Longhaul From Australia, joined Nov 2001, 75 posts, RR: 0 Posted (11 years 6 months 1 week 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 2963 times:
Hi - in reponse to an earlier post by 'Iainhol' i thought i would pose this question to everyone. On what aircraft do u feel safer - a two engine or a four engine aircraft on a long haul route?
Critter592 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 1, posted (11 years 6 months 1 week 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 2922 times:
Well, It really doesn't matter, I would feel safer on a 4 engine aircraft, but a 2 engine aircraft is quieter and more comfortable. But in response to your post, I would take a 4 engine 747 with Virgin Atlantic over a 2 engine Boeing 777 with British Airways
Gregg From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 327 posts, RR: 0 Reply 2, posted (11 years 6 months 1 week 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 2917 times:
Very safe on both. Logic says much higher chance of a turn back on a 4 engine. (4 engines have twice the engines, and engines are not etops maintaned.) I don't make a decision on flights based on 2 or 4 enginees.
TransSwede From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 993 posts, RR: 0 Reply 4, posted (11 years 6 months 1 week 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 2886 times:
I feel slightly safer on a four-engine aircraft than a two-engine aircraft.
Sure, if one assumes that each engine is equally well maintained, a four-engine plane has a higher chance of engine failure, due to simply having more engines. However, an engine failure is more survivable on a four-engine plane, and the chance of yet another engine failing is extremely small - Unless of course the failure was caused by another reason (aerodynamic stress, out of fuel, ect), and then you are in just as much trouble in a four engine plane as a two-engine plane.
48v From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 60 posts, RR: 0 Reply 5, posted (11 years 6 months 1 week 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 2876 times:
The way I see it, the things that would simultaneously fail both engines of a twin (fuel exhaustion or flying through volcanic ash) would also fail all four engines of a four-engined plane. Plus, the strict maintainence procedures mandated for ETOPS certification reduce the probability of an incident like the Eastern L1011 that lost all three engines due to improper maintainence.
JvW From United States of America, joined Nov 2001, 173 posts, RR: 0 Reply 6, posted (11 years 6 months 1 week 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 2873 times:
Looking at the statistics, I agree that a four engine airplane has the better chance of turning around. I have flown two, three and four engined airplanes over the Atlantic many times and I never really thought about that aspect of my travels.
I am taking a DL B767 from CVG to FRA on Wednesday and I am looking foward travelling the distance with one of my most favorite airliners and airlines.
Lubcha132 From United States of America, joined Feb 2001, 2776 posts, RR: 8 Reply 7, posted (11 years 6 months 1 week 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 2865 times:
i'd take a 757 over an electra if that's what you mean
actually i've never been on a 4 engine plane. 1,2 and 3 only.
Asgeirs From Iceland, joined May 2001, 513 posts, RR: 1 Reply 8, posted (11 years 6 months 1 week 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 2855 times:
2,3 or 4 engined A/C - doesn't matter - as long as it has more than one (I like to have some redundancy). Also prefer to have them on the wings (L-1011 okay though).
Reykjavik Aviation Photography - Just bring the aircraft to us and we'll photograph them! :-)
Mark2102 From United States of America, joined Nov 2001, 350 posts, RR: 0 Reply 9, posted (11 years 6 months 1 week 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 2850 times:
I have never been on a 4 engine aircraft, but I have been on 2 and 3. I would probably fell safer on a 4 because if one goes, you still have 3 more that work.
Baec777 From United States of America, joined Oct 1999, 1231 posts, RR: 2 Reply 11, posted (11 years 6 months 1 week 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 2811 times:
I had flew on 2 & 3 engines aircrafts. I haven't yet flew on any 4-engines planes... soon to be BA744 or AF343...I will give it a try some day !!
B737-700 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 13, posted (11 years 6 months 1 week 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 2768 times:
A 777 is just as good but of course I would feel a bit safer on a 4 engine jet especially at take-off when an engine failure would result in only having one (very powerful though) left.
Na From Germany, joined Dec 1999, 9616 posts, RR: 10 Reply 14, posted (11 years 6 months 1 week 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 2762 times:
I feel safer onboard a 4-engined aircraft. Whatever people say. Many 2-engined longhaul aircraft are still quite new while a lot of the Quads are older. Reliability has something to do with age. The steep rising in engine trouble incidents with 777s this year can not be ignored.
VS744 From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2001, 677 posts, RR: 1 Reply 15, posted (11 years 6 months 1 week 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 2757 times:
It depends on the route.
If I was flying long haul over water - e.g. atlantic, then Iwould prefer 4 engines. If the flight was entriely over land, then it would make much of a difference.
Reason being, if an a/c loses an engine 2 hours from the nearest land, then i'd be happier flying on 3 than 1!!
RickB From United Kingdom, joined May 2003, 243 posts, RR: 10 Reply 16, posted (11 years 6 months 1 week 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 2748 times:
Actually it never concerns me how many engines an aircraft has, I pay more attention to the aircrafts age, I would much rather fly a new 777 or A330 than a 20 year old 747 and I would rather fly a new 747 than a 20 year old DC10 (I actually changed a flight last year from Philadelphia to LHR to an earlier one because it meant flying on a new 777 rather than a 747 'classic')
In all of the flights I have ever made, the only aborted takeoffs due to mechanical problems I have encountered have all been made on older aircraft (ATA L1011's usually).
Even so - I have to say as long as the pilot is happy to fly it, I'm usually happy to get on any aircraft.
Hkg_clk From Hong Kong, joined Jan 2001, 999 posts, RR: 2 Reply 17, posted (11 years 6 months 1 week 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 2729 times:
For peace of mind, four-engined planes are definitely better, but I am in no way suggesting that two engined planes are unsafe. There are many factors to consider when determining safety, and the number of engines is just one of many factors.
See my homepage for a comprehensive guide to spotting and photography at HKG
Cfalk From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 18, posted (11 years 6 months 1 week 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 2719 times:
Safety-wise I don't see much of a difference. But there is nothing like being in a 747, and feeling the power and weight under you (especially if you are on on the top deck). Truely the queen of the skies.
BCal DC10 From United States of America, joined Jul 2001, 717 posts, RR: 5 Reply 19, posted (11 years 6 months 1 week 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 2709 times:
given the choice between a 25 year old 747-100 and a brand spanking new 777, I know which I'll take.
You just gotta love those BA 777s.
imo.
Sponsor Message: 
From Australia, joined Nov 2001, 75 posts, 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 327 posts, 
From Iceland, joined May 2001, 513 posts, 
From Thailand, joined May 2000, 38514 posts, 
From Singapore, joined Nov 2001, 2066 posts, 
From Germany, joined Dec 1999, 9616 posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2001, 677 posts, 
From Hong Kong, joined Jan 2001, 999 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
