Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
The MD-XX And The Potent New Trijet Market:  
User currently offline747-600X From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 2789 posts, RR: 15
Posted (14 years 4 months 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 2646 times:

If an aircraft developer were to develop an aircraft of substantial size, perhaps akin to a 747, and give it design very similar to the MD-11 or L-1011 but far larger, perhaps there would be something to be said for having 'just' three engines, when an overseas, esp. Pacific flight would count this as 'especially' three engines. On very large aircraft, three engines would prove more economic than 4, such as on something between the size of a 747 and A3XX with 777-size engines. The efficiency and range of these aircraft, and the safety, especially of mind just knowing you've got the extra engine, would - I would think - propell a New Large Trijet into the viable market.
Opinions?


"Mental health is reality at all cost." -- M. Scott Peck, 'The Road Less Traveled'
15 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineAb.400 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (14 years 4 months 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 2483 times:

I like tri-jets alot, but maybe overall it is just too expensive to create jet´s with a third engine in the tail.

User currently offlineAb.400 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (14 years 4 months 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 2474 times:

That leads to the Question, are the 4 engines on Quad`s similar to each other ?

User currently offline747-600X From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 2789 posts, RR: 15
Reply 3, posted (14 years 4 months 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 2469 times:

All aircraft use the same engines, no matter where they are. I don't know if that's what you were asking, but even on L-1011s and MD-11s the engines are all the same make. I would prefer the L-1011 design for a variety of reasons, but I don't think it's too much more expensive, also, by having it closer to the ground maintence could be easier.


"Mental health is reality at all cost." -- M. Scott Peck, 'The Road Less Traveled'
User currently offlineD L X From United States of America, joined May 1999, 11275 posts, RR: 52
Reply 4, posted (14 years 4 months 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 2466 times:

Not so fast 747-600X,

There are 727s where the outer two engines are a different, less powerful make than the internal engine. I think UPS flies these.

Also, one of the ideas for a stretched 747 would have had two 777 class engines near the fuselage, and regular 747/767 engines on the outboard.

As long as it is symmetric, it will fly.  
And actually, even then that's not entirely true. There was an experiment for a new bizjet with one jet engine. The intake was on one side, and the outflow was on the other. However, it was DAMN ugly, so I doubt it would sell.



Send me a PM at http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/sendmessage.main?from_username=NULL
User currently offline747-600X From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 2789 posts, RR: 15
Reply 5, posted (14 years 4 months 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 2455 times:

I'd thought of that in the past, however I was informed by a UA pilot that all aircraft's engines are the same (DC-10 pilot). It makes sense, but I didn't know they did it (I mean, use different strengths). If that's the case, then it doesn't change my original suggestion at all.


"Mental health is reality at all cost." -- M. Scott Peck, 'The Road Less Traveled'
User currently offlineUal757 From United States of America, joined Sep 2006, 806 posts, RR: 4
Reply 6, posted (14 years 4 months 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 2443 times:

2 on the side and 2 outboard? in a way, i think it'd look pretty cool..

i'm not sure the 777's have enough push for a loaded 747, but considering some of the things i've seen those engines do, i wouldn't be suprised..

as to the A3XX, what is the average expected MTOW? and the speed? i'm sure 3 RR's ain't gonna happen, the engine design's already done, and there's no way they're going to throw in a 7 foot hole near the tail!  

although it would be quite a sight!  


User currently offline747-600X From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 2789 posts, RR: 15
Reply 7, posted (14 years 4 months 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 2438 times:

Imagine this: Three air intakes, not 1, so that the end looks like a 727. An L-1011's in-fuselage engine, with two side air intakes and one on top, each would be relatively small, so that the engine could get it's air and the tail wouldn't be too displaced. I have the A3XX spec.s at home (I'm at school right now) so I'll post them later. (I'm supposed to be working on designing houses, but...)


"Mental health is reality at all cost." -- M. Scott Peck, 'The Road Less Traveled'
User currently offline747-600X From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 2789 posts, RR: 15
Reply 8, posted (14 years 4 months 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 2435 times:

As far as the A3XX comparison, I'm talking about something a bit smaller, maybe a bit more feasible as a new large airplane, bigger than a 747, as an alternative to redesigning it into the -6 or -7 00.


"Mental health is reality at all cost." -- M. Scott Peck, 'The Road Less Traveled'
User currently offline767-400ER From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 9, posted (14 years 4 months 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 2393 times:

The MD-11 should be looked at more closely by Boeing.
The Tri-jet format is ideal to forget about the ETOPS rule.
It may have burn more fuel than expected, but it had
enough range, more than the 777-200, and the A330. And
with Boeing's knowlege put together, they can make the
range even further than the the near 9000NM. it has. With
the stretch version should be also be consider cause of its
range. the 777-300. But know, their is the 777-300ER in the make.
The regular 777-300 has a much less range than trying to
replace the 747-100 and -200. The MD-11 stretch
(maybe formaly called the MD-12X in the past, or the
MD-XX STRETCH) and with better aerodynamic and
more effeicent engines, the range will rival their own 747-400ER and
the A340-600 with the capcity of the 747 Classic, the A330,
and the 777-200. I think the wings are the ones that are
killing it in the drag. they should maybe replace it with
777's type-wings, and add wing-outlet. But It might be
because that the MD-11 had more powerful engines that
was really needed to carry passangers. That would have
mean for not comsuming more fuel. As i sayed in the begining,
the tri-jet format is better in range than a twin jet and near
the same range than a 4 engine jet and much less operating
cost as well, I just hope Boeing is considering this in the
future. And the frighter is far much better than the 747 in
cost wise, and i dont think a twin can carry lost of cargo in
long-haul flights. Also the MD-11 has more payload and more cargo
area then the 747-400F? Cheers to the MD-11 and hope to have a nice
future on a geart wide-body tri-jet airliner!


Click for large version
Click here for full size photo!

Photo © Mark Harris




Rooz


User currently offlineFDXmech From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 3251 posts, RR: 34
Reply 10, posted (14 years 4 months 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 2374 times:

UPS 727-100Q models have all 3 identical engines. Rolls Royce Tays.

Fedex 727-200RE have JT8D-200 engines #1 & #3 and JT8D-17 without thrust reversers on #2.



You're only as good as your last departure.
User currently offline747-600X From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 2789 posts, RR: 15
Reply 11, posted (14 years 4 months 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 2365 times:

767: Yeah, but I would prefer an in-built L-1011 type engine to the outside MD-11 format, which would also make maintence easier. All of your points are valid. An MD-11ER would, in my opinion, have had a heck of a possibility on the market even though I dislike MD products.


FDX: Thanks for the info! I don't really know what the difference is between those two engines on your -200RE's, and I didn't even know there were jets of any kind still operating without thrust reversers (to DC-8s have reversers?)



"Mental health is reality at all cost." -- M. Scott Peck, 'The Road Less Traveled'
User currently offlinePenguinflies From United States of America, joined Apr 2000, 988 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (14 years 4 months 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 2353 times:

777 engines are also derated in terms of power. Some think that if the engine developed as much power as it can, it could break off the wing. (heard that rumor).

User currently offlineSpacepope From Vatican City, joined Dec 1999, 2924 posts, RR: 1
Reply 13, posted (14 years 4 months 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 2341 times:

The MD-12X was a quadjet, not an extended MD-11. I remember all the hoopla because kansas city was supposedly a finalist for the factory (back to the glory days of Noth American and their B-25/P-51/F-82 factory in KCK) but i think shreveport LA won it. From what i remember, it was suposed to look like a whole hell of a lot like the A350.




The last of the famous international playboys
User currently offlineFDXmech From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 3251 posts, RR: 34
Reply 14, posted (14 years 4 months 18 hours ago) and read 2297 times:

The Fedex 727-200RE #1 & #3 engines are JT8D-217 engines, the same as on the MD80. They even have hydraulically operated thrust reversers like the MD80.

The #2 engine is a conventional JT8D-17 engine historically used on the 727. The thrust reverser mechanism was removed on this mixed engine type.

T/O Thrust
JT8D-217.....21,000 lb thrust
JT8D-17.......16,000 lb thrust



You're only as good as your last departure.
User currently offline747-600X From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 2789 posts, RR: 15
Reply 15, posted (14 years 4 months 17 hours ago) and read 2290 times:

Thanks FDXMech! That's an interesting little thing to add to my 'trivia' category since I doubt it'll ever be particularly useful!


"Mental health is reality at all cost." -- M. Scott Peck, 'The Road Less Traveled'
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...
If The MD-11 And MD-90 Succeeded... posted Thu Aug 31 2006 01:43:09 by 1337Delta764
Why Did The MD-87 And MD-90 Fail? posted Sat Dec 3 2005 22:06:41 by 1337Delta764
MD-XX And MD-12 Projects posted Thu Nov 23 2000 20:56:48 by AFa340-300E
Is The MD-11ER The Ultimate Trijet? posted Tue Jan 14 2003 18:11:59 by Clickhappy
New Uk Operator Of The MD-80? posted Wed May 9 2001 18:49:14 by Englandair
Will Boeing Build A New Version Of The MD 11? posted Sun Apr 22 2001 19:29:12 by United Airline
Garuda And The MD-11 posted Mon Oct 2 2006 12:24:47 by CaliforniaMate
The Ninth Life - The New Irish Aviation Thread! posted Tue Aug 1 2006 20:08:53 by Kaitak
Delta - Why The MD-88 Over The 737-400? posted Fri Jul 28 2006 22:25:39 by 1337Delta764
The MD-11 @ MSY Show posted Wed Jul 12 2006 04:10:58 by MSYtristar