User avatar
Starlionblue
Posts: 19633
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2004 9:54 pm

RE: Richard Bransons 4 Engine Theory

Fri Nov 12, 2004 7:14 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)?

No

And I'll go you one better. Has any twin in the last 30 years gone down because both engines stopped due to internal factors (ie take out volcanic dust, ice ingestion etc)?


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.

This gave me a good laugh, and proves that it's all marketing at least on The Flying Beard's part.


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?

Sure it can, but then again so can a 747  Big grin
"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots." - John Ringo
 
BlueShamu330s
Posts: 2584
Joined: Sun Sep 23, 2001 3:11 am

RE: Richard Bransons 4 Engine Theory

Fri Nov 12, 2004 7:16 am

Oh C-Boy, I didn't want it to seem TOO weighted  Big thumbs up

Shamu, conversion training on one of your pet hates  Wink/being sarcastic
Flying around India
 
A319114
Posts: 520
Joined: Sun Aug 15, 2004 9:40 pm

RE: Richard Bransons 4 Engine Theory

Fri Nov 12, 2004 7:28 am

Like I said before, it's really all about spindoctoring. Sure 2 engines are perfectly safe, I don't care how many engines my plane has when I cross the pond (as long it's more than 2) , but if Virgin can get people to believe that four engines are safer (and believe me, Branson can), you have quite an advantage having an all four engine fleet over other carriers, who use twinjets.
Destruction leads to a very rough road but it also breeds creation
 
EnoreFilho
Posts: 54
Joined: Wed Jun 30, 2004 10:01 am

RE: Richard Bransons 4 Engine Theory

Fri Nov 12, 2004 7:29 am

ETOPS..... 2 x 4 engines.....



I'll go by ship!!!!  Smile
Member of the all mighty Canudos Air Force!!!!
 
ConcordeBoy
Posts: 16852
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2001 8:04 am

RE: Richard Bransons 4 Engine Theory

Fri Nov 12, 2004 7:43 am

but if Virgin can get people to believe that four engines are safer (and believe me, Branson can), you have quite an advantage


WRONG!

That should read:
If Virgin can get people to PAY MORE due to belief that four engines are safer (and believe me, there's little evidence Branson can), you have quite an advantage....
Faire du ciel le plus bel endroit de la terre c'est impossible sans Concorde!
 
BlueShamu330s
Posts: 2584
Joined: Sun Sep 23, 2001 3:11 am

RE: Richard Bransons 4 Engine Theory

Fri Nov 12, 2004 7:50 am

Like Stella Artois, dare I say, Virgin is "reassuringly expensive".............. especially when half the "competition" is harbouring under chapter 11 protection.

<<>>

Shamu, reassuringly flying 4 holers
Flying around India
 
pilotaydin
Posts: 2100
Joined: Tue Sep 07, 2004 12:30 am

RE: Richard Bransons 4 Engine Theory

Fri Nov 12, 2004 8:02 am

what about the Air Transat A330 that lost both over the pond? or the 767 AC that lost both engines gimley glider i believe...although they weren't engine related loses directly (fuel management) they still had NO engines....

The only time there is too much fuel onboard, is when you're on fire!
 
ConcordeBoy
Posts: 16852
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2001 8:04 am

RE: Richard Bransons 4 Engine Theory

Fri Nov 12, 2004 8:04 am

they still had NO engines....

...as would ANY OTHER aircraft whose engines, no matter the count, were starved of fuel.

In short: what's your point?
Faire du ciel le plus bel endroit de la terre c'est impossible sans Concorde!
 
gearup
Posts: 514
Joined: Fri Dec 22, 2000 9:23 am

RE: Richard Bransons 4 Engine Theory

Fri Nov 12, 2004 8:26 am

can someone tell me what ETOPS stands for?

Yep,

Engines Turn Or Passengers Swim

GU
I have no memory of this place.
 
BlueShamu330s
Posts: 2584
Joined: Sun Sep 23, 2001 3:11 am

RE: Richard Bransons 4 Engine Theory

Fri Nov 12, 2004 8:33 am

Pilotaydin, check page 2, part 1, para. 1a of your frozen ATPL tutorial.

No fuel = no engines = no thrust

sub. para. 1b. this applies to 1, 2, 3 and 4 engined aircraft

 Big thumbs up
Flying around India
 
gigneil
Posts: 14133
Joined: Fri Nov 08, 2002 10:25 am

RE: Richard Bransons 4 Engine Theory

Fri Nov 12, 2004 8:35 am

Its all marketing, nobody's better at it than SRB.

N
 
User avatar
Starlionblue
Posts: 19633
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2004 9:54 pm

RE: Richard Bransons 4 Engine Theory

Fri Nov 12, 2004 8:37 am

what about the Air Transat A330 that lost both over the pond? or the 767 AC that lost both engines gimley glider i believe...although they weren't engine related loses directly (fuel management) they still had NO engines....

Was about to answer, but Mr Boy made my point for me. Both the Air Transat A330 and the AC 767 would have lost all engines regardless of number.

So ETOPS would seem to be quite safe, and if an ETOPS aircraft ever does crash due to problems with both engines unrelated to each other, I am sure the public will forget all about it pretty soon, just as they have every other plane crash. Crashes are both extremely unlikely and extremely rare regardless of engine number. I am sure, as always, other causes will continue to predominate the statistics. After all, we are far more likely to see another case of an accident due to pilot error in bad visibility than both engines on a twin stopping, be it ETOPS certified or not. Engines are simple and reliable.

As I pointed out before, a quad or a triplet with two engines out isn't really in great shape either. Sure, a quad is certified to keep altitude with two engines, but I wouldn't want to be aboard. Bottom line, after the first engine cuts out, you really don't want any more engines to cut out regardless of your total.

The public will fly what the airline puts it in. If The Flying Beard can get a few more customers because of his slogan, kudos to him. I think he just enjoys scribbling stuff on his planes  Smile/happy/getting dizzy

"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots." - John Ringo
 
pelican
Posts: 2431
Joined: Mon Apr 05, 2004 9:51 pm

RE: Richard Bransons 4 Engine Theory

Fri Nov 12, 2004 8:42 am

4 engines would be safer if (but only if) they had to achieve LROPS. As long as LROPS don't apply to 4 engines a/c they aren't safer (although often cheaper).

I don't care how much engines an a/c has, although I would prefer 4 engines (I know it's not rational) on extremely long flights over water or ice (pole-routes) like west-coast America -Australia.

pelican
 
Aither
Posts: 1212
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2004 3:43 am

RE: Richard Bransons 4 Engine Theory

Fri Nov 12, 2004 8:46 am

Frankly if i have to fly above the Pacific or the North Pole, i would choose an airline operating a 4 engine aircraft, if i have the choice. I would even pay a small premium if necessary.
It may not be rational, and i am aware of the statistics, but that's the way i feel.
Never trust the obvious
 
Aither
Posts: 1212
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2004 3:43 am

RE: Richard Bransons 4 Engine Theory

Fri Nov 12, 2004 8:47 am

Well, same as Pelican then  Big grin
Never trust the obvious
 
pilotaydin
Posts: 2100
Joined: Tue Sep 07, 2004 12:30 am

RE: Richard Bransons 4 Engine Theory

Fri Nov 12, 2004 8:51 am

what i was trying to say is, 4 engines or 2, it doesnt matter if something is going to go wrong to bring it down. Sorry for my english. The engines operate independant of one another, but what i wanted to say was that they lost both engines, meaning fuel or something unengine related would be the cause of having NO engines..... A normal flight would probably never see a double or quad failure due to the engines themselves...
i hope this makes more sense to you. otherwise...yes i know concorde and blue... what u said is what i wanted to say much shortened!

and about Richard Branson....he is way richer than i am...so i dont think it would matter if i critized him or not! LOL
The only time there is too much fuel onboard, is when you're on fire!
 
User avatar
sunrisevalley
Posts: 5392
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2004 3:26 am

RE: Richard Bransons 4 Engine Theory

Fri Nov 12, 2004 8:54 am

I have a much more cynical explanation for Mr ( or is it Sir Richard?) Branson's
4-engine utterances.
Simply put, his airline has no ETOPS history and to build one would take considerable time and the appropriate equipment. Is VA's maintenace up to it, I don't know; but it would not happen quickly.
Thus, for immediate bang for the buck the 4- engine approach works for them.
 
pilotaydin
Posts: 2100
Joined: Tue Sep 07, 2004 12:30 am

RE: Richard Bransons 4 Engine Theory

Fri Nov 12, 2004 9:00 am

forgive me and im sure ppl will jump to corect me within seconds...but when u order a twinjet especially wide body...doesnt boeing or airbus spend the time to make it etops certified? I thought the manuf. took care of that? how would that take considerable time if they ordered twinjets?
The only time there is too much fuel onboard, is when you're on fire!
 
anxebla
Posts: 1696
Joined: Tue Dec 23, 2003 8:31 am

RE: Richard Bransons 4 Engine Theory

Fri Nov 12, 2004 9:01 am

Pelican..... what happend at the end with the LROPS issue??? Anyway, It's a real nonsense to say twins are safer than 4-engines. BOTH are safe... but as long as don't still exist ETOPS-330' (so far I know) some routes are unables to do by twins... for instance the LAN's route AKL-SCL, or AR's AKL-EZE.
Even with ETOPS-330' a hypothetical JNB-AKL leg is not possible to fly with a 2-engines aircraft... although Trans-south polar routes maybe are not profitables.
AIRBUS 320 The world's most advanced single-aisle aircraft
 
nedguy
Posts: 13
Joined: Tue Jan 06, 2004 7:23 am

RE: Richard Bransons 4 Engine Theory

Fri Nov 12, 2004 9:06 am

I’m sure the reasons for buying Airbus were based on a whole range of factors, not just the engines alone. But the number of engines was the point that Richard Branson focused on when he announced the deal at a large press conference at the Farnborough Airshow in July 2002, together with Noel Forgeard from Airbus and somebody (whose name I can’t remember) from Rolls Royce engines.

I remember the guy from RR joking that from his end of the deal, an aeroplane with four engines was definitely better than one with two!

Branson said that Virgin’s research indicated that people prefered to fly with four engines over two.

I stood up and asked him where he got those figures.

He said it was from Virgin’s own customer surveys.
 
ConcordeBoy
Posts: 16852
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2001 8:04 am

RE: Richard Bransons 4 Engine Theory

Fri Nov 12, 2004 9:09 am

doesnt boeing or airbus spend the time to make it etops certified?

No.

It's up to Boeing/Airbus/Engine-makers to make sure the aircraft and engine combination is ETOPS Approved.

Once that happens, it's up to the airline (and different facets of its operation profile/experience) to make sure that the aircraft attains and retains ETOPS Certification.
Faire du ciel le plus bel endroit de la terre c'est impossible sans Concorde!
 
anxebla
Posts: 1696
Joined: Tue Dec 23, 2003 8:31 am

RE: Richard Bransons 4 Engine Theory

Fri Nov 12, 2004 9:13 am

Nedguy... I don't deny that surveys.
And it has a lot of sense people prefer any 4 engines for long-haul. See the reply 9, for instance.
AIRBUS 320 The world's most advanced single-aisle aircraft
 
AEROFAN
Posts: 1815
Joined: Wed Aug 04, 2004 9:47 am

RE: Richard Bransons 4 Engine Theory

Fri Nov 12, 2004 9:24 am

Cardeluis..."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!"

Cardeluis, have you been asleep. Or are you living in a different universe completely. Wake up and smell the coffee dude! The courts found BA guilty of the stinking dirty tricks. And BA had to shell out a couple of million dollars that SRB shared with all of his employees. The court decision is a fact! and BA's campaign against VS is a fact!

And BTW hasn't the controv of 2 or 4 engines discussed at length already?
 
jetjeanes
Posts: 911
Joined: Fri Oct 15, 2004 6:42 am

RE: Richard Bransons 4 Engine Theory

Fri Nov 12, 2004 9:32 am

i wonder if the a 340 will go the way the trident did..or the 757
i can see for 80 miles
 
widebodyphotog
Posts: 885
Joined: Wed Jun 30, 1999 9:23 am

RE: Richard Bransons 4 Engine Theory

Fri Nov 12, 2004 9:44 am

This thread has reinforced a couple of long held beliefs I've had. First: The actions of human beings are governed largely by irrational fear. There is no evidence, technical, anecdotal or otherwise that four engines are safer than two. Yet you can tell people so and their fears lead them to believe that two engine aircraft are death traps. Secondly: People who know better, or should know better, i.e. Sir Richard, take advantage of peoples fears for profit and gain.

The safety record of long range aircraft operations is a matter of record, not a matter of opinion. The exploitive nature of Branson's comments sadden me somewhat, but I will continue to put my faith in the technology that has gotten me there and back time-after-time.

-widebodyphotog
If you know what's really going on then you'll know what to do
 
Lufthansa
Posts: 2622
Joined: Thu May 20, 1999 6:04 am

RE: Richard Bransons 4 Engine Theory

Fri Nov 12, 2004 9:59 am

Look guys your putting way too much thought into this.

Richard Brason just likes Quad jets. Simple as that. And like just about everybody with a preference/prejudice, he looks for an arguement that suits his purposes...dont try and read anymore into it other than Richard likes Quadjets
 
nedguy
Posts: 13
Joined: Tue Jan 06, 2004 7:23 am

RE: Richard Bransons 4 Engine Theory

Fri Nov 12, 2004 10:14 am

I wouldn’t get so heated about the safety issue

From memory (see my previous post a few back) Branson did not make any claims about the comparative safety of four over two engines.

He did talk about the economics of engine failure.

If I remember it correctly, he pointed out that an engine failure in an etops flight - for example on one of his transatlantic routes - means putting down at the nearest airport. Leaving the airline with a displaced aircraft in Halifax or somewhere off-route. They then have to get their people out there, get another aircraft to collect the passengers, get parts flown in, etc etc.

A four engined aircraft would have more choice. It could select a more suitable place to land or might even continue on to the original destination.
 
3lions
Posts: 137
Joined: Sun Dec 14, 2003 10:40 am

RE: Richard Bransons 4 Engine Theory

Fri Nov 12, 2004 10:29 am

I would feel more comfortable on a airplane with 4 engines if one engine fails.
And the people that disagrees with me are full of crap.....
 
kalakaua
Posts: 1430
Joined: Tue Jan 27, 2004 5:23 pm

RE: Richard Bransons 4 Engine Theory

Fri Nov 12, 2004 10:46 am

Let me ask you folks, again... Imagine if aircrafts were built with 10 engines in the 1950s/1960s, instead of 4 engines (like the Comet, 707, DC-8, etc...)... Would you people (who strongly believes in 4 engines 4 long-haul) go 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.
 
User avatar
Ryan h
Posts: 1701
Joined: Thu Aug 23, 2001 7:11 pm

RE: Richard Bransons 4 Engine Theory

Fri Nov 12, 2004 11:06 am

From what I have read Richard Branson is aiming his marketing at people who know nothing (or very little) about aircraft and they think four engines are safer than two.

In this day and age they are as safe as each other. Back in the early days when jet technology was new four probably was safer than two.

I also think why he used four engined aircraft is that they are not bound by ETOPS rules and thus has more flexibility in planning routes.
South Australian Spotter
 
boo25
Posts: 275
Joined: Fri Dec 19, 2003 1:03 am

RE: Richard Bransons 4 Engine Theory

Fri Nov 12, 2004 11:28 am

Richard Branson - PR PR PR PR PR ..blah blah blah ......

the guy cannot keep his mouth shut - all the hype over concorde was utter rubbish - he cannot even provide a decent train service . . . the guy is a motormouth and will jump on ANY bandwagon.............
 
widebodyphotog
Posts: 885
Joined: Wed Jun 30, 1999 9:23 am

RE: Richard Bransons 4 Engine Theory

Fri Nov 12, 2004 11:53 am

I would feel more comfortable on a airplane with 4 engines if one engine fails. And the people that disagrees with me are full of crap.....

...Like I said, irrational
If you know what's really going on then you'll know what to do
 
flyabunch
Posts: 444
Joined: Fri Nov 05, 2004 1:42 am

RE: Richard Bransons 4 Engine Theory

Fri Nov 12, 2004 1:11 pm

I know that we have been specifically discussing ETOPS two engine aircraft over water but I would also like to interject the total number of 2 engine commercial flights that happen every day around the world. When you add up the number of flights by 737's, 320's, 19's,18's, 757's, 767's, 777's, 300's,310's,330's, etc. How many of them even have one engine failure in flight? IT IS MINISCULE.

How many of them have two engine failures? I don't know the number but other than the two glider incidents discussed here, I cannot think of any.

The point I am making is that all two engine flights contribute to the statistical safety of two engine flight. I'll take two engines any day. In fact of the 90 flights I have taken so far this year, every one of them was on a two engine plane. Living on the edge!

Mike
 
FrequentFlyKid
Posts: 1097
Joined: Thu Nov 22, 2001 5:04 am

RE: Richard Bransons 4 Engine Theory

Fri Nov 12, 2004 1:29 pm

I know I am going to get flamed for this, but I just wanted to throw it out there. First of all lets establish a couple things. There is absolutely nothing wrong with two engined aicraft, whether it be short hual or trans-pacific. They are as safe as three and four engined aircraft, that is there no question. However, if you follow pure logic and logic alone then four engined aircraft are more desirable. Like I said, that's not to say two engined aircraft are less reliable, I'm just following simple logic.

Now, there is going to be a counter arguement to that saying that four engined aircraft just present more potential problems. To that end they are also right.
 
virgin747
Posts: 290
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 1999 12:20 am

RE: Richard Bransons 4 Engine Theory

Fri Nov 12, 2004 3:24 pm

I read in a picture book one time that the reason Virgin went with the A340, Branson during negotiations made a bet with the Airbus boss that he could take off his watch without noticing. Upon agreement Branson handed him his watch, the terms of the deal are still secret.
 
Gasman
Posts: 2153
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2004 10:06 am

RE: Richard Bransons 4 Engine Theory

Fri Nov 12, 2004 3:27 pm

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.


Bollocks!

If any given engine has a 0.1% chance of failure then:

- a twin has a 0.1 + 0.1 = 0.2% chance of a single engine failure in flight;
- a quad has a 0.1+0.1+0.1+0.1 = 0.4% chance of a single engine failure in flight.
- a quad has a 0.4*0.3% = 0.12% chance of a two engine (50%) power loss; ie. more than half as likely as a 50% power loss in a twin!, a far cry from the ten times less likely that you incorrectly suggest.
 
SAS330GOT
Posts: 189
Joined: Sun May 02, 2004 3:51 pm

RE: Richard Bransons 4 Engine Theory

Fri Nov 12, 2004 3:32 pm

A couple of years back Branson won the best advertiser of the year in the annual Lions advertising Festival in Cannes. There is a reason for this. He knows his way around the PR business.

We all know that 4 holes or 2 holes does not make any difference. I will step on a 777, 747 or a A330, or A340 anyday, or any other plane. But as many have said. Not all people know that a 777 have a longer range then a 707. They might figure out that the 777 is newer and modern but they might feel that the 707 looks safer because it has four engines.

The common people might not know if they fly a 737 or a an-225 but I would guess that they like the 737 better because it is "western world" or the A340 because it has four engines.

Those are my thought, Branson knows what he does and he is a very smart business man. He back stabs sometimes, but there are not many honest people up at the top.

sas330got
 
baw716
Posts: 1463
Joined: Thu Nov 20, 2003 7:02 pm

RE: Richard Bransons 4 Engine Theory

Fri Nov 12, 2004 5:28 pm

[email protected]LHR:
I have never heard of the Air Transat A330 landing dead stick. The only dead stick heavy landing of which I am aware is the famous Air Canada Gimli Glider, the 767 that landed dead stick after they figured out they could not convert lbs to liters (weight to volume).

Can you clarify for me?
Thanks
David L. Lamb, fmr Area Mgr Alitalia SFO 1998-2002, fmr Regional Analyst SFO-UAL 1992-1998
 
Evergreen
Posts: 5
Joined: Sat Jul 24, 2004 2:59 am

RE: Richard Bransons 4 Engine Theory

Fri Nov 12, 2004 6:12 pm

Generously, I fling my ignorance of airframe and engine construction out into the open for everyone's entertainment...

I'm tempted to say that four engines consume more fuel than two (Gee, is that intuitive enough?)... But on two aircraft of similar mass, wouldn't the four engines work only half as hard as two, so that the increase in total fuel consumption would be marginal at best? But then it occurs to me that engine placement and engineering are quite specific to any aircraft - so ordering two engines vs four probably isn't as easy as ordering the V6 with a CD changer vs the V8 with satellite radio when I buy a new Mustang.

In other words, how complex a formula would I need to determine how much more or less Mr. Branson will pay to transport one passenger from LHR to JFK on four engine vs two engine equipment?


Okay, and while I'm showing off my ignorance, here's an unrelated question for anyone who's read this far: The last time I taxied through LAS, I counted dozens of what appeared to be 57s, Airbuses and 80s - but only two 747s, both owned by JAL. At first I thought it was because only 747s can make the trip across the Pacific, but earlier posts in this thread suggest otherwise. So I began to think (reinforced by the sheer number of Asian tourists I see in LAS) that JAL uses 747s because of the enormous number of people in Japan that want to go there. I'm sure there are other considerations, of course - but what factors go into the choice of equipment on a route?
 
VC-10
Posts: 3552
Joined: Tue Oct 26, 1999 11:34 am

RE: Richard Bransons 4 Engine Theory

Fri Nov 12, 2004 6:15 pm

I have never heard of the Air Transat A330 landing dead stick........ Can you clarify for me?

Have you tried using the search function for posts on the subject?
 
Twistedwhisper
Posts: 689
Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2003 11:52 pm

RE: Richard Bransons 4 Engine Theory

Fri Nov 12, 2004 6:36 pm

Evergreen... I see your point, but look at these two pictures, and note the engine sizes..:


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Magnus Viktorsson
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Christian Andersson



A340-200/300 Powerplants


Four 138.8kN (31,200lb) CFM International CFM56-5C or 145kN (32,550lb) CFM56-5C3 turbofans.



A340-200/300 Powerplants


A330-300 - Choice of two 300.3kN (67,500lb) General Electric CF6-80E1A2s, 284.7kN (64,000lb) Pratt & Whitney PW-4164s, or PW-4168s or 304.6kN (68,000lb) RollsRoyce Trent 768 or Trent 772 turbofans.
Long range A330 choice of P&W PW-4164s or PW-4168s or RR Trent 768s or 772s or 324kN (73,000lb) PW-4173s.




So..
4x32,550lb = 130200 lb or
2x73,000lb = 146000 lb


I might be wrong? But these figures tell me that the A/C with four engines has to work harder than the one with two engines...


I am also aware about what the statistics say... All I'm saying is that the man on the street prolly think it's safer with four engines than it is with two, and so am I... but as [email protected] said, I would happily fly with anything, even a single engine turboprop... maybe not across the pacific though... or the atlantic for that matter...

Read between the lines.
 
greaser
Posts: 1040
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2004 5:55 pm

RE: Richard Bransons 4 Engine Theory

Fri Nov 12, 2004 7:49 pm

Well, if we follow SRBull,
Air Canada
Aer Lingus
Air China
Air France
Air New Zealand
Air Transat
Alitalia
All Nippon Airways
Austrian Airlines
American Airlines
Asiana Airlines
British Airways
Cathay Pacific Airways
China Southern Airlines
Continental Airlines
Delta Air Lines
Dragonair
Edelweiss
Egyptair
El Al Israel Airlines
Emirates
EVA Air Taiwan
Garuda Indonesia
GE Capital Corporation
Gulf Air
ILFC U.S.A. North America
JAL Domestic
JAL International
Kenya Airways
KLM - Royal Dutch Airlines
Korean Air
Kuwait Airways
Lauda Air Austria
Lufthansa
LTU
Malaysia Airlines
Mid East Jet
Monarch Airlines
My Travel
Northwest Airlines
Novair
Pakistan Int'l Airlines
Philipine Airlines
Premiair
Qantas Airways
Roots Air
Saudi Arabian Airlines
SAS
Saudi Oger
Singapore Airlines
Sri Lankan
SM Brussels
Swiss Air
TAM
Thai Airways International
United Airlines
US Airways
Varig
Volare
Vietnam Airlines
and so many more Large twinjet operators have to be jepordizing their passenger's safety. Smokin cool

Which is why it is pure B.S...Of course, he wants to get 17% of the passengers...
One day Airliners.net should conduct a poll asking passengers at Heathrow what's the logo the Virgin has on their engine cowlings...

"UH, irresistably reassuringly expensive"...
He's good at PR, but we all know the truth

Now you're really flying
 
User avatar
Starlionblue
Posts: 19633
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2004 9:54 pm

RE: Richard Bransons 4 Engine Theory

Fri Nov 12, 2004 11:00 pm

I would feel more comfortable on a airplane with 4 engines if one engine fails.
And the people that disagrees with me are full of crap.....


I would be shitting myself in both cases  Big grin And I would know that even on the quad one more engine failure would be really really bad for two reasons:
1. Do you really want to be on a quad with two engines out? Not a lot of power to keep you aloft there.
2. If two engines went out, isn't it pretty likely that the causes are both related and systemwide?


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.

Bollocks!

If any given engine has a 0.1% chance of failure then:

- a twin has a 0.1 + 0.1 = 0.2% chance of a single engine failure in flight;
- a quad has a 0.1+0.1+0.1+0.1 = 0.4% chance of a single engine failure in flight.
- a quad has a 0.4*0.3% = 0.12% chance of a two engine (50%) power loss; ie. more than half as likely as a 50% power loss in a twin!, a far cry from the ten times less likely that you incorrectly suggest.


Yes but this goes out the of the window anyway. The power proportions are totally different. A twin with one engine out has far more available power relative to weight than a quad with two engines out. So a quad with two engines out is far worse off than a twin with one engine out. And even if the next engine quits (both out on the twin, three out on the quad) that plane is landing soon.
"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots." - John Ringo
 
jmc757
Posts: 1229
Joined: Thu Mar 09, 2000 3:36 am

RE: Richard Bransons 4 Engine Theory

Fri Nov 12, 2004 11:37 pm

I think some poeple are putting a bit too much into this. At the end of the day, if Boeing had done a deal then Virgin would be flying 777s... end of story really.

Yes, a lot of what Branson says is utter rubbish. But come on, don't take it seriously, cus I really don't think he does. Most of the slogans hes has plastered on the side of his planes are tongue-in-cheek and a bit of fun. Whats so bad about that?

Does anybody really think that they all sat around in a meeting at Virgin and thought "Yep, we really are onto a winner with this new advertising campaign" ? Branson and VS aren't that stupid. If they were, then they wouldnt have the airline they have now.
 
A999
Posts: 197
Joined: Thu Mar 18, 2004 6:28 am

RE: Richard Bransons 4 Engine Theory

Sat Nov 13, 2004 6:11 am

The 4 engine 4 long haul slogan is probably a way to express what he think is
superiority over his 767/777 or A330-flying competitors. At least he loves to kick BA`s ass!

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