Talk:Airbus A340

So...

  "The initial A340-200 and -300 variants share the fuselage and wing of the twin-engine Airbus A330 with which it was concurrently designed. The heavier A340-500 and -600 are longer and have larger wings."

If the smaller version have the same wings and fuselage as an A330, and the larger versions have different wings (and apprently a bigger fuselage as well), what exactly makes an A340 an A340? I don't get it. AnnaGoFast (talk) 02:23, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Four engines. Acroterion (talk) 02:34, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Since it seems to be confusing, I replaced the 2d sentence by "The heavier A340-500 and -600 are stretched and have enlarged wings". A nice representation is in Flight 9 Oct 1996. It's still the same plane but the fuselage is stretched, the wing has more chord, the engines are more powerful for a higher MTOW. Still the same type certificate. --Marc Lacoste (talk) 06:42, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

JT10D

The article mentions the JT10D. That engine was renamed the PW2000 long before the A340 so the citation must be in error. Also there is no mention of the IAE SuperFan engine which caused a major resign of the wingspan. Vanguard10 (talk) 03:13, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

"The failure of International Aero Engines' radical ultra-high-bypass V2500 SuperFan, which had promised around 15 per cent fuel burn reduction for the A340, led to multiple enhancements including wing upgrades to compensate.[79][80] Originally designed with a 56 m (184 ft) span, the wing was later extended to 58.6 m (192 ft) and finally to 60.3 m (198 ft).[79]" --Marc Lacoste (talk) 06:02, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

In a Flight review of the CFM56 in 1999, the same Guy Norris wrote "This had emerged from the A300B11 growth study of the 1970s and, by 1980, had been refined into a 220-passenger, DC-10/L-1011 replacement called the TA (twin aisle) 11. Configurations were considered with three RollsRoyce RB211-535s or Pratt & Whitney JT10D-2 32s"--Marc Lacoste (talk) 06:39, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

By 1980, the JT10D was renamed the PW2000. Therefore, I believe the Norris citation is incorrect. Wikipedia should strive to have correct information if the citation is knowingly incorrect. I admit that putting the JT10D makes the Wikipedia article interesting but we should strive for correct information. Vanguard10 (talk) 18:27, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Yes, we should strive to be correct, but not to the point of being anachronistic. Per the Pratt & Whitney PW2000 article, Pratt & Whitney changed its designation system in December 1980, so if the studies are from before that date, and apparently some are, then using "JT10D" is correct. Either way, there's nothing wrong with including both designations, which I have done. I do hope this settles the issue satisfactorily. - BilCat (talk) 23:51, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

"5apu" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect 5apu. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 00:48, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Units

I notice some discrepancy in SI/Imperial units. In some places range is shown as nautical miles with kilometres as a conversion in brackets and in others, vice versa.

Given that this article describes a European-sourced aircraft, I imagine that SI units would be primary, with Imperial measurements as secondary. I notice similar discrepancies in other A3nn articles. Is there any objection to me correcting these measurements? --Pete (talk) 19:53, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Please proceed but try to not change the source number, use order=flip for conversions. Thanks!--Marc Lacoste (talk) 06:36, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Miscalculation in the deliveries section?

If we count all deliveries by year, it adds up to "377", whereas the total says "375". Looking further in details, the number of deliveries by type doesn't match the yearly total for years 2003 to 2008. I've checked the source but couldn't find official figures there. Metropolitan (talk) 16:54, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Miles vs nautical miles

My edits adding miles are being wrongly reverted.

Sure, perhaps in aviation miles are nautical miles. How is that relevant to an encyclopedia entry? This is an article for laypeople who may not be familiar with the VERY REAL DIFFERNCE between miles and nautical miles Ninjalectual (talk) 19:03, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Well, per WP:BRD, if your WP:Bold edit is reverted to a previous consensus state, it have to remain this way until a new consensus is formed in talk. For the addition of statute miles to km and nautical miles, this was already discussed before, eg in Talk:Airbus_A350_XWB#Units. The resulting consensus was the main units should be metric, with one conversion for nmi/knots prevailing over mi/mph. Another discussion may be better held at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 07:17, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Reference 140

Hello,

There seems to be an error in the references for the Sabena A340 accident:

29 August 1998 – a Sabena A340-200 (OO-SCW) was severely damaged while landing on Runway 25L at Brussels Airport. The right main gear collapsed; the right engines and wingtip hit the runway and slid to the right in soft ground. The 248 passengers and 11 crew were safely evacuated. The cause of the gear failure was found to be a fatigue crack. Although severely damaged, the aircraft was repaired and returned to service for 16 years until it was stored.[140][141]

Reference 140 is related to the item preceding the Sabena one.

I don't know how to correct this so I just signal it here. Geertchaos (talk) 11:00, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

quad jet...

...is not the standard industry term for a 4-engined airplane. 2A01:CB0C:CD:D800:A16F:9D1F:BDB9:2574 (talk) 08:13, 4 February 2023 (UTC)