Critter592 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (13 years 2 months 2 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 6422 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 (13 years 2 months 2 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 6417 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, 1001 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (13 years 2 months 2 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 6386 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 (13 years 2 months 2 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 6376 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 (13 years 2 months 2 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 6373 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.
Na From Germany, joined Dec 1999, 10883 posts, RR: 9
Reply 14, posted (13 years 2 months 2 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 6262 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.
RickB From United Kingdom, joined May 2003, 243 posts, RR: 9
Reply 16, posted (13 years 2 months 2 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 6248 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 (13 years 2 months 2 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 6229 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 (13 years 2 months 2 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 6219 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.