Biggles313 From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2000, 47 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (15 years 6 hours ago) and read 2893 times:
Economics of 777 vs MD11 have proven that the era of the trijet has pretty much passed... The L1011 is fundamentally a late 60s design concept, and if bigger engines had been possible, it would have been a boring old twinjet!
Note that the L-1011-500 "very long range" version has a full pax range shorter than the A330, which today is considered "medium range", esp. compared with A340...
LMCO has no interest in commercial aviation... But if Boeing or ideed AI were to build a trijet, I hope they give it a TriStar-style S-duct and all the other cool features...
Trickijedi From United States of America, joined May 2001, 3266 posts, RR: 4
Reply 2, posted (15 years 6 hours ago) and read 2879 times:
First of all, I really don't think it's gonna happen. Like Biggles said, it is more economical to build a two-engine jet for medium to long-range flights than it is to build an aircraft with one additional engine. It's also cheaper to maintain and operate two engines as opposed to three. With the long-standing functionality of the 767-300, I don't see any reason to build anything with more than two engines. ETOPS is obviously not an issue with the 767 and most airliners are happy with them. So to answer your question, no I don't think that they will be successful. I don't think they would even consider it.
I am not a big fan of the Tri-Star (I think they are OK jets) but that had nothing to do with my views on the topic.
Its better to be on the ground wishing you were in the air than be in the air wishing you were on the ground. Fly safe!
Ceilidh From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (14 years 12 months 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 2823 times:
Lockheed certainly won't build one ... but look out for another trijet offer from Boeing shortly. Don't forget, only having two engines causes all sorts of technical and certification problems - especially on the ultra long flights - and the pax are not too keen on them. Why do you think the A340 has four engines?
CV990 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (14 years 12 months 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 2817 times:
I still think Lockheed will come one day with another airliner, it will be something really diffrent from what you have now. But if they wanted to produce a new L1011 they had to change the engines, the RB211 was not the best choise at that time, that's why L1011 was not a sucess, now they had to give various options otheriwse they would not sale that plane.
VirginA340 From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 15 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (14 years 12 months 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 2757 times:
Lockheed is doing great on the military cargo/fighter arena. They need to saty there in order to get money. They are becomeing a big hit with these government contracts they keep getting. Their time for commercial aircraft has passed. ditto for MD. Airbus and Boeing is now the dominant ones. Even the RJ market is filled with AIR, Embraer, and CanadianAir, and others. They are strong im military jet. so they ned to stay there.
Trintocan From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2000, 3297 posts, RR: 4
Reply 10, posted (14 years 12 months 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 2747 times:
I do not think that will happen any time soon. As mentioned earlier, the functionality and economy of twins on long-haul routes with ETOPS clearances have made the trijet an obsolete concept. Certainly in the early 70s, when engines were not as powerful as they are now, trijet widebodies had a role but now with huge efficient engines available, 2 can easily outperform 3.
Over the weekend I obsrved both the jmc DC10 and the BA 777 in TAB and the latter took off much more silently despite being larger with bigger engines. It all has to do with the technology.
On the issue of 4-jet planes, there will always be a role for them because of purely technical reasons. Once planes are required for extreme ranges (A340, 747-400) or loads (747-400, A380) 4 engines would be needed.