What's the point of the A340-300….

Ship 741

Why oh why drag up a post that is nearly 5 years old?

Please review the forum CoC found here

:rolleyes:

For really longhaul you need more engines in order to be efficient. It all boils down to the engine failure on take off scenario. Let me explain…

If a certain aircraft needs 60,000 pounds of thrust in order to achieve the minimum engine out performance after take off, then that aircraft will need 2×60,000 pound thrust engines for normal operation. This way it can achieve the engine failure criteria but you have an aircraft that produces 120,000 pounds of thrust at full power. If that same aircraft had been designed as a 4 engined aircraft it would need 4×20,000 pounds of thrust engines. Now in the event of an engine failing it would still have the 60,000 pounds of thrust required to climb (and the performance loss would not be so marked). The 4 engined aircraft would have a total all engines working max thrust of 80,000 pounds as opposed to 120,000 for the twin. If it takes say 40,000 pounds of thrust to maintain the aircraft in level flight in the cruise, the 4 engined aircraft is running its engines closer to optimum than the twin engined aircraft. This is why the A330 is ideal for hopping from the UK to Florida but the A340 flies to the far east, etc.

The post above must be the most misleading post in the history of aviation. I know it’s several years old, but I just ran across it.

The reality is that the twin is ALWAYS more efficient. The block fuel burn per seat is ALWAYS less with the twin. This is why the 777 has outsold the 340, why the 330 is selling so well, and why the 787 and 350 will both be twins.

No one who is a serious student of aviation doubts that the twin is more efficient, it is such a slam dunk that one does not even have to post the data to “prove” it here.