16 replies to this topic

[cschraer]

The A340-200 is such a good plane. Carries 420 people 8400 miles for 39,900 fuel flow. It is also significantly cheaper than the A330-300, 777, MD-11, etc. The A340-300s are almost as good too.

[PingPong]

Have you factored in the fact that it has 4 engines and that a real world configuration would never fit that many people? Airbus just picked a ridiculously large number for their exit limit so that they would be safe if people didn’t move quickly, collected luggage, etc. and so the airlines could pick any configuration they wanted, even an unexpected high-density one.

[Pacific]

Or perhaps, AE data is just inaccurate, making the A340 classic series far too efficient.

[cschraer]

It’s extremely wrong data, which makes it an awesome carrier in the game.

[Avelo]

At least it's cheaper than the A330-300, despite having two extra engines.

[Shammy]

Inaccurate data? let it be hihi

[Marb1]

Have you factored in the fact that it has 4 engines and that a real world configuration would never fit that many people? Airbus just picked a ridiculously large number for their exit limit so that they would be safe if people didn’t move quickly, collected luggage, etc. and so the airlines could pick any configuration they wanted, even an unexpected high-density one.

 

Or perhaps, AE data is just inaccurate, making the A340 classic series far too efficient.

 

It’s extremely wrong data, which makes it an awesome carrier in the game.

[DeltaIVSSBN]

Or perhaps, AE data is just inaccurate, making the A340 classic series far too efficient.

Yeah. I've heard that the fuel flows in the game are taken from takeoff data.

[Pasti]

The A340-300 is one of those planes, in my opinion, that shouldn’t be good but it is. A333 just seems like a waste in comparison.

[Avelo]

The A340-300 is one of those planes, in my opinion, that shouldn’t be good but it is. A333 just seems like a waste in comparison.

Hence I have a spontaneous tendency to order the A343 instead of the A333. It's significantly cheaper with more range, but its fuel consumption more or less negates its price advantage.

[KMRobinson318]

The A340-300 does have the disadvantage of having a longer minimum runway length requirement though...

As far as the A340-200 is concerned, I've never actually used it myself.

[Shammy]

Well for some reason it's fuel burn is lower than that of an A330-300 which is strange but whatever 

[SvensonNL1]

This aircraft didn't really became a topselling machine... only a dozen are still in current service. 

[Pacific]

Messed around in S1 and my verdict is, the A340-200 is pretty awesome in game, but loses out to the A340-300. The -300 has identical fuel burn, more seats and it's cheaper to purchase and maintain! The only disadvantage being inferior range by 200mi or so.

 

Something's fishy with the in-game numbers...

[mistertrasher]

I find it implausible that the A340-300, with 4 gas guzzling engines made in the 1990s, only runs at 39,936 fuel flow. Not sure if the numbers can be hot-fixed at all, but for the sake of realism & accuracy they really should be. It's the one of the most efficient long-haul aircraft in the game. 

 

I also don't think this is an isolated problem. The C919 has a ridiculously low fuel flow of 11,827 and holds 190 passengers. Only downfall is the 1898 mi range. But this is almost unbelievably efficient when the A320NEO (189 passengers) sits at 14,994 and B737-8 max (200 passengers) is at 15,401. I think I smell fish here...

[Niskan]

The AE A340 is very inaccurate.

It should use more fuel.

[JordanPlays]

The A340 is OP.