A330 and A340 are two versions of the same plane. When the program was launched, etops certifications were not yet generalised. Four engines were needed for long range operations. It's not the case anymore, Two engines are enough and more fuel efficient, so four engines planes are on the way out, not only the A340, but also the 747 and the A380... The A330 Neo is selling well alongside the A350, there will be no A340 Neo...
78Dipar u should look at the size of it and the more engines the more thrust and companies are looking to invest into bigger planes because of more passengers
i had the pleassure to flight in both planes (both aerolineas argentinas, you showed some in the images). The a330 is a nice plane, but i have to give it to the a340. It feels waay more spacious and confortable. And the roar of the 4 engines at take off is heavenly.
As mentioned before, the 330 and 340 are variants of the same plane due to restrictions at the time of inception. People usually feel that a variant can only be visually distinguished by length and not engine number. Anyways, the cross-section is the same for all (from a300 to 340). Only the -600 is significantly longer.
A340 was created due to regulations on how far away from a diversion airport twin engines could fly so it was created for its time but now it’s past its time
Indranil Chakrabarty Really only the 2nd Gen -500 and -600 were built as higher capacity models to compete with the 777 and 747. The smaller -200 and -300 were exactly as long as their A330 counterparts.
The Airbus A340 and all of its variants especially the -600 is my favorite aircraft of all time! At first it looks like a medium aircraft. The fact that it has 4 engines, 3 main gears and high capacity is what made me like it because it just looks good and useful for many things even for a single decker aircraft. Although Airbus ended its production for this aircraft, it has been a useful aircraft, a great replacement for other aircrafts and a strong competitor.
Th A330 and the A340 are not completly different planes, they use the same basic design. In fact the 340 is a 4 engines version of the A330. This made sense at the time when Etops certifications were not yet generalised, and twin engined planes couldn't be used on the longest flights. But things have changed, and because twin engined planes are more fuel efficient, and with the current air transport crisis, it's the end for 4 engines planes, not only the A340, but also the A380 and the 747...
Although the quad jets have been phased out,I still like them :Boeing’s 707( 720’s aka 707-020 included)and 747’s;Convair’s 880 and 990’s ;and Airbus A 340 all versions. The A340 reminds me of a widebody Boeing 707 . The A 340-600 reminds me of widebody stretch DC-8…I believe it was called the Super 61.
when comparing fuel consumptions, you should add a note it's mpg per passenger, and not the plane it self. this is silly, but plane noobs might take your words for it by mistake
Almost giving it a power of A321-271N. One advantage is that you should be able to cross the South Pacific Australia to South America and also South Atlantic South Africa to Brazil due to the fact there is no diversion airports for twin engine aircraft
harshatha s I don’t need to. Rolls Royce Trent 7000 is the only engine that powers the A330 NEO. You’re probably thinking of the A320/A321 NEO but this video isn’t about that. Also if the “answer” can be found on google then why didn’t you look in the first place
A couple of points that weren’t addressed in the video. A four engined aircraft isn’t required to comply with ETOPS requirements so on some routes, the miles per gallon of fuel burned with the 2 engined aircraft may be offset by the shorter route a 4 engined aircraft can take, not requiring the same proximity to ETOPS diversion airports. Also, there are advantages to having more engines when it comes to takeoff minimums. Having 4 engines is sometimes less restrictive than having 2 engines so for some airports this can be the difference between being legal to depart and not departing.
They cant't do that. If you remove 2 of the engines on the a340-200/300, you will have 2 cfm-56 engines left on the plane. The a320 and 737 is powered by 2 cfm-56's, so operating an a340 with that is almost impossible
Technical its possible. The question always is, is it economical for an airline to do? Conversion, recertification etc. etc. It could be cheaper to buy a new A330 neo/ A350 then convert an A340. One thing is for sure the A340 will live on in A330's as sparepart donors
I have rarely seen so many mistakes in one video. First off, there is no general answer to the question of which one is better. Each airline has a different mission profile for their aircrafts. For many airlines their mission profile does not require an A340, however there are plenty of scenarios in which an A340 makes much more sense. If you compare the A330-300 and A340-300, firstly you have much more range on the A340, so some missions require this type. The MTOW (depending on the specific aircraft version) is around 40t higher on the A340. For the same route, some of that difference is gonna go forwards carrying more required fuel on the A340, but the rest you can use to either carry more passengers or cargo or a mix of both, which can be highly beneficial (touching on other restrictions that a twin might have like OEI scenarios at certain airports would lead too far now, but adds to the point). Then you have the issue of cost of capital. Used A340s are very cheap. With the oil prices we have seen in the past 10 years, for most airlines the relatively minor fuel penalty of using an A340 is far more desirable than the higher cost of capital involved in leasing or buying an A330. Some of the financially most successful airlines are using that strategy. It’s not as simple as comparing fuel burn and calling it a day. Now that we’ve got that set straight: Other stuff like, an A330 can only accommodate a 2 class layout...where do you come up with nonsense like this? Each airline hast their own config, heck there are A321s with a 3 class layout. Look, I’ve said this before, but before you call yourself an aviation channel, do your research and get your facts right.
Part of the selling point was that pilots can fly both types without recertification as only difference really was the engines and weight figures. This meant an airline could purchase both types and could swap pilots for different routes. The A330 could be limited by ETOPS but the A340 wasn’t
Well, for a non expert, that seems not to be such a big difference in fuel consumption according to this data in similar conditions between the A330 (non NEO) and A340, even if the consumption rate here was based on L/100km/passenger.
One issue of A340(342/343) is being "underpowered". While fuel burn during cruising is okay, it takes more time to reach the optimal flight level. Still comparable to 772, though. A340NG(345/346), suffer from overweight issues and more, so probably being the most fuel guzzling aircraft of its age. A330 meanwhile, is probably the lightest and most optimised frame. Once it gained sufficient range after upgrades, it outsold both 772 and 343. To be fair it's amazing it managed to catch up 787, a cleansheet composite aircraft, just by changing the wing design and newer engines.
@Quoc anh Vu Pham I heard A330/A340 can't stretch in the way 777 does. Beyond 333/343's size large rework is necessary, and that lead to prohibitive weight gain of 345/346. Yeah 330 is lighter with just two engine, but the frame will still be very heavy. 333 is probably where the frame is most optimized. In contrast, 772 is too heavy for that size.
Not much difference between the A330 and the A340 in terms of average fuel consumption. It's not the fuel burn which made quad jetliners unappealing to be incorporated in a fleet, it was the requirements of mechanical maintenance and logistics behind it, affecting the turnaround of an aircraft, obviously more money and time is needed for a quad jetliner to propagate in comparison with a twin jetliner which directly involves revenue.
The A330-200 uses the same fuselage as the A340-200, and the A340-300 uses the same fuselage as the A330-300. Their only difference is how many engines each type has (i.e., A340s always have four jet engines while A330s always have two jet engines).
I'm sure I'm in the minority on this, but I think the 330 looks better than the 340. The 4 little hair dryers always bothered me on the 340, whereas the 330 has that long elegant expanse of clean wing. Plus the 330/340 family has an unusually small vertical stabilizer, so the super-stretched 340s get out of proportion to my eye. I'm not usually a big Airbus fan, but the A330 is balanced just right and I really like it.
"The Airbus A330 Vs Airbus A340 - Which Aircraft Is Better?" ↑ Ooh, I know this one! It's whichever is more profitable for the airline in question. It is, isn't it? Yes it is! Yes it I-IS!!
The A340 was created solely because ETOPS still wasn't very widespread at the time of its conception. Had ETOPS certifications been fairly commonplace by the late 80s-early 90s then Airbus wouldn't have even bothered with the A340 and would've just taken an A330, stretched the fuselage, slap on some extra fuel tanks and maybe give it some more powerful engines.
This does not take into concern the higher maintenance costs of four engines so in reality the difference is larger to the 330s advantage. There is a good reason why we will not have four engine aircrafts any more in civilian aviation.
The A330 has a pseudo 3 class configuration - sort off. It has First class, Comfort Economy with a bigger pitch rate between seats and regular economy. Maybe others do too.
I don't get it. How can a plane fly on 3-4 Liters per 100KM. My car burnes more fuel per 100KM. Is this Liters per passenger per 100KM? If you have 300 passengers burning 3,3 Liters per 100KM is about 1 Thousand Liters or 1 ton of fuel. If you fly 6000KM is 6 Ton of fuel. Otherwise it is only about 200 Liters for 6000KM for a big plane.
The comparissons is not quite fair. The A330 in the comparisson have about 4% higher seating density. While that might not sound to much, when the diffrance is in the range of 10% , that is really a lot of the diffrance. What the A340 really is.. is a A330 that is to heavy for its engines. The lightest A340 is 32 ton heavier than the heaviest A330.. This mostly due to higher fuel capacity. They have the same wing, same fuselage same.. pretty much everything. What the A340 have that the eqvivalent A330 don´t is a added belly tank and an additional landing gear. There simply wasn´t any larger engines available at this point. The one 777 was just not finished yet. They needed to ad more engines. With the A330 you have to choice between flying long-haul, or carrying a lot of passengers. With the A330Neo the engines got sufficiently more efficient to almost reach out and touch A340 range so the added fuel tank was simply not needed.. Still i would still say that the A340 was supreamly sucessfull.. What it did to airbus. It cemented the company as a top tear aircraft producer. 380 passanger in 3 class is pretty much touching the 737-300, while not quite reaching the 400, getting pretty close.
The main killer for quad jets is fuel efficiency, and maintenance cost. A twin engine wide body jet can meet the same long distance range and passenger capacity at a fraction of the cost, also sense they are much smaller than quad jets they can fit into today’s airports. Quad jets like the A380, A340 and 747 just doesn’t make sense for airlines to operate for passenger service. Now they can still be use for cargo transportation because airlines needs bigger aircraft for hall heavier cargo, and quad jets can still have a place for the military sense they are big enough for transporting troops and armored vehicles.
A330 is better than A340 massive thanks to ETOPS. Because of the win of A330, Airbus launched the A330 Neo. Airbus wants to kill the A340 because it was a failure, but Airbus was still smart to build the A340. Some of the A330 Neo variants are also big, for the airlines looking an aircraft which looks like A340. But, for the airlines looking for the Airbus replacement for the A340, A350 is the best option for them since the purpose of the Airbus A350 was to compete with the Boeing B777 and 787.
Who knows what happen in future. Maybe one day FAA and EASA announces that twin engine aircrafts won't be allowed to pass oceans anymore so 4 engine aircraft era will start again. Airbus will have a ready to go design. Same goes for Boeing as well
@@tomstravels520 Maybe we'll get back to the 4 engines formula. Look how, these days, plane makers force their airframes with 2 huge engines, that get bigger and bigger and more complex every day. That's even where the Boeing 737 MAX failed. Designing a 4-burner is the way to save more ground clearance while not sacrificing power - especially with a full loaded plane having to take off from a high altitude airport for instance.
julosx it’s all to do with power to weight. The 747 and A380 needed 4 engines because there were no engines that couple provide it with enough thrust if only 2 were used. Now look at the carbon fibre and composite aircraft we have now. They only need 2 engines. 4 engines would be a waste of money
I think that the A330 is better than the A340. Even though the A330 has less range and capacity overall, the A330 is more fuel efficient as it has two engines instead of 4, and Airlines want the most fuel efficient planes now, so the A330 is the better one.
Why do we always get these over simplistic fuel ratings? Somewhere in the equation there should be a mass number say like MILES PER GALLON PER TON. One advantage of the larger aircraft is their carrying capacity and that is a money maker for the airlines.
Could you imagine if there was an aircraft that got 70 miles per gallon that was the size of an eight 330? It would have close to 1,000,000 miles in range 😂
Both the A330 and A340 were a whole generation behind the 777. The 330 found a sweet spot in terms of payload-range-cost and has proven to be a rather solid platform, however the A340 is a terrible airplane both in terms of capabilities and technology. Sales don’t lie.
@@alanstevens1296 Saying a 90s aluminium frame with some upgrades is sleeker than a millenium cleensheet composite aircraft, is as ridiculous as saying A330 is more efficient as 787.
@@alanstevens1296 Get your fact right: 787 is the first composite fuselage aircraft, and A350 the second. Meanwhile 777X inherited the very same aluminium fuselage from original 777 - not even changed to Al-Li as rumoured. For the similar sized 778 and 351, the former is way more heavier and by no means match the efficiency of the latter. It's only the stretched 779 that might catch up the 351 per seat, but I don't think it can surpass neither.
@@steinwaldmadchen :: The 777-X has the world's longest composite wing. The fuselage may be designed with an aluminum/lithium alloy that could save 12% in weight over previous alloys. Truth is, composites do not offer massive weight savings in most general applications. After all is said and done; lightning strike, defects, BVID and manufacturing are taken into account - you end up at much the same point. It is only in combining metal and plastics (and any other material you wish to mention) that you can really get ahead. Also, the weight of an a/c has long passed being the most important improvement. It’s just part of the overall lifecycle cost. The 777-X will be the most advanced commercial a/c in the world.
Don't forget also this fact : historically, the A340 proved to display a much better safety record than the A330. The series suffered only one crash, due to bad piloting only, and nobody died. The A330 will never reach this level of safety.
I mean if you really need engine failsafes to ensure your safety, fly way longer distances, and if fuel & maintenance costs aren’t a concern, then A340 all the way; but add money into the equation and definitely the A330.
Those fuel burn number are complete nonsense. According to this video, airplanes have better fuel economy than my Hyundai Accent...... The Airbus 330 will burn roughly 12 000 lbs (5500 kg) of Jet fuel an hour. It will travel approximately 450 Nautical Miles (517 Statute Miles) (833 Km) in 1 hour. 12 000 lbs is roughly 6891 Litres (1800 US Gallons) of fuel. So the fuel burn is roughly: 827 Litres/100km or 0.28 Miles Per Gallon....... Learn how to do math!!!!
A340 is one of the most beautiful looking airplane and A330 is good for the airline companies.
747 is cooler
@@Rami358able no queen of the skies
A380 is the king
A350 is the prince
787 is the princess
@@BTSIMULATIONISBEST grow up
@@BTSIMULATIONISBEST A340 is god
The A340 just has 2 more engines than the A330.
How does having 2 extra engines make a plane look better?
A330 and A340 are two versions of the same plane. When the program was launched, etops certifications were not yet generalised. Four engines were needed for long range operations. It's not the case anymore, Two engines are enough and more fuel efficient, so four engines planes are on the way out, not only the A340, but also the 747 and the A380...
The A330 Neo is selling well alongside the A350, there will be no A340 Neo...
78Dipar maybe not the Airbus it need more thrust therefore 2 engines
@@CrownSploit
It's easier to get more thrust with four engines than with two !
78Dipar ik therefore 2 more that's what I mean
@@CrownSploit
Unfortuatly 2 engines are more fuel efficient than 4 engines, even if bigger engines are required...
78Dipar u should look at the size of it and the more engines the more thrust and companies are looking to invest into bigger planes because of more passengers
I like the a330 as its practical for the company (which is needed especially for these times)
The a340 is just traditional and really nice
Airbus A340 voted by pilots & crew as the nicest to fly in & with! ... ♥️🌷🕯
Tough one....But I have to go fro the A340!!! I've flown on it so many times and I just love it
But, do you think airlines should keep it? This decision should include practicality, cost, and passenger comfort. Not only one.
For me, A330-343 hands down, best looking A330 variant, and best sounding engines on takeoff thanks to Rolls Royce Trent 700
I love A330-300 and A340-600..
Me too
You should clarify the fact that the fuel consumption figures are in litres per passenger per 100km
AnatoleH1 I was scratching my head over that!
It does seem a bit incredible to imagine a whole widebody airliner burning the same amount of fuel per kilometer as a Prius.
I've been on both A330 & A340 found them nice to travel on.
I flew on a 330 but I never did on a 340 and I miss it.
@@julosx me too!
I did both
@@GsG23161 I managed to go A330 300 and A340 300 and 600.
@@rajnirvan3336 ive been on cathay a330 and Turkish a330 and Also Turkish a340
i had the pleassure to flight in both planes (both aerolineas argentinas, you showed some in the images). The a330 is a nice plane, but i have to give it to the a340. It feels waay more spacious and confortable. And the roar of the 4 engines at take off is heavenly.
As mentioned before, the 330 and 340 are variants of the same plane due to restrictions at the time of inception. People usually feel that a variant can only be visually distinguished by length and not engine number. Anyways, the cross-section is the same for all (from a300 to 340). Only the -600 is significantly longer.
I believe, A340 was almost failed project, since twin, wide-body became more and more popular
A340 was created due to regulations on how far away from a diversion airport twin engines could fly so it was created for its time but now it’s past its time
Joshua 윤호 Han 그리고 그건 ETOPS로, 몇년뒤에 인증으로 풀렸죠 ㅎㅎ
Wrong. The A340 was replaced by the A380 ( both are high capacity, long haul )
Indranil Chakrabarty Really only the 2nd Gen -500 and -600 were built as higher capacity models to compete with the 777 and 747. The smaller -200 and -300 were exactly as long as their A330 counterparts.
RUBBISH !!!! The 340 is a super successful plane. Bought by over 40 airlines. No ETOPS shit. Go anywhere plane
A340-600 still gonna be my fav!!
Mine is the A330-343 ❤
The Airbus A340 and all of its variants especially the -600 is my favorite aircraft of all time! At first it looks like a medium aircraft. The fact that it has 4 engines, 3 main gears and high capacity is what made me like it because it just looks good and useful for many things even for a single decker aircraft. Although Airbus ended its production for this aircraft, it has been a useful aircraft, a great replacement for other aircrafts and a strong competitor.
I personally love the A340.
Same
Both the A330 and A340 are my favorite plane
The A330-200 was the beginning of Airbus' widebody success. Medium capacity with a long range.
My heart was broken when I found out that Airbus cancelled the A340. Undoubtedly my favorite aircraft.
@@cktyu Yes they were. But the 500 and 600 sold more i think and are the most well known versions
Th A330 and the A340 are not completly different planes, they use the same basic design. In fact the 340 is a 4 engines version of the A330.
This made sense at the time when Etops certifications were not yet generalised, and twin engined planes couldn't be used on the longest flights.
But things have changed, and because twin engined planes are more fuel efficient, and with the current air transport crisis, it's the end for 4 engines planes, not only the A340, but also the A380 and the 747...
Although the quad jets have been phased out,I still like them :Boeing’s 707( 720’s aka 707-020 included)and 747’s;Convair’s 880 and 990’s ;and Airbus A 340 all versions. The A340 reminds me of a widebody Boeing 707 . The A 340-600 reminds me of widebody stretch DC-8…I believe it was called the Super 61.
I love these videos!
But I hate having to stop every time to ask Siri to convert nautical miles to kilometres...
Good Vlog. 340 is good. No ETOPS crap. The 600 is more efficient than the 747 400. Sad to see the 340 go.
A330 in terms or operating and a340 for range! Awesome video!
when comparing fuel consumptions, you should add a note it's mpg per passenger, and not the plane it self. this is silly, but plane noobs might take your words for it by mistake
Fuel calculations are way off. My quick computation of a Q400 fuel burn is about 2 Litres per kilometre.
What you don't think that a 4 engine jet airliner burns less than a Honda civic?
Per passenger for Christ’s sake. Isn’t that obvious
Both planes have the same design concept, but the A340 with 4 engines looks more nicer.
Did you even watch the video? They are not based on the same design or mission brief.
For me , the a340 was the best
Still wondering if A340-200/300 re engine with PW1100G with max 35k lbs thrust🤓🛫
Almost giving it a power of A321-271N. One advantage is that you should be able to cross the South Pacific Australia to South America and also South Atlantic South Africa to Brazil due to the fact there is no diversion airports for twin engine aircraft
Neo is of Pratt and Whitney right?
harshatha s no Rolls Royce
@@tomstravels520 check in Google
harshatha s I don’t need to. Rolls Royce Trent 7000 is the only engine that powers the A330 NEO. You’re probably thinking of the A320/A321 NEO but this video isn’t about that. Also if the “answer” can be found on google then why didn’t you look in the first place
Both are my favorites
I would say a340-600 only and the a330 (the a340-200 & -300 kinda climbs slowly because of its hairdryers I heard)
A340-600 it's is my favorite because it can do non-stop Eastern Time Zone JFK/EWR to GMT +8 Hong Kong time zone 16hr 20 Min.
What about the -500?
A couple of points that weren’t addressed in the video. A four engined aircraft isn’t required to comply with ETOPS requirements so on some routes, the miles per gallon of fuel burned with the 2 engined aircraft may be offset by the shorter route a 4 engined aircraft can take, not requiring the same proximity to ETOPS diversion airports. Also, there are advantages to having more engines when it comes to takeoff minimums. Having 4 engines is sometimes less restrictive than having 2 engines so for some airports this can be the difference between being legal to depart and not departing.
Did you know the A330-300 doesn’t have a centre fuel tank!?
I always wonder is it possible to remove 2 of an A340's engines and operate it like an A330
@Star Trek Theory Then why no airline does that?
They cant't do that. If you remove 2 of the engines on the a340-200/300, you will have 2 cfm-56 engines left on the plane. The a320 and 737 is powered by 2 cfm-56's, so operating an a340 with that is almost impossible
@@Odensworld_ What if u change the 2 remaining engines to stronger ones, like the A330 ones? In that way the whole fuselage can be reused.
@@nam_1018 That's true. If you change the cfm56 with RR trent 700 (used by a330), it can fly
Technical its possible.
The question always is, is it economical for an airline to do?
Conversion, recertification etc. etc.
It could be cheaper to buy a new A330 neo/ A350 then convert an A340.
One thing is for sure the A340 will live on in A330's as sparepart donors
The A340-600 is a beast. It is one Airbus jet this Boeing fan will miss when it is retired.
I have rarely seen so many mistakes in one video. First off, there is no general answer to the question of which one is better. Each airline has a different mission profile for their aircrafts. For many airlines their mission profile does not require an A340, however there are plenty of scenarios in which an A340 makes much more sense. If you compare the A330-300 and A340-300, firstly you have much more range on the A340, so some missions require this type. The MTOW (depending on the specific aircraft version) is around 40t higher on the A340. For the same route, some of that difference is gonna go forwards carrying more required fuel on the A340, but the rest you can use to either carry more passengers or cargo or a mix of both, which can be highly beneficial (touching on other restrictions that a twin might have like OEI scenarios at certain airports would lead too far now, but adds to the point). Then you have the issue of cost of capital. Used A340s are very cheap. With the oil prices we have seen in the past 10 years, for most airlines the relatively minor fuel penalty of using an A340 is far more desirable than the higher cost of capital involved in leasing or buying an A330. Some of the financially most successful airlines are using that strategy. It’s not as simple as comparing fuel burn and calling it a day. Now that we’ve got that set straight: Other stuff like, an A330 can only accommodate a 2 class layout...where do you come up with nonsense like this? Each airline hast their own config, heck there are A321s with a 3 class layout. Look, I’ve said this before, but before you call yourself an aviation channel, do your research and get your facts right.
That's without mentioning that according to this video a widebody airbus burns less fuel than a Honda civic...
I actually think that the air carriers are overlooking the A340 only because it just fell off fashion, just like the Tri-jets of the 70s before them.
Have to side with the a340. Even thou it did blow me in the water on maho beach
I prefer the A340, all day!
Why's that? :) - TB
Simple Flying - I particularly like the A340-600 because it has 4 engines and it’s very Long. I just like it.!
Good to hear! I strangely like the downstairs restrooms on the LH A340-600s. Quite different! - TB
Simple Flying - me too. I also think it’s a unique plane to take
To the skies
Part of the selling point was that pilots can fly both types without recertification as only difference really was the engines and weight figures. This meant an airline could purchase both types and could swap pilots for different routes. The A330 could be limited by ETOPS but the A340 wasn’t
Just to note MPG is UK as well, not just USA
I love both planes and my favs are the A340-500 and A330-200
Well, for a non expert, that seems not to be such a big difference in fuel consumption according to this data in similar conditions between the A330 (non NEO) and A340, even if the consumption rate here was based on L/100km/passenger.
One issue of A340(342/343) is being "underpowered". While fuel burn during cruising is okay, it takes more time to reach the optimal flight level. Still comparable to 772, though.
A340NG(345/346), suffer from overweight issues and more, so probably being the most fuel guzzling aircraft of its age.
A330 meanwhile, is probably the lightest and most optimised frame. Once it gained sufficient range after upgrades, it outsold both 772 and 343. To be fair it's amazing it managed to catch up 787, a cleansheet composite aircraft, just by changing the wing design and newer engines.
@Quoc anh Vu Pham I heard A330/A340 can't stretch in the way 777 does. Beyond 333/343's size large rework is necessary, and that lead to prohibitive weight gain of 345/346. Yeah 330 is lighter with just two engine, but the frame will still be very heavy.
333 is probably where the frame is most optimized. In contrast, 772 is too heavy for that size.
2:36 It has been more than a year since Philippine Airlines retired their A340.
Good video.
Thanks for the feedback. - TB
Not much difference between the A330 and the A340 in terms of average fuel consumption. It's not the fuel burn which made quad jetliners unappealing to be incorporated in a fleet, it was the requirements of mechanical maintenance and logistics behind it, affecting the turnaround of an aircraft, obviously more money and time is needed for a quad jetliner to propagate in comparison with a twin jetliner which directly involves revenue.
the most common plane i fly is A330-300 as its the most common plane in australia
Hey same here! I fly the Qantas A330-300 regularly.
A330 is so popular that an a330 lands or takes off every 1 second on the world
The A330-200 uses the same fuselage as the A340-200, and the A340-300 uses the same fuselage as the A330-300. Their only difference is how many engines each type has (i.e., A340s always have four jet engines while A330s always have two jet engines).
I think its better if you made a chart comparing the passenger capacity and range between the planes
3L/100km ? Less than a car ?
I think it is a mistake . it is 3l/100km/per passenger but i may be wrong
3L per passenger in every 100 km
Despite its failings the A340 600 was and still is a stunning aircraft
Don't the neo A330's technically make there be four A330's?
-200
-300
-800neo
-900neo
Okay, I commented too early
Very informative video!
Don’t forget the other two variants:
-200F
-MRTT
And the -600
@@michaelschumacher3701 There's a -600?
I'm sure I'm in the minority on this, but I think the 330 looks better than the 340. The 4 little hair dryers always bothered me on the 340, whereas the 330 has that long elegant expanse of clean wing. Plus the 330/340 family has an unusually small vertical stabilizer, so the super-stretched 340s get out of proportion to my eye. I'm not usually a big Airbus fan, but the A330 is balanced just right and I really like it.
"The Airbus A330 Vs Airbus A340 - Which Aircraft Is Better?"
↑ Ooh, I know this one! It's whichever is more profitable for the airline in question. It is, isn't it? Yes it is! Yes it I-IS!!
The A340 was created solely because ETOPS still wasn't very widespread at the time of its conception. Had ETOPS certifications been fairly commonplace by the late 80s-early 90s then Airbus wouldn't have even bothered with the A340 and would've just taken an A330, stretched the fuselage, slap on some extra fuel tanks and maybe give it some more powerful engines.
I really wish we had a340 neo with 2 engines and the length of the -600
This does not take into concern the higher maintenance costs of four engines so in reality the difference is larger to the 330s advantage. There is a good reason why we will not have four engine aircrafts any more in civilian aviation.
I like the A330-300 and A340-600 much better than A330-200 /A340-200/300/500
My favourites are A-340s no matter what version.
The A330 has a pseudo 3 class configuration - sort off. It has First class, Comfort Economy with a bigger pitch rate between seats and regular economy. Maybe others do too.
Is this even a question? Which one sold best?
I don't get it. How can a plane fly on 3-4 Liters per 100KM. My car burnes more fuel per 100KM. Is this Liters per passenger per 100KM?
If you have 300 passengers burning 3,3 Liters per 100KM is about 1 Thousand Liters or 1 ton of fuel. If you fly 6000KM is 6 Ton of fuel. Otherwise it is only about 200 Liters for 6000KM for a big plane.
The comparissons is not quite fair. The A330 in the comparisson have about 4% higher seating density. While that might not sound to much, when the diffrance is in the range of 10% , that is really a lot of the diffrance.
What the A340 really is.. is a A330 that is to heavy for its engines. The lightest A340 is 32 ton heavier than the heaviest A330.. This mostly due to higher fuel capacity. They have the same wing, same fuselage same.. pretty much everything. What the A340 have that the eqvivalent A330 don´t is a added belly tank and an additional landing gear.
There simply wasn´t any larger engines available at this point. The one 777 was just not finished yet. They needed to ad more engines.
With the A330 you have to choice between flying long-haul, or carrying a lot of passengers.
With the A330Neo the engines got sufficiently more efficient to almost reach out and touch A340 range so the added fuel tank was simply not needed..
Still i would still say that the A340 was supreamly sucessfull.. What it did to airbus. It cemented the company as a top tear aircraft producer. 380 passanger in 3 class is pretty much touching the 737-300, while not quite reaching the 400, getting pretty close.
The main killer for quad jets is fuel efficiency, and maintenance cost. A twin engine wide body jet can meet the same long distance range and passenger capacity at a fraction of the cost, also sense they are much smaller than quad jets they can fit into today’s airports. Quad jets like the A380, A340 and 747 just doesn’t make sense for airlines to operate for passenger service. Now they can still be use for cargo transportation because airlines needs bigger aircraft for hall heavier cargo, and quad jets can still have a place for the military sense they are big enough for transporting troops and armored vehicles.
How can they have a lower fuel consumtion than a car?
I assume you are talking about tons... if not... it doesnt have any sense for me
Or maybe its 2.98L/100km/pax
PER PASSENGER!!!!
Both give better fuel consumption then
my car :(
the engines of the a340 must have been very fuel efficient though. 2 extra engines and it burns almost the same amount of fuel
i wish there was a game where you could create your own airliner company.. instead of those airline company games
Please compare A330 vs A350
I like the A330 because it is more popular and has a modern version, the A330Neo. But the A340 does not have a Neo version.
A330 is better than A340 massive thanks to ETOPS. Because of the win of A330, Airbus launched the A330 Neo. Airbus wants to kill the A340 because it was a failure, but Airbus was still smart to build the A340. Some of the A330 Neo variants are also big, for the airlines looking an aircraft which looks like A340. But, for the airlines looking for the Airbus replacement for the A340, A350 is the best option for them since the purpose of the Airbus A350 was to compete with the Boeing B777 and 787.
A340 all day
4:14 best A340
Wait to see Azerbaidjan gorgeous A340-500 !
Nice video. The fuel burn is way off and more like 5000 litres plus per hour or 1000 imperial gallons which is more like 2 Gallons per mile.
Both planes were the same but the difference is the a340 is a quadjet.
The a340 is just an extended a330 with 2 more engines
*Change My Mind*
In the case of 342/343, it IS an A330 with 2 more engines
a340 because big number good
Who knows what happen in future. Maybe one day FAA and EASA announces that twin engine aircrafts won't be allowed to pass oceans anymore so 4 engine aircraft era will start again. Airbus will have a ready to go design. Same goes for Boeing as well
Like the 340 looks like a 707 when coming in for a landing from a distance
I love a340 600 ♥️♥️
A340 is looking better. I hope, Airbus makes it's NEO vairant😕
Semih_ Gedik it’s been out of production since 2011
@@tomstravels520 Maybe we'll get back to the 4 engines formula. Look how, these days, plane makers force their airframes with 2 huge engines, that get bigger and bigger and more complex every day. That's even where the Boeing 737 MAX failed. Designing a 4-burner is the way to save more ground clearance while not sacrificing power - especially with a full loaded plane having to take off from a high altitude airport for instance.
julosx it’s all to do with power to weight. The 747 and A380 needed 4 engines because there were no engines that couple provide it with enough thrust if only 2 were used. Now look at the carbon fibre and composite aircraft we have now. They only need 2 engines. 4 engines would be a waste of money
I think that the A330 is better than the A340. Even though the A330 has less range and capacity overall, the A330 is more fuel efficient as it has two engines instead of 4, and Airlines want the most fuel efficient planes now, so the A330 is the better one.
Why do we always get these over simplistic fuel ratings? Somewhere in the equation there should be a mass number say like MILES PER GALLON PER TON. One advantage of the larger aircraft is their carrying capacity and that is a money maker for the airlines.
0:25 my fav B747
Your fuel economy numbers are incomplete. The ones you present are PER SEAT. No aircraft gets 70 mpg.
Could you imagine if there was an aircraft that got 70 miles per gallon that was the size of an eight 330? It would have close to 1,000,000 miles in range 😂
The a340 gets of the ground at SXM faster than its twin brother
Why is A340-300 has more landing Gear compare to A330 even though A340 was powered by x2 A320 Engines :3
A330!! I dont like the A340, especially the -300
Both the A330 and A340 were a whole generation behind the 777. The 330 found a sweet spot in terms of payload-range-cost and has proven to be a rather solid platform, however the A340 is a terrible airplane both in terms of capabilities and technology. Sales don’t lie.
These planes have fuel economy better than my car 3:02
Are you sure?
The 777 made the 340 look outdated and old.
The a350 is making the 777 look outdated and old.
The 777-8 and 777-9 is making all of those look outdated and old.
@@alanstevens1296 Saying a 90s aluminium frame with some upgrades is sleeker than a millenium cleensheet composite aircraft, is as ridiculous as saying A330 is more efficient as 787.
@@steinwaldmadchen :: 777-X is basically a a millenium cleansheet composite aircraft.
@@alanstevens1296 Get your fact right:
787 is the first composite fuselage aircraft, and A350 the second.
Meanwhile 777X inherited the very same aluminium fuselage from original 777 - not even changed to Al-Li as rumoured. For the similar sized 778 and 351, the former is way more heavier and by no means match the efficiency of the latter. It's only the stretched 779 that might catch up the 351 per seat, but I don't think it can surpass neither.
@@steinwaldmadchen :: The 777-X has the world's longest composite wing. The fuselage may be designed with an aluminum/lithium alloy that could save 12% in weight over previous alloys. Truth is, composites do not offer massive weight savings in most general applications.
After all is said and done; lightning strike, defects, BVID and manufacturing are taken into account - you end up at much the same point. It is only in combining metal and plastics (and any other material you wish to mention) that you can really get ahead. Also, the weight of an a/c has long passed being the most important improvement. It’s just part of the overall lifecycle cost.
The 777-X will be the most advanced commercial a/c in the world.
YEEEE
Don't forget also this fact : historically, the A340 proved to display a much better safety record than the A330. The series suffered only one crash, due to bad piloting only, and nobody died. The A330 will never reach this level of safety.
I mean if you really need engine failsafes to ensure your safety, fly way longer distances, and if fuel & maintenance costs aren’t a concern, then A340 all the way; but add money into the equation and definitely the A330.
Don't forget also A340's impeccable safety record compared to the 330 that killed already quite a few people…
330 of course. Still in production albeit as a NEO.
Those fuel burn number are complete nonsense. According to this video, airplanes have better fuel economy than my Hyundai Accent......
The Airbus 330 will burn roughly 12 000 lbs (5500 kg) of Jet fuel an hour. It will travel approximately 450 Nautical Miles (517 Statute Miles) (833 Km) in 1 hour.
12 000 lbs is roughly 6891 Litres (1800 US Gallons) of fuel. So the fuel burn is roughly: 827 Litres/100km or 0.28 Miles Per Gallon.......
Learn how to do math!!!!
Yes, but they are calculed by passenger. So it is 827liters / #passengers.
@@grmnlxndr they didnt say that in the video
A330 is better, it’s slightly newer and has 1 instead of 2 engines on each side making less costs for airlines however A340 is bigger
A330 is More Efficient than its larger Sibling A340-300E.
A340 looks like baguettes
This math can't be right... You're saying a 4 engine jetliner burns less fuel than a Honda civic.
It's obviously consumption per passenger
There are 4 versions of the A330
The A330-200
The A330-300
The A330-800
The A330-900
no. there are 2 versions of the A330ceo and 2 versions of the A330neo
@@airbus_a320neo nope. A330neo and A330ceo are the same. Both are A330s
You forgot the A310
Miles per gallon per passenger