GOT From Sweden, joined Dec 2000, 1912 posts, RR: 1
Reply 1, posted (14 years 3 months 2 weeks 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 2201 times:
I think the A340 looks great in SQ c/s, but most aircraft does. The only thing that i don't like with the A343/A343 is that it seems like the design have gone back to that of the 707/DC8. But they look much better with the new big engines on the A345/A346.
Just like birdwatching - without having to be so damned quiet!
TEDSKI From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (14 years 3 months 2 weeks 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 2129 times:
The A340-200/300 would look and perform better if it had higher thrust P&W 2000 and RR RB211 series engines like the Russian IL-96M instead of those small 34,000lb thrust CFM56 hairdryers. I am glad Airbus has the larger high thrust RR Trent 500 series on the new A340-500/600.
AF A380 From France, joined Dec 2000, 26 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (14 years 3 months 2 weeks 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 2042 times:
The A340 300 is very nice airliner but the the A330 300 is more beautiful.
For people who are wondering why the A340 has CFM engines and not RR RB211 or PW 2000, the CFM has a very lower fuel consummation than the others. It is environment friendly. That's why Airbus selected it even if it a little less powerful.
Gerardo From Spain, joined May 2000, 3481 posts, RR: 29
Reply 8, posted (14 years 3 months 2 weeks 3 days ago) and read 2036 times:
Well, AIrbus took, what was available at the time. IAE first promoted its Superfan for the A340, but later stopped that project. CFM then proposed a more powerful version of its CFM56 engine, and the rest is history.
I definitely love the A340-300, but can't wait to see the A340-600 in SR colors at ZRH .
TEDSKI From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 9, posted (14 years 3 months 2 weeks 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 2012 times:
The P&W 2000 and RR RB211 series engines have greater thrust ratings of 35,000 to 42,000lbs thrust than the CFM56. These engines would have provided the necessary takeoff power and cruising speed needed with a full load of passengers, cargo, & fuel.
Dynkrisolo From United States of America, joined Feb 2001, 1875 posts, RR: 7
Reply 11, posted (14 years 3 months 2 weeks 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 1983 times:
In order to be able to use the same wing for both
the A330 and A340, Airbus could not put the much heavier B757 engines. When they stretched the A340 and put a wing root insert, that's when Airbus was able to put the more powerful and heavier Trent 500 engine on the A340. The A343 is already not cost competitive against the B772ER. Even if Airbus could put the PW2000 or the RB211 on the A343, it would have made the A343 even less competitive. Power and speed are not the only factors that make the A343 uncompetitive.
CPDC10-30 From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2000, 4888 posts, RR: 22
Reply 12, posted (14 years 3 months 2 weeks 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 1973 times:
Until the A340-500 is rolled out, the A340-300 is THE best looking longhaul aircraft, in my humble opinion. It was the first new four-engined Western jetliner in 25 years and has great lines. It makes me think back to the sleek lines of the 707.
Chepos From Puerto Rico, joined Dec 2000, 6301 posts, RR: 10
Reply 13, posted (14 years 3 months 2 weeks 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 1961 times:
The A340 is the best looking Long Haul airliner around . Its just beautifull and impressive . The A340 is my favorite plane along with the A330 . I particularly like the 300 variant of the A340 though.
B767-400er From Hong Kong, joined Apr 2000, 290 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (14 years 3 months 2 weeks 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 1835 times:
Nothing against the A340, but to me it just looks like a fat version of the 707! (with the same engines too, ie the modified 707 w/cfm-56s) LOL
Just joking, but the A340s really looks great from most angle, but I hate that bump in the belly when you're looking up at it. Why did they have to have that bump? Is it because of the gear's location? Or some other reasons?
Can't wait until BA gets 773ers! It's going to look great.
Mr. 717 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 24, posted (14 years 3 months 2 weeks 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 1820 times:
Personally, I do not like the looks of the A340! I would like it if it was shorter and wider, Only had two huge Jets, and the gear would look better without the third leg by the wing! Personally I think The 777 looks better! The A340 is a nice plane but it needs some remakes!
: The A340 is one of my favourite looking aircraft. IMHO the 777 looks too fat, reminds me of a guppy or A300 super transporter !
: Those puny CFM56's really make the A340-300 look real nice to me. I'd say Virgin Atlantic's colours go the best with the plane. Pacific
: Actually, there are proposals to retrofit a CFM International engine based on the TECH56 research program to the A340-300. This means the engines will
: The A340-300 looks great, but those large engines look too big for the 345. The 346 is too long and too skinny, like the 753. It's engines are too lar
: The A340-300 is one of the best-looking airliners of all time, although I must admit that the A340-600 looks a bit too far stretched. If someone criti
: TEDSKI, You make it sound as if 343 didn't have necessary takeoff power to complete a full-range trip with a full load. This, as we know, is not true
: All new BA 777's are now powered by Trents. Just for your information.
: Thank you LUFC, I am fully aware that the last batch of 777-200ERs that BA ordered have the RR Trent 895 engine. JONI, I am glad that the A340-300 wil