Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
3 Engine Jet? Ever Again?  
User currently offlineWalter747 From United States of America, joined Oct 2006, 1440 posts, RR: 4
Posted (8 years 1 month 2 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 10759 times:

Does anybody think that either boring or airbus will build a 3 engine jet again?

A Dc-10 or 727 like jet.


I loved the design and hate to see them disappear.


Hussel, Hussel, Husel, Grind, Grind, Grind
48 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineJamesbuk From United Kingdom, joined May 2005, 3968 posts, RR: 4
Reply 1, posted (8 years 1 month 2 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 10711 times:

Nope, aircraft are a hell of alot more efficient now with 2 engines, look at the 777 etc to see this, they have longer range also. Never is a strong word but im certain we'll never see another 3 engine passenger commercial jet. Privates not so surre, may see a few.

Rgds --James--



You cant have your cake and eat it... What the hells the point in having it then!!!
User currently offlineMEACEDAR From Lebanon, joined Oct 2006, 753 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (8 years 1 month 2 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 10704 times:

No, I don't think there is any reason for Airbus or Boeing to do this. It is just my opinion.

User currently offlineKSUpilot From United States of America, joined Jul 2006, 656 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (8 years 1 month 2 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 10662 times:

Probably not from Airbus and Boeing, however, Business Jets are another story. The Dassault Falcon 7X is the newst Falcon, and it has 3 engines, as does the Falcon 900.

User currently onlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31417 posts, RR: 85
Reply 4, posted (8 years 1 month 2 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 10653 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

For a commercial airliner, I believe performance improvements in engine power have pretty much negated the need for three engines - at least for sub-sonic cruising.

User currently offlineLuvAir From Germany, joined Oct 2006, 22 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (8 years 1 month 2 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 10607 times:

As I understand it the main reason for 3-engined jets "back in the days" was the capability to fly longer routes over water.

Since for example the 777 was granted 180 min ETOPS on initial certification I don't see a reason for future twins from the large manufacturers not to be certified for extended routes over water from the beginning.

Plus, twins are much more fuel-efficient.


User currently offlineFuturecaptain From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (8 years 1 month 2 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 10451 times:

No, we probably wont see a 3 engine pax jet ever again.

In fact, it is possible the A380 and 748 could be the last 4 engined pax jets. Unless the need for a super-mega whalejet ever arrives. Which IMO is unlikely.


User currently offlineFlyf15 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (8 years 1 month 2 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 10418 times:

The Blended Wing Body is proposed to have three 777 class engines. But, thats a long way off (if it ever happens).



User currently offlineGr8Circle From Canada, joined Dec 2005, 3130 posts, RR: 4
Reply 8, posted (8 years 1 month 2 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 10417 times:

Quoting Walter747 (Thread starter):
Does anybody think that either boring or airbus

I don't think either A or B are "boring" Big grin.....anyway, nice typo....


User currently offlineLightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 13536 posts, RR: 100
Reply 9, posted (8 years 1 month 2 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 10242 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Flyf15 (Reply 7):
The Blended Wing Body is proposed to have three 777 class engines. But, thats a long way off (if it ever happens).

The 550 to 800 seat BWB's are in a category where 3 engines actually make the most sense. What I don't understand is the 215 BWB discussed in the previous days with 3... There it makes zero sense. Why would you replace a 787 with an aircraft with higher MX costs?  no  The cost of an engine overhaul can be roughly estimated to be identical *per engine* for that small of a size difference. Ok, if you're talking large fans, there is a diameter above which 3 engines can be more economical than two (assumption: 3 engines at a smaller diameter). However that diameter grows in fits and starts every couple of years.

There is a "step increase" for engine production and MX where above a certain diameter costs just shoot up. But this diameter goes up in fits and starts. The diameter I was taught is already out of date...

In rough terms, a 3 engine plane costs about $250,000+ more a year to operate than a 2 engine equivalent. However, the GE-90 has engines of diameter greater than the "step function increase" I talk about. Even then, its still not a large enough diameter to justify 3 engines on the 777...  scratchchin  What is the point? Currently 150K is my best estimate. But maybe someone has figured out a trick to move the thrust limit up further that I do not know about...  scratchchin 

Lightsaber



Societies that achieve a critical mass of ideas achieve self sustaining growth; others stagnate.
User currently offlineNASCARAirforce From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 3184 posts, RR: 4
Reply 10, posted (8 years 1 month 2 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 10133 times:

As long as Dassault is around with their Falcon jets, you will have three engine jets. The Falcon 7X is still waiting certification I believe.

User currently onlineStarlionblue From Greenland, joined Feb 2004, 17174 posts, RR: 66
Reply 11, posted (8 years 1 month 2 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 10101 times:

Quoting LuvAir (Reply 5):
As I understand it the main reason for 3-engined jets "back in the days" was the capability to fly longer routes over water.

Another reason often touted is that a triplet allowed the DC-10 and L-1011 to fly transcon from LGAs short runways (a requirement from the airlines). A quad would have required too much wingspan to fit at the gates.

The tail engine is a big pain in the ass (haha) for aerodynamic and structural reasons, not to mention maintenance. If we see a triplet again in a commercial jet, it will be, as stated above, on a BWB or similar.



"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots."
User currently offlineWalter747 From United States of America, joined Oct 2006, 1440 posts, RR: 4
Reply 12, posted (8 years 1 month 2 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 10101 times:

Quoting Walter747 (Thread starter):
boring

Boeing. opps haha.



Hussel, Hussel, Husel, Grind, Grind, Grind
User currently offlineAlessandro From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 13, posted (8 years 1 month 2 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 10057 times:

I´m personally hoping for a 5-engine jet, but that even more distant... Wink

User currently offlineLightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 13536 posts, RR: 100
Reply 14, posted (8 years 1 month 2 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 9914 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting NASCARAirforce (Reply 10):
As long as Dassault is around with their Falcon jets, you will have three engine jets.

 checkmark  The 7X is a beauty. They must have done somthing right with Netjets ordering two dozen:
http://www.falconjet.com/whatsnew/prelease_details.jsp?DOCNUM=50521

Does anyone know what fraction of their sales are the two engine Falcon 2000?

Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 11):
The tail engine is a big pain in the ass (haha) for aerodynamic and structural reasons, not to mention maintenance. If we see a triplet again in a commercial jet, it will be, as stated above, on a BWB or similar.

 rotfl 

Quoting Alessandro (Reply 13):
I´m personally hoping for a 5-engine jet, but that even more distant...

Nothing like that 8 engine B-52...  spin 

Lightsaber



Societies that achieve a critical mass of ideas achieve self sustaining growth; others stagnate.
User currently offlineWarreng24 From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 708 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (8 years 1 month 2 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 9838 times:

Quoting Lightsaber (Reply 14):
Nothing like that 8 engine B-52...

I don't want to thread-jack, but you have to bring up the "dreaded 7 engine emergency approach."  Smile


User currently offlinePropulsion From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2004, 294 posts, RR: 3
Reply 16, posted (8 years 1 month 2 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 9818 times:

NO. The mighty Boeing 777 has assured us of that.

Unfortunately you should enjoy the tri-jets while you can. They will almost certainly be a thing of the past. Something in history that will not be experienced again. How sad, especially since MD-11's are so beautiful.



A bus is a vehicle that runs twice as fast when you are after it as when you are in it.
User currently offlineDC10extender From United States of America, joined Nov 2006, 617 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (8 years 1 month 2 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 9806 times:

I don't think that they will make a 3 engine jet ever again, and that saddens me. This January, NW will retire their DC-10's and become the last major US airline to do so. I just wish the MD-11's sold more and more were being used in the U.S. I also think that instead of sending them to the Mojave, they should give me a DC-10.  biggrin 


Did you ever read on your birth certificate that life is fair? Thats cause its not there.
User currently offlinePPVRA From Brazil, joined Nov 2004, 8976 posts, RR: 39
Reply 18, posted (8 years 1 month 2 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 9774 times:

How about frankenstein-ing MD-11s into a twin? Would it be too expensive? Hehe

PS: I love the MD-11!



"If goods do not cross borders, soldiers will" - Frederic Bastiat
User currently offlineGarri767 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 19, posted (8 years 1 month 2 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 9723 times:

sadly i doubt there will ever be a DC-10/727 style three holer ever in production again  Sad the three holers were always my favorite a/c , especially the L-1011  airplane 




Garri767


User currently offlineABpositive From Australia, joined Nov 2005, 227 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (8 years 1 month 2 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 9700 times:

Quoting Lightsaber (Reply 9):
The 550 to 800 seat BWB's are in a category where 3 engines actually make the most sense.

I agree. It would be interesting seeing 747 or 380 with three engines.

In fact 747 had 3 engines at one stage, but only in design proposal, right?


User currently offlineLightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 13536 posts, RR: 100
Reply 21, posted (8 years 1 month 2 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 9618 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting ABpositive (Reply 20):
In fact 747 had 3 engines at one stage, but only in design proposal, right?

It was actually a proposal for the 747SP post 747-100. However the costs of that extensive of a redesign killed the idea.

Quoting Warreng24 (Reply 15):
I don't want to thread-jack, but you have to bring up the "dreaded 7 engine emergency approach."

 rotfl 

Lightsaber



Societies that achieve a critical mass of ideas achieve self sustaining growth; others stagnate.
User currently offlineScoliodon From India, joined Oct 2005, 217 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (8 years 1 month 2 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 9605 times:

It's indeed a pity to see the trijet widebodies go. The Tristar, DC-10, MD11s are such beauties.

Why don't A or B build one just for heck's sake? Big grin



JFK-LGA-EWR-DTW-IND-PHX-CLE-SFO-LAS-SEA-ORD-MCO-MIA-DFW-ATL-CDG-FRA-BOM-MAA-DEL-TRZ-DXB-CLT-CVG-DEN-MSP
User currently onlineStarlionblue From Greenland, joined Feb 2004, 17174 posts, RR: 66
Reply 23, posted (8 years 1 month 2 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 9599 times:

Quoting PPVRA (Reply 18):
How about frankenstein-ing MD-11s into a twin?

Both the L-1011 and DC-10 had 2 engine variants proposed.

Quoting Lightsaber (Reply 21):
Quoting ABpositive (Reply 20):
In fact 747 had 3 engines at one stage, but only in design proposal, right?

It was actually a proposal for the 747SP post 747-100. However the costs of that extensive of a redesign killed the idea.

Here's a pic:

http://www.rosboch.net/aviationmedia/B747-300_Concept_with_three_engines.jpg



"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots."
User currently offlineN231YE From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 24, posted (8 years 1 month 2 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 9553 times:

If I recall, Eastern Airlines requested that the Boeing 727 have two engines for efficiency. However, United wanted it to have 4, to enable it to operate out of high-altitude DEN. So Boeing did a compromise, and came up with a three-engined jet.

25 Johnny : It is really a mess that Boeing killed the MD11x-Program shortly after take-over of MDD. That MD11-stretch version would have been a huge success and
26 Post contains images TrijetsRMissed : I feel your pain! But thats a given from my username Because Airbus and Boeing have an oligopoly on the industry we will probably never see another t
27 Post contains images Brenintw : Doesn't BA fly 3-engined jets from time to time?
28 TrijetsRMissed : I wish... The last DC10-30 was sold to Centurion Air Cargo in 2002. The last Tristar 500 was retired in 1999. It has since been scrapped.
29 ChiGB1973 : Excellent. Saving fuel from LAX to the U.K. I hope to be recalled to fly on the three-holers. I just hope the Tristar is still around when that time
30 Post contains images Brenintw : Not sure the FAA would approve of them doing it again Especially if they do it the way they did it last year (?) in a 744.
31 Starlionblue : That's not really the reason. If a trijet was a feasible solution, it would be implemented. Flying on three doesn't really save fuel. What they did w
32 MeanGreen : I have a question, why didn't Airbus make the A340 a trijet back whennit was designed? That way they could offer a plane that wasn'tnrestricted by ETO
33 NASCARAirforce : So did the 727. The 757 became what was supposed to be the 727-300. One version of the 727-300 was supposed to be a really long 727, while the other
34 Dambuster : To resume and make it simple, there are 2 main reasons why there won't be any 3 engined jets for a while: 1. Maintenance costs 2. Nowadays with GE90s
35 Post contains links and images AKelley728 : You're thinking of the 7J7, which was supposed to be the 150 seat successor to the 727. It was to be powered by two rear-mounted General Electric GE-
36 NASCARAirforce : Yeah the 7J7, I was thinking it was an updated 727 since it looks a lot like one with just two engines. On a side note, weren't there other 7()7 aircr
37 Steeler83 : I think it would be neat to see another 717-sized aircraft with 3 engines. Every 9 out of 10 aircraft anymore have wing-mounted engines. I am a big fa
38 Post contains images Starlionblue : You mean this guy?
39 Trintocan : Sadly, the era of the 3-engined jets is fading rapidly. The extra costs of purchasing, maintaining and operating a 3rd engine on a plane are too high
40 Starlionblue : The plane is in fact less efficient. But it would have easily reached LHR . However due to a completely separate problem the crew had inaccurate fuel
41 DEVILFISH : The DC-10 and MD-11 engines were not buried in the fuselage at all. And I think it looks neater (albeit a pig to maintain) than the massive L-1011 ta
42 Viscount724 : The original A330-300 and A340-200/300 which were launched simultaneously were always intended to be virtually identical aircraft apart from the numb
43 Starlionblue : Indeed. Even if the 340 were not part of the 330/340 family, four engines were a much neater solution since there was no significant gate space restr
44 747400sp : Maybe as a SST or a super jumbo with lower operating cost.
45 Ptugarin : I am surprised no one mentioned the Russian beauties - Tu154, Yak40 and Yak42 in this thread. Any possibility of another Yak-42 coming off assembly in
46 TrijetsRMissed : Read my whole post, that point was well covered. But lets not be ignorant to the fact that Airbus has never created a trijet and Boeing has not desig
47 Starlionblue : Fair point!
48 Trintocan : I stand corrected about engine burial in the fuselage - the DC-10 and MD11 did not feature that. All the same, the structural and maintenance issues r
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...
Longest-ever Single-engine Jet Flight? posted Sat Feb 1 2003 00:37:12 by Timz
DL To Ktul Mainline Ever Again? posted Thu Mar 30 2006 23:40:59 by Starstream707
ID Of 4 Engine Jet Over Denver posted Wed Nov 9 2005 22:28:19 by Flyf15
Transcon Wide-bodies For US, Ever Again? posted Mon Jun 13 2005 22:35:57 by DCAflyboy
A Future Three Engine Jet posted Fri Oct 15 2004 08:45:44 by Jamesvf84
Jet Patrols Again With Code Orange? posted Mon Feb 10 2003 00:43:47 by HlywdCatft
Gemini To SJC Ever Again? posted Fri Apr 5 2002 09:25:03 by SEA nw DC10
Pan Am...Ever Again? posted Tue Jul 31 2001 20:21:29 by DeltaOwnsAll
Can A 4-Engine Jet Land On Just 1 Engine? posted Wed May 30 2001 03:03:31 by LAX
Tri-Jets Ever Again? posted Wed Dec 13 2000 06:38:19 by Thomacf