Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Will The Three-holer Engine Layout Be Extinct?  
User currently offlineKDTWFlyer From United States of America, joined Jun 2004, 828 posts, RR: 1
Posted (9 years 9 months 1 week 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 2596 times:

I don't believe we will see another widebody trijet due to the efficiency/popularity of the two-engine design is here to stay.

What do you think?





NW B744 B742 B753 B752 A333 A332 A320 A319 DC10 DC9 ARJ CRJ S340
9 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineGigneil From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 16347 posts, RR: 85
Reply 1, posted (9 years 9 months 1 week 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 2593 times:

Yep... its dead. The structural support necessary for trijets makes even quads more efficient and easy to service.

N


User currently offlineDfwRevolution From United States of America, joined Jan 2010, 958 posts, RR: 51
Reply 2, posted (9 years 9 months 1 week 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 2569 times:

I think even the quad arrangement will begin to lose its appeal for applications under ~750,000 lb MTOW aircraft... roughly the size of the 777-300ER/200LR.

In all likelyhood the A343 will be replaced by a heavier version of the A330 twin. I don't see the A345/A346 being replaced by a twin in any way, shape, or form in the near/distant future, but as for totally-new build aircraft, twins are becoming the prefered arrangement.


User currently offlineNosedive From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (9 years 9 months 1 week 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 2451 times:

My guess is the only place we'll be seeing a new trihole is on a BWB body...... but dont hold your breath on that one

User currently offlineWill From Australia, joined May 1999, 79 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (9 years 9 months 1 week 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 2416 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Never Say Never... But for now I tend to agree... No Tri-Jets for now thanks to economics, design issues, etc, etc...

Regards,

Will.....


User currently offlineAFROTC From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 191 posts, RR: 1
Reply 5, posted (9 years 9 months 1 week 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 2393 times:

There are still tri jets being made, dont forget about the Dassault Falcon 900EX, although its not a widebody....

[Edited 2004-10-08 10:52:39]


We've Been Looking For You, United States Airforce, Cross Into The Blue!
User currently offlineBill142 From Australia, joined Aug 2004, 8439 posts, RR: 9
Reply 6, posted (9 years 9 months 1 week 3 days ago) and read 2271 times:

the longer range 777's (200LR & 300ER) were orginally meant to be 3 holers but GE then found a way to make the 90's more powerfull so that the 777 would not have to be a 3 holer.
Also they seem good until the one up there needs replacing.


User currently offlineContinentalFan From United States of America, joined Oct 2000, 356 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (9 years 9 months 1 week 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 2208 times:

Can you imagine a GE90 on the tail of a hypothetical 777LR? Wow...

User currently offlineFoxBravo From United States of America, joined Nov 2003, 2988 posts, RR: 4
Reply 8, posted (9 years 9 months 1 week 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 2183 times:

The ever-increasing reliability of modern jet engines means that virtually all new designs going forward will be twins. And for those few applications where additional redundancy may be advisable, as Gigneil pointed out, it is easier to simply hang another pair of engines on the wings (a la A340) than to (a) design and build the complex tail structure required to house a third engine on the centerline, and then (b) service the tail-mounted engine.

And when it comes to prop planes...well, I don't expect to see a Trislander lookalike anytime soon.  Smile



Common sense is not so common. -Voltaire
User currently offlineGigneil From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 16347 posts, RR: 85
Reply 9, posted (9 years 9 months 1 week 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 2141 times:

the longer range 777's (200LR & 300ER) were orginally meant to be 3 holers but GE then found a way to make the 90's more powerfull so that the 777 would not have to be a 3 holer.


No, they weren't. Boeing never would have built the aircraft.

There was apparently some small consideration given to a thrusting APU... but again, would never have made it to the real world.

N


Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
When Will The New Terminal At Madrid Be Open? posted Thu Nov 25 2004 15:45:17 by Imonti
Will The "new" IND Be Built? posted Fri Nov 19 2004 15:51:45 by 7E72004
What Aircraft Will The Three Big Chinese Get? posted Wed Aug 20 2003 15:35:55 by Pakistania
When Will The New Rwy At YYZ Be Completed? posted Sat Jun 1 2002 22:15:21 by Red Panda
So, What Will The New Swiss Airliner's Name Be? posted Wed Jan 16 2002 20:37:03 by Nice tail
Will The Most MD-80's Be Converted To Freighters? posted Sun Dec 24 2000 18:45:44 by AA737-800
Will The B747-400 Be Called "Classic 747"? posted Fri Dec 8 2006 23:18:17 by American 767
When Will The 747 Be Out Of Passenger Service? posted Sat Dec 2 2006 02:17:47 by Scalebuilder
When Will The 787 Be Rolled Out? posted Mon Oct 30 2006 23:27:41 by NYC777
Will The Pickering Airport Ever Be Built? posted Sat Jul 8 2006 04:37:59 by N43W79