W_a_s_p_i_e From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2002, 170 posts, RR: 0 Posted (12 years 10 months 2 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 2147 times:
In my opinion the 3 engined aircraft are the best (too look at and fly in, it doesnt matter to me if its small or big leg room, youre still flying a 3 engined aircraft!!). L1011 Tristar (my favourite) was brilliant, DC10 and MD11 are great, B727 was good, TU-154 is good and Trident was good. But now with all these nice 2 engined aircraft that seem to be coping very well (777/A330...) do you think the 3 engined jets will come back? There is still a need for 4 engined aircraft, the A380 is being made!! But what is your opinion on the future of 3 engined jets?
Srbmod From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (12 years 10 months 2 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 2110 times:
With engine reliablity being what it is these days, the days of the tri-jet are numbered. You still have some airlines that will not use two engined aircraft (Virgin Atlantic), and others are using them, but only because it's the only option they have. The tri-jet is a good design, but it has one drawback, the #2 engine (the tail mounted one) is a MX nightmare.
Astrojet From Germany, joined Aug 2000, 565 posts, RR: 2
Reply 3, posted (12 years 10 months 2 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 2098 times:
I do like 3 holers, but I think the reason of placing 3 engines is when 2 engines are not enough powerfull, and this problem doesn´t exists now, even the big B777 has plenty with 2 engines. Anyway, it would be nice to see new three holers.
SAS23 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (12 years 10 months 2 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 2019 times:
Don't forget that there are still two quads out there ... the B747 and A340. Twins are fine until an engine (or two) stops operating. Also, don't forget that ETOPS is difficult and expensive to both obtain and maintain.
Concorde1518 From United States of America, joined May 2001, 746 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (12 years 10 months 2 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 1989 times:
Well, i remember reading that the third engine doesn't work anymore because, nowadays, 2 engined jets are just fine, and burn less gas. they are also very reliable. I think there was a debate not too long ago as to weather ETOPS saved an airline money or cost them.
The four engined jets are also good, because some planes need those extra engines, and the 4 engines allow the plane to have a higher cruising speed, and the extra 2 engines save wear and tear, since they don't have to run the engines as high.
Anyway, I read this on a post a couple of months ago, so I'm just guessing.
DIA From United States of America, joined Jan 2001, 3273 posts, RR: 26
Reply 9, posted (12 years 10 months 2 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 1944 times:
Boeing nut has it right.
Never say never. How about an aircraft the size of an A340-600 that runs on three engines. It might save money on fuel, money engines, and no expensive ETOPS.
I'm not going to get technical, I'm just saying you can't rule it out.
Besides, not too long ago, who ever thought we'd see something like a twin-engined jumbo the size of a 777-300 making Trans-Pacific routes? No one.
Now, when that idea was finally excepted as reality, who would've thought Airbus to throw us another line of four-engined airliners when everybody said two-engined airliners was sufficient for theis day and age?
Well, let's make everyone happy and surprise the industry with an all-new state-of-the-art three-engined jumbo.
I, for one, will definately not rule this scenario out.
Maybe Boeing will replace the 747 with a three-holer, we don't know. You say no way still? Well, I guess you may be right. Besides, you saw the Sonic Cruiser coming all along, didn't you.
My point exactly.
Ding! You are now free to keep supporting Frontier.
Houstondallas From Canada, joined Jul 2001, 92 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (12 years 10 months 2 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 1796 times:
Concorde1518, What are you talking about?
"The four engined jets are also good, because some planes need those extra engines, and the 4 engines allow the plane to have a higher cruising speed, and the extra 2 engines save wear and tear, since they don't have to run the engines as high."
The number of engines on a plane has absolutely nothing to do with it's cruise speed. It's about thrust and drag. Wear and Tear? The engines on a 4 engine plane runs as "high" as those on a 2 engine plane. It's not like they bolted some GE90's onto an A340 and idle her up to cruise!