SAS Scandinavian Airlines A340-300 (OY-KBI Rurik Viking) heavy take-off at Narita JAPAN 

yea. And im suprised that this a340 300 did not tailstrike while take off

😂😂

😅

😂

@@phillipjoseph8768 il-86 be like : .......

Hasn't had an accident, record speaks for itself. I do agree that it is a flying turd

Air France 358 has entered the chat...

@@eat_a_dick_trudeau Inane comment not germane to the discussion of the reliability of the CFM 56. Réal Levasseur Shedalin, the TSB's lead investigator for the accident, said the plane landed too far down the runway to have been able to stop properly on such wet pavement. Investigators have found no evidence of engine trouble, brake failure, or problems with the spoilers or thrust reversers.

In my opininon the a380 is better, i flew on one from frankfurt to San Francisco, and It made 0 noise while climbing 1200ft/min, yet to fly on a 747-8I

Just the A343 most of the time, the A345 and A346 are pretty normal since they have big engines

We pay for the runway We use the whole the runway

​@@birdwithoutwings6858 last time I flew on the 2nd longest flight with Singapore Airlines, their A345s still struggled since they didn't retract the flaps fully until we reached cruising altitude.

Often noticed that for NRT-CPH route.

1

Typical for this aircraft.

Don't think she is weighed down hard, they just use a bit less power on take-off to save fuel. All A340 have a 25% extra power on hand on take-off because of the regulations. They may choose to use it and rotate earlier but with more than 25% fuel consumption. So they tend to use every bit of a runaway and make the uneducated passenger sweat are they close to the end of the runaway and still on the ground at the full speed. I also like this bird once in the air and cruising altitude but dont like it on the take-off and not because of the slow climb. Just like all CFM engines (320 etc) they sound like a hair dryer at the full power. I have a feeling someone forgot to grease those bearings on their impellers. 🙃

earth is aflat.

@@user-cf3yr8nc9w earth is square

The Earth is an irregularly shaped ellipsoid. google ftw.

@@tranquynhanh8991 no no no. The Earth is obv Donut shape

I didn’t find her underpowered at all. The feeling of the power of those 4 engines is much more reassuring than a twin.

Well said 👌🏻

A320 on a long haul jet

Why Airbus fitted that big wide body with basically the same engines as an a320 (just slightly stronger) baffles me. Ik it’s just the 200 and 300 with the cfm56 but they just don’t seem strong enough for a big wide body like the a340

Cause it was the four engine fashion at that time ! Even 2 CF6 engines may have not been powerful enough for this type... Anyway I'm not an engineer but I understand your point ;)

@@nateye2450 Short answer: Compromise. Long answer: They actually had IAE on the A340 project at first with a geared turbofan supposed to power this thing, which would have burnt the same amount of fuel but had more power from it than the CFMs that it ended up with, but the engine got dropped because it wasn't economically viable. So Airbus was between a rock and hard place - having to meet efficiency targets using existing tech, or cancel the project completely - so they ended up calling in CFM to modify the A320 engine for this plane. That's why it's so horrendously underpowered.

@@nerd2814 oh ok, that’s pretty interesting thanks

In fact if you jumped out a minute after takeoff and started running you'd arrive in Copenhagen before the plane

@@keithwaites9991 🤣👌

If the passengers don't like that, why don't they get out and push?

Yeah hairdryers

3:05 yeah. You shouldn’t jump out from there

Interesting

except the -600 is definitely not underpowered even for its size like the -300 is

@@birdwithoutwings6858 yea. About that, long story short it's because the -300 was initially proposed to use a different engine that didn't made it to final production. IAE Superfan.

@@birdwithoutwings6858both of them are not underpowered. they have almost the same thrust to weight ratio. but the -300 is more efficient

no because the a345 engines are derated further than the a346 engines

JustAnAverageTraveler thanks :) Business class is nice sometimes to get this view lol

It was just an underpowered plane in general

A340-500 is Basically the opposite of this plane

And then it goes slightly back to full throttle after 30 secs for a little extra push 😂

a340 engines are hair dryers

It's an A340-300, it's got A320 engines, no wonder it takes so long to takeoff

@@doabarrellroll69 I didn't know that about the A320 engines, We flew on a A340-300 In the late 90,s to the middle east from LHR so happy i got the chance to fly in one.

and the trents on the a330

Definitely a nice seat to be ! But more costly because the forward part is usually business/first class...

this engines like b757

@@AdikUsUm0 More like 737 engines.

@@randyrankin589 yeah but 4× engines 737 and 2× engines 757

Or A330 is two engined A340

@@herceg6772 Yes, that too! More specifically a two-engined A340-300. It'd be awesome if Airbus released an A330-600 which would go along nicely with the 777-300ER.

@@ChrisZoomER yeah that would be cool. But now I love the Neo model with the zorro mask and huge engines

@@herceg6772 Same

Yes indeed to CPH

1 min take off roll 😱

Copenhagen

Don't think so. Possibly an altitude restriction on this particular SID.