The World's WEAKEST Plane
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 18 พ.ย. 2024
- Airbus put tiny little engines on the A340 - engines that were originally designed to power narrow-bodies like the 737 and A320. Why did they do this, and just how underpowered is the A340? #shorts
#airbus #a340
This is why we need a public dislike count
Thankfully the dislike counter is shown for shorts videos
@@faithfulyoshi no?
@@roowut Never mind, it's because I had a browser extension to restore the dislike count. It's too bad youtube removed it in the first place.
So you could close his channel down? No thank you.
The "Do not recommend this channel" button works good though.
My favorite part is when you didn't explain it and then forwarded me to another video to watch. You double dipped the chip.
Seinfeld taught us all that you should never double dip a chip.
Bro shut up
Why have I never heard this saying before? 😂
I don’t think he had enough time to explain so cut him some slack.
The A340 was in service 20 years before the 787, so there is a generational difference in technology.
Broooo!! Not this guy comparing new tech to old tech
That's it in a nutshell! Light years apart technologically!
Scrolled for this comment.
Technological limitations did not hinder the ability to create large engines in the 90s. The behemoth of the GE90 was developed in 1990, 3 years before the A340 was put into service. So bigger engines were definitely on the table. The point is that the A340 is underpowered. CFM56’s are tiny lol
@@6z0 the first A340 in service flight was two years before GE90 entered service. Also one GE90 weighs more than three CFM56. So 340 engineers weren’t considering an intake nacelle larger than 3m (IAE engine that was cancelled) so couldn’t bet on 4m because of technology of the time.
To anyone wondering....the video has 38k likes and 31k dislikes on January 12 European time
How do you find this?
@@devins7likely "bring back dislikes" chrome extension
now its 108k@@_Bob_man_
now its 107k@@PLANECARTRAINCOMMENTFACENASA
I came to watch this video with 0 knowledge
Am going back with -4628463838 knowledge
LIES!
😂😂😂
Comparing a tiny 787 with one of the longest planes in the world 🤣
@Something Something Dark Side so he takes a much smaller plane with bigger engines to illustrate his point 🤔🤦🏽♂️
@Something Something Dark Side how is it dangerous, its never had a fatal accident.
*That’s one minute of my life I’ll never get back.*
The A340 has four engines, thus needs a much smaller power reserve for take off with one engine out compared to any twin jet. And the A340 was build using CFM56 engines in order to offset the higher costs of running four engines by using the same engines as the A320/737 families. It still cost much more to operate compared to wide body twin jets.
I watched his TH-cam video explaining why and it was due to an engine manufacturer not building a high efficiency turbo fan engine that was way ahead of its time during those years. I believe it was Safran that builds the Leap engines today. They were stuck with a plane and no engines so in order to keep costs down like you said opted to go with the CFM engines. This is why they didn't fool around when it came to the A340/500/600 variant and opted for the Rollce Royce engines so the mistake was not made.
They could have used the PW4000 or the CF6, which where very popular back then in the A310 and the Boeing 757 and would get the performance. It is just that as a quad jet the costs would be too high and the performance wasn’t required, so they pinched pennies by using the CFM56 instead. The A340-500/600 ended up being a failure due to the really high costs of using a high performance engine for a plane that had four of them, while everyone else wanted a twin engine instead.
When the comment is much more useful than the actual video!!!
🙌🏽🙌🏽
@@sabareesh129 Thanks!
@@andidede3653 PS According to the Wikipedia article on the A340 ”from the start it was intended that the A340 would be powered by four CFM56-5”. So, either the article is wrong or the video shed some light in very early plans Airbus had. However, as much as I know about A340 history, they always designed it to be a CFM56 airplane in order to make the already outdated concept of four engined airliner more palatable for modern airlines in the 90s.
The engines that were chosen for the A340 were the CFM56-5C series, which are indeed relatively small compared to other engines used on large commercial aircraft. This decision was made for a few reasons. Firstly, the CFM56-5C engines are more fuel-efficient than larger engines, which was an important consideration for the A340's long-range capabilities. Secondly, the smaller engines allowed for a more streamlined design, which reduced drag and further improved fuel efficiency. Finally, the use of four smaller engines instead of two larger engines provided greater redundancy and safety in the event of an engine failure.
Despite their small size, the CFM56-5C engines proved to be very reliable and efficient, and the A340 became a popular choice for long-range flights. However, with advances in engine technology and the increasing focus on fuel efficiency, Airbus eventually discontinued the A340 in 2011 in favor of newer, more efficient aircraft such as the A350 and A330neo.
Thanks
At least you know what you are talking (writing….) about. Thanks for the info 😊
For anyone who wants the reason which was not given in the video.
The original engine that was meant to be put on the A340 boasted much higher efficiency then just about any other engine of its time, this would be great because most 4 engines aircraft aren't super fuel efficient. However, when the time came where the engines were needed, The company building them wasn't ready, in fact, the engine wouldn't be ready for another 10 years. Airbus had already boasted to their customers about how efficient it would be, and to match the efficiency claims they had made, they fitted it with less powerful engines as to not dissapoint their customers
Thanks
Pin.
This.
Comment.
Thanks. As soon as I got to the end of this video I felt like the producer is a jerk for leaving us hanging.
video : kindles interest
comments : research library
I always add " watch for part 2 " channels to the don't recommend list
Another one for the collection
Me too!!!
Not even a link to the second part as well.
@@mapleext me 3
I’m also binning this channel.
this is actually a good channel. just not the shorts aspect
Ah yes comparing a plane from the 1980's to the 2010's
When the comments section is more useful than the OP. Great job guys.
-- the A340 was competition for the B777, not the 787. And the 777 pioneered ETOPS, allowing twins to fly over oceans, causing the A340 to fail.
@@jimmiller5600He didn’t say it was competition with the 787. That wouldn’t even make sense because they’re from completely different generations. He said it most closely matches its passenger capacity, which is completely relevant to how powerful the craft is designed to be.
@@jimmiller5600…and the smaller variants of the 777 have since been superseded by the larger variants of the 787, which also fall into the same market segment as the smaller A340 variants.
SpeedRunning Shorts: Basically the engines that they needed weren’t made at the time of the aircraft’s production and were gonna take a while to make them, so they optted for 4 CFM56’s as mentioned in the vid that were originally made for the smaller A320-200.
The reason the A340 has four engines in because of ETOPS, only aircraft with 3 to 4 engines could cross the Atlantic so instead of putting in two big engines on the plane (like the A330) they opted to have 4 small ones to give the same power outpost necessary for the plane to fly and get around the ETOPS
As well the A 340s first flight was in the early 90s. And the 787 has 20 years of technological advance in its build.
@@jeffbrien2282 yeah that too
More useful than a damn TH-cam video.
Well twin engines can cross the Atlantic. They just have to be ETOPS certified and be able to fly on only one of two engines. And I don't think these puny engines are ETOPS certified.
@@chasemiller7974 remember that at the time you couldn't do the crossing with a twin engine plane only quad engine planes were viable. Very quickly the regulations changes and the A340 quickly became obsolete.
Answer: The engines it was intentionally meant for were not fully ready as the gearbox within the engine was ahead of its time. So, they put those engines on instead
Thank you
They are 20 years between them.................
Exactly apples to oranges...
And it was smart for that time until ETOPS changed everything. It was a clever idea to have the possibilities to interchange engine parts with the A320 and body parts with the A330.
Compared to 777,still underpowered
I tell it to you so you don’t have to go to his video.
The a340‘s Build began in 1986. In those days, high bypass ratio turbofans were just beginning to become available. There were no 110″+ diameter turbofans such as Rolls Royce Trent 900 / 1000 (1996) or General Electric GE90s (1993)
So to get this big plane in the air they had to gain enough trust what was only possible with four engines.
What about the A330?
didn't even answer your own question
Totally agree
Yeah
That’s because this is a short generated from a full length video
@@NaenaeGamingnot true. Thats because op is gay
Bro compares a 30yr old plane to one of the most technologically advanced aircrafts today. Bruh
I like how you crop your video to hide the 4 engines on the A340
That's because this is cut from the full video in 16:9, whereas Shorts have to be between 9:16 and 1:1.
@@deus_ex_machina_that’s not an excuse. Content creator could have shown the full image if he wanted to but he chose not to.
It’s not like it’s gonna affect the video..
@@KhaledTheSaudiHawkIIYou expect them to replace entire pieces of footage and create a virtually new video when the whole purpose of this one is to quickly create a short out of a full length video?
@@NaenaeGamingNo, the footage very much shows 4 engines, but it has been strategically cut out. It isn’t easy to show or at least say there are 4 engines when you are a big TH-camr catering to a huge audience and gaining so many views.
I transferred onto the A340 from the 747/400. The underperformance of the A340 was startling. We jokingly referred to the woefully underpowered CFM engines as hair dryers. However, later on the A340/600 came on scene equipped with four Rolls Royce RB211 engines (the same engines on the 747) with 60,000 pounds of thrust per engine. She was delightful to fly.
This was the quickest subscribe/unsubscribe click I've ever done. And I have no regrets Coby
same lol
Poor coby
Same
unsubbed
why?
He's comparing a jet made 10 years ago to one made 40 years ago 💀
I rather search the reason on google than “watch the part 2”
I mean it’s annoying but it’s not a “part 2”
Do keep in mind ur on a site with long and short form content!
This is a good way for creators to get there long form content noticed in fact! It’s hard to so so in the first place
@@EvilNeuro it's a good way to piss people off.
dude you guys are so cringy. he’s a long form content creator and he wants to give huge amounts of info.
An Airbus exec once joked the A340 suffered frequent birdstrikes from behind
Even airbus execs think a340 is unsafe
The 500/600 variants had a bit more power with the RR Trent 500 engines
a bit??????
when the thrust get double?????????
@@alderlake12th nah the 500/600 is 2x more powerful than the 200 varieny
Yet, they didn’t look as good
They were a lot more than a bit more powerful. They were known for having quite ample power.
@@paulspomer16 double power
Imagine the A340 doing a tug of war with a Boeing 777
77 wins
Wow comparing two fundamentally different jets from completely different time periods. Nice
Swiss001: OK THEN, LETS JUST PUT GE90’S ON THE A340-600!
Another fully block creator. Thanks for wasting my time
You weren’t spending your time well if it was just scrolling through shorts
Ilyushin 86: hold my weaker engines.
You compare two completely different aircraft. The A340 has been designed 20 years before B787. It is like comparing the last iPhone with Nokia 3310.
Finally someone said it!
He should have compared to 777
"the A340 is the weakest plane" - said no one literally ever
You make it seem like it only has two tiny engines, when the plane actually has 4.
I need my minute back
A340 has 4 engines, so each one can be a bit smaller compared to same-sized twin engine jets. The main requirement in certification is that it has to be able to continue a take-off in case one engine quits, so you actually still have 3 more engines running to get you off the ground.
They forgot to add 2 more engines
Bit unfair as their is nearly 20 years between them... 20% of the time man have been flying at the dates they first flew. Its a bit like comparing a Boeing 707 and 737... or 727 and A320
“Why did airbus put tiny engines on this massive plane?”
“Well, check out my latest TH-cam video to learn the whole story”
Can you also explain why Windows 10 is better than Windows 95??? Thank you
Windows 10 sucks …
Watch part 2 for more
@@sking2173 ok boomer
lol
My favorite part is where he told us why
I’m Coby Trains choo choo
plz tell me what is coby train???????????????????????????
lmao
The A340-300 as we all know is a pencil with wings with 4 hairdyer engines
Bruh the A340 is in no way a comparison to a 787. The A350 is the ACTUAL modern competitor
No it’s not, the 777 is the comparison to the A350
@@L.Plant1nah a340 600 is actually more similar to 777 200lr
Fuel efficiency, saved you having to go to the full video
How about: the a340 is the better aircraft with its perfect safety rating to date while the 787 has had a few catastrophic problems while it’s still newish
safety isn't all that makes a good aircraft. the A340 burns notably more fuel and likely has higher maintenance costs than the 787.
There have been a few A340 hull losses without any deaths, and none on the 87. The 87 definitely had some teething issues though (battery fires come to mind), however most new airliners have some teething issues in the beginning of their operations.
The airbus A340-300 is a quite old aircraft so airbus didint have a choice to put normal big engines on th massive airliner but when it finaly had the tech they put normal big engines on the airliner so dont blame the aircraft or airbus they didint have choice
@@Mr.Amtrakwhat about the A330?
@@fabandyouexactly.777 is one of the safest, but it had a few problems in the start
It’s because of budget cuts, they have to use tiny engines because, other engines are over the budget and airbus got a budget cut, soooo they have to use tiny engines.
It’s because of ETOPS. An old law said aircraft had to have 3 or 4 engines to cross oceans on long routes, so they would put tiny engines on to make it legal.
A340-600:no im not weak💀
Asks question, talks for little, directs to different video for actual explanation. Channel should be called Cody Prevaricates
The a340 was built when there was a law that you need 4 or more engines on your aircraft to cross the ocean, but nowadays theres no more law like that
Finally a Useful comment
Well you could have told here so I’ll go look it up on Google 😂
ah yes comparing a plane from the 70's to a unreleased plane
You obviously forgot the IL86 exists.
Captains at my airline love to tell stories of back in the day when you saw IL86's climb with 200ft per minute. :')
Gonna be honest even at my fattest of all asses with a full compliment of snacks and miscellaneous cargo I can outdo a +200’ fpm in a C172 😂😂😂
@@dmitrikupryaov7845 Yea. the IL86 was pretty miserable in that regard hahaha
@@EinfachLuap to be fair the entire aircraft is pretty miserable. Basically no export value thanks to its delayed production start, shit engines and avionics, and high operation costs doomed the IL-86 to yet another example of Soviet and communist failure.
That being said I do find the concept behind the IL-86 an ingenious one. Rather than adapt the airport, the Soviet’s sought to adapt the plane and accommodate more passengers without requiring a proper runway and terminal capable of handling 747-esque/jumbo/heavy-class aircraft
@@dmitrikupryaov7845 couldn't agree more!
It's a lot easier to explain this than you make it out. First of all, REGULATIONS FOR ETOPS STATE THAT AN AIRCRAFT MUST BE WITHIN 2000 MILES OF AN ACCOMMODATING AIRFIELD. Second if the aircraft is unable to maintain a 2000 nautical mile distance to an accommodating airfield than a minimum of three engines is required. This is the primary reason for the development of the DC 10. Third answer the question you pose in a video rather than bait viewers into watching something part 2.
Am I the only one that thought the a340 was a 4 engine plane?
It is - vid is cropped
And yet it has a excellent safety record and fits where the A380 can't.
Not talking about the A340-500/600 in this is pretty criminal…as well as the mistakes others mention.
They fixed it with the A340-500 variant that got larger engines
A340-600 also
Also guys for extra reading, if you’re into science look at lift and thrust vs weight and drag, you don’t need massive engines for the engines to work, you just need enough thrust to create enough air movement to make sure the aircraft stays in the air. I’m glad this comment section is coming together, OP is a dog for doing this
well yeah the A340-300 is 18 years older than the 787 😐
no, age isnt the problem here, the engines that the A340 uses was made for smaller planes (like the A320, which is a medium range aircraft) and the 777 is older than the A340 but yet it's still more powerful
That is only true for the A340-300 which is much older than the newer variants.
EXACTLY AND WHY DOESS BEO ALWAYS HATE ON AIRBUS, LIKE I SQEAR IN EVERY VIDEO FROM HIM HE HATES ON AIRBUS
@@PassionForSpeedF1 it's cause of the 60min rule so they needed 4 engines for long distance
@@edan7813 hes not hating, hes just saying that the airbus A340 is really underpowered, you can compare it to the 757 which has really strong engines
“Sure, let’s compare 2 airplanes with nearly a 20 year gap in development”
The airbus doesn’t nose dive into the ground like the Boeing
Indeed
Because A340 is older 💀
I'd still choose the Airbus over the boeing!
Thank you
The aircraft manufacturer doesn`t decide which engines to use. The airline does.
even then, an aircraft will only have a handful of engine options to select from
That’s why it’s the GE 90’a now
Boeing? No, thank you. I appreciate my life.
*Hello*
*Smallest things in the world...*
*4. Molecules*
*3. Atoms*
*2. Electrons*
*1. THE SMALLEST THING EVER is an A340 engine.._*
I’ll be checking the block button instead 👍
I love a video where a question is asked and then they talk about every except the answer to the question
Airbus villain arc for putting small engines to big planes
He isn't weak! He's doing his best. >:(
Hatachi-M engines be like:
“It’s not tiny, it’s average.”
mf explained the how but not the why 😂
I find it strange that the A340, which has been on the market for almost 30 years, is being compared to the B787, which has only been on the market since 2011. Incidentally, this is the same year that Airbus stopped building the A340.... it would be very surprising if there had been no innovation in engine development since it was built. Today's engines are much more powerful and at the same time more economical and reliable than the old ones. That's why only two engines are still being installed.
The successor to the A340 is also the B787's direct competitor, the A350, which is also equipped with two engines.
Me chilling with A340-600 💯💯💯🗣🗣🗣
787 underpowered??? Dude that thing can taxi in idle.engine power, it needs brakes to stay in one place
You’ve just guaranteed one less customer.
A340: I ain’t weak look at a3.
A3: What ya talking about?
This video was just put together by some AI app probably, but the 340 competes more with the 777 in terms of size and capacity. It was designed to work around etops restrictions that aren't really much of a factor anymore by using 4 tiny little engines that don't burn dramatically more fuel than the 777's massive 2. But when you're running an airline company, every tenth of a percent counts big time. These weren't sold because they were made obsolete essentially by regulators.
You're welcome, and if it was actually you who made this short, you need to do better, because that is just verbal diarrhea.
A340: I may have the small engines but I’m the biggest plane😈
Bro he really said at the end "watch my video to find out" and at the start he said he was gonna say why but then proceeds to talk about a 787. This is why we need a public dislike count
Comparison of the two aircraft and their turbofan engines? The technological leap in aircraft propulsion systems incorporated in the Dreamliner is evident as a 21st century airliner. But to be honest, I feel safer in A340 than a Deathliner flying coffin ⚰️
-How much unsubscribe you want this to be?
-Yes.
It's not weak by any means...
“Here’s a good idea: have a point. It makes it so much more interesting for the listener!”
Maybe it's fuel economy
He didn’t mention the HUGE age difference…
There's no comparison, the 787 is literally the next generation.
Amazing answer! This is why I love humans
The A-340 oscillates so badly that the pilots cannot drink out of open vessels.
The A340-300 was designed with four smaller engines instead of two larger engines for several reasons:
Engine redundancy: By using four engines instead of two, the A340-300 has redundancy in case one or two engines fail. This provides an extra layer of safety for long-haul flights over remote areas.
Noise regulations: The A340-300 was designed to meet strict noise regulations, particularly for takeoff and landing. Smaller engines tend to be quieter than larger ones, and using four engines allows for a better distribution of noise.
Range and payload: The smaller engines on the A340-300 allowed for a greater payload and longer range than if two larger engines were used. This was important for airlines looking to fly long-haul routes with a high capacity.
Fuel efficiency: While larger engines can be more fuel efficient, the smaller engines used on the A340-300 were still able to provide good fuel efficiency, particularly at cruising altitudes. This helped to reduce operating costs for airlines.
The engines are like hair dryers 😂
What is the difference between an a340 and a330?
Coby you are a legend don't listen to these cringey comments ❤
The A340-300 was the weakest plane due to the smaller engine but it was at least better than those Boeing 737 Max series planes where safely is their main issues. Flying in a Boeing 737 Max series plane is like flying in a ⚰️ casket, the risk 💀 is there.
Short answer: because there’s 4 of them, not just 2.
Long answer: commercial airplanes are all designed to be able to fly, or even take off with one engine failure (imagine a bird strike or compressor stall, etc). This means a 25% loss of power on a quad jet, versus a 50% loss on a twin jet. That means just 1 engine on a twin jet has to be able to power the plane, as opposed to 3 on a quad jet.
Less engines still usually means better fuel efficiency because the power-to-weight ratio is better on bigger engines. You wouldn’t have to run the two engines at as high of a rate as you would with the four when you’re climbing or cruising, which means less fuel consumption.
Also half as much engine maintenance required!
Oh, also, this is a comparison between a 50 year old design (the A340 has the same airframe as the A330 which was a stretched A300 which was released in 1972. Fuselage is essentially unchanged) and a 15 year old design (787 was launched in 2009). The 787 is also 50% composite material which is far lighter (and stronger, and more expensive upfront) than aluminum, which means the engines have to work even less to power the plane since it’s lighter - thus saving a lot of fuel.
The A340-200 is among the most “underpowered” commercial airliners but is obviously perfectly safe and the “underpowered” just means the engines run at a higher percentage during flight (engines usually only ever run 100% during takeoff/initial climb, and go-around).