Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR
Quoting Gopal (Thread starter): Do the incidents with regard to US 1549 and BA 38 highlight the inadequacies of the 2 engine model ? |
Quoting Gopal (Thread starter): The 2 engine model is based on the premise of a Infinitesimal probability of inflight failure of both the engines in a modern jetliner. Do these two incidents point towards a greater possibility of this happening ? |
Quoting Gopal (Thread starter): Will the fervent supporters of the 4 engine model for most airplanes get a lot of support from these incidents ? |
Quoting Gopal (Thread starter): Will the fervent supporters of the 4 engine model for most airplanes |
Quoting Francoflier (Reply 3): I don't think there are such people. Maybe a few extremists... But I doubt even the harshest of those extremists would doubt that the idea of making a 4 engines replacement to the A320/737 is a good one. |
Quoting MCIGuy (Reply 4): Two more engines would have greatly increased the chances that a wing would have been torn off and/or it would have cartwheeled. |
Quoting Gopal (Thread starter): Do the incidents with regard to US 1549 and BA 38 highlight the inadequacies of the 2 engine model ? |
Quoting RussianJet (Reply 6): I favour the six engine model. |
Quoting Na (Reply 7): No. The outer engines are above belly level in flight. I would say on a twin with very big engines, like a 777, the chances would be highest for cartwheeling as their massive weight would be decisive. |
Quoting Na (Reply 7): No. The outer engines are above belly level in flight. I would say on a twin with very big engines, like a 777, the chances would be highest for cartwheeling as their massive weight would be decisive. |
Quoting SEPilot (Reply 13): When was the last time that a plane crashed because of bird strikes? The only one I remember was back in the early 60's, |
Quoting Nomadd22 (Reply 12): This incident did disprove that. |
Quoting RussianJet (Reply 14): Ryanair 738 at Rome Ciampino a few months back also had double engine trouble owing to multiple bird strikes, but fortunately made the airfield. |
Quoting OPNLguy (Reply 15): Having 4 engines (versus 2) doesn't necessarily ensure one can still avoid 5149's situation, and a good example of that is the USAF -135 that crashed near Fairbanks AK some years back. |
Quoting OPNLguy (Reply 15): Having 4 engines (versus 2) doesn't necessarily ensure one can still avoid 5149's situation, and a good example of that is the USAF -135 that crashed near Fairbanks AK some years back. |
Quoting RJ111 (Reply 19): It will always be slightly harder to get birdstrikes in 4 engines as supposed to 2. |
Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 16): How so? Please show us how this is disproved. Do you know that a 4 engine BAE146 would have only lost 2 engines to geese and not four? I can't see how you can know that… Now, would tail mounted engines have been as susceptible to a double bird strike? That is a different question entirely. |
Quoting TaxPilot (Reply 18): An E-3A (B 707-320) was lost in an accident on 22 September 1995 at Elmendorf AFB, Alaska. All 24 crewmembers were killed in the accident. The USAF accident investigation report concluded that the accident was directly caused by the ingestion of Canada geese into No. 1 and No. 2 engines. |
Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 22): |
Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 20): Quoting RJ111 (Reply 19): It will always be slightly harder to get birdstrikes in 4 engines as supposed to 2. True, but this event didn't prove or disprove anything re: 4 engines, because there is no way to know if all 4 engines would have been hit by birds, or if 3 of 4 would have, not to mention that 4 engine planes can't do much on 1 engine anyway, or even 2. |
Quoting RJ111 (Reply 24): But 2 would drastically increase your "glide" range. |
Quoting Nomadd22 (Reply 27): Saying that those odds don't mean anything because "You can't prove birds wouldn't take out three engines" is ridiculous. |
Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 28): We would need to know how many twins have ever had both engines taken out completely by birds, |
Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 26): Quoting RJ111 (Reply 24): But 2 would drastically increase your "glide" range. No doubt. The plane might have made it to EWR. But it also might have made it to Teterboro like they were considering, and then run off the runway onto Route46 and burst into flames%u2026 |
Quoting SEPilot (Reply 30): From my research the answer is one. More have had birds in both engines, but have not lost all power in both. And it appears that more quads have crashed due to birds than twins. |
Quoting RussianJet (Reply 32): How many six-engined planes have crashed because of birdstrikes? I believe it's none, so in a particularly specious piece of reasoning I'm going to say that this is definitely the safest configuration in respect of birds. silly |
Quoting Na (Reply 7): No. The outer engines are above belly level in flight. I would say on a twin with very big engines, like a 777, the chances would be highest for cartwheeling as their massive weight would be decisive. |
Quoting Aviationfreak (Reply 35): If I'm not mistaken engines are designed to break off in this kind of situations. Hence both engines of US1549 where on the bottom of Hudson river. Sander |
Quoting Nomadd22 (Reply 12): The reasoning wasn't that a two engine failure was exceedingly improbable. It was that anything that caused both engines to fail would probably cause all four engines to fail. This incident did disprove that. It was an incredible coincidence that two geese would enter both engines in at the exact same time. (If that's what happened). A four holer would have probably had two engines left. |
Quoting MCIGuy (Reply 4): Two more engines would have greatly increased the chances that a wing would have been torn off and/or it would have cartwheeled. |
Quoting Na (Reply 11): Quoting MCIGuy (Reply 10): Regardless of what a 4-holer does in level flight, one wing will dip more on contact with water and both engines on that wing will dig in. But the momentum of one huge twin engine will be much higher than the smaller ones on a quad. |
Quoting Nomadd22 (Reply 12): It was an incredible coincidence that two geese would enter both engines in at the exact same time. (If that's what happened). A four holer would have probably had two engines left. |
Quoting Gopal (Reply 25): Twin or Quad, it looks like safety technology to avoid bird ingestion into engines needs to be developed. |
Quoting Gopal (Reply 25): Skies are getting crowded, human population/settlements around airports is getting denser, which will increase the probability of bird hits to airplanes. |
Quoting Gopal (Reply 25): Sensors could be added to the fuselage/engines to detect birds/solid objects when they are several feet away from impact. These could be deflected either mechanically or by means of a blast of compressed air from the fuselage. |
Quoting Tdscanuck (Reply 42): Yes. However, the argument is basically about total engine loss, which requires two hits on a twin but four on a quad. |
Quoting Bond007 (Reply 43): I understand, but if a 4 engine aircraft is twice as likely to get a bird in the engine, than a 2 engine aircraft ... simply because it does have more engines that a bird can be ingested into ... doesn't that make the chance of total engine loss the same |
Quoting Bond007 (Reply 43): I know I'm assuming that the surface area of the engines is twice as much for this argument, which isn't true of course, since the engines on a 4-holer are generally smaller than those on a twin, but it must be at least 3 times the area perhaps? |
Quoting HAWK21M (Reply 45): Secondly I feel We need to work out a solution to keep aircraft away from these Bird flock to avoid such Incidents. |