A340-200


#1

Why did the A340-200 not catch on when some of the other variants, like the A343 and A346 caught on and were extremely popular?


#2

The aircraft wasn’t really a good fit for the airlines. According to Wikipedia, the -200 was heavy and the wingspan was too long. It also had the least capacity of the all of the A340 series aircraft. (The wingspan was longer than the fuselage length).


#3

The A340-200 cost almost as much to operate as the -300 and had fewer seats. It had more range, but the A340-300 had adequate range for almost all missions. The A330-200 and its much lower operating costs (and somewhat lower acquisition cost) was available for carriers that wanted the capacity of the A340-200 but didn’t need the range and four engines of the A340.


#4

And the 200 was 100 less than the 300 and 400 less than the 600! Geez. #obvious


#5

:smiley:


#6

mathematically, shouldn’t A(340-200) be A200? {Parens added for clarity}
. :unamused:


#7

Actually the 340-200 is 140 and the 340-600 is -260. Does that make the 200 better than the 600???


#8

Yes, because math never lies.