richm
Topic Author
Posts: 599
Joined: Fri Oct 29, 2004 1:21 pm

Richard Bransons 4 Engine Theory

Thu Nov 11, 2004 10:03 pm

I heard that Richard Branson decided to purchase the A340 mainly because it had 4 engines unlike its rival the 777. He believes that passengers prefer to travel long haul on aircraft that have 4 engines. Hence why some of the VA aircraft have "4 engines 4 long haul" written on them. I somehow cannot believe this, it seems rather ridiculous. For example, my parents don't care what aircraft they fly on, as long as it gets them from A to B, let alone being bothered about how many engines it has... So my question is, are passengers really bothered about how many engines an aircraft has? Or is Richard Branson just making it up?

- Rich

[Edited 2004-11-11 14:15:31]
 
Boeing Nut
Posts: 5078
Joined: Fri Feb 23, 2001 2:42 am

RE: Richard Bransons 4 Engine Theory

Thu Nov 11, 2004 10:08 pm

I think he is playing on most poeples limited knowledge of the aircraft they fly on. There are some that even though they are on the aircraft, they have no idea how many engines are on the airplane until someone mentions it to them.

Statistically though, it is becoming more and more reliable (note that I didn't say safer  Big grin) to fly on a twin than a "fourzee".
I'm not a real aeronautical engineer, I just play one on Airliners.net.
 
pilotaydin
Posts: 2100
Joined: Tue Sep 07, 2004 12:30 am

RE: Richard Bransons 4 Engine Theory

Thu Nov 11, 2004 10:09 pm

trust me the public can be very ignorant about this stuff...most of the people i know that fly and have nothing to do with aviation believe that a turboprop is totally dangerous and a jet engine is much safer....little do they know it's pretty much the same thing, one has a cover on it! I really do think branson has a case here, because most of us aviation enthusiasts dimiss things like that because it seems totally crazy/funny to some, however when you look at it from a regular joe's point of view i guess they associate quantity with safety  Smile

my $0.02
The only time there is too much fuel onboard, is when you're on fire!
 
carduelis
Posts: 1388
Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2001 8:24 pm

RE: Richard Bransons 4 Engine Theory

Thu Nov 11, 2004 10:11 pm

First of all, check the validity of your source where you 'heard' the story!

Secondly, Branson has a forked tongue, and if you believe only half of what he says, it is still mainly BS!

The sun is shining brilliantly outside, so I'm just going back to the garden after a short break.

May I suggest you get out in the fresh air before the cold sets in, and you listen to more VS BS!


Per Ardua ad Astra! ........ Honi Soit Qui Mal y Pense!
 
gearup
Posts: 514
Joined: Fri Dec 22, 2000 9:23 am

RE: Richard Bransons 4 Engine Theory

Thu Nov 11, 2004 10:18 pm

Or is Richard Branson just making it up?

Possibly, but I read somewhere that he commissioned a survey of some kind which, he said, showed that the traveling public preferred more rather than less engines. Even if it were true, to what degree would a 2 V 4 engine debate be applicable to VS' route network? Do they have any extremely long overwater routes?
I have no memory of this place.
 
bongo
Posts: 1783
Joined: Sat Oct 04, 2003 5:32 am

RE: Richard Bransons 4 Engine Theory

Thu Nov 11, 2004 10:21 pm

More than 99% of people don't have any idea of which airplane are they flying. Last time I flew America-Europe flight with my wife, I ask her if she had an idea of which aircraft it was and she answered: Oh sure, it's an Airbus 737 !!!  Nuts
MDE: First airport in the Americas visited by the A380!
 
flyabr
Posts: 864
Joined: Fri Sep 19, 2003 11:42 am

RE: Richard Bransons 4 Engine Theory

Thu Nov 11, 2004 10:21 pm

branson simply justifies his purchase of the a340 by espousing this bullcrap!! and the reason he bought a340s vs 777s...airbus sold em cheap!
 
KateAA
Posts: 87
Joined: Fri Nov 05, 2004 10:41 pm

RE: Richard Bransons 4 Engine Theory

Thu Nov 11, 2004 10:37 pm

Morning Guys,

Firstly I do not agree with Richard Branson, but I can understand it is just marketing device, that’s all.

VS say 4 is better then 2, and as 'Boeing nut' said, his marketing department is playing on passengers limited knowledge. Just because Richard says something or his airline does, it’s not him who’s asking them to do so, it’s the marketing department! Like most owners/CEO's he just repeats what he has been fed by marketing!

I think Virgin Atlantic is a wonderful airline, they are the first airline I worked on. I would disagree that VS is full of BS as 'Carduelis' put it.

Virgin Atlantic work with what they have, like all other Airlines world-wide.

Kate.


 
flyabunch
Posts: 444
Joined: Fri Nov 05, 2004 1:42 am

RE: Richard Branson's 4 Engine Theory

Thu Nov 11, 2004 10:48 pm

As KateAA said, marketing pure and simple. Whenever a business makes a decision, the first thing that is done is to justify that decision. I have to believe that if Branson had chosen the 777 instead, he would have come up with a great slogan for that too. Something like "two big ones is better than four little ones"!

Well, now you see why I am not in Virgin's marketing department!

Above all, Richard Branson is a superb marketer.

Mike
 
anxebla
Posts: 1696
Joined: Tue Dec 23, 2003 8:31 am

RE: Richard Bransons 4 Engine Theory

Thu Nov 11, 2004 10:55 pm

sometimes it's true!!!! at MAD, many people and passengers who don't know nothing about aviation ask me with many surprise "and that plane (pointing out towards a B-767 or A-330) really can to cross the Atlantic O."?

When I was in Colombia two years ago to visit my Colombian ex-girlfriend asked me: Andresico... de veras que AV llega a España en un avión que tiene sólo dos motores?? (Andrés is it true that AV goes to Spain on a twin-engine airplane??) pues si voy a España, no iré con AV prefiero IB que tiene 4! (then If I can going to Spain, I'll not fly with AV, I'll go with the IB's 4-engines plane)
At the end, she don't came here  Crying but... that's another story  Laugh out loud

So, Mr. Brandson is more or less right, but, of course, he says that to say something Big grin

Anyway, I like very much the "4-engines 4 long haul" statement, especially to cross the Oceans, but I recognize flying on twins is so safe as do it on 4 engines (but NOT safer like some "fred" a.net members say  Big grin )
AIRBUS 320 The world's most advanced single-aisle aircraft
 
trex8
Posts: 5382
Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2002 9:04 am

RE: Richard Bransons 4 Engine Theory

Thu Nov 11, 2004 11:01 pm

There remains a small community of both passengers and pilots who still believe the more engines the better when over long stretches of water. This may or may not be a reasonable dogma in this day of ultra reliable engines though at the same token the over optimistic views of some engine manufacturers,eg GE has recently been making pronouncements about how there will be ZERO inflight engine shutdowns on future engines, should also be taken with a pinch of salt. I am sure that the chances of a twin on ETOPS hitting the drink are miniscule but its a real possibility as any statistician will tell you and there is never zero chances of anything in engineering.
Its also not cheap to get ETOPS certification especially if you have never operated twins recently on long distances, not only does the manufacturer have to certify the plane but the airline has to be as certified as well eg CI chose the A340 both due to the reluctance of senior pilots to subscribe to the ETOPs safety school of thought as well as the need to get ETOPs certification which would have delayed their ability to use the 777 on the flights they wanted till CI had accumulated sufficient experience.Then they also have political constraints to overflights most other airlines do not as no one recognizes them as a sovereign nation. You throw in a possible better financial deal for the capital acquisition of the A343 compared to the 772 and their familiarity with the CFM56 already as opposed to taking on a new engine line and the decision they made is easy to understand. Who knows what was in Bransons mind! Why did LH take A346s though?? Besides massive commonality with their A343 fleet?
 
[email protected]
Posts: 16616
Joined: Sat Jan 13, 2001 6:29 pm

RE: Richard Bransons 4 Engine Theory

Thu Nov 11, 2004 11:03 pm

If a twin-engined aircraft lost one of its engines, would that not be potentially more dangerous than a four-engined aircraft losing one?
"Everyone writing for the Telegraph knows that the way to grab eyeballs is with Ryanair and/or sex."
 
sw733
Posts: 5881
Joined: Wed Feb 25, 2004 6:19 am

RE: Richard Bransons 4 Engine Theory

Thu Nov 11, 2004 11:03 pm

When my parents and I went to Europe in 2001, my dad had me look through the schedules and airlines so that we could have a 4 engine plane each way. He just feels more comfortable with those when flying long distances over an empty ocean. Thus, we ended up with a 747 200 ORD - LHR, and an A340 - 300 CDG - ORD.
 
BritPilot777
Posts: 998
Joined: Thu Apr 08, 2004 10:05 am

RE: Richard Bransons 4 Engine Theory

Thu Nov 11, 2004 11:06 pm

Carduelis, wow you woke up on the wrong side of bed huh?
Forever Flight
 
KateAA
Posts: 87
Joined: Fri Nov 05, 2004 10:41 pm

RE: Richard Bransons 4 Engine Theory

Thu Nov 11, 2004 11:07 pm

I would have to agree. My Mum does not fly AA because we don't have any four engine aircraft... Its a shame because I can get cheap tickets.

She will fly either Virgin Atlantic or British Airways (we are talking long haul here).

Needless to say she hates flying.

Kate.
 
Twistedwhisper
Posts: 689
Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2003 11:52 pm

RE: Richard Bransons 4 Engine Theory

Thu Nov 11, 2004 11:20 pm

[email protected], I agree...

I mean, I prefer 4 engines rather than 3, 3 rather than 2, 2 rather than 1...

If a 4 engine A/C lose one engine, it still has 75% of its engines working... I like the odds, call me chicken if you like...  Big thumbs up
Read between the lines.
 
[email protected]
Posts: 16616
Joined: Sat Jan 13, 2001 6:29 pm

RE: Richard Bransons 4 Engine Theory

Thu Nov 11, 2004 11:32 pm

Hey hey! Don't get me wrong - I'd happily fly anywhere on anything! I couldn't careless whether I fly long-haul on a 767 or a 747 (or, as I said, anything else).
"Everyone writing for the Telegraph knows that the way to grab eyeballs is with Ryanair and/or sex."
 
carduelis
Posts: 1388
Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2001 8:24 pm

RE: Richard Bransons 4 Engine Theory

Thu Nov 11, 2004 11:50 pm

KateAA - Thank for giving me the opportunity to clarify - I agree that VS as an airline is great, my comments were directed at RB.

Britpilot777 - No, I was up at the crack of sparrows, and have been enjoying the last of the summer sun!

My thoughts on Branson are exactly the same as they've always been. Being in BA when we helped in certain aspects of the VS start-up, he then accused us of 'dirty tricks' and has made other childish and snide remarks ever since! If you're really that interested, there's loads of previous threads on the subject if you do a search! It's up to you whether you want to believe him!

Bon voyages!

Per Ardua ad Astra! ........ Honi Soit Qui Mal y Pense!
 
ConcordeBoy
Posts: 16852
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2001 8:04 am

RE: Richard Bransons 4 Engine Theory

Fri Nov 12, 2004 12:27 am

First of all, the slogan "4Engines4Longhaul" was originally an Airbus marketing too... not Branson's.




If a twin-engined aircraft lost one of its engines, would that not be potentially more dangerous than a four-engined aircraft losing one?

Nope.

For one thing, there's NEVER been a fatal crash, in all of history, as a logistical result of an ETOPS operation.

Also, ALL ETOPS twins are designed and operated on the supposition that they will blow an engine, develop a fire, or divert during routine operations.

Tri/Quad operators have the ability to choose (to a limited degree) to what extent they'll address the aforementioned scenarios... and that scares me, badly!
(For example: they're not required to have fire suppression in their cargo holds sufficient to last for an entire diversion.)
Faire du ciel le plus bel endroit de la terre c'est impossible sans Concorde!
 
Alessandro
Posts: 4961
Joined: Wed Sep 12, 2001 3:13 am

RE: Richard Bransons 4 Engine Theory

Fri Nov 12, 2004 12:30 am

Shame he didn´t buy a AN-225 passenger version, imagine what catchy lines
they could come up with!
From New Yorqatar to Califarbia...
 
N6376M
Posts: 2310
Joined: Tue Aug 12, 2003 12:54 am

RE: Richard Bransons 4 Engine Theory

Fri Nov 12, 2004 1:01 am

When are you guys going to realize that Branson loves controversy because it gives him free publicity.

Whether it's calling himself Britan's FLAG CARRIER, asking BA to sell him the Concorde or interjecting himself into the A v B war, everytime he does something the media reports on it and you see him standing in front of a Virgin logo talking about it.

He's a publicity whore and does it very well.

As for the substance of the 2 v 4 engine for long haul flight. I assure you that his private jet doesn't have 4 engines and yet he has absolutely no problem placing himself and his family on it.



 
bennett123
Posts: 9213
Joined: Sun Aug 15, 2004 12:49 am

RE: Richard Bransons 4 Engine Theory

Fri Nov 12, 2004 1:07 am


Call me illogical if you like, but if I flew across the Atlantic, I would be happier with 4.

Yes, I know how long the odds are.

That said, I am flying to LAX in April on a UA B777, (assuming that they don't go broke first).

The fact is that people are illogical. Also when you talk long haul, bear in mind that you are often a long way from land, regardless of ETOPS, I would be nervous flying for 3 hours on one engine.
 
phollingsworth
Posts: 758
Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 6:05 am

RE: Richard Bransons 4 Engine Theory

Fri Nov 12, 2004 1:33 am

If a twin-engined aircraft lost one of its engines, would that not be potentially more dangerous than a four-engined aircraft losing one?

Maybe, if the a/c is heavily loaded you are still one engine away from going down as aircraft are only designed to operate on 1 engine inoperative.

Let us put a couple of known things on the table.

1. Dual unrelated engine failures are almost unheard of. Most multiple engine failures are related and the likelihood of having 3 of 3 or 4 of 4 fail is almost 100% in these cases (fuel exhaustion, water or ash ingestion, etc.).

2. Further, the vast majority of in-flight shutdowns occur early in a flight, i.e., right after take-off.

3. Catastrophic a/c losses are much more likely to stem from non-propulsion failures, e.g., in-flight fires. ETOPS a/c have much more stringent certification and mtc. requirements concerning other safety systems. This makes them inherently safer.
 
aerosol
Posts: 500
Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2000 10:31 pm

RE: Richard Bransons 4 Engine Theory

Fri Nov 12, 2004 1:39 am

Well 4 engines didn't help the Concorde, but I guess that is a different story. I am one of the people who prefer to fly a 747-400 on long distances over any aircraft.
 
[email protected]
Posts: 7510
Joined: Tue Mar 20, 2001 2:55 am

RE: Richard Bransons 4 Engine Theory

Fri Nov 12, 2004 1:50 am

The chances of both engines on a twin jet flaming out in-flight is so small it's not worth discussing. There's no proof or arguments showing a twin jet is any less safer than quad over water.

Firstly:

A) Twin-jet commercial airliners are built to fly on one engine in an emergency.

B) ETOPS

And finally....aircraft these days are extremely efficient gliders, remember the Air Transat A330, both engines stop working in-flight and yet it still lands safely.
In Arsene we trust!!
 
A319114
Posts: 520
Joined: Sun Aug 15, 2004 9:40 pm

RE: Richard Bransons 4 Engine Theory

Fri Nov 12, 2004 1:56 am

First of all, a 4 engine aircraft is statistically safer of course. Secondly, if you have a engine failure with a 4 engine aircraft, the flight can continue to it's destination. Third, it's brilliant spin doctoring by Virgin. I've asked some non-aviations nuts if they where more comfortable flying a two or a four engine aircraft and they all said 'four'. No imagine someone walking at the airport. He booked a flight on a BA 777 and sees a Virgin bird taxiing by with the famous slogan. He'll think Virgin is right and from then on he only wishes to fly on 4 engine planes, like Virgins. So the point is that Branson doesn't assume that people already think 4 engines are safer, no; he makes them think 4 engines are safer. Brilliant if you ask me!
Destruction leads to a very rough road but it also breeds creation
 
babybus
Posts: 2379
Joined: Sun Dec 28, 2003 5:07 am

RE: Richard Bransons 4 Engine Theory

Fri Nov 12, 2004 2:03 am

All I know is that when I fly on twins and we are about to go over a long water stretch like an ocean or the Med I feel very uncomfortable if not a bit sick. Having 4 engines is a real confidence boost.

Just cos an engine catastrophy hasn't happened on a twin over long ocean flts so far, is no guarantee that it won't ever happen in the future.

People should be scared flying 2 engines across the sea cos it is potentially dangerous. The same way that you should feel scared crossing the road. It is only time and exprience that allows us to overcome that fear.
and with that..cabin crew, seats for landing please.
 
widebodyphotog
Posts: 885
Joined: Wed Jun 30, 1999 9:23 am

RE: Richard Bransons 4 Engine Theory

Fri Nov 12, 2004 2:06 am

Statistically you are twice as likely to have one engine failure on a four engine aircraft than a twin. And ETOPS maintenance and operation standards make the engines and ancillary systems of twins more reliable. Basically a four engine aircraft is flying with two engines it does not necessarily need and it weighs more and burns more fuel.

If an engine failure happens on a four engine aircraft it's basically the same result as on a twin. You can not maintain normal cruise speed and altitude and you will have to land at the first available opportunity.

Think about it this way. Rolls-Royce makes engines for the 777 and the A340. Do you think they make them less reliable for one or the other or do you think they make both as reliable as they possibly can be?

Finally in the cases like the Air Transat incident, the aircraft ran out of fuel because of a severe fuel leak. If your plane runs out of fuel it does not matter how many engines you have.

-widebodyphotog
If you know what's really going on then you'll know what to do
 
babybus
Posts: 2379
Joined: Sun Dec 28, 2003 5:07 am

RE: Richard Bransons 4 Engine Theory

Fri Nov 12, 2004 2:17 am

"calculated risk" Just cos it's got a name doesn't mean it evapourates the problem.

I'll say that in an emergency on a 777 over the Atlantic shall I "Don't worry everyone, this is all just calculated risk". Thanks, that will help a lot!

and with that..cabin crew, seats for landing please.
 
widebodyphotog
Posts: 885
Joined: Wed Jun 30, 1999 9:23 am

RE: Richard Bransons 4 Engine Theory

Fri Nov 12, 2004 2:37 am

I beg to differ, in an engine out condition on a four engine aircraft like a 747 or A340 the parameters of flight operation change. Depending on your weight and fuel condition you will have to land as soon as it is most feasible to do so. If it is possible to continue to your destination then you do that.

On an ETOPS twin when an engine failure occurs it's the same condition. Flight parameters change and you land at the designated alternate based on your situation or continue to scheduled destination if it is feasible to do so.

Sorry, if you lose an engine on your 747 3hrs out of ORD en route to NRT, you are not going all the way to NRT on 3 engines.

-widebodyphotog
If you know what's really going on then you'll know what to do
 
A319114
Posts: 520
Joined: Sun Aug 15, 2004 9:40 pm

RE: Richard Bransons 4 Engine Theory

Fri Nov 12, 2004 2:44 am

First of all, a 4 engine aircraft is statistically safer of course

You have absolutely no corroboration to back this ridiculous claim, and I challenge you to defy me by proving otherwise


I hoped it was clear, obviously not. Sure, you have a twice the chance to have a engine failure with a 4 engine aircraft than with a 2 engine aircraft.
Let's say every engine has a 0,1% chance that i will fail during a flight (it's an example!). The chance that a twin engine plane will lose 50% of it's power is 0,1%. The chance that a four engine will lose 50% of it's power 0,1 x 0,1 = 0,01%, that's already ten times less likely. The chance that a twin engine loses all it's power is 0,1 x 0,1 = 0,01% whereas the chance of total power loss with a four engine aircraft is 0,1 x 0,1 x 0,1 x 0,1 = 0,0001 %, that's right, 100 times less. In real live such odds are to small to be of any importance and an engine failure, especially a multiple engine failure is not really a matter of chance, so basically a two engine aircraft is as safe as four engine aircraft but statistically a four engine aircraft really is significantly safer...
Destruction leads to a very rough road but it also breeds creation
 
ConcordeBoy
Posts: 16852
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2001 8:04 am

RE: Richard Bransons 4 Engine Theory

Fri Nov 12, 2004 2:55 am

you will have to land as soon as it is most feasible to do so. If it is possible to continue to your destination then you do that.

This one's accurate, your first comment was not.



I hoped it was clear, obviously not

For you that is, as your following statement plainly demonstrates:

"but statistically a four engine aircraft really is significantly safer"
An extremely anecdotal conclusion as your only parameter was shutdown probability, to the exclusion of several key factors which contribute to the record (in terms of fatalities/flight hr) in ETOPS twins vis-a-vis the record of quad aircraft, even when extrapolated to compare relative time frames of scheduled operations as linearly as possible


[Edited 2004-11-11 18:57:09]
Faire du ciel le plus bel endroit de la terre c'est impossible sans Concorde!
 
phollingsworth
Posts: 758
Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 6:05 am

RE: Richard Bransons 4 Engine Theory

Fri Nov 12, 2004 4:08 am

I hoped it was clear, obviously not. Sure, you have a twice the chance to have a engine failure with a 4 engine aircraft than with a 2 engine aircraft.
Let's say every engine has a 0,1% chance that i will fail during a flight (it's an example!). The chance that a twin engine plane will lose 50% of it's power is 0,1%. The chance that a four engine will lose 50% of it's power 0,1 x 0,1 = 0,01%, that's already ten times less likely. The chance that a twin engine loses all it's power is 0,1 x 0,1 = 0,01% whereas the chance of total power loss with a four engine aircraft is 0,1 x 0,1 x 0,1 x 0,1 = 0,0001 %, that's right, 100 times less. In real live such odds are to small to be of any importance and an engine failure, especially a multiple engine failure is not really a matter of chance, so basically a two engine aircraft is as safe as four engine aircraft but statistically a four engine aircraft really is significantly safer...


Let us look at the assumptions of the above, these include:

1.) The chance of any engine failing is statistically independent of any other engine failing.

2.) The likelihood of failure is relatively constant throughout the operation

3.) Any single engine is sufficient to maintain level flight

4.) There are no other factors that may correlate with loss of an aircraft.

The problem with all of these assumptions, and they are assumptions because you can check them after the fact, is that they are all provably wrong.

1.) Likelihood of one engine failing is causally related to the failure of other engines. Further, because of the MTC rules stipulated by ETOPS the chance of cascading engine failures is higher for non-ETOPS aircraft. Additionally, on quads, there in certain engine failure scenarios there is a high likelihood of one engine failure leading directly to the cause of another engine failure.

2.) Engines are much more likely to fail during high power operations, i.e., take-off and climb-out, than they are to fail during cruise. This is compounded by the fact that a/c are only designed to operated one EIO; therefore, two EIO is considered a catastrophic failure regardless of a/c type. To make matters worse with this assumption if the chance of failure was fully independent (false) using the above example, then the chance of loosing another engine on a twin would be 0.1%, on a tri-jet is ~0.2%, and on a quad ~0.3%. This would indicate that the quad is 3 times more dangerous (see how statistics can work).

3.) See the second sentence of explanation 2.

4.) The only thing I have to put here is , FIRE, FIRE, FIRE!!!. This has caused the catastrophic loss of several aircraft with all hands. ETOPS a/c are required to carry fire suppression capability for the entire duration of their ETOPS rating, non-ETOPS a/c must only carry short term extinguishing capability.


I am not saying that ETOPS a/c cover all eventualities, they do not; however, they must cover many more than non-ETOPS a/c. This stems from the much more thorough evaluation of the rules exemptions that allows their operation than there was when the original rules were written.
 
prebennorholm
Posts: 7030
Joined: Tue Mar 21, 2000 6:25 am

RE: Richard Bransons 4 Engine Theory

Fri Nov 12, 2004 4:12 am

The magic number in airliner design is 3.

3 hydraulic systems, 3 power generators, 3 electric busses, 3 aircon systems, 3 of practically everything.

The philosophy is simple. Systems are very reliable, but sometimes they fail. When something fails, then there is still a spare system when you have 3, making a total system failure next to unthinkable.

Until 25 years ago you could not fly long distance on a twin. Is was illegal due to safety rules. 3 was the minimum if you couldn't at all times reach a diversion airport within less than one hour. Therefore several 3 engined planes were made, Tristar, Trident, 727, DC-10.

But 3 engines is a very impractical number. There are several structural and aerodynamic disadvantages combined with a central engine in the tail. Heavier structures, S-duct intake, more complicated access to routine maintenance to name a few. Some planes - especially early 727s - suffered compressor stall due to turbulent air entering #2 engine at high angle of attack.

As engines got more and more reliable the rules were loosened, first to two hours (ETOPS-120) on the condition that special conditions were met, e.g. that the two engines were not serviced by the same people (copying their mistakes). Later they were loosened even more to 3 hours, then 3 hours plus 15% = ETOPS-217).

ETOPS limits may in the future grow beyond the 217 minutes when we hopefully don't experience any serious ETOPS related incidents or accidents.

Twins are of course perfectly safe. Otherwise they wouldn't be allowed to fly.

I would never prefer a 4 holer over a twin, except on the rather few very long routes where a 4 holer is considerably faster because it can fly a straight (great circle) route and doesn't have to stay at all times within a certain limit from possible diversion airports.
Always keep your number of landings equal to your number of take-offs
 
gigneil
Posts: 14133
Joined: Fri Nov 08, 2002 10:25 am

RE: Richard Bransons 4 Engine Theory

Fri Nov 12, 2004 4:16 am

and the reason he bought a340s vs 777s...airbus sold em cheap!

Also utter bullcrap.

Every time Airbus sells a plane, someone in here says its because they sold em cheap.

Unless you know the details of the sale, which you don't, I suggest you keep comments like that to yourself.

N
 
babybus
Posts: 2379
Joined: Sun Dec 28, 2003 5:07 am

RE: Richard Bransons 4 Engine Theory

Fri Nov 12, 2004 4:58 am

"Every time Airbus sells a plane, someone in here says its because they sold em cheap." I wish there was a word for "to yawn and laugh at the same time" cos that's how I feel every time I see this line.

To quote Ryanair (yet again) the reason why they have Boeings is because he was given them. Lest one forgets.

ETOPS is going to be a big thing until, that is, the day the first aircraft doesn't make it to land. And despite all the PR that will say it was all the pilots fault, the public, in the back of their minds, will not that stupid to believe it.

Cheers all

and with that..cabin crew, seats for landing please.
 
VS045
Posts: 188
Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 5:33 pm

RE: Richard Bransons 4 Engine Theory

Fri Nov 12, 2004 5:02 am

According to some survey, 17-18% of people would go out of their way to fly on four engined aircraft and almost everybody else said they would rather be on a four engined aircraft than a twin, which is obviously understandable. It is clearly better to be on a "fourzee" than a twin!

Cheers,
VS045

(not a dig at 777s)
4 engines 4 long haul
 
N1120A
Posts: 26542
Joined: Sun Dec 14, 2003 5:40 pm

RE: Richard Bransons 4 Engine Theory

Fri Nov 12, 2004 5:10 am

>I'll say that in an emergency on a 777 over the Atlantic shall I "Don't worry everyone, this is all just calculated risk". Thanks, that will help a lot!<

Over the atlantic, a 777 is really never very far from a diversion airport, so the point is moot.

>Every time Airbus sells a plane, someone in here says its because they sold em cheap.<

Airbus also offered both versions of the A340 that VS flies before Boeing offered the competitive versions of the 777. Oh, and yes, VS launched the A346, so they did get them cheap
Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
 
kalakaua
Posts: 1430
Joined: Tue Jan 27, 2004 5:23 pm

RE: Richard Bransons 4 Engine Theory

Fri Nov 12, 2004 5:21 am

Oh of course we can't forget about how cheap Airbus sells
their aircrafts... That NW A330? Sold around at $80million?  Wink/being sarcastic

[Edited 2004-11-11 21:24:53]
Gravity explains the motions of the planets, but it cannot explain who set the planets in motion.
 
anxebla
Posts: 1696
Joined: Tue Dec 23, 2003 8:31 am

RE: Richard Bransons 4 Engine Theory

Fri Nov 12, 2004 5:27 am

....but they SELL, which is important!!!  Smile
AIRBUS 320 The world's most advanced single-aisle aircraft
 
User avatar
Starlionblue
Posts: 19636
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2004 9:54 pm

RE: Richard Bransons 4 Engine Theory

Fri Nov 12, 2004 5:51 am

Or is Richard Branson just making it up?

Possibly, but I read somewhere that he commissioned a survey of some kind which, he said, showed that the traveling public preferred more rather than less engines


It's all in how you ask the question:
Q: "Do you feel four engines are safer than two?"
A: "Yes"
Well, duh, of course Joe Sixpack will answer yes. But when he books his flight, or gets on the plane, he has no idea how many engines the plane has...


If a twin-engined aircraft lost one of its engines, would that not be potentially more dangerous than a four-engined aircraft losing one?

Maybe, BUT:
- The likelihood of the other engine failing is pretty minuscule, as in about as minuscule as a four holer losing the other three engines.
- A four holer on two engines is in trouble anyway, not to mention a triplet on one...
- An event which takes out both engines on a twin will almost certainly take out all engines on a quad. Engines on planes are extremely independent of each other systemwise, so there is little risk of "infection" from one to the other. To take out both engines, it would need to be something like contaminated fuel or volcanic dust, which of course would be trouble for a quad, and the argument circles back  Big grin


The plain truth (ok, IMHO  Big grin ) It's all about economics. The A340 is economically viable for VS, as in the total cost of ownership is good, so the flying Beard can take advantage of the fact that they have four engines for marketing purposes. I seriously doubt VS would use four holers if two holers were much cheaper. And before you say that the 777 has lower operating cost, remember that total cost of ownership is also dependent on purchasing cost.

[Edited 2004-11-11 21:54:00]
"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots." - John Ringo
 
PIA777
Posts: 1841
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2003 9:39 am

RE: Richard Bransons 4 Engine Theory

Fri Nov 12, 2004 5:57 am

I would rather fly on a 777 then any 4 engine plane out there. I think
4 for 4 long haul is Richard Branson's own theory. I am the only person that I know (outside of A.net) who chooses flights according to type of aircraft.

PIA777
GO CUBS!!
 
JuniorSpotter
Posts: 202
Joined: Wed Mar 31, 2004 4:24 pm

RE: Richard Bransons 4 Engine Theory

Fri Nov 12, 2004 6:06 am

I don't know...but I recall hearing something about the 777 being able to cross the pond even with one engine down. Am I out on a bike-ride, or am I right? If I'm right, then what the h*ll does it matter if you have two, four or seventeen engines?

Cheers!
Danny
If something can go wrong, it will.
 
N6376M
Posts: 2310
Joined: Tue Aug 12, 2003 12:54 am

RE: Richard Bransons 4 Engine Theory

Fri Nov 12, 2004 6:18 am

Let's cut to the chase, has a twin engined ETOPS certified plane ever gone down because of a ETOPS related condition or maintenance problem (i.e. exclude the Egypt Air 767 that went down because the pilot comitted suicide)? Though I don't know for sure, I believe the answer is no.

Have 4 engined aircraft gone down using the same criteria - yes. TWA800 the 747 out of Taiwan to name just two. If you ask me I'm much more comfortable on a new twin than an aging quad.

 
User avatar
Cadmus
Posts: 173
Joined: Thu Jan 22, 2004 6:47 am

RE: Richard Bransons 4 Engine Theory

Fri Nov 12, 2004 6:18 am

To [mis]quote the late great Ronald Reagan.

"They say ETOPS never killed anyone; I figured 'why take the chance?'"

And that is the attitude that most passengers will probably take if asked. It may not be logical, but it's human nature and I quite understand why they think it.
Understanding is a three-edged sword
 
kalakaua
Posts: 1430
Joined: Tue Jan 27, 2004 5:23 pm

RE: Richard Bransons 4 Engine Theory

Fri Nov 12, 2004 6:37 am

Whoa! Imagine if aircrafts were built with 10 engines before, like in the 1950s/1960s instead of 4... Would you people have gone nuts if aircrafts today are built with 6 engines?
Gravity explains the motions of the planets, but it cannot explain who set the planets in motion.
 
bullpitt
Posts: 757
Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 7:09 am

RE: Richard Bransons 4 Engine Theory

Fri Nov 12, 2004 6:44 am

Hi all

Just three things. One, lets not forget the average joe knows F*** all about planes, so to him, 4 is better than 2 which is what Mr B is talking about. Not what is real, but what the average pap thinks is real (Two different things all together)

Two I hate those people here who are so immature that continually resort to personal insults and always try to show how smart they are.

And three, can someone tell me what ETOPS stands for? Big grin

These are my principles but if you don't like them I have others
 
BlueShamu330s
Posts: 2584
Joined: Sun Sep 23, 2001 3:11 am

RE: Richard Bransons 4 Engine Theory

Fri Nov 12, 2004 6:54 am

Never mind ETOPS, Airbus v Boeing arguments, aesthetics, or any other argument.

The questionnaire (and I don't recall where it was published) asked (and a cigar to who spots the loaded question)............

"When flying long distances over water, would you prefer to fly in a 2 engined aircraft or a 4 engined aircraft?"

Now, how do you think the results turned out?

ergo, the PR machine at VIR leapt on it, hence the "4 engines 4 longhaul" slogan......... pure genius (to quote another excellent UK PR spin)

Regards

Shamu, about to start 346 conversion  Big thumbs up
Flying around India
 
ConcordeBoy
Posts: 16852
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2001 8:04 am

RE: Richard Bransons 4 Engine Theory

Fri Nov 12, 2004 7:04 am

Now, how do you think the results turned out?

Keep in mind that some people, on the same survey, were also asked if they'd prefer 6 engines....

...care to guess what the outcome of that was too?  Insane
Faire du ciel le plus bel endroit de la terre c'est impossible sans Concorde!
 
wingman
Posts: 3839
Joined: Thu May 27, 1999 4:25 am

RE: Richard Bransons 4 Engine Theory

Fri Nov 12, 2004 7:07 am

Funny how Sir Dick is too afraid to cross an ocean on 2 engines but is willing to go to space on just 1...food for thought.

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos