Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
777 With Four Engines ?  
User currently offlineIce Cream Man From United Kingdom, joined May 1999, 127 posts, RR: 0
Posted (15 years 1 month 1 week 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 1740 times:

Has Boeing ever considered doing this ? It could make a great competitor to the A-340, especially the -500 and -600 models. No ETOPS restrictions. And most importantly, it would look nice too.

14 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineAM From Mexico, joined Oct 1999, 590 posts, RR: 2
Reply 1, posted (15 years 1 month 1 week 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 1464 times:

That would have been a great success. Maybe leave the 777-200 with 2 engines as a competitor to the A330, and make the 777-300 a 4 engine aircraft to better substitute 747-200s and -300s.


"... for there you have been and there you will long to return."
User currently offlineLH423 From Canada, joined Jul 1999, 6501 posts, RR: 54
Reply 2, posted (15 years 1 month 1 week 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 1455 times:

A four engined 777, would be a single-level 747. In which case, maybe Boeing could do a study into the pheasibility of a shrunk 747-400, like the 747SP.

LH423



« On ne voit bien qu'avec le cœur. L'essentiel est invisible pour les yeux » Antoine de Saint-Exupéry
User currently offlineAC_A340 From Canada, joined Sep 1999, 2251 posts, RR: 1
Reply 3, posted (15 years 1 month 1 week 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 1444 times:

I'm assuming you'd have to put different engines on it. Four of those huge engines would use so much fuel and totally decrease the range. It would be nice for airlines that squeeze as much stuff into the plane as possible. It could have a higher MTOW.

User currently offlineTP343 From Brazil, joined May 1999, 312 posts, RR: 4
Reply 4, posted (15 years 1 month 1 week 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 1427 times:

Hello Ice Cream Man!

Looking to the ETOPS aspects, it would be irrelevant, as the current B777-200ER is getting soon a 207 minutes permission. Although it will be still rescricted, in reality it will be able to reach the same places that the future A340-500 and -600 will reach. The only advantage is the range, a bit inferior to the Boeing product.

Regards,

TP343, São Paulo, Brazil.


User currently offlineCX747 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 4464 posts, RR: 5
Reply 5, posted (15 years 1 month 1 week 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 1419 times:

Don't hold your breath on the manufacturing of this airframe but it is being worked on by Boeing. Flight Intertnaional talked about it a while back.


"History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or timid." D. Eisenhower
User currently offlineRavi From Singapore, joined Oct 2005, 0 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (15 years 1 month 1 week 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 1402 times:

What trollop!

Boeing is not working on a 4-engined 777 derivative, and won't ever work on a 4-engined derivative of the 777. Inherent to the 777's economic principles is the two-engine theory of lower operating costs. It doesn't need 4 engines to compete with the A340 and ETOPS restrictions are only applied to any great extent on a few routes.


User currently offlineAC183 From Canada, joined Jul 1999, 1532 posts, RR: 2
Reply 7, posted (15 years 1 month 1 week 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 1390 times:

I have wondered why not do this myself. I think it would offer airlines a choice, as there are airlines that prefer, if not need, four engines. I would also state that while ETOPS may allow twins operating on long overseas routes, I would feel more comfortable in three or four engine aircraft. I think 3 really is an optimum number of engines, other than problems with placing the third engine, but I wish there were modern TriStar variants. But anyways, about the ETOPS twin vs. four engine thing, there are passengers who demand 4 engines on overseas routes. And I don't really blame them. Just my preference, but while I wouldn't shy away from twins, I would prefer either A340's or 747's for flights over oceans, not so much the Atlantic, but the South Pacific for sure.

User currently offlineRavi From Singapore, joined Oct 2005, 0 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (15 years 1 month 1 week 2 days ago) and read 1376 times:

There are also passengers, like me, who prefer two engine overwater travel.

Your airplane is more likely to leave on time.
Your airplane is more likely to arrive on time.
Your airplane is more likely to reach your destination.

What's more, with twin-engine economics, your ticket is likely to be cheaper, too.


User currently offlineSp-deluxe From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 9, posted (15 years 1 month 1 week 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 1372 times:

so ravi-would you prefer a 747 powered by only two engines, using the most powerful 777's is still not enough thrust i know, but the 95000 pound thrust 777 engines are only 15000 pounds less than the 744 engines, in the future such engines could exist!

User currently offlineRavi From Singapore, joined Oct 2005, 0 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (15 years 1 month 1 week 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 1367 times:

On the basis of aircraft type, I would never want a 747 to have anything but four engines. Anything less would be a travesty of one of the most important airframes in the history of the world.

Boeing looked at a 747-twin in the mid-1990s as part of its continuing study into airframes and airframe derivatives. If you're asking would I prefer to fly a twin-engined 747 versus a quad-engined 747, I'd say no on the basis that a 747 without four engines just isn't a 747. On the basis of two versus four engine configurations, though, then yes, I would select the twin powered airplane.

That four engines is better is an unfortunate side effect of the human psyche. The facts are quite simple: a single engine failure on a quad is more likely to kill you than a single engine failure on a twin. Dual engine failures for twins don't have histories cause it ain't happened yet.


User currently offlineRuscoe From Australia, joined Aug 1999, 1590 posts, RR: 2
Reply 11, posted (15 years 1 month 1 week 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 1365 times:

Pure speculation on my part, but I think the only 4 engine 777 you will see will be a double decker response to the A3XX if it is ever built!
Ruscoe


User currently offlineA320 fan From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 12, posted (15 years 1 month 1 week 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 1365 times:

i don't think that there will ever be a four engined 777. i take part in the triple7 mailing list at egroups and the topic has come up before. a twin is a twin.

VT.


User currently offlineIce Cream Man From United Kingdom, joined May 1999, 127 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (15 years 1 month 1 week 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 1343 times:

Ravi, I appreciate your support for the twins, statistics are indeed supporting your theory. But 207 minutes of ETOPS does seem like an awfully long time. That could be close to three and a half hours of flying on one engine. Again, statistics are in your favour, but....it would be rather nasty if the other one decides to act up as well.

On a slightly different note, if the above scenario would ever happen (and let's hope it won't) it would more than likely kill the whole ETOPS (at least the long ETOPS) due to public reaction. Bye bye 777 and A-330.


User currently offlineRavi From Singapore, joined Oct 2005, 0 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (15 years 1 month 1 week 1 day ago) and read 1321 times:

Let me explain something to you about ETOPS. To get 180 minutes ETOPS an airplane fleet MUST show that an engine shuts down only ONCE for every 50,000 flying hours. Over the life time of an airframe, then - about 100,000 hours, any one airplane can be expected to have just TWO engine shutdowns.

These two engine shutdowns MUST occur within 180 minutes of each other in a 100,000 hour lifetime. The chance of that happening is 6x10(-10) or 0.000000006%. Having said this, that is still a statistical chance. This is because in the real world accidents and random events do infact occur.

If the 1 in 60 billion chance that a dual engine failure will happen to an ETOPS rated twinjet it will not end ETOPS. ETOPS is what is known as an "acceptable risk" and even in the event of an airliner losing both engines due to mechanical failure it will not be removed as a system of operation. Needless to say there are some ETOPS measures that should be applied to ALL aircraft because it increases not only safety, but also the economic viability of operation.

Now, because ETOPS is a system of operation there may be, even in our lifetimes, an event where something goes wrong. To show you how rare that will be is to say this: there has been 1.3 million ETOPS flights in the last 15 years. The chance of a dual IFSD on a 180 minutes ETOPS rated twinjet is 1 in 60 BILLION. Therefore, after 60,000 times the last 15 years only ONE dual IFSD will occur.

Meantime, the chance of you falling out of the sky in a quadjet due to ALL FOUR ENGINES failing - at current reliability rates for quadjets - is 1 in 30 BILLION. You are, therefore, and in theory, twice as safe on a twinjet.

Besides, all engines failing on an airplane DOES NOT MEAN DEATH. It means a crash landing. Probably overwater - therefore a ditching. There is absolutely no reason why the passengers and crew of a ditching airplane CANNOT survive the ditch.

Gliding into a mountain, on the other hand, would not be ideal! :-)


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...
777 With Four Engines ? posted Sun Oct 24 1999 19:28:52 by Ice Cream Man
Can You Imagine 777 With 4 Engines? posted Tue Nov 29 2005 23:34:17 by AirCanada014
Airlines With 777 With GE-90 Engines posted Sun Aug 14 2005 05:12:26 by Fly_yhm
AA 777 With 4 Engines? posted Wed Sep 17 2003 03:51:31 by Flyingbronco05
SQ's Newest 773/ER With GE Engines Not RR Why? posted Wed Oct 4 2006 06:51:12 by DeltaJet757
767 With RR Engines - Why The Lack Of Orders? posted Mon Sep 25 2006 00:06:13 by 1337Delta764
737NG With 757 Engines And Wing? posted Sat Aug 5 2006 16:02:00 by JAM747
AA 777 With An Engine Problem posted Wed Jul 26 2006 16:21:36 by TPAnx
Shock Announcement - 737 With CFM Engines posted Tue Jun 20 2006 22:58:07 by Kiwiandrew
200th 777 With GE90 posted Sun Apr 23 2006 14:31:57 by PM