Ual747 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (9 years 5 months 1 week 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 3895 times:
LOL, I figured I might give a try at keeping the tri-jets alive. I was thinking about 3, 150,000 pound thrust GE-90-150's. Assuming they develop the engine. Somewhere between 600-800 pax. Though, it would be wider than the A380, and longer, yes I know the 80m box, but hey, maybe we can stretch it to 120m someday!
StudentFlyer From Australia, joined Sep 2004, 688 posts, RR: 3
Reply 11, posted (9 years 5 months 1 week 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 3522 times:
And what about 3-engined aircraft not being able to fly with 2 engines...... (as mentioned in the tech/ops forum) What if one fails? No redundancy there...... but anyways, I agree with BandA, because it looks great!!!
VSXA380X800 From United Kingdom, joined May 2004, 421 posts, RR: 1
Reply 13, posted (9 years 5 months 1 week 22 hours ago) and read 3402 times:
"Why not make it a five engine aircraft?"
I agree, this aircraft looks really under powered. The design looks like a 747(with the possion of the deck flight deck) and 777(with the three wheel boggy and tail cone) and of corse a MD-11. This looks really worst compared to the A380 becuase this just looks a md-11 with windows at the very top of the fulsalage. Besides that all ,this is a great desgin but I would really perfer the BWB(or the A380) than a double deck MD-11 becuase when your building something you should allways try to use a different design even if this a consept, you know.
Stealthpilot From India, joined May 2004, 510 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (9 years 5 months 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 3304 times:
your drawing has 3 main landing gears right?? like the a346?
and 6 wheels to a set... like the 777?
sorry i couldnt make out.
but interesting design even if impractical. (we dont have 200,000 lb thrust engines) i would say stretch it a bit