Slarty From Canada, joined Sep 2005, 324 posts, RR: 0 Posted (4 years 1 month 21 hours ago) and read 10736 times:
I checked the Airbus site a few days ago, at the time of the A350 announcement, and it appeared to me that all their advertising campaigns about the 4-engine advantages were gone ... what happened?
Upsmd11 From United States, joined May 2003, 744 posts, RR: 7 Reply 7, posted (4 years 1 month 21 hours ago) and read 10656 times:
That wasn't an Airbus saying that was a Virgin saying and they put it on A340 and B747 aircraft. They were trying to imply they were better than AA and BA who fly many 777 and 767 across the pond.
Cory6188 From United States, joined Feb 2004, 2665 posts, RR: 8 Reply 10, posted (4 years 1 month 21 hours ago) and read 10624 times:
Quoting Mariner (Reply 3): Do you happen to know how many engines will the B747Adv have?
There isn't a chance in the world that any airplane manufacturer would make an engine big enough where only two could power an aircraft of that size. Could they? I'm sure with enough time and money, a team of engineers could design one. Howver, look at the monstrosity GE engine that is on the 773 - the thing is huge! The 744Adv would have to be ridiculously high off of the ground so that the thing could fit under the wing, and I think that you would probably start to sacrifice efficiency with that size by the time you get beyond 120k lbs of thrust in one engine (which is what GE's biggest engine has right now).
NoUFO From Germany, joined Apr 2001, 6420 posts, RR: 21 Reply 17, posted (4 years 1 month 20 hours ago) and read 10490 times:
A couple of years ago, we could see some members (even American Boeing supporters and pilots) who thought it was a mistake not to introduce a 777 variant with four engines to the market.
Jacobin777 From United States, joined Sep 2004, 13323 posts, RR: 68 Reply 19, posted (4 years 1 month 20 hours ago) and read 10455 times:
Quoting Cory6188 (Reply 10): Howver, look at the monstrosity GE engine that is on the 773 - the thing is huge!
the 772's and 773's have MASSIVE engines...I was watching a show on National Geographic (I think it was) and they showed the GE 747-200 test aircraft taking off on just ONE 777 engine..it was amazing!!
Boeing7E7 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 20, posted (4 years 1 month 20 hours ago) and read 10427 times:
Quoting Mariner (Reply 18): But you seem to think otherwise?
I'm just not sold on it being enough of a seller to warrant the investment. While the 737 is cost effective, a composite newbie or a shrink down of the sonic cruiser with 3,500 mile range and a wider cabin to me makes more sense considering the hauls airlines are doing with that size aircraft these days and the market potential of subsonic domestic aircraft operating in a free flight environment.
DfwRevolution From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 22, posted (4 years 1 month 20 hours ago) and read 10359 times:
Quoting Cory6188 (Reply 10): There isn't a chance in the world that any airplane manufacturer would make an engine big enough where only two could power an aircraft of that size. Could they? I'm sure with enough time and money, a team of engineers could design one.
It's definitly possible to produce a 125-175 klbf engine, if there was ever an application that needed it. It has been suggested that modern cores like the Ge90 and Trent could be scaled up to meet these needs. In my opinion, the continued advances in blade technology, materials, etc, could enable an all-new 747-sized twinjet.
Halibut From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 24, posted (4 years 1 month 20 hours ago) and read 10296 times:
Quoting Jacobin777 (Reply 19): the 772's and 773's have MASSIVE engines...I was watching a show on National Geographic (I think it was) and they showed the GE 747-200 test aircraft taking off on just ONE 777 engine..it was amazing!!
yah..those things a phenom lookin'
Agreed,
Is it true that the diameter of a GE90-115 engine is as large or larger than the Fusalage of a Boeing 737 ?
Lastordu From United States, joined Aug 2005, 367 posts, RR: 1 Reply 25, posted (4 years 1 month 19 hours ago) and read 10240 times:
Quoting Jacobin777 (Reply 19): ...I was watching a show on National Geographic (I think it was) and they showed the GE 747-200 test aircraft taking off on just ONE 777 engine..it was amazing!!
It was on NG, I saw it too. Your right it was amazing.
Quoting Halibut (Reply 24): Is it true that the diameter of a GE90-115 engine is as large or larger than the Fusalage of a Boeing 737 ?
Yes I've seen a photo on here but don't remember where.
Nick
"Remember, Remember the 5th of November" from V for Vendetta
26 MarshalN: Wow, the pilot must've had to make good adjustments to make sure the plane stays straight with the thrust coming from one side only? I'm not of your
27 Jacobin777: if anyone has flown prior to 1995, most transatlantic/transpacific flights were on 3+ engines.......so switching from a 3 or 4-holer to a 2-holer is
28 MarshalN: Methinks the prospects of landing in an emergency in Kamchatka in the middle of winter is MUCH WORSE than landing in a tropical island in the South P
29 Mariner: For myself, I was never comfortable on Air NZ's DC-10's, or Continental's. I had friends in Australia who would only fly on Qantas (or Pan Am) for th
30 GoCOgo: However, the statistics have clearly shown that diversions are less likely aboard an ETOPS plane than a non-ETOPS 3-4 engined aircraft. A few perspec
31 MarshalN: I realize that It's still not a pleasant thought.
32 GoCOgo: But it is just as unpleasant as diverting to Kamchatka (or any airport north of the Arctic Circle) in a 4-holer as it is a 2-holer. Personally, I'm g
33 Halibut: I'll be taking that same flight in just a few weeks . It's quite remarkable when you think about it ,flying over the north pole . I too am always a b
34 MarshalN: IIRC it's 16 (15:45 or something) on your way there, 15 back, but I guess it depends a bit on the season. It gets to me a bit, mostly because of bore
35 Halibut: Thanks for reminding me ! It is indeed a grueling flight ! Then after the 15 hours of flying you must adjust to the 12 or 13 hour time difference ! L
36 NAV20: Since I'm pretty well a fully-paid-up old fogey, MarshalN, my first thought about ETOPS was the same as yours; that I wouldn't have a bar of flying l
37 KensukeAida: I was always under the impression that A and B had a gentleman's agreement that they would never make a safety issue out of engine numbers in each ot
38 MarshalN: NAV20, I am actually quite aware of my illogical conclusions that somehow twins are unsafe. Although I do have one way of wiggling myself into thinki
39 NAV20: 'Swings and roundabouts', MarshalN - they don't usually have 11,000-foot runways with full ILS systems, either! If you ever do lose an engine over th
40 N79969: If there was such an agreement, Airbus egregiously violated it several years ago. Airbus placed ads showing a hungry polar bear in an ad that implied
41 9252fly: This whole topic is a bit silly. What next,1 engine for 1 plane? Don't laugh,we'll be discussing this one day!
42 N1786b: It was an Airbus saying. It created quite a stir a while ago. I know this source is a little biased... http://www.boeing.com/news/frontiers/archive/2
43 Mariner: That may be true. But then I doubt you would be pleased if anyone called the Sonic Cruiser "a half baked idea", and would probably argue the toss. ch
44 N79969: The 340 was built...however Boeing quit on the Sonic Cruiser while it was ahead. The Sonic Cruiser was a test balloon. Call it whatever you want...I d
45 Mariner: I call it a terrific idea. Just as, living in this part of the world, we are very aware that there are routes that are presently only possible becaus
46 Oldeuropean: To say that engines wit a maximum thrust of 249 kN (56,000 Ib) are not strong enough, is a little bit naive. Each of it is able to lift 2 or 3 DC9s (
47 Amy: I would imagine that a large part of that is due to the fact that were it to have 2 engines, each one would have to output upwards of 140,000lbs of t
48 EnviroTO: 4-get-about-it. They only sold 4 engines for longhaul because that is what they are making and thought the safety of more engines angle could increase
49 Iwok: Mariner, I understand your engine/comfort level. It took me a while too until I had a better grasp of the ETOPS certification requirements and the ad
50 CarbHeatIn: With an IFSD, you will be definitely diverting on a twin engine. On a 4 engine, you will not necessarily.
51 VScaptain: Only on there airbus fleet on the 747 there are cathprases like love at first flight, fly a younger fleet,you will never forget your first time and l
52 Mariner: Thanks, Iwok. But check my profile - my first aircraft - this is how I feel safe in the sky: http://www.warbirdart.demon.co.uk/images/prncss.jpg chee
53 Astuteman: Indeed. You need to fly Santiago-Auckland if you want to feel particularly isolated - not many diversions on that route...... (Loved flying it, thoug
54 Keesje: I think VS/Airbus touched an open nerve here with the A340 4 engines for long haul (4 yrs ago?!), years after a332's were introduced on long haul and
55 Zvezda: I'm slightly more comfortable flying over the arctic in a twin than a quad because of the significantly lower probability of a diversion. Despite spe
56 CarbHeatIn: Lower probability of a shutdown but not of a diversion.
57 N79969: I suppose good access to high quality Chilean wine and fresh sea bass are reason enough to like the A340.
58 N79969: Airbus did not "pioneer" ETOPS on the Atlantic. TWA and Boeing did. The first ETOPS operations involved TWA Boeing 767 flights between IAD and LHR.
59 Bongo: Just Boeing´s 2 engines for long haul came and ruined everything
60 Tjcab: the discussion should have ended here. It was not their motto and that's it! Again. It was not their motto. If you build a plane, you would want to s
61 Tockeyhockey: something not mentioned anywhere in this thread is that the main reason why airbus went with four engines on the a340 was because there was no alterna
62 DAYflyer: Airlines to Airbus: 2 engines work just fine, thank you. Start building them that way.
64 Glom: This is missing the point. If VS were the ones behind the 4 engines 4 long haul push, then they are finding themselves increasingly isolated as the wo
66 RedFlyer: As mentioned previously, the 4 engines were required not for safety but because of the plane's massive size/weight. The only reason that "different g
68 Halibut: Zvezda, Thanks for confirming that . Again the 777 is an awesome a/c !
69 MarshalN: Well, NAV20, for EWR-HKG, you fly through the Arctic and enter Eurasian landmass somewhere well West of the Bering Straits. So, if your engine happen
70 Halibut: Isn't it late where your are Marshall ? I don't think about these things . I'm on cloud nine on this flight . I know , I'm not right .
71 Jacobin777: first of all, it probably won't make a difference, what's the probability of something like that happening? I think there are other problems one woul
72 Mariner: We are the product of our lives. I grew up with Hermes and Argnoauts and Stratocruisers and Constellations for the many long journeys we did. Short j
73 TJCAB: remember who sarted the whole twin engine widebody aircraft?
74 Keesje: Uhm, Jacobin777, you might actually read the piece, it seems N79969 left out all he didn´t like & hoped nobody would hit the linked article..http://
75 Zvezda: If you think the GE-90s are awesome, wait about ten years or so to see the engines for Y3. The nacelles are expected to have an outer diameter close
76 RedFlyer: Fascinating only because if it wasn't for Borman, Airbus would today be a distant memory; a footnote in aviation history. Airbus' production line was
77 N79969: Keesje, You are still as incorrect and dishonest as ever. I did not use Wikipedia. The one-off authorizations that predate ETOPS are not the same. ET
78 Keesje: But Airbus had another prospect in Eastern Airlines. Its president, Frank Borman, had been urging U.S. planebuilders to build their own wide-body twi
79 TeamREGAL: Well, I for one am glad that Airbus is still around. Otherwise Boeing would be the only manufacturer selling planes which would probably still be the
80 N79969: People outside the United States seem to forget that Boeing never had a monopoly although US firms were dominant.
81 Byrdluvs747: Not that you were specifically mentioning the 747, but it would seem quite odd to see a 747 with only two engines. I have to agree. Outside of the 77
82 LCH: "4 engines 4 long haul" is Virgin's motto allright, but as already mentioned, Airbus definately used the A340's 4 engines as a selling point, and as
83 Zvezda: Note that the B777-300 is about the size of the B747-300. Y3 will surely be a twin and it will replace both the B777-300ER and the B747Adv. The longe
84 WhiteHatter: It was a Virgin slogan and sprayed on the engine nacelles of an A346 which was to go to VS. Cheerleader spinning can't blank the facts that the A300B
85 CruzinAltitude: Did I miss something? What the heck is the Y3?!
86 Zvezda: Boeing's planned family of airliners are internally called Y1, Y2, and Y3. All are single-deck twins. Y1 is the replacement for the B737NG and B757.
87 CruzinAltitude: ok, cool. Just one question, how can the Y3 replace the 73-3 and the 74?
88 Lemurs: That's not what was claimed. What was claimed was that Airbus and the A300 were doing ETOPS long before anyone else. There's a difference between jus
89 Zvezda: Y3 will probably come in 3 different lengths. The shortest will be about B777-300 sized (shorter but wider). A 290 inch diameter fuselage would allow
90 KFLLCFII: No different than any other multi-engine, engine-inop procedure
91 RedFlyer: And what exactly is revisionist history on my part, Keesje? Your account, while for the most part true, is simply the glossed over version. In other
92 N79969: Well B737-200s were out flying extended overwater before the 767 as well...Please learn some facts and refrain from mixing apples and oranges and cal
93 Glareskin: As the history part of the Wikipedia link in reply 71 clearly describes it was Airbus to force a breakthrough with a twin-engine: the A300. You are h
94 N79969: The two-engine widebody is an Airbus innovation. You simply do not or perhaps cannot understand ETOPS despite the fact that I have pointed out the di
95 Shenzhen: Modern day jet engines are much more reliable then radials. As you stated in Reply 2, Times have changed, therefore less engines are required. Cheers
96 Glareskin: Believe it or not but I think I do understand it! But the reason for my 'deliberate ignorance' (you are right about that ) was the fact that you pick
97 N79969: Glareskin, Feel free to research ETOPS and you will see there are few or no opinions in my post. It simply a statement of facts. Go check out the FAA
98 NAV20: I get the impression that a lot of people equate size - and more engines, and even greater complexity - directly with safety. Probably for reasons of
99 Dougloid: All of which is good, because it helped sell the CFM56....musta got the Frenchmen fit to be tied knowing that the Pentagon was getting a royalty on e
100 Dougloid: However, looking at the scale model of the A380 that is sitting on my desk, the aircraft could not have been built with two engines...it's already got
101 BCBHokie: I thought this too, but if you refer to the Seattle PI article that N1786b posted earlier in this thread, it debunks that idea. http://seattlepi.nwso
102 ORDagent: IIRC Airbus played the card that 4 engines made for shorter more direct flights as the routing didn't have to hug the limits of etops rules. As ETOPS
103 Keesje: So lets go to the facts, when was the slogan last used by anyone, VS or Airbus or anyone? Are we kicking a dead horse here? Interesting question after
104 Glareskin: No, I don't. I already said I believe you on that. OK, the blame is on Keesje. That is not fair to say. Airbus always had the A330 and as we discusse
105 RedFlyer: Perhaps, but you gotta give the man credit: he sticks to his guns and stands up for what he believes (even if it may be wrong). For that reason alone
106 N79969: This is one reason among several why Airbus's ads were so outrageous. On the one hand, they were insinuating that 2-engine airplanes were less safe t
107 Anxebla: By the way ...What happen lately about this issue? Airbus removed this article from their web-page. I'm afraid this matter is so "frozen" like the ET
108 Glareskin: I do respect him. Blaming him for directing the thread off-course isn't such a tough accusation. respect Keesje, als bewijs zet ik je bij de gerespec
109 Slarty: For those of you that insisted "4 engines 4 long haul" was a Virgin-only tagline ... I finally found some proof that Airbus used it also ... I remembe
110 DAYflyer: I believe either McDonnel Douglas with the DC-9 or Boeing with the 737-100/200 started the twin engine narrowbody craze. Then Airbus did so with the
111 Zvezda: Damnation by faint praise. Anyway, there can be worse consequences of being wrong.
112 Mariner: "finally" found? I'm guessing you had to look real hard. cheers mariner
113 Numbertwelve: It's very simple: when there is a market for a 4-engine plane, Airbus would build it. When airlines want 2-engine planes and it's technically possible
114 Birdbrainz: What Airbus/VS did with "4 Engines 4 Long Haul" is exactly what any of us would do if we were in their position. The 777 came out and it was a hot sel
115 JetMaster: The A340 is a success, certainly. But calling it VERY successful is questionable as it has been outsold dramatically by its rival...and we shouldn't
116 Anxebla: Not at all!!! You have the right answer here: >""Long-Range Operations is a newly proposed regulatory concept which addresses all aircraft, irrespect
117 Slarty: It actually did take me quite a while. My recollection of the "4 Engine 4 long haul" campaign was airbus print advertising, of which I couldn't find
118 Mariner: So I guess the campaign can;t have been that widespread. Hilarious? Airbus made the first wide body twin and then a narrow body twin and then a wide
119 Bennett123: I checked the Airbus site a few days ago, at the time of the A350 announcement, and it appeared to me that all their advertising campaigns about the 4
120 N79969: They went over the ethical line in this ad campaign.
121 Glareskin: Come on! Living in the US you must know the dreadful television commercials... But ethical, in this case? They just said: 'folks, if we have a defect
122 N79969: Glareskin, The ads implied that the passengers were safer on an airplane with 4-engines than with 2-engines. While some may "feel" safer on 4 engine
123 ChrisNH: What happened to '4-engines-4 Longhaul?' Two words: New Coke
124 Glareskin: N79969, OK, if you look at the ads literally you are right. But first of all I think every passenger with common sense knows that they will not allow
125 Dougloid: And you don't have lousy commercials on French teevee? I just bet that there's a lot of toilets flushing when commercials come on the telly....it all
126 Glareskin: I don't have French teevee! For your information: Holland is not the capital of France.. As the rest of this forum. What's the importance of the othe
127 OldAeroGuy: However, it did cause Gordon Bethune, as CO CEO, to write an open letter to the editor of Aviation Week. He said the ad made him glad he wasn't an Ai
129 N79969: They clearly crossed the line of what is decent and respectable and what is not. Aircraft safety is not common sense. That is why government regulate
130 Dougloid: I could swear them lines were vertical the last time I looked..maybe I was standin on my head or somethin....mea culpa. But if ya wanna get some lous
Sponsor Message: 
From Canada, joined Sep 2005, 324 posts, 
From New Zealand, joined Nov 2001, 13446 posts, 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
From United States, joined Mar 2005, 1411 posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2005, 504 posts, 
From Spain, joined Dec 2003, 4068 posts, 
From Lithuania, joined Aug 2004, 10181 posts, 
From Germany, joined Apr 2001, 6420 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
