SESGDL
Topic Author
Posts: 2614
Joined: Sat Jan 13, 2001 6:25 am

Trijets & Rear Engined Planes

Sun Jan 14, 2001 7:58 am

Do you think that any of the major companies will ever make another trijets or rear engined airliner????? The DC-10, L-1011, and MD-11 were great planes, and now, all 3 are out of production!!!!! Do you think Boeing may make a 717 predecessor like the MD-80??? I hope so, anyway, give me your comments!!!

THANX,
Jeremy
 
Matt D
Posts: 8907
Joined: Fri Nov 19, 1999 6:00 am

RE: Trijets & Rear Engined Planes

Sun Jan 14, 2001 8:00 am

No
 
Matt D
Posts: 8907
Joined: Fri Nov 19, 1999 6:00 am

RE: Trijets & Rear Engined Planes

Sun Jan 14, 2001 8:11 am

Here is something I posted a few days ago regarding the likelihood of a future DC-10 or L-1011 type aircraft:


Four words:
Not going to happen.

Anyway, this topic has been addressed before, and in case you didn't see it, here's a summary of what we pretty much came to agree on:

The MD-11, while certainly a good plane, has seemed to have found its niche as a freighter as opposed to a passenger plane. The MD-11 was just a few years behind its time. During the design stage of the MD-11, MDD was having a lot of internal problems that not only led to the delay of the -11, but also a total lack of Total Quality Management. Plus, consider this: the large, tri-jet engine was a design whose time had come and passed. From an economic and maintenance standard, why buy a plane with three engines, when a two engined plane (the 763, or even the embryonic at the time A330 and 777) could do the job just as well with one-third less the number of power plants?
All of that, along with the advent of ETOPS essentially doomed the MD-11 program long before the first delivery was made.

As for the possibility of a stretched 717 or rebirth of the MD-80/90, at this point due to the fact that the 717 sales just continue to stagnate, I have some serious doubts. Unless a big name airline like American or Delta steps up and orders 100+ of them, I'd expect to see that design fade into history as well.


 
trintocan
Posts: 2725
Joined: Sun Apr 23, 2000 6:02 pm

RE: Trijets & Rear Engined Planes

Sun Jan 14, 2001 1:36 pm

I agree with Matt D about large trijets. They were designs whose halcyon days were the early '70s but have now become dated. The large twins are the state of the art now. It is simply a reflection of the increased power available from jet engines now, that only 2 are needed to do what 3 were once required to do.

As far as the 717/MD80/MD90 series is concerned, I think that it is too early to write off the 717 - many other Boeing designs started off slowly but eventually caught on. With the right marketing and possibly a large order or two, it should remain in production for a long time. The MD80/90, however, have followed the same fate as the trijets, namely, as being dated designs. Where the 717 has an advantage is that it is lightweight and thus offers fuel savings compared to the 737 family, especially over short dense sectors, the larger older birds are heavier and additionally have the main drawback of all T-tailers, namely great weight aft of the wings and poor low-speed handling inflight.

Trintocan.
Hop to it, fly for life!
 
roberson
Posts: 168
Joined: Tue Dec 05, 2000 10:05 am

RE: Trijets & Rear Engined Planes

Sun Jan 14, 2001 5:47 pm

Trijets are definately out because of high operating costs due to the number of engines and poor handling with three engines compared to two. For example, in cases of windshear, it is believed that recovery of control takes longer and is more difficult in trijets compared to other planes.
 
Guest

RE: Trijets & Rear Engined Planes

Sun Jan 14, 2001 6:11 pm

Roberson - what twaddle! In the event of something like windshear/microburst you'll need every pound of thrust and three engines will always be better than two in that context.

Matt D - sorry, but I have to disagree with you - and on the basis of one word.

ETOPS.

ETOPS certification is issued to individual airlines, and there are plenty around that do not come up to scratch. On that basis, they cannot operate ETOPS aircraft. Furthermore, pax are still very nervous about flying with just two engines on long overwater flights - three is an absolute minimum for them.

I'm sure you have seen the Airbus A340 print ad which shows a stormy Pacific and the strapline "Aren't you glad you're sitting between four engines?" Ironic really given the A330!!

The first time an ETOPS aircraft goes down - and it will - then there will be hell to pay and everyone will be rolling out trijet designs again. In fact, watch for Boeing offering a trijet version of its 777 in the near future...
 
DeltaSFO
Posts: 2407
Joined: Fri Nov 03, 2000 11:22 am

RE: Trijets & Rear Engined Planes

Mon Jan 15, 2001 4:57 am

In fact, watch for Boeing offering a trijet version of its 777 in the near future...

NOW THIS ONE TAKES THE CAKE. Ceilidh..... please. Please affirm that your IQ is at least 10 and tell us that you didn't really expect anybody to buy that kind of horse shit.

You are absolutely amazing. I suppose you've talked to Phil Condit and Alan Mulally about this and they're designing it. And your contacts on Wall Street are financing it. And CO, after it takes over DL, is going to be the launch customer, along with CalWings.

Please. This is ridiculous. The 777 is the most efficient aircraft of its class. And you're telling us that Boeing is going to screw it up by adding a third engine?

More misinformation from Ceildh.... but it's quite obvious that this one is pure fantasy.

Thanks for the laugh Ceilidh.

DeltaSFO
It's a new day. Every moment matters. Now, more than ever.
 
Guest

RE: Trijets & Rear Engined Planes

Mon Jan 15, 2001 5:31 am

DeltaSFO - please try and restrain yourself from being a complete plonker the whole time.    

In fact, do you even know what ETOPS is and what it entails? Nope? Thought not!

Oh yes, and whilst we're at it, let's have an apology re the DALPA page as well...
:D  
 
DeltaSFO
Posts: 2407
Joined: Fri Nov 03, 2000 11:22 am

RE: Trijets & Rear Engined Planes

Mon Jan 15, 2001 7:15 am

As a matter of fact, I do know what Extended Twin engine OPerations certification is, and the 777 was delivered to UA already ETOPS certified.

With 207 minute ETOPS not too far away, and 240 minutes on the horizon, the final nail will be in the coffin of trijets, and eventually, quads.

So come up with some new fantasies and share them here, would you? They make for great entertainment.

Also, please explain why you always ignore those who bring up your credibility as an issue. You are quick to accuse, but slow to defend yourself.... that speaks volumes.

DeltaSFO
It's a new day. Every moment matters. Now, more than ever.
 
MD-90
Posts: 7835
Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2000 12:45 pm

RE: Trijets & Rear Engined Planes

Mon Jan 15, 2001 7:25 am

Just sit back and watch 2-3 years from now when Boeing launches a more efficient trijet competitor to the A380. The final revenge of McDonnel Douglas (I wish) with 5% superior seat mile costs. Yeah!

Meanwhile, I'm willing to fly twins over the Atlantic, but no way am I going to flying one to Asia across the Pacific. I might to Hawaii, but by God as long as they're around I'll fly a Cathay Pacific A340 or a Delta MD-11, not a UA/AA/Delta 777. Three hours on an airplane with just one functioning engine, limping towards land over very cold water would be a nightmare. The same incident in a 747 wouldn't be half as frightening.
 
roberson
Posts: 168
Joined: Tue Dec 05, 2000 10:05 am

RE: Trijets & Rear Engined Planes

Mon Jan 15, 2001 4:50 pm

There was a post recently which argued to the contrary. If you don't believe me, check. That was the basis for my previous arguement. An accident which strengthens this point is the DFW Delta crash in 1985 involving the L-1011. After the accident, trijets began to be known for having difficulty recovering from windshear and other similar stressful conditions.
 
airfun
Posts: 106
Joined: Sun Jul 02, 2000 7:34 pm

RE: Trijets & Rear Engined Planes

Mon Jan 15, 2001 5:21 pm

I recently purchased a book about the MD80, not because of the controversy covered here, however, as I explore which aircraft I find the most appealing this has to be it- it one of the most sexy aircraft around (for lack of better term).
 
trintocan
Posts: 2725
Joined: Sun Apr 23, 2000 6:02 pm

RE: Trijets & Rear Engined Planes

Tue Jan 16, 2001 12:25 pm

There seems to be justification for the issue of trijets and their difficulty in recovering from windshear. Do not forget the Pan Am 727 which crashed in Kenner, near New Orleans, in 1984 (I think) and the Eastern 727 in JFK in 1975, both undone by microbursts. In fact, at the time of the latter crash an Allegheny DC-9 ahead in the landing line survived the burst and landed safely while an Eastern TriStar which followed survived but could not land and the pilot had to pull up the throttle and return skyward. The ill-fated 727 immediately followed this TriStar. Along with the Delta accident, this speaks volumes.

Trintocan.
Hop to it, fly for life!
 
Desmidus
Posts: 160
Joined: Fri Jan 12, 2001 2:07 pm

RE: Trijets & Rear Engined Planes

Tue Jan 16, 2001 12:56 pm

Trijets are done. As for quads being replaced in the foreseeable future by decendants of the 777, that I highly doubt. There will be more efficient engines making quads economically competitive to their twin counterparts, and despite the whole argument, and the ETOPS affair, quads are safer on transpacific routes.
 
roberson
Posts: 168
Joined: Tue Dec 05, 2000 10:05 am

RE: Trijets & Rear Engined Planes

Tue Jan 16, 2001 1:04 pm

Airfun-
LOL when thinking about "sexy" airplanes. I've never considered them from that angle.

Ceilidh- Take a look at the comment from Trintocan. He has some more good info about this topic. Both he and I agree that trijets suffer more from windshear than their counterparts. I'm pretty sure that there was a discussion before that talked about this issue.
 
EssentialPowr
Posts: 1646
Joined: Wed Sep 06, 2000 10:30 pm

RE: Trijets & Rear Engined Planes

Tue Jan 16, 2001 4:15 pm

Roberson,

"poor handling with three engines as comapred to two..."

Your statement about windshear is...wrong.

You wanna explain that?

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: AroundTheGlobe, Baidu [Spider], barney captain, blooBirdie, EIA359, eirbus06, jpetekyxmd80, MGA86, paulsaz, pompos, Rdeggendorfer, vhtje and 166 guests