer going off next to you with that sort of SPL ear sensitivity. Sennheisser, Rode and the likes will want to copy the make up of your ear drums I reckon. If you let them have a quick look, you'll become a millionaire in no time! Typo edited.
That's some massive hyperbole, it's one of the highest selling widebody aircrafts of all time. Aircraft are also not kept idle, that is unprofitable, they are flying for as much as possible. @@MIO9_sh
@@W19-m2e That's not how stats work. The A340 has made less than 3 million flights. *_NO_* modern plane should crash even once after just 3 million flights
I've flown the A-340 a few times. What really stuck with me was how quiet and spacious it was, so that's usually what comes to mind whenever the plane is referenced.
This video is complete garbage. No mention of Specific Fuel Capacity, Wing Aspect-Ratio (long and thin is actually BETTER) or reduced weight, to mention a few things..
Once the A340 was upgraded to the Rolls Royce Trent 500`s they were an extremely powerful beast. My uncle was a captain on these planes with Virgin Atlantic.
I flew the A340-300 from BCN to JFK back in 2000. To this day, I still remember feeling two things: we are never getting off the ground and once we did, that we are going to hit any building in front of us. That airplane did not seem to want to climb. It freaked me out. I later flew the -600 variant, and it seemed more normal.
They’re certified to the same performance standards and will have the same minimum margin in both runway and obstacles. The difference is in the weight they can lift.
Same for me. I always described it as powered by 4 hairdryers. My 1st experience was a flight from Zurich to New York in 2000. Normally by the time you pass the terminal you are going very quickly and can feel the aircraft getting light. Not so in the 340 we passed the terminal at what felt like walking pace and we were still firmly on the ground when the trees @ the end of the runway came into sight. I seriously thought we were going to crash. After staggering into the air the climb seemed very slight & I wondered if it could remain airborne if it lost an engine. I had to fly back on it, but from then on I avoided any flight that scheduled a 340.
I flew one, Paris to US west coast, around 10 years ago, on air france. It was a great experience. First, a 4 engine plane looks great. And probably because it's underpowered, you feel the size and weight of the plane. It doesn't feel like your're on a single aisle for an hour flight. I really feels like you're on a big heavy plane, full of passengers and fuel, on a journey around the world. It takes off smoothly. In one word I would say : majestic.
I am an active A340-300 (as well as A333) pilot and I can tell u that I love it! As it is performance-limited it is a bit more challenging to fly, escpecially takeoffs. Not much margin for error and your rotation technique (read rate) must be on spot. Rotate too slowly, you run out of runway or don't meet obstacle clearances, rotate too quickly and you might tailstrike... The underperforming engines are also the reason for the different winglets (as you explained creating lift), otherwise it was designed to come with the then standard A320 wing fences which are still to be found on the A380.
Singapore 🇸🇬 Changi International Airport (SIN/WSSS) have 3 Long Runways up to 4000 metres long by 60 metres Wide, Enough of for any Current Aircraft types up to the Giant Airbus A380s. The Airbus A340-300 will definitely have No problem landing and taking off the Runways. Lufthansa German Airlines is Currently operating its older Airbus A340-300 on Flights ✈️ from Frankfurt to Singapore 🇸🇬 interim Aircraft and later might revert back to Either Airbus A350XWB-900, Giant Airbus A380 and newest Boeing 787-9 Dreamliner Aircraft to Singapore 🇸🇬
Thank you for adding so much understanding and context, many including myself despite flying for almost 8 years in the 1960s and 70s are very out of touch... (Comet-4Bs=silly-overpowered, the inboard engines were typically cut as soon as cruising altitude had been reached) ;)
People need to consider, what is the purpose of the plane. Simply put, it is to take off, climb, cruise and land. It is not required to do anything else. In appearance, it resembles the old Boeing 707 or the DC-8. But it is a much larger plane, in fact, a widebody perhaps of similar function to the Boeing 767. I live near the Fresno, California airport. I have seen a quad jet take off from there at least once, so I assume it must have been an A-340. Both FedEx and UPS operate Boeing 767s out of Fresno. I did recently see a widebody two engine jet parked there which did not quite look like a Boeing 767. Seeing the name of the carrier, I was able to determine that the carrier was a freight operator of the A-350. Plane spotting is very difficult in the jet era. Only a few planes are so distinctive that they are or were easy to identify on the ground or in the air. The A-340 is identifiable only because it is the last quad jet still flying other than the Boeing 747 and the A-380. I once saw the An-225 fly overhead at low altitude on the glide path into the McChord field in Lakewood, Washington. I didn't know what it was at the time but there are not any other huge airplanes with three engines on each wing and a double rudder. Too bad it was destroyed. It had no military use. They should have been smart enough to fly it to a neutral country while the Russian were still massing there forces and leave it there.
Hi Coby, You missed a very important point when comparing the B787 and the A340. One have 2 engines, and the other have 4. According the safety rules when designing a plane, a plane should be able to generate a minimum speed climb with one engine down in case of a failure during T/O after V1. On a twin jet this mean you lost 50% of the thrust, so it should be able to climb with only ONE engine, so you need powerfull engines to compensate. This is why the bigest engines on the world (GE90, GE 9X... ) are on twin jet, but not on the heaviest planes (A380 and B747) On a quad jet, one engine down mean you lost only 25% of thrust and still have have 3 engines. So these engines can be less powerfull and so more efficient. If you need 200 kN (CF6-80 for exemple) of thrust to make climb a plane a certain MTOW in case of a engine failure during T/O, on a twin jet you need 2 engines of 200kN, so a total of 400 kN. So the plane is powerfull when both engines are running. On a quad jet of the same MTOW with the same need of thrust to do a minimal climb, you can have 4 engines of 70 kN, so in case of one engine failure you still have 3x70 = 210 kN. But only 280 kN when the 4 engines are running. I though you will speak about this point in this video, but you missed it. A dissapointed aeronautical enginer
Would also like to point out that the 340 and 787 are also vastly different in terms of date of release and material available at the time, so I hardly see this as a fair comparison. It’s like comparing a car from the 80s with all of the immissions at the time to something like a hellcat these days. Just my opinion, of course.
This is a very flawed and myopic explanation for the question raised by the video’s title. As others will allude to, there are holes in the presenter’s argument that are pretty fundamental. Disappointing.
@@derektaylor2941 Thats a recipe for disaster. You could position your argument from a Cessnas point of view and argue about how ridiculous and excessive an a380 is in comparison. What a silly thing to do
I took a flight from Germany to Brazil in a Lufthansa's A340, it was new and clean, nice flight over all. The bathroom is amazing! it is on a lower deck, between the wings. Nice video.
Only flown on the A340-300 once. It was a flight from ORD to CDG on AirFrance in Business class. Flight was quiet, comfortable, and all around nothing to complain about (and as an Aviation geek myself, getting to sneak in a flight on an A340-300 made it great)
I flew the Airbus 340 on two routes. Non-stop Newark to Singapore and JFK to Bangkok. Each trip 18hr and 30min - the longest non-stop commercial flight. In my opinion the 340 is the most beautiful and elegant aircraft. The long, slender wings, the slim fuselage give it the appearance of lightness.
This video is complete garbage. No mention of Specific Fuel Capacity, Wing Aspect-Ratio (long and thin is actually BETTER) or reduced weight, to mention a few things..
I don't really know why, but the A340 has a special place in my heart. And I'm happy to say, as someone who doesn't fly terribly often, that I got to fly on one once, with Iberia. As we all know, it's an 8-abreast plane, with a 2-4-2 layout, which makes for a very comfortable experience since you don't need to climb over two people (or, more likely, make them stand up and feel bad about it) to get to the bathroom if you're sitting next to the window. I just hope that one day I'll get the chance to fly on the A380 as well, before it disappears for good.
Unless you are flying first class, try to avoid the A380. Just as compact as any other coach class and now you have to wait for twice as many passengers to board and unboard the plane. No benefit other than its totally awesome looking, from the outside.
I once flew on the Singapore Airlines SQ21, Newark to Singapore flight in an A340-500. At the time it was the longest flight in the world at around 18 hours. I remember the takeoff roll using almost the entire length of the runway, and the flight was still the smoothest I've experienced to date. Great aircraft.
Hey coby, I flew as pilot on the A340 for few years, mostly transcontinental from South America to Europe, it was always challenging on warm summer days out of Madrid, the initial climb was to low levels, like FL310/330. Always checking during the crossing of the inter tropical converging zone that the ISA didn’t affect our cruising level performance. Also, at max weight, on summer days, leaving Madrid always concerned about the Eng out procedure, the noise abatement and minimum crossing altitudes
10,000 hours A340 here and I really liked the aircraft. Far quieter and more fuel-efficient than Boeings (10,000 hours on those too, unfortunately), that's for sure
I flew on the A340-600 with RR engines. It had a highly distinctive sound and at cruise it was so quite I had to whisper to not wake up other passengers. At one point it flew over 1000km/h due to tailwind. Cool plane.
@@qianma6921 also it shouldn't matter, the control surfaces' speed relative to the air is the only thing that matters, so if there is a tailwind, the relative speed is still the same.
Nice video, thanks Coby. As an economy passenger, one thing I really liked about the A340-600 (at least those operated by Lufthansa back in the day) was the fact that the toilets are on the lower deck. A flight of stairs leads from economy class down to about 5 or 6 toilets. So going to the bathroom gives you a bit of exercise, important for economy passengers packed in like sardines. There is also a water fountain, so you can get water too. If you want to chat with someone, you could go down to the water fountain and stand there for a while. So the chatting doesn't disturb folks in the cabin who are sleeping!
This video is complete garbage. No mention of Specific Fuel Capacity, Wing Aspect-Ratio (long and thin is actually BETTER) or reduced weight, to mention a few things..
I practically grew up on Lufthansa A340s, flying from EWR to DUS and back. It's been 4 years since I last flew on one, but I still love them. The 2-4-2 seating is undeniably one of the best layouts, and the nostalgia factor is real for me. Last time I was on one, I visited the flight deck on arrival. I told the crew I was a big fan of the A340 and they said, direct quote albeit translated from German, "the A340 has fans?" Well yeah, it has four of them 😂
My dad was a senior A340 captain with TAP Air Portugal.I still think it's the most elegant plane in the skies, and it looked absolutely beautiful during the takeoff rotation... I remember one takeoff from Johannesburg airport: it was warm and the runway altitude is quite high. I tell you, it felt like it went on forever! I was never quite convinced that the plane would be able to meet the takeoff segments if there was an engine failure on takeoff, but I guess we have to trust the engineers :)
Well, she’s nicknamed “the hairdryer” for a reason. Nowadays though, guess that engine choice kind of works in its favour. There are so many CFM56s around, i’m sure finding spare parts is not difficult at all, only parts unique to this variant may be more scarce. If maintenance costs are indeed kept low, it explains why many developing countries’ airlines are choosing the A343 for long haul flying and why Lufthansa Group is still deploying them on routes worldwide.
@@CalebKam Which is why A340-300 passenger-to-freighter conversions never left the drawing board. The whole thing would _literally_ crash and burn in short order.
True. I wouldn't be suprised if Cubana starts looking at these. They love their quad-jets, and have been leasing Plus Ultra A340s from Spain to stand in for their IL-96s that can't operate to/from the EU anymore. I suspect the reliability and ease of maintinance of the A340 and wide availability of parts on the grey/used market would make it an ideal aircraft for them. Despite the embargo they've had no issue operating ATRs and leasing 340s, so this seems like a logical step for them. The 330 would make more sense, but after the IL-96 *anything* looks fuel efficient, and they do like those quads.
I was flying from Frankfurt to Honk kong in 2018. the A340-600 "Leipzig" Lufthansa. And it is still one of my favourite looking airplane and the toilets on the lower deck and the 2-4-2 seats in the back were super 👍🏼 And it is such a long and beautiful plane.
I flew in the Trent engine variant between JNB and JFK on South African. They only took off at night out of JNB due to heat and altitude. The one thing I enjoyed was the blue glow on the Trent engine exhaust as we flew over the Atlantic at night. I could see the thunderstorms and lightning over the Amazon near Recipe, and with the stars above I could almost imagine I was on the ISS.
I *love* flying on the A340, long-haul. Love the 2-4-2 seating, like the feeling of reassurance four engines gives on long over-ocean flights. I'd rather spend ten hours on an A340 than five on a 787. And it's not lost on me that no A340 has ever had a fatal crash.
An all aluminum airliner always is more comfortable than a carbon composite because the aluminum wing flexes more gently and the composite is stiff and rides like an economy car. I hated the 757 because it had an awful rough ride!! Plus 4 engines is always safer on a long over water flight!! I recently flew Hawiian A-330 and it was noisy and had a nasty ride. I would rather be on a wide body 340 everytime!!
I’ve flown a dew of a340’s mostly the 500’s with emirates from Auckland to London a few years back before the a380. They are special machines and I’ll always remember one specific aircraft A6-ERA for having the 2006 football World Cup livery.
@@peterkotara All Emirates flights 777/340/380 operated through OZ for NZ flights until a few years ago when a direct A380 flight was introduced from DXB. The 340-300 only flew to Perth, and some flights on the other types went through Asia (like SIN or KL). There was a 777 flight pre-covid that went DXB-DPS (Bali), to Auckland. All the DXB-SYD-AKL flights were on the A340-500 until replaced by the 380.
@@bossthefluff Thanks so much, that's exactly what I wanted to know, I flew frequently on the AKL/SYD/DBX (EK416 I think) never flew the 340 but remember on several occasions seeing all 3 380s on the ramp at AKL, it looked quite impressive. Poor pier B.
My first trip to London was in 2004 with Cathay Pacific (via Hong Kong) at that time the AKL to HKG utilised A340-300 and the HKG to LHR was B747-400 both flights were around 12 hours each. I remember that the A340 had a 2/4/2 economy seating and I was lucky on my return back to NZ to get a block of 4 to myself and effectively had a lie-flat bed (before they were common) The in flight video was akin to multi track VCR that played continuously (unlike today’s video on demand)
You could have also mentioned that twin engine airplanes need extra power reserve for a take off without one engine while a four engine like the A340 has a much lower power reserve, then end up with a low take off performance. This holds true for any quad jet.
That's correct, but additionally airlines typically don't accelerate as hard as the aircraft can during take off if it's not necessary, less power means less wear on the engines and less maintenance costs.
@@simonm1447 Most folks probably don't know but commerical airplanes use anywhere from 87% to 95% of available power on takeoffs. Never 100% unless of course they have a problem getting off the ground or encounter a mechanical failure. Believe that 100% power would shortly damage the engines and the reason it's only during emergency situations that it's used.
@@simonm1447 Yes, but also there is a minimum power setting since the airplane should reach V1 speed with enough runway left to reject the take off or to keep the roll without an engine. The V1 speed for a quad jet is lower since they can take off with 3 engines left without much increase on the take off length compared to a twin engine.
Good video. Minor correction. You start with the B757 as the "sports car" plane. The 757 was certified with two sets of engines. That plane had both Rolls engines and the Pratt & Whitney PW2037. Both are wide fan designs and I consider it a minor point. Yes, I work for P&W.
The PW 2000 engine on the 757 is a brother to the PW on the C-17. The AF wanted engines that shared at least a few parts and design features with a common commercial engine to keep costs down. They just put four on the wings and it gave the cargo plane very good performance even when stuffed to the gills. Great engines.
Flew in an A340-600 11 years ago. Really quiet and comfortable. 3 years ago, flew in a B777, and it was the noisiest and most uncomfortable flight I've ever been on.
To me the A340 is one of my favorites. It was a great feeling being a passanger and exiting to look at the wings in flight how they bounced a lot doing air pockets. The long take off was fantastic and the allways soft landings was incredible.
Before we get too freaked out by the A340 we should remember a long roll and slow climb was normality for many planes before the 90's. I remember a very long roll on a fully laden BA 747 Heathrow to New York in 1987, it felt like there was no choice near the end, it just went on and on and on! I had been on Tristars and DC10's previously but that was my first jumbo. Also the climb was nothing like those trijets but maybe I was spoilt from flying those two monsters. Great vid!
The fast climb of todays aircraft is in many ways function of the design. Twinjets need to climb fast, because if you loose an engine you loose half of your power and all of your redundancy, so you need to get as much altitude as quickly as possible to have some wiggle room. On a qadjed, even an underpowered one, loosing one enigine means only 25% of your power gone, and you still have redundancy. So you can climb slower and still be safe.
@@mancubwwa Also, as the A343 has a MTOW of 26 tons higher then the 789, it has to step climb slower as it has to burn more fuel to become light enough to fly higher.
Flew on a 300 variant in early 2000s. It was the quietest cabin I had experienced, even compared to 787 and 350. Worth mentioning that I've flown on each of those only once, so seating position may have been a contributing factor.
No matter what, the A340 is one of my favorite planes and it's The Queen Of Butter. Also I have been on an A340 and one time it took almost 3 seconds to lift off the ground when rotating and we almost had a tale-strike but luckily we made it into the air.
I've flown a -600 in Lufthansa trim. It had the best feature ever for economy long haul - 6 (or 8?) toilets in the center belly. This means you'd never have to choose which way to walk for an empty loo. There was almost always one empty and it kept the noise & smell of the toilets away from the cabin. Was wonderful to get a bit of a stretch with the few steps down & up.
Same here. It was a great plane. My wife's preferred set up with lots of space and the toilets away from the cabin. Much nocer than the newer cramped planes we now have to use.
Some A330s have similar downstairs lavatories. That's probably to be expected, because as I understand it, the A330 and A340 are sister planes - pretty much 2 engines vs 4 but otherwise the same. On the other hand, I've flown on A330s with more conventional lavatory layout. I think it's up to the airline, or whoever bought the interior fit-out. Like the narrator, I've never been on an A340 and unfortunately probably never will.
@@mattbartley2843 Flown to India from UK on the A330s with downstairs lavatory,s its quite a decent sized space down there , 340,s seem to be on long ocean routes over Pacific . Only flown one Tri jet the DC10 early 80's when they were all crashing seemed nice plane at the time
@@mattbartley2843 Absolute depends on the operator. I guess the only thing is that this is an option on the 330/340. You're also right about them being identical. With engine power improvements, the 330 became quickly possible and now lives on as the 330neo with even newer engines. Which airline did you fly with the downstairs lav?
Great video as always. Correct me if I’m wrong, but in my understanding twins are naturally overpowered than quads for safety reasons and ETOPS. For twins, If one of the engine fails after V1 you are only left with 50% of the thrust to bring the plane back for safety while you still have 75% of the available thrust in quads. Single engine failure is extremely rare today and double engine failure is even more.
Engine failures are fortunately rare, but definitely not that rare. In a twin if you're middle of the pacific and 1 engine goes...you're in the middle of the pacific on one engine with hundreds of lives now completely dependent on no further issues out of the 2nd engine and you're hours away from an airport or even solid ground. The airlines are playing the odds on two engine ETOPS and at some point, the odds are going to catch up with them and it's going to cost lives.
@@martijn9568 And I'm willing to bet that the maths were done by accountants. Hence, 2 engines are de rigeur now. I prefer 4 any day on long haul. I flew the A340 only once, unsure of the model, on Emirates from Melbourne to London, and I thought that it was a wonderful aircraft.
Scrolled too far for this. Also, I heard that you can reduce takeoff power to only that which is needed for that flight, to reduce engine wear. And presumably you can do this more in a quad for the same reason you said
I've flown several times the route Madrid-Lima-Madrid. Sometimes in the 767-300ER, others in the A340-300. The difference in takeoff power and climb capability was really notorious in favour of the 767. The A340 had other advantages, though. It was a lot quieter inside. Also due to ETOPS restrictintions of 2 engine aircrafts, the A340 could do the same flight in less time than the 767.
This video is complete garbage. No mention of Specific Fuel Capacity, Wing Aspect-Ratio (long and thin is actually BETTER) or reduced weight, to mention a few things..
I have, on a Philippine Airlines in 2018, which was the last year they operated them. NZ to Philippines and back, both very enjoyable flights. They do get above ground in a fairly relaxed manner, but knowing that you have four engines really is comforting over this route !!
I flew A340 every year for about 10 year. I never noticed that it was low powered. Once on Lufthansa we had a very laud bang during take off when CAs forgot to secure food tray.
Good for you revealing the role of the little known IAE SuperFan. I worked at IAE AG from 1988 to 1995. We had a V2500 engine sold on the A319/320/321 family. However, there was an undercurrent of animosity between Airbus and IAE and our 7 shareholders. Airbus said we screwed the A340 over because of cancelling SuperFan. (Rolls-Royce and P&W refused to proceed with the program for the reasons you mentioned). Ironically and unfortunately there was another casualty of SuperFan: the MD11. Why you ask. Airbus promised SuperFan range and economics to its launch customer prospects. McDonnell Douglas went out on a limb with the PW4000- powered MD11 to match A340-300 economics. The upshot is we managed to severely piss off both Airbus AND McDonnell Douglas with whom we were trying to launch the V2500-powered MD90. Great video and story well told.
I flew Air Tahiti Nui from LA to Tahiti about 12 years ago. At the time their whole fleet consisted of four A340’s (I think!). I must admit that however small the engines looked, it was still a comfort knowing we had 4 of them when flying over that much ocean! I have flown over the Pacific many times on both two and four engines and I can’t help thinking that four is better!
I flew on an A340 from Hong Kong to Zurich and loved it. I can't remember about the takeoff roll but it was the interior that wowed me. I was use to a 3-4-3 layout of 747s, 777s and really enjoyed the more spacious feel of 2-4-2. Also the lighting and atmosphere inside just made the experience more pleasurable than other wide bodied jets I've flown on.
I have flown the 340 several times. I have always liked it. I flew the 340-500 a couple of times from Toronto to Hong Kong. For a short period of time the 500 was the only aircraft that had the range to do that trip. Then twin engine planes were allowed to fly further from an available airport and thus were designed to do the longer routes. Now one seldom sees a 4 engine jet anymore other than for the Airbus A380, and those are going to the desert quickly.
I did fly on the A340-300 several times between 2003 and 2006. I clearly remember the first takeoff thinking “why is this thing not accelerating enough…” I remember looking around to check if any of the other passengers were worried but not even one were paying attention 😂. It really felt like if it was having some kind of problem, and it scared me a lot.
I flew Swiss’ A340-300s a couple times between San Francisco and Zurich, those takeoff rolls were certainly long. Rotating also took ages, at the rear of the cabin you’d feel like you were practically sitting on the runway for a few long seconds before you’d actually start slowly rising. Gorgeous wing view though!
Couple of years ago I flew on a edelweiss a340-300 from Zurich to Costa Rica, it’s a 13 hour flight, and since the plane was fully loaded, we used up almost all of the runway, and the plane had to do a bank after takeoff, where we could really feel the heaviness of the plane. Amazing plane and an amazing flight, definitely one of my favorites.
I flew the A340-300 from Frankfurt to Denver last August. You are correct, it was a very long takeoff roll. Airplane had the feel of old technology. However I have to say I like the look of two engines on one wing. Takes me back to the 747 days.
I used to fly with Olympic Airways Airbus A340-313 multiple times all around the year Athens - Bangkok - Melbourne - Sydney and return. The aircraft was always loaded to the brim and never we had an issue taking off. Those CFM56-5C are well suited for the -300. They're providing 151kN thrust each. That's 604kN total of 4 engines. More than plenty. Takeoff thrust isn't always full throttle. They're using flex to temp. Runway length and weight with other parameters entered in the FMGS/MCDU to calculate and give the optimal takeoff configuration performance. The Airbus A340-300 can climb no worries.
I flew the A340-300 with Finnair several times between Helsinki and Hongkong. I never realized they were slower planes. But I did like the seat layout and I remembered them as very cozy and comfortable planes. Glad I've been on them knowing they were a rarity.
I got to fly from Mexico City to Madrid an back on Iberia’s A340-600. What caught my attention during the takeoff roll was how quiet and smooth the engines felt, no drama! Now they have replaced it with the A350 for that route, which is also a beautifu airplane, but not even close to the A340-600!
Worked for Cathay Pacific when they were introduced… one thing not mentioned in this (but perhaps the other video) was ETOPs etc. But they were jaw droppingly quiet. But used to watch with some anxiety seeing the Air Canadas A340s claw for lift rolling down Kai Taks runway brimming with fuel… saw plenty of aborts! Victim of a tech era change, ultimately.
Well there are two more factors to take into account: - In direct comparison, a 4-jet aircraft CAN always be less powerful than a 2-jet aircraft. In the event of an engine failure, there are still 3 engines left to do the job, while a 2-jet aircraft must be able to keep flying to a safe place with only one engine. - Airlines who already operate A320-series are happy to use the same engine on their widebody for fleet conformity and maintenance reasons, while the different variants are not interchangable to each other, there are many similarities in terms of training and spare parts. Overall, I really like the A340. While it always feels slow, it is very smooth and silent.
Redundancy is indeed, very important!! I can't remember when it was lifted, but there used to be a restriction on planes crossing oceans; had to have at least 3 engines addressing the "points of failure" that you're alluding to. Wasn't it called "ETOPS"? It had to be prior to 1988. In September of that year, I rode on a 757 on a return trip from London.
@@RedneckSpaceman ETOPS refers to special rules for twin jets going long distances over oceans without alternate airports within certain limits. Certain twin jets have been restricted to 75/120/180 minutes which means the routing must include an alternate airport within e.g. 180 minutes, therefore often leading to detour compared to 4-engine jets.
I flew the a340-300 in 2016 from AMS-PBM. The sound the engines produce is beautiful.. I love flying this type of aircraft. It is a cruiser. It needs more runway to take off.. it climbs slowly and it is beautiful to enjoy every bit of this. The flight time is a bit longer.. but it is an amazing plane and spacious inside. when decending.. it feels like a giant glyder.. love this plane:)❤
This video is complete garbage. No mention of Specific Fuel Capacity, Wing Aspect-Ratio (long and thin is actually BETTER) or reduced weight, to mention a few things..
Luckily, I got to fly on an A340 on 3 separate occasions. But I was still a little child back then, so I can't say too much about the whole experience. Back then I was just stoked that I got to fly on a quadjet...
This entire situation reminded me of the Il-86 program. Since the USSR did not have as much technological prowess as Europe or the US their development of turbofans would come at a much lower pace. Originally, it was planned for the Il-86 to be equipped with either the General Electric CF-6 or the Rolls-Royce RB211 but in both cases sales and license sharing for these engines were quickly abandoned as the Cold War peaked. In a rush the Ilyushin design bureau eventually had to make do with modified NK-8 engines from the Il-62. While the modified engines allowed the beast to cruise at quite high speeds, its operating range was less than half of what a comparable DC-10 or the Boeing 747 would, which meant that for the first few years it only flew domestic, high density routes before other Communist bloc countries purchased it as well. The Il-96 became a true long haul wide-body when it finally got the Western engines it deserved, along with the addition of new winglets. On a more personal note, I absolutely adore the CFM A340s because the sound produced by those engines at full thrust just hits the right spot for me, it absolutely needed a full thrust for takeoff. The A340 is undoubtedly the last of its era; multiple-engined planes that needed all the thrust to carry its own weight due to a lower thrust-to-weight ratio.
Just a correction: The IL-96 (the sucessor) first debuted with the Perm PS-90A engines. There were the high-bypass engines the IL-86 sorely needed, and were a Soviet engine (the TU-204/214 also used them). After the cold war ended, the IL-96 (and TU-204/214) both came with the option of either the PS-90A or a western analogue, as well as the option of either Russian/Former USSR or western avionics suites as well.
i flew a340 from london to LA back in the 1990s. was super smooth on the takeoff compared to the b747 that i took previously. it was pretty comfortable with nothing really to report.
Several years ago I rode a A340-300 to Frankfurt from JFK. The takeoff roll was long like the old 727 days. The climb out was long and almost felt like the plane was having a problem climbing out. The big problem for us was mid-way in the flight the number 2 inboard engine over heated the pilot said, so they shut it down and we flew the next few hours to Frankfurt on three engines. I knew something was wrong because the lights in the cabin were going off and on many times and we started descending. We stayed at the lower altitude until we landed without further problem. The airline was Lufthansa. I rode a Lufthansa 747-400 back.
I flew in the A343 twice in my life. First from ZRH to GRU, back in 2017, with Swiss business class and last year doing GIG-FRA-GIG. Although its performance is known popularly as "it only takes off due to the curvature of the earth", it's insanely confortable as it steadily climbs up to cruising altitude. Even the step climbs throughout the journey you can barely feel. Other planes, such as the 777 and the 747 (specially the -400) are way more powerful, thus departing like a rocket. Not saying that this is bad, but the A343 is a smooth ride from takeoff to landing. Also, all the flights were quite full of pax and cargo, therefore it got a straight 20 seconds of takeoff roll from the moment it started rolling on the runway, which is A LOT. Still, it was really fun to watch it slowly build speed for takeoff.
Flew SWISS A343 from SIN-ZRH-LHR in economy in Nov 2021. On the SIN-ZRH leg we spent around 75 seconds on the runway just trying to gain some speed. Once we finally managed to get off the ground it really felt like we struggled to climb. Every slight pitch up input made us feel like we were going to stall. It was much faster on the ZRH-LHR leg since there was much less fuel needed. Other than that, I could confidently say the Swiss really perfected the service on both flights, and that the SIN-ZRH flight was among the best flights I've ever been on.
I feel this deeply. In 2018 we traveled on Swiss’ flagship 777-ER from LAX-ZRH, and it was just lovely. Our next leg: ZRH-JNB (Johannesburg), on an A340-(400? 600?) was just a nightmare (It had to be one of the oldest planes in the fleet). The weakness of the aircraft was striking: the meager takeoff performance, yes, but also it was evident the airline wasn’t investing in the in-cabin experience. The only reason this plane exists is because of old ETOPS regulations: Airbus needed a multi-engine plane for international routes, and this was their donkey. Hee Haw.
@@andylucas5770 i can understand. In 2018, SWISS still haven't retrofitted their A340-300 aircraft yet, so I can understand the Cabin experience part. When I flew with them they were retrofitted and were really comfortable, the mood lighting was an especially nice feature.
Perhaps see the above comment logged about the same time as your own, I quote > Gabriel Teixeira - 2 weeks ago - You could have also mentioned that twin engine airplanes need extra power reserve for a take off without one engine while a four engine like the A340 has a much lower power reserve, then end up with a low take off performance. This holds true for any quad jet.
As an occasional commercial passenger as well as a C to C+ recreational flight sim pilot, in my opinion, I do believe I carry the credentials & quite frankly, overqualified to concur with your thesis Dr.
I got to fly on 340 whopping 4 times. Absolutely the nicest plane to be on for long flights. Shame it's not really flying anymore. Very quiet, smooth, goes through turbulence like nothing else. Can't remember which model it was, but Air Mauritius had incredibly smooth landings every time with this beast.
I flew on a Virgin 340 from Heathrow to LAX around 22 years ago. I was lucky enough to be bumped to first class and had the best flight of my life. Loved the plane and the service Virgin gave in those days. I don't remember the takeoff but the plane was quite full so I imagine that long runway at Heathrow was needed. Have been a fan ever since.
I once flew the a340-600 and it felt like a normal flight,but the landing was the hardest and possibly most powerful landing I have ever flown on, and i fly a lot
I've only once been on an A340, don't know which variant, and it was a really nice experience... Well, as nice of an experience as you are going to get flying coach non stop from Munich to San Francisco. I liked the 2-4-2 layout, the bathrooms being downstairs made the cabin feel a bit roomier, and the ride was so smooth that there were times I forgot we were actually cruising through the air at hundreds of miles per hour.
I did flew the on a 1 month old A340-300 from Lufthansa during the inaugural flights from PTY to FRA in 2016, one of the smoothest take off and lading, I still consider this to be one of the best plane I got a chance to experiences. You could feel the weight of the plane and how well build it is. Amazing experience.
I’ve traveled on a Swiss a 340 a few times between Zurich and Johannesburg. Other than the long roll I would have thought it was a 330 until l look out the window and see a few extra engines 😊
i actually been to an A340 when i was 5 years old from Narita to Manila, i barely remember anything back then, but they told me that after that flight, my parents said it was super quiet, comfortable, and spacious
Don’t forget, in an engine failure scenario you only loose 25% of power compared the 50% of the 787 -> meaning you get a better climb gradient and One Engine inop performance ! That’s why every 4 engined aircraft will be outperformed by 2 engined aircraft, but again, only during normal operations! :)
I'm glad somebody said it. Thank you. The A340-300 is not underpowered in comparison to the 4 engine jets I flew. It seems pilots accustomed to the excess thrust a twin needs for engine out performance are likely to perceive a 4-holer as underpowered.
Airliners must have enough power to still be able to gain altitude at maximum weight after one of the engines fail during takeoff, so four-engine planes must have at least 25% more power than the minimum power to get off the ground, but twin-engine planes have at least double the minimum amount of power available for them to be able to reach safe altitudes and maintain controllable flight.
I operated the A340-300 as an Air Canada Purser from Delhi India to Toronto on many occasions. The take off roll leaving a very hot Delhi in the early morning was unusually long. Almost alarmingly long.
you also need to consider an A/C has to continue the take-off with 1 engine failed, so a Twin has to have enough power from 1 engine but a Quad has 3 left to power the take-off. Thus a twin has 2x the power needed when all engines are operating, but a Quad has 1.333x the power needed when all are working. You are right about the Superfan.
Flew on an A340-300 from EZE Buenos Aires to MIA Miami 8 years ago and the comfort and amenities of the plane were outstanding, and made the ~10min long takeoff run worth it.
In 2003 I flew a Lan Chile A340-300 from Auckland(NZ) to Santiago(Chile). Man, that thing used every inch of the runway. It was quite noticeable! A few years later I flew on an Emirates A340-500, it was a totally different experience.
I've done Chile to New Zealand and Australia many times. In the old days Qantas did that flight with a 747, which was normally fine, but the very last flight I took on that plane was just before all the COVID lockdowns, and the plane was jam packed with folks desperate to get back home before all the borders closed. I feel like the plane was maybe overloaded, because it took forever to take off and climb. Ever since LATAM and now Qantas started using the 787 on this flight, I'm much happier. That plane really jumps off the runway and climbs easily.
I almost got the chance to fly LAN's A340 but it got swapped for a 767 at the last minute. Not complaining too much though, the 767 is an awesome machine
I used to fly the A343 regularly between HKIA and DXB via CX back in the days. The increased flight time with this quad jet is highly noticeable but it was always an enjoyable flight specially with their old 2-4-2 config. Amazing aircraft!
I remember being at Farnborough when the A340 demonstrated a slow take off roll and steep climb. It was perfect for an air show, it blew me away. In hindsight, that was probably full power. To date the event, it was followed by a low and slow flypast by Concorde. God I miss her, I grew up with the noise and life has been just a little too quiet since.
Gee, the A340 was first built in the 1970s, the 787 over 30 years later. In that period ultrahigh bypass engines were introduced, and ETOPS was extended so that 340 sized 4 engine planes were made commercially obsolete (now you can go over any ocean with a twin and twins are cheaper to run and maintain). The last 340 rolled off the production line over ten years ago.
I always liked flying on the A340. There was a time when I was making regular flights from JFK to BKK on the Thai Airways a 340-500. With four engines, we could regularly fly over the North Pole without worrying about ETOPS. The planes were always comfortable and smooth. Later I did a lot of PHL to FRA in the Lufthansa versions. Business class was always great when we could afford it but even coach was decent because of the 2-4-2 seating, there was high probability of getting the window-aisle combination to yourself if you booked smartly.
Always dreamed to fly any 340 variant. The A330 is by far my flown-favorite to this point. Having the 2-seat window row is unbeatable. Being smashed against the wall at 3am with 2 other people and needing to use the WC is a deal-breaker and I avoid 777, 787, a350s. Ill take extra stops, longer flights and even a pay a bit more for a 330 or 767.
Well I believe the A330 and A340 have identical seating - though I've never actually flown on a 330. But I agree, the 2-4-2 is far the best seating arrangement (I don't know the 767 but its cabin width is 3 feet less so I would guess more cramped than that 330-340). But I also love the reassurance of four engines on long over-ocean flights.
I flew A340 to Philippines. 14 hour non stop. Having a 4 engines on the plane makes me feel safer and comfortable in the meddle of pacific ocean. Incase of one the engine fails
In 2008, I flew 17 hours non-stop from Los Angeles to Bangkok on an Airbus A340-500. It had a 2-4-2 seat configuration which I loved because there were two of us traveling and we didn't have a stranger sitting next to us!
I have been a captain on both the A340-300 and the A340-600. Chalk and cheese, the -600 is a far superior aircraft in every respect, a delight to fly. The -300 is a “dog” and as an ATC friend once said to me, “the best flying advertisement why you should buy Boeing”. I could fill a page on horror stories about the A340-300 and why it was such a P O S. It was a happy day when I was told I had a 747-400 conversion course coming up, I couldn’t wait to get off the Airbus fleet.
I used to operate flights on the A340 in my first year as a flight attendant. Abu Dhabi to Seoul especially. The Crew Rest Compartment was quite cold haha, but loved the plane. The -600 seemed so long looking from the back galley. Thanks for the vid Coby.
I had been (as a passenger) flown with A340 twice in 2005, Air France route Frankfurt-Chicago, and surprisingly saw this video now which is opposite of my experiences then... Outbound way just went normal, was long but not unaceptably at all, but the way back to Europe weas different... Took off n 4th of July, after a very dry June and extrem air temperatures whole month encountered the greatest storm that year hitting America, so we had to wait on ground (all passengers in the plane) 4 hours before letting us to start. They didn't want to cancel the flight, so the last moment it was allowed to take off for the whole waiting herd, in line like wild geese... then the miracle happened, aircrew pushed the turbo boost button and from 4 hours delay more 2 hours was saved finally, overall ground speed exceeded 1050 km/h above sea (according to the onboard infotainment system), true air speed was not indicated but surely a rough 10-15 per cent was added to the helping backwind... So after then tihis type was iconic for me, always smied when saw one at airports or in videos, and being sad a little less missing the opportunity travelling on board of a 747 which was the original plan on that route with a different airline.
I've always wanted to take a trip on this aircraft. The ridiculous length of it plus the 4 engines always stuck out to me in a good way. But a lot of interesting stuff I learned about it in this video
I flew a medium ranged flight with an a340-300, I already knew at the time the problems of that aircraft so for curiosity i decided to chronometrate the take off, turns out it take a whole 1 minute and 14 secs, which is insane
I flew the A340 a number of times from Atlanta to Frankfurt on Lufthansa. As others mentioned, the plane felt insanely slow getting off the ground. On one takeoff in FRA I swore we would hit the trees at the end of the runway. The one thing I loved about the aircraft was its smoothness. It never made inelegant moves and the wingspan tended to smooth out some turbulence. I’d love another chance to fly on the plane again but as you say, they are becoming increasingly rare.
I flew on Austrian Airlines A-340-313 from Toronto to Vienna, it was comfortable & they fed us well! No complaints about speed. Now the B-757 - that was like a rocket! Always enjoyed the take-off roll being pressed into my seat! As they cleared the 10,000' level they'd roar up the engines some more - love that plane, the center loading is a bonus as well.
Get Honey for FREE today ▸ joinhoney.com/coby
Honey finds coupons with one click. Thanks to Honey for sponsoring!
Bro you're gonna damage your brand, honey is a scam and everyone knows it
whats the backgounrd music u used if u dont mind me asking
Most of the time, I fly Lufthansa, so for Long Haul, it was often A340. So for a long time, it was just the standard Long Haul aircraft for me and the one to compare when I got in a different one. It's fairly good for the passengers. Much more silent than a 747.
Please look up what "begging the question" really means before you use it. "Raises the question" would work just fine for what you mean.
If you really want a Overpowered engine for a small, the British Aerospace 146 was originally suppose to use the 11,700ibf Rolls-Royce RB.415
The A340 wasn't great for airlines, but it was so damn lovely for passengers - quiet, comfy, fantastic 2-4-2 layout. I absolutely love flying on the 340.
Saying that a340s are "quiet" is funny to me. They might be on board, but from outside of the cabin, these planes are some of the noisiest I've ever heard. The amounts of time they have woken me up is incredible...
@@coconutdreams1238 When I live close to the Miami airport. I was so surprised to hear something that loud climbing over our house. When I get up of bed, then saw it was the a380 from BA. Really that thing make so a noise! The most quiet plane that past over my house was 787 which the GE engines.
We can agree the best song while flying are the sing of bird
@@sergiolaurencio7534 A380s are noisy for sure. And I do agree, 787s with GE are nothing compared to them. I really love their sound tho
@@coconutdreams1238 the noisiest plane ive heard is the 777 starting, it hurt my ears through my earprotectors from 300m away!!!!
Flew on an A340-300 from Brisbane to Frankfurt (via Taiwan) in 2005. Did note the long take-off run, especially in Taiwan, but it was on of the smoothest and quietest flights I have been on. Felt like the engines were on idle during cruise.
Yeah but from my house when an a340-300 passes over at 19,500ft I can hear it pretty well.
BS@@Roboseal2
@@Roboseal2 that's one *HELL* of a talent you've got there old chap. A mouse sneezing must sound like a howitzer going off next to you with that sort of SPL ear sensitivity. Sennheisser, Rode and the likes will want to copy the make up of your ear drums I reckon. If you let them have a quick look, you'll become a millionaire in no time!
Typo edited.
It was very cold that day and snowy so that might have made it louder than usual@@cosmicdebris2223
that's why it's called cruising genius and not balls out full throttle
The A340 may be unlucky, but it does carry the unmatched distinction of almost 30 years of service with no fatal accidents.
(simply because its usage is limited compared to other "proper" aircrafts, and it simply flies less for the same chance of accident)
That's some massive hyperbole, it's one of the highest selling widebody aircrafts of all time. Aircraft are also not kept idle, that is unprofitable, they are flying for as much as possible. @@MIO9_sh
@@MIO9_shnah. Even with taking in consideration how much it’s used, it’s a 0% chance of crash
@@W19-m2e That's not how stats work. The A340 has made less than 3 million flights. *_NO_* modern plane should crash even once after just 3 million flights
What hideous comparison, A340 introduced 1991 and the 787 introduced in 2011. Full 20 years of development between these planes
I've flown the A-340 a few times. What really stuck with me was how quiet and spacious it was, so that's usually what comes to mind whenever the plane is referenced.
This video is complete garbage. No mention of Specific Fuel Capacity, Wing Aspect-Ratio (long and thin is actually BETTER) or reduced weight, to mention a few things..
Once the A340 was upgraded to the Rolls Royce Trent 500`s they were an extremely powerful beast. My uncle was a captain on these planes with Virgin Atlantic.
I flew the A340-300 from BCN to JFK back in 2000. To this day, I still remember feeling two things: we are never getting off the ground and once we did, that we are going to hit any building in front of us. That airplane did not seem to want to climb. It freaked me out. I later flew the -600 variant, and it seemed more normal.
I remember having that experience coming out of Argentina oh 15 years ago now.
They’re certified to the same performance standards and will have the same minimum margin in both runway and obstacles. The difference is in the weight they can lift.
Maybe you guys shouldn't drink before flight... Your hallucinating...
Sixto Ferro , thanks for sharing , scary stuff.👍
Same for me. I always described it as powered by 4 hairdryers.
My 1st experience was a flight from Zurich to New York in 2000. Normally by the time you pass the terminal you are going very quickly and can feel the aircraft getting light.
Not so in the 340 we passed the terminal at what felt like walking pace and we were still firmly on the ground when the trees @ the end of the runway came into sight.
I seriously thought we were going to crash.
After staggering into the air the climb seemed very slight & I wondered if it could remain airborne if it lost an engine.
I had to fly back on it, but from then on I avoided any flight that scheduled a 340.
I flew one, Paris to US west coast, around 10 years ago, on air france. It was a great experience. First, a 4 engine plane looks great. And probably because it's underpowered, you feel the size and weight of the plane. It doesn't feel like your're on a single aisle for an hour flight. I really feels like you're on a big heavy plane, full of passengers and fuel, on a journey around the world. It takes off smoothly. In one word I would say : majestic.
I flew on an older 767 on Delta from Scotland to NY last summer and that, my friend, is a proper plane.
And I bet is quieter, right? 4 small engines will probably be much more quiet.
@@TheAllMightyGodofCod Not necessarily, higher bypass ration help to reduce noise emission in the exhaust.
@@mauriciocastro6363 did you flown in the A340 and any other comparable plane?
@@TheAllMightyGodofCod Yes I flew in A340-300, A380, A320, B737, B777, B767, B747.
I am an active A340-300 (as well as A333) pilot and I can tell u that I love it! As it is performance-limited it is a bit more challenging to fly, escpecially takeoffs. Not much margin for error and your rotation technique (read rate) must be on spot. Rotate too slowly, you run out of runway or don't meet obstacle clearances, rotate too quickly and you might tailstrike... The underperforming engines are also the reason for the different winglets (as you explained creating lift), otherwise it was designed to come with the then standard A320 wing fences which are still to be found on the A380.
Singapore 🇸🇬 Changi International Airport (SIN/WSSS) have 3 Operational Long Runways with 4000 metres length X 60 metres w
Singapore 🇸🇬 Changi International Airport (SIN/WSSS) have 3 Long Runways up to 4000 metres long by 60 metres Wide, Enough of for any Current Aircraft types up to the Giant Airbus A380s.
The Airbus A340-300 will definitely have No problem landing and taking off the Runways.
Lufthansa German Airlines is Currently operating its older Airbus A340-300 on Flights ✈️ from Frankfurt to Singapore 🇸🇬 interim Aircraft and later might revert back to Either Airbus A350XWB-900, Giant Airbus A380 and newest Boeing 787-9 Dreamliner Aircraft to Singapore 🇸🇬
Thank you for adding so much understanding and context, many including myself despite flying for almost 8 years in the 1960s and 70s are very out of touch... (Comet-4Bs=silly-overpowered, the inboard engines were typically cut as soon as cruising altitude had been reached) ;)
I think they never been in an accident, Thus makes it more impressive.
People need to consider, what is the purpose of the plane. Simply put, it is to take off, climb, cruise and land. It is not required to do anything else. In appearance, it resembles the old Boeing 707 or the DC-8. But it is a much larger plane, in fact, a widebody perhaps of similar function to the Boeing 767.
I live near the Fresno, California airport. I have seen a quad jet take off from there at least once, so I assume it must have been an A-340. Both FedEx and UPS operate Boeing 767s out of Fresno. I did recently see a widebody two engine jet parked there which did not quite look like a Boeing 767. Seeing the name of the carrier, I was able to determine that the carrier was a freight operator of the A-350. Plane spotting is very difficult in the jet era. Only a few planes are so distinctive that they are or were easy to identify on the ground or in the air. The A-340 is identifiable only because it is the last quad jet still flying other than the Boeing 747 and the A-380.
I once saw the An-225 fly overhead at low altitude on the glide path into the McChord field in Lakewood, Washington. I didn't know what it was at the time but there are not any other huge airplanes with three engines on each wing and a double rudder. Too bad it was destroyed. It had no military use. They should have been smart enough to fly it to a neutral country while the Russian were still massing there forces and leave it there.
Hi Coby,
You missed a very important point when comparing the B787 and the A340. One have 2 engines, and the other have 4. According the safety rules when designing a plane, a plane should be able to generate a minimum speed climb with one engine down in case of a failure during T/O after V1.
On a twin jet this mean you lost 50% of the thrust, so it should be able to climb with only ONE engine, so you need powerfull engines to compensate. This is why the bigest engines on the world (GE90, GE 9X... ) are on twin jet, but not on the heaviest planes (A380 and B747)
On a quad jet, one engine down mean you lost only 25% of thrust and still have have 3 engines. So these engines can be less powerfull and so more efficient.
If you need 200 kN (CF6-80 for exemple) of thrust to make climb a plane a certain MTOW in case of a engine failure during T/O, on a twin jet you need 2 engines of 200kN, so a total of 400 kN. So the plane is powerfull when both engines are running.
On a quad jet of the same MTOW with the same need of thrust to do a minimal climb, you can have 4 engines of 70 kN, so in case of one engine failure you still have 3x70 = 210 kN. But only 280 kN when the 4 engines are running.
I though you will speak about this point in this video, but you missed it.
A dissapointed aeronautical enginer
Would also like to point out that the 340 and 787 are also vastly different in terms of date of release and material available at the time, so I hardly see this as a fair comparison. It’s like comparing a car from the 80s with all of the immissions at the time to something like a hellcat these days. Just my opinion, of course.
Thought this same thing, he compared apples to oranges and missed a huge valid point
Damn sounding like a disappointed parent lol
This is a very flawed and myopic explanation for the question raised by the video’s title. As others will allude to, there are holes in the presenter’s argument that are pretty fundamental.
Disappointing.
@@derektaylor2941 Thats a recipe for disaster. You could position your argument from a Cessnas point of view and argue about how ridiculous and excessive an a380 is in comparison. What a silly thing to do
I took a flight from Germany to Brazil in a Lufthansa's A340, it was new and clean, nice flight over all. The bathroom is amazing! it is on a lower deck, between the wings. Nice video.
Only flown on the A340-300 once. It was a flight from ORD to CDG on AirFrance in Business class. Flight was quiet, comfortable, and all around nothing to complain about (and as an Aviation geek myself, getting to sneak in a flight on an A340-300 made it great)
As a passenger, the A 340 is 1 of my 2 favourite airliners, the other one being the A 380
I flew the Airbus 340 on two routes. Non-stop Newark to Singapore and JFK to Bangkok. Each trip 18hr and 30min - the longest non-stop commercial flight. In my opinion the 340 is the most beautiful and elegant aircraft. The long, slender wings, the slim fuselage give it the appearance of lightness.
This video is complete garbage. No mention of Specific Fuel Capacity, Wing Aspect-Ratio (long and thin is actually BETTER) or reduced weight, to mention a few things..
I don't really know why, but the A340 has a special place in my heart. And I'm happy to say, as someone who doesn't fly terribly often, that I got to fly on one once, with Iberia. As we all know, it's an 8-abreast plane, with a 2-4-2 layout, which makes for a very comfortable experience since you don't need to climb over two people (or, more likely, make them stand up and feel bad about it) to get to the bathroom if you're sitting next to the window. I just hope that one day I'll get the chance to fly on the A380 as well, before it disappears for good.
A380 is a lovely plane to fly on, seriously good experience.
Don’t worry about the A380, it will be around for at least the next 20 years.
I liked Lufthansa’s A340s because of the downstairs toilets
Buying a model of the "A340-600" has become quite costly, everybody loved their aesthetic.......... Best wishes
Unless you are flying first class, try to avoid the A380. Just as compact as any other coach class and now you have to wait for twice as many passengers to board and unboard the plane. No benefit other than its totally awesome looking, from the outside.
I once flew on the Singapore Airlines SQ21, Newark to Singapore flight in an A340-500. At the time it was the longest flight in the world at around 18 hours. I remember the takeoff roll using almost the entire length of the runway, and the flight was still the smoothest I've experienced to date. Great aircraft.
It used nearly the whole runway because it was almost on max fuel LOL
Hey coby, I flew as pilot on the A340 for few years, mostly transcontinental from South America to Europe, it was always challenging on warm summer days out of Madrid, the initial climb was to low levels, like FL310/330. Always checking during the crossing of the inter tropical converging zone that the ISA didn’t affect our cruising level performance.
Also, at max weight, on summer days, leaving Madrid always concerned about the Eng out procedure, the noise abatement and minimum crossing altitudes
A330 cpt here. I agree with every word.
10,000 hours A340 here and I really liked the aircraft. Far quieter and more fuel-efficient than Boeings (10,000 hours on those too, unfortunately), that's for sure
@@EvoraGT430 I do agree! Underpowered or not, it’s a great plane
I flew on the A340-600 with RR engines. It had a highly distinctive sound and at cruise it was so quite I had to whisper to not wake up other passengers. At one point it flew over 1000km/h due to tailwind. Cool plane.
quiet*
Tbh if a passenger aircraft is going 1mach or more, I would be pretty scared bc by then, the flight controls are suffering from extreme metal fatigue
@@qianma6921 Mach 1 is much more than 1000 km/h. Passenger planes often fly faster than 1000 km/h.
@@qianma6921 also it shouldn't matter, the control surfaces' speed relative to the air is the only thing that matters, so if there is a tailwind, the relative speed is still the same.
yeah...you had to whisper. because it was so quiet. you whispered.
Nice video, thanks Coby. As an economy passenger, one thing I really liked about the A340-600 (at least those operated by Lufthansa back in the day) was the fact that the toilets are on the lower deck. A flight of stairs leads from economy class down to about 5 or 6 toilets. So going to the bathroom gives you a bit of exercise, important for economy passengers packed in like sardines. There is also a water fountain, so you can get water too. If you want to chat with someone, you could go down to the water fountain and stand there for a while. So the chatting doesn't disturb folks in the cabin who are sleeping!
Lufthansa still flies the a340-600
I flew once or twice on A340. I can’t remember if they were 300 or not. However I still remember how smooth and quiet and comfortable they were.
This video is complete garbage. No mention of Specific Fuel Capacity, Wing Aspect-Ratio (long and thin is actually BETTER) or reduced weight, to mention a few things..
I practically grew up on Lufthansa A340s, flying from EWR to DUS and back. It's been 4 years since I last flew on one, but I still love them. The 2-4-2 seating is undeniably one of the best layouts, and the nostalgia factor is real for me.
Last time I was on one, I visited the flight deck on arrival. I told the crew I was a big fan of the A340 and they said, direct quote albeit translated from German, "the A340 has fans?"
Well yeah, it has four of them 😂
My dad was a senior A340 captain with TAP Air Portugal.I still think it's the most elegant plane in the skies, and it looked absolutely beautiful during the takeoff rotation...
I remember one takeoff from Johannesburg airport: it was warm and the runway altitude is quite high. I tell you, it felt like it went on forever!
I was never quite convinced that the plane would be able to meet the takeoff segments if there was an engine failure on takeoff, but I guess we have to trust the engineers :)
Joburg was a real challenge, but in the cruise the A340 was lovely.
Well, she’s nicknamed “the hairdryer” for a reason. Nowadays though, guess that engine choice kind of works in its favour. There are so many CFM56s around, i’m sure finding spare parts is not difficult at all, only parts unique to this variant may be more scarce. If maintenance costs are indeed kept low, it explains why many developing countries’ airlines are choosing the A343 for long haul flying and why Lufthansa Group is still deploying them on routes worldwide.
Extension to your hairdryer comment, similarly, we say the A343s were equipped with 5 APUs 🤣
@@CalebKam Which is why A340-300 passenger-to-freighter conversions never left the drawing board. The whole thing would _literally_ crash and burn in short order.
@@CalebKam same as the 146/RJ!
True. I wouldn't be suprised if Cubana starts looking at these. They love their quad-jets, and have been leasing Plus Ultra A340s from Spain to stand in for their IL-96s that can't operate to/from the EU anymore. I suspect the reliability and ease of maintinance of the A340 and wide availability of parts on the grey/used market would make it an ideal aircraft for them. Despite the embargo they've had no issue operating ATRs and leasing 340s, so this seems like a logical step for them. The 330 would make more sense, but after the IL-96 *anything* looks fuel efficient, and they do like those quads.
@@lmlmd2714 Where are they flying their IL-96s nowadays?
I was flying from Frankfurt to Honk kong in 2018. the A340-600 "Leipzig" Lufthansa. And it is still one of my favourite looking airplane and the toilets on the lower deck and the 2-4-2 seats in the back were super 👍🏼
And it is such a long and beautiful plane.
Buying a model of the "A340-600" has become quite costly, everybody loved their aesthetic.......... Best wishes
Love Lufhansa A340-600 plane livery and airplane ✈️. Looks suave watching them take off and land...Beautiful flying machines.
@@jmcw9632 Moron
I flew in the Trent engine variant between JNB and JFK on South African. They only took off at night out of JNB due to heat and altitude. The one thing I enjoyed was the blue glow on the Trent engine exhaust as we flew over the Atlantic at night. I could see the thunderstorms and lightning over the Amazon near Recipe, and with the stars above I could almost imagine I was on the ISS.
It actually glowed blue during cruise? I guess it also glowed during takeoff too - never seen it on an airliner..
I *love* flying on the A340, long-haul. Love the 2-4-2 seating, like the feeling of reassurance four engines gives on long over-ocean flights. I'd rather spend ten hours on an A340 than five on a 787. And it's not lost on me that no A340 has ever had a fatal crash.
Exactly. This video is complete garbage.
As a passenger, the A 340 is 1 of my 2 favourite airliners, the other one being the A 380
An all aluminum airliner always is more comfortable than a carbon composite because the aluminum wing flexes more gently and the composite is stiff and rides like an economy car. I hated the 757 because it had an awful rough ride!! Plus 4 engines is always safer on a long over water flight!! I recently flew Hawiian A-330 and it was noisy and had a nasty ride. I would rather be on a wide body 340 everytime!!
"Each of us might be small and weak, but TOGETHER, we are mediocre." - one of the engines
I’ve flown a dew of a340’s mostly the 500’s with emirates from Auckland to London a few years back before the a380. They are special machines and I’ll always remember one specific aircraft A6-ERA for having the 2006 football World Cup livery.
Did that flight stop in Sydney like the 380 did?
@@peterkotara All Emirates flights 777/340/380 operated through OZ for NZ flights until a few years ago when a direct A380 flight was introduced from DXB. The 340-300 only flew to Perth, and some flights on the other types went through Asia (like SIN or KL). There was a 777 flight pre-covid that went DXB-DPS (Bali), to Auckland. All the DXB-SYD-AKL flights were on the A340-500 until replaced by the 380.
@@bossthefluff Thanks so much, that's exactly what I wanted to know, I flew frequently on the AKL/SYD/DBX (EK416 I think) never flew the 340 but remember on several occasions seeing all 3 380s on the ramp at AKL, it looked quite impressive. Poor pier B.
From London to Auckland? Where did they stop on the way?
My first trip to London was in 2004 with Cathay Pacific (via Hong Kong) at that time the AKL to HKG utilised A340-300 and the HKG to LHR was B747-400 both flights were around 12 hours each.
I remember that the A340 had a 2/4/2 economy seating and I was lucky on my return back to NZ to get a block of 4 to myself and effectively had a lie-flat bed (before they were common)
The in flight video was akin to multi track VCR that played continuously (unlike today’s video on demand)
You could have also mentioned that twin engine airplanes need extra power reserve for a take off without one engine while a four engine like the A340 has a much lower power reserve, then end up with a low take off performance. This holds true for any quad jet.
That's correct, but additionally airlines typically don't accelerate as hard as the aircraft can during take off if it's not necessary, less power means less wear on the engines and less maintenance costs.
@@simonm1447 Most folks probably don't know but commerical airplanes use anywhere from 87% to 95% of available power on takeoffs. Never 100% unless of course they have a problem getting off the ground or encounter a mechanical failure. Believe that 100% power would shortly damage the engines and the reason it's only during emergency situations that it's used.
@@simonm1447 Yes, but also there is a minimum power setting since the airplane should reach V1 speed with enough runway left to reject the take off or to keep the roll without an engine. The V1 speed for a quad jet is lower since they can take off with 3 engines left without much increase on the take off length compared to a twin engine.
@@gteixeira that's right, they calculate that for every runway depending on weight, temperature and runway length
Good video. Minor correction. You start with the B757 as the "sports car" plane. The 757 was certified with two sets of engines. That plane had both Rolls engines and the Pratt & Whitney PW2037. Both are wide fan designs and I consider it a minor point. Yes, I work for P&W.
The rolls Royce engines on Boing 757 were brilliant ,that's why it got to be overpowered
haha that's true, but highlighting the rolls royce option certainly plays into the sports car narrative more
@@cobyexplanes to be cancelled for misleading and erasure of engine history of A340-300's engines. 🙂
Those engines used on the 757 seem like they'd have been a better thrust class for the A340-300: why couldn't Airbus use them?
The PW 2000 engine on the 757 is a brother to the PW on the C-17. The AF wanted engines that shared at least a few parts and design features with a common commercial engine to keep costs down. They just put four on the wings and it gave the cargo plane very good performance even when stuffed to the gills. Great engines.
My (retired) Boeing Engineer Dad always called the 757 the "Corvette of the skies". Cool to hear this from others!
Flew in an A340-600 11 years ago. Really quiet and comfortable. 3 years ago, flew in a B777, and it was the noisiest and most uncomfortable flight I've ever been on.
Triple 7s got two massive engines I see
Yeah the 77 7 is noisy for sure.
@@anteeko inside. But it is considered less comfortable altogether.
Un-based.
I say that because you shouldn't make generalizing statements based on single data points/experiences/anecdotes.
@@h8GW where did I generalise? I think I'm allowed to speak of my experience.
To me the A340 is one of my favorites.
It was a great feeling being a passanger and exiting to look at the wings in flight how they bounced a lot doing air pockets.
The long take off was fantastic and the allways soft landings was incredible.
you know what they say, its not the plane, its the pilot
Before we get too freaked out by the A340 we should remember a long roll and slow climb was normality for many planes before the 90's. I remember a very long roll on a fully laden BA 747 Heathrow to New York in 1987, it felt like there was no choice near the end, it just went on and on and on! I had been on Tristars and DC10's previously but that was my first jumbo. Also the climb was nothing like those trijets but maybe I was spoilt from flying those two monsters. Great vid!
I took a BA 747-4 from BOS to LHR in 2016. The takeoff actually pinned me to my seat. I’ll never forget it, I was impressed..
After v1 there literally is no choice anywa
The fast climb of todays aircraft is in many ways function of the design. Twinjets need to climb fast, because if you loose an engine you loose half of your power and all of your redundancy, so you need to get as much altitude as quickly as possible to have some wiggle room. On a qadjed, even an underpowered one, loosing one enigine means only 25% of your power gone, and you still have redundancy. So you can climb slower and still be safe.
@@mancubwwa Also, as the A343 has a MTOW of 26 tons higher then the 789, it has to step climb slower as it has to burn more fuel to become light enough to fly higher.
Indeed, this video compares planes of different generations, which hardly seems fair.
Flew on a 300 variant in early 2000s. It was the quietest cabin I had experienced, even compared to 787 and 350. Worth mentioning that I've flown on each of those only once, so seating position may have been a contributing factor.
Thats impossible, the a340-300 cabin is wayyy louder than the 787 let alone 350!
@@l.n963 Like I said, it may have been the seating position in each but the a340-300 engine noise seemed to reduce as we started takeoff roll.
No matter what, the A340 is one of my favorite planes and it's The Queen Of Butter. Also I have been on an A340 and one time it took almost 3 seconds to lift off the ground when rotating and we almost had a tale-strike but luckily we made it into the air.
Oh, the A343... the ultimate argument against a flat Earth, because it needs the planet's curvature to climb.
😂😂😂
I've flown a -600 in Lufthansa trim. It had the best feature ever for economy long haul - 6 (or 8?) toilets in the center belly. This means you'd never have to choose which way to walk for an empty loo. There was almost always one empty and it kept the noise & smell of the toilets away from the cabin. Was wonderful to get a bit of a stretch with the few steps down & up.
Flew the 600 once. Short hop from MUC to FRA. I made sure I visited the bathrooms.
Same here. It was a great plane. My wife's preferred set up with lots of space and the toilets away from the cabin. Much nocer than the newer cramped planes we now have to use.
Some A330s have similar downstairs lavatories. That's probably to be expected, because as I understand it, the A330 and A340 are sister planes - pretty much 2 engines vs 4 but otherwise the same.
On the other hand, I've flown on A330s with more conventional lavatory layout. I think it's up to the airline, or whoever bought the interior fit-out.
Like the narrator, I've never been on an A340 and unfortunately probably never will.
@@mattbartley2843 Flown to India from UK on the A330s with downstairs lavatory,s its quite a decent sized space down there , 340,s seem to be on long ocean routes over Pacific . Only flown one Tri jet the DC10 early 80's when they were all crashing seemed nice plane at the time
@@mattbartley2843 Absolute depends on the operator. I guess the only thing is that this is an option on the 330/340. You're also right about them being identical. With engine power improvements, the 330 became quickly possible and now lives on as the 330neo with even newer engines. Which airline did you fly with the downstairs lav?
Great video as always. Correct me if I’m wrong, but in my understanding twins are naturally overpowered than quads for safety reasons and ETOPS. For twins, If one of the engine fails after V1 you are only left with 50% of the thrust to bring the plane back for safety while you still have 75% of the available thrust in quads. Single engine failure is extremely rare today and double engine failure is even more.
Engine failures are fortunately rare, but definitely not that rare. In a twin if you're middle of the pacific and 1 engine goes...you're in the middle of the pacific on one engine with hundreds of lives now completely dependent on no further issues out of the 2nd engine and you're hours away from an airport or even solid ground. The airlines are playing the odds on two engine ETOPS and at some point, the odds are going to catch up with them and it's going to cost lives.
@@davidcole333 The same goes for 3 or 4 engined aircraft. I'm willing to bet that the people that calculated etops did their math properly.
@@martijn9568 And I'm willing to bet that the maths were done by accountants. Hence, 2 engines are de rigeur now. I prefer 4 any day on long haul. I flew the A340 only once, unsure of the model, on Emirates from Melbourne to London, and I thought that it was a wonderful aircraft.
Scrolled too far for this. Also, I heard that you can reduce takeoff power to only that which is needed for that flight, to reduce engine wear. And presumably you can do this more in a quad for the same reason you said
@@mattscarf It‘s sad that this important point wasn‘t even mentioned in the video
I've flown several times the route Madrid-Lima-Madrid. Sometimes in the 767-300ER, others in the A340-300. The difference in takeoff power and climb capability was really notorious in favour of the 767.
The A340 had other advantages, though. It was a lot quieter inside. Also due to ETOPS restrictintions of 2 engine aircrafts, the A340 could do the same flight in less time than the 767.
This video is complete garbage. No mention of Specific Fuel Capacity, Wing Aspect-Ratio (long and thin is actually BETTER) or reduced weight, to mention a few things..
I have, on a Philippine Airlines in 2018, which was the last year they operated them. NZ to Philippines and back, both very enjoyable flights. They do get above ground in a fairly relaxed manner, but knowing that you have four engines really is comforting over this route !!
I flew A340 every year for about 10 year. I never noticed that it was low powered. Once on Lufthansa we had a very laud bang during take off when CAs forgot to secure food tray.
Good for you revealing the role of the little known IAE SuperFan. I worked at IAE AG from 1988 to 1995. We had a V2500 engine sold on the A319/320/321 family. However, there was an undercurrent of animosity between Airbus and IAE and our 7 shareholders. Airbus said we screwed the A340 over because of cancelling SuperFan. (Rolls-Royce and P&W refused to proceed with the program for the reasons you mentioned). Ironically and unfortunately there was another casualty of SuperFan: the MD11. Why you ask. Airbus promised SuperFan range and economics to its launch customer prospects. McDonnell Douglas went out on a limb with the PW4000- powered MD11 to match A340-300 economics. The upshot is we managed to severely piss off both Airbus AND McDonnell Douglas with whom we were trying to launch the V2500-powered MD90.
Great video and story well told.
I flew Air Tahiti Nui from LA to Tahiti about 12 years ago. At the time their whole fleet consisted of four A340’s (I think!). I must admit that however small the engines looked, it was still a comfort knowing we had 4 of them when flying over that much ocean! I have flown over the Pacific many times on both two and four engines and I can’t help thinking that four is better!
On Virgin Atlantic, their A340s had "4 engines for long haul" on them at some point. They were the 500 variants iirc.
@@MehrLovin VS had both A340-300 and -600 I think.
unfortunatly (obviously as well) they all 4 got replaced by dreamliners :(
I flew on an A340 from Hong Kong to Zurich and loved it. I can't remember about the takeoff roll but it was the interior that wowed me. I was use to a 3-4-3 layout of 747s, 777s and really enjoyed the more spacious feel of 2-4-2. Also the lighting and atmosphere inside just made the experience more pleasurable than other wide bodied jets I've flown on.
I have flown the 340 several times. I have always liked it. I flew the 340-500 a couple of times from Toronto to Hong Kong. For a short period of time the 500 was the only aircraft that had the range to do that trip. Then twin engine planes were allowed to fly further from an available airport and thus were designed to do the longer routes. Now one seldom sees a 4 engine jet anymore other than for the Airbus A380, and those are going to the desert quickly.
I did fly on the A340-300 several times between 2003 and 2006. I clearly remember the first takeoff thinking “why is this thing not accelerating enough…” I remember looking around to check if any of the other passengers were worried but not even one were paying attention 😂. It really felt like if it was having some kind of problem, and it scared me a lot.
I flew Swiss’ A340-300s a couple times between San Francisco and Zurich, those takeoff rolls were certainly long. Rotating also took ages, at the rear of the cabin you’d feel like you were practically sitting on the runway for a few long seconds before you’d actually start slowly rising. Gorgeous wing view though!
Couple of years ago I flew on a edelweiss a340-300 from Zurich to Costa Rica, it’s a 13 hour flight, and since the plane was fully loaded, we used up almost all of the runway, and the plane had to do a bank after takeoff, where we could really feel the heaviness of the plane. Amazing plane and an amazing flight, definitely one of my favorites.
I flew the A340-300 from Frankfurt to Denver last August. You are correct, it was a very long takeoff roll. Airplane had the feel of old technology. However I have to say I like the look of two engines on one wing. Takes me back to the 747 days.
I used to fly with Olympic Airways Airbus A340-313 multiple times all around the year Athens - Bangkok - Melbourne - Sydney and return. The aircraft was always loaded to the brim and never we had an issue taking off. Those CFM56-5C are well suited for the -300. They're providing 151kN thrust each. That's 604kN total of 4 engines. More than plenty. Takeoff thrust isn't always full throttle. They're using flex to temp. Runway length and weight with other parameters entered in the FMGS/MCDU to calculate and give the optimal takeoff configuration performance. The Airbus A340-300 can climb no worries.
I flew the A340-300 with Finnair several times between Helsinki and Hongkong. I never realized they were slower planes. But I did like the seat layout and I remembered them as very cozy and comfortable planes. Glad I've been on them knowing they were a rarity.
I remember once, the take-off roll on the A340 was so long, we used the entire runway and eventually lifted off on a highway of an adjacent city.
we got passed by an amish farmer driving a buggy
"pay for runway use whole runway"
I got to fly from Mexico City to Madrid an back on Iberia’s A340-600. What caught my attention during the takeoff roll was how quiet and smooth the engines felt, no drama! Now they have replaced it with the A350 for that route, which is also a beautifu airplane, but not even close to the A340-600!
Worked for Cathay Pacific when they were introduced… one thing not mentioned in this (but perhaps the other video) was ETOPs etc.
But they were jaw droppingly quiet.
But used to watch with some anxiety seeing the Air Canadas A340s claw for lift rolling down Kai Taks runway brimming with fuel… saw plenty of aborts!
Victim of a tech era change, ultimately.
Well there are two more factors to take into account:
- In direct comparison, a 4-jet aircraft CAN always be less powerful than a 2-jet aircraft. In the event of an engine failure, there are still 3 engines left to do the job, while a 2-jet aircraft must be able to keep flying to a safe place with only one engine.
- Airlines who already operate A320-series are happy to use the same engine on their widebody for fleet conformity and maintenance reasons, while the different variants are not interchangable to each other, there are many similarities in terms of training and spare parts.
Overall, I really like the A340. While it always feels slow, it is very smooth and silent.
Redundancy is indeed, very important!! I can't remember when it was lifted, but there used to be a restriction on planes crossing oceans; had to have at least 3 engines addressing the "points of failure" that you're alluding to. Wasn't it called "ETOPS"? It had to be prior to 1988. In September of that year, I rode on a 757 on a return trip from London.
@@RedneckSpaceman ETOPS refers to special rules for twin jets going long distances over oceans without alternate airports within certain limits. Certain twin jets have been restricted to 75/120/180 minutes which means the routing must include an alternate airport within e.g. 180 minutes, therefore often leading to detour compared to 4-engine jets.
I flew the a340-300 in 2016 from AMS-PBM. The sound the engines produce is beautiful.. I love flying this type of aircraft. It is a cruiser. It needs more runway to take off.. it climbs slowly and it is beautiful to enjoy every bit of this. The flight time is a bit longer.. but it is an amazing plane and spacious inside. when decending.. it feels like a giant glyder.. love this plane:)❤
This video is complete garbage. No mention of Specific Fuel Capacity, Wing Aspect-Ratio (long and thin is actually BETTER) or reduced weight, to mention a few things..
Luckily, I got to fly on an A340 on 3 separate occasions. But I was still a little child back then, so I can't say too much about the whole experience. Back then I was just stoked that I got to fly on a quadjet...
@tahnalos I did xD
This entire situation reminded me of the Il-86 program. Since the USSR did not have as much technological prowess as Europe or the US their development of turbofans would come at a much lower pace. Originally, it was planned for the Il-86 to be equipped with either the General Electric CF-6 or the Rolls-Royce RB211 but in both cases sales and license sharing for these engines were quickly abandoned as the Cold War peaked. In a rush the Ilyushin design bureau eventually had to make do with modified NK-8 engines from the Il-62.
While the modified engines allowed the beast to cruise at quite high speeds, its operating range was less than half of what a comparable DC-10 or the Boeing 747 would, which meant that for the first few years it only flew domestic, high density routes before other Communist bloc countries purchased it as well. The Il-96 became a true long haul wide-body when it finally got the Western engines it deserved, along with the addition of new winglets.
On a more personal note, I absolutely adore the CFM A340s because the sound produced by those engines at full thrust just hits the right spot for me, it absolutely needed a full thrust for takeoff. The A340 is undoubtedly the last of its era; multiple-engined planes that needed all the thrust to carry its own weight due to a lower thrust-to-weight ratio.
Every once in a while I see a comment that warrents me to pause a video to read....good info!
Plenty of good info, although I must add, the Tupolev TU-124 was the first turbofan airliner to enter service
Just a correction: The IL-96 (the sucessor) first debuted with the Perm PS-90A engines. There were the high-bypass engines the IL-86 sorely needed, and were a Soviet engine (the TU-204/214 also used them). After the cold war ended, the IL-96 (and TU-204/214) both came with the option of either the PS-90A or a western analogue, as well as the option of either Russian/Former USSR or western avionics suites as well.
i flew a340 from london to LA back in the 1990s. was super smooth on the takeoff compared to the b747 that i took previously. it was pretty comfortable with nothing really to report.
Several years ago I rode a A340-300 to Frankfurt from JFK. The takeoff roll was long like the old 727 days. The climb out was long and almost felt like the plane was having a problem climbing out. The big problem for us was mid-way in the flight the number 2 inboard engine over heated the pilot said, so they shut it down and we flew the next few hours to Frankfurt on three engines. I knew something was wrong because the lights in the cabin were going off and on many times and we started descending. We stayed at the lower altitude until we landed without further problem. The airline was Lufthansa. I rode a Lufthansa 747-400 back.
I flew in the A343 twice in my life. First from ZRH to GRU, back in 2017, with Swiss business class and last year doing GIG-FRA-GIG. Although its performance is known popularly as "it only takes off due to the curvature of the earth", it's insanely confortable as it steadily climbs up to cruising altitude. Even the step climbs throughout the journey you can barely feel. Other planes, such as the 777 and the 747 (specially the -400) are way more powerful, thus departing like a rocket. Not saying that this is bad, but the A343 is a smooth ride from takeoff to landing. Also, all the flights were quite full of pax and cargo, therefore it got a straight 20 seconds of takeoff roll from the moment it started rolling on the runway, which is A LOT. Still, it was really fun to watch it slowly build speed for takeoff.
Flew SWISS A343 from SIN-ZRH-LHR in economy in Nov 2021. On the SIN-ZRH leg we spent around 75 seconds on the runway just trying to gain some speed. Once we finally managed to get off the ground it really felt like we struggled to climb. Every slight pitch up input made us feel like we were going to stall. It was much faster on the ZRH-LHR leg since there was much less fuel needed. Other than that, I could confidently say the Swiss really perfected the service on both flights, and that the SIN-ZRH flight was among the best flights I've ever been on.
I feel this deeply. In 2018 we traveled on Swiss’ flagship 777-ER from LAX-ZRH, and it was just lovely. Our next leg: ZRH-JNB (Johannesburg), on an A340-(400? 600?) was just a nightmare (It had to be one of the oldest planes in the fleet). The weakness of the aircraft was striking: the meager takeoff performance, yes, but also it was evident the airline wasn’t investing in the in-cabin experience. The only reason this plane exists is because of old ETOPS regulations: Airbus needed a multi-engine plane for international routes, and this was their donkey. Hee Haw.
@@andylucas5770 i can understand. In 2018, SWISS still haven't retrofitted their A340-300 aircraft yet, so I can understand the Cabin experience part. When I flew with them they were retrofitted and were really comfortable, the mood lighting was an especially nice feature.
Something you missed is twins engines plane need to have way bigger engines…because when they lost one, they lost 50% of thrust.
Perhaps see the above comment logged about the same time as your own, I quote > Gabriel Teixeira - 2 weeks ago - You could have also mentioned that twin engine airplanes need extra power reserve for a take off without one engine while a four engine like the A340 has a much lower power reserve, then end up with a low take off performance. This holds true for any quad jet.
@@beachbum4691 ok Mr smarty pants
Everyone knows that when a twin engine plane looses an engine the remaining engine has more than enough power to carry the plane to the crash site.
As an occasional commercial passenger as well as a C to C+ recreational flight sim pilot, in my opinion, I do believe I carry the credentials & quite frankly, overqualified to concur with your thesis Dr.
I got to fly on 340 whopping 4 times. Absolutely the nicest plane to be on for long flights. Shame it's not really flying anymore. Very quiet, smooth, goes through turbulence like nothing else. Can't remember which model it was, but Air Mauritius had incredibly smooth landings every time with this beast.
It's not actually that good in turbulence unless you're near the wing-box.
@@EvoraGT430 I never had any issues on them
Precisely fantastic in turbulence because of narrow design and 4 engines
it is still in operation, e.g. with Swiss.
@@EvoraGT430 long bodies are like that. Fly in a DC-8-63, for instance, sitting in the tail. It's like a ride in a jeep over an African sand track.
I flew on a Virgin 340 from Heathrow to LAX around 22 years ago. I was lucky enough to be bumped to first class and had the best flight of my life. Loved the plane and the service Virgin gave in those days. I don't remember the takeoff but the plane was quite full so I imagine that long runway at Heathrow was needed. Have been a fan ever since.
I once flew the a340-600 and it felt like a normal flight,but the landing was the hardest and possibly most powerful landing I have ever flown on, and i fly a lot
Happy to say I've flown on this plane 8 times, if I recall correctly. Definitely has a special place in my heart.
One of the most pleasant long-haul flights I can remember was on an A340-600. Very quiet and the downstairs toilets where funny.
I've only once been on an A340, don't know which variant, and it was a really nice experience... Well, as nice of an experience as you are going to get flying coach non stop from Munich to San Francisco. I liked the 2-4-2 layout, the bathrooms being downstairs made the cabin feel a bit roomier, and the ride was so smooth that there were times I forgot we were actually cruising through the air at hundreds of miles per hour.
I did flew the on a 1 month old A340-300 from Lufthansa during the inaugural flights from PTY to FRA in 2016, one of the smoothest take off and lading, I still consider this to be one of the best plane I got a chance to experiences. You could feel the weight of the plane and how well build it is. Amazing experience.
I once flew in an Airbus A340. It was so slow that when I got off the plane it was 1993.
I once flew in an Airbus A340. It was so slow that when I got off the plane my hare had turned into tortoise.
I’ve traveled on a Swiss a 340 a few times between Zurich and Johannesburg. Other than the long roll I would have thought it was a 330 until l look out the window and see a few extra engines 😊
Flew on the A340-300 from KUL to CMB. Climb to cruise altitude took a while, but I love the aircraft due to its low interior noise levels.
Gorgeous aircraft, especially the A340-600, with its large engines.
I always think these tiny engines are cute and elegant, it looks a bit like the modern version of 707
i actually been to an A340 when i was 5 years old from Narita to Manila, i barely remember anything back then, but they told me that after that flight, my parents said it was super quiet, comfortable, and spacious
Don’t forget, in an engine failure scenario you only loose 25% of power compared the 50% of the 787 -> meaning you get a better climb gradient and One Engine inop performance ! That’s why every 4 engined aircraft will be outperformed by 2 engined aircraft, but again, only during normal operations! :)
I'm glad somebody said it. Thank you. The A340-300 is not underpowered in comparison to the 4 engine jets I flew. It seems pilots accustomed to the excess thrust a twin needs for engine out performance are likely to perceive a 4-holer as underpowered.
Airliners must have enough power to still be able to gain altitude at maximum weight after one of the engines fail during takeoff, so four-engine planes must have at least 25% more power than the minimum power to get off the ground, but twin-engine planes have at least double the minimum amount of power available for them to be able to reach safe altitudes and maintain controllable flight.
Well said and beat me to it!
I flew the A340-600 with lufthansa from Frankfurt to Vancouver back in 2013. Till date, it's the best flight i've had. That plane is an absolute beast
I went on Virgin Atlantic A340-600 in 2007 from Heathrow to Los Angeles found it awesome aircraft
It is soooo smooth.
For flying, the A340 is an absolute gem. It is a very smooth flying machine
I operated the A340-300 as an Air Canada Purser from Delhi India to Toronto on many occasions. The take off roll leaving a very hot Delhi in the early morning was unusually long. Almost alarmingly long.
What do you think if Airbus had kept the A340 wity latest twin trent turbo fan engines.
Damn, and I thought the old Air Asia X LON to KUL flight was long, although funnily enough I think they used ex Air Canada 343's
you also need to consider an A/C has to continue the take-off with 1 engine failed, so a Twin has to have enough power from 1 engine but a Quad has 3 left to power the take-off. Thus a twin has 2x the power needed when all engines are operating, but a Quad has 1.333x the power needed when all are working. You are right about the Superfan.
Flew on an A340-300 from EZE Buenos Aires to MIA Miami 8 years ago and the comfort and amenities of the plane were outstanding, and made the ~10min long takeoff run worth it.
In 2003 I flew a Lan Chile A340-300 from Auckland(NZ) to Santiago(Chile). Man, that thing used every inch of the runway. It was quite noticeable!
A few years later I flew on an Emirates A340-500, it was a totally different experience.
I've done Chile to New Zealand and Australia many times. In the old days Qantas did that flight with a 747, which was normally fine, but the very last flight I took on that plane was just before all the COVID lockdowns, and the plane was jam packed with folks desperate to get back home before all the borders closed. I feel like the plane was maybe overloaded, because it took forever to take off and climb. Ever since LATAM and now Qantas started using the 787 on this flight, I'm much happier. That plane really jumps off the runway and climbs easily.
I almost got the chance to fly LAN's A340 but it got swapped for a 767 at the last minute. Not complaining too much though, the 767 is an awesome machine
@@cobyexplanes must be a huge bummer
I used to fly the A343 regularly between HKIA and DXB via CX back in the days. The increased flight time with this quad jet is highly noticeable but it was always an enjoyable flight specially with their old 2-4-2 config. Amazing aircraft!
I remember being at Farnborough when the A340 demonstrated a slow take off roll and steep climb. It was perfect for an air show, it blew me away. In hindsight, that was probably full power. To date the event, it was followed by a low and slow flypast by Concorde. God I miss her, I grew up with the noise and life has been just a little too quiet since.
Gee, the A340 was first built in the 1970s, the 787 over 30 years later. In that period ultrahigh bypass engines were introduced, and ETOPS was extended so that 340 sized 4 engine planes were made commercially obsolete (now you can go over any ocean with a twin and twins are cheaper to run and maintain). The last 340 rolled off the production line over ten years ago.
I always liked flying on the A340. There was a time when I was making regular flights from JFK to BKK on the Thai Airways a 340-500. With four engines, we could regularly fly over the North Pole without worrying about ETOPS. The planes were always comfortable and smooth. Later I did a lot of PHL to FRA in the Lufthansa versions. Business class was always great when we could afford it but even coach was decent because of the 2-4-2 seating, there was high probability of getting the window-aisle combination to yourself if you booked smartly.
The longest version of A340 is amazing just because that super long walkway where you can go jogging :-).Seriously,the best airplane I've ever flown!
4:53 Ugh... yes, but the A340 has four of them, so why doesn't that match two larger engines⁉ That's the real question.
Always dreamed to fly any 340 variant. The A330 is by far my flown-favorite to this point. Having the 2-seat window row is unbeatable. Being smashed against the wall at 3am with 2 other people and needing to use the WC is a deal-breaker and I avoid 777, 787, a350s. Ill take extra stops, longer flights and even a pay a bit more for a 330 or 767.
Well I believe the A330 and A340 have identical seating - though I've never actually flown on a 330. But I agree, the 2-4-2 is far the best seating arrangement (I don't know the 767 but its cabin width is 3 feet less so I would guess more cramped than that 330-340). But I also love the reassurance of four engines on long over-ocean flights.
I flew A340 to Philippines. 14 hour non stop. Having a 4 engines on the plane makes me feel safer and comfortable in the meddle of pacific ocean. Incase of one the engine fails
In 2008, I flew 17 hours non-stop from Los Angeles to Bangkok on an Airbus A340-500. It had a 2-4-2 seat configuration which I loved because there were two of us traveling and we didn't have a stranger sitting next to us!
I have been a captain on both the A340-300 and the A340-600. Chalk and cheese, the -600 is a far superior aircraft in every respect, a delight to fly. The -300 is a “dog” and as an ATC friend once said to me, “the best flying advertisement why you should buy Boeing”. I could fill a page on horror stories about the A340-300 and why it was such a P O S. It was a happy day when I was told I had a 747-400 conversion course coming up, I couldn’t wait to get off the Airbus fleet.
I used to operate flights on the A340 in my first year as a flight attendant. Abu Dhabi to Seoul especially.
The Crew Rest Compartment was quite cold haha, but loved the plane. The -600 seemed so long looking from the back galley.
Thanks for the vid Coby.
I had been (as a passenger) flown with A340 twice in 2005, Air France route Frankfurt-Chicago, and surprisingly saw this video now which is opposite of my experiences then... Outbound way just went normal, was long but not unaceptably at all, but the way back to Europe weas different... Took off n 4th of July, after a very dry June and extrem air temperatures whole month encountered the greatest storm that year hitting America, so we had to wait on ground (all passengers in the plane) 4 hours before letting us to start. They didn't want to cancel the flight, so the last moment it was allowed to take off for the whole waiting herd, in line like wild geese... then the miracle happened, aircrew pushed the turbo boost button and from 4 hours delay more 2 hours was saved finally, overall ground speed exceeded 1050 km/h above sea (according to the onboard infotainment system), true air speed was not indicated but surely a rough 10-15 per cent was added to the helping backwind... So after then tihis type was iconic for me, always smied when saw one at airports or in videos, and being sad a little less missing the opportunity travelling on board of a 747 which was the original plan on that route with a different airline.
I've always wanted to take a trip on this aircraft. The ridiculous length of it plus the 4 engines always stuck out to me in a good way. But a lot of interesting stuff I learned about it in this video
I flew a medium ranged flight with an a340-300, I already knew at the time the problems of that aircraft so for curiosity i decided to chronometrate the take off, turns out it take a whole 1 minute and 14 secs, which is insane
I flew the A340 a number of times from Atlanta to Frankfurt on Lufthansa. As others mentioned, the plane felt insanely slow getting off the ground. On one takeoff in FRA I swore we would hit the trees at the end of the runway. The one thing I loved about the aircraft was its smoothness. It never made inelegant moves and the wingspan tended to smooth out some turbulence. I’d love another chance to fly on the plane again but as you say, they are becoming increasingly rare.
I flew on Austrian Airlines A-340-313 from Toronto to Vienna, it was comfortable & they fed us well! No complaints about speed. Now the B-757 - that was like a rocket! Always enjoyed the take-off roll being pressed into my seat! As they cleared the 10,000' level they'd roar up the engines some more - love that plane, the center loading is a bonus as well.
0:36 There is a Lufthansa A340 named after my hometown!? How fitting it's the underwhelming A340-300...
I flew on the A340-600 from DOH to LHR in 2011. Loved it!!!