2 engines 4 longhaul

[humble_dor]

http://www.atwonline.com/indexfull.cfm?newsid=4869

Please do not start an A vs B war.

Car engines are much more reliable and economical today that those of 80s. Better design, better lubricant, better materials and better electronics are the key of this achievement. Same story for airplane engines.

Can we imagine one engined short haul airplanes in the future ?

[Lil' Pilot]

I think this will possible of course (technically).
But I doubt it if it's wise to do so. If you for instance look at the passengers...I think they will be much more at ease if they board an aircraft which has multiple engines instead of one. Because according to a passenger there can always go something wrong with an engine. And this is true ofcourse. The engine can be affected by various factors. Factors on which you don't have any influence (like a birdstrike). So it's always nice to have a backup, i.e another engine.
Despite that engines are very reliable, I don't see one engined short haul airplanes in the future.

Ciao, Lil' P

[KBaB]

I don’t know if i dreamt it but I’m sure I’ve seen pics (drawings/plans) of this 1 engine business jet. Anyone know what it was or if I’m making it up?

KBaB

[Kilo-club SNA]

Single engine Airliners? Not for a loong time.

There has been studies of single engine business jets, wich might be a good thing, but flying single engine in an airliner is something different.

Once there was a very likely scenario of loosing one engine (late piston, early jet age) and loosing an engine on a transatlantic flight was, well not common but hardly uncommon. Therefore the requirment for several engines. Now we consider the chance of loosing a single engine very remote, loosing two engines impossible (almost).

An aircraft has to be redundant and since no airliner can perform a all engine out glide safely (like say a cessna) I hardly think flying with only one engine (to start with) is an option.

[dwshimoda]

and since no airliner can perform a all engine out glide safely (like say a cessna) I hardly think flying with only one engine (to start with) is an option.

I seem to remember an AirTransat Airbus that glided to land in the Azores a few years ago after total fuel exhaustion...

Great job by the pilots, regardless of the reasons they were in that situation

[AppleMacster]

KBab wrote:
don’t know if i dreamt it but I’m sure I’ve seen pics (drawings/plans) of this 1 engine business jet. Anyone know what it was or if I’m making it up?


It was probably the Diamond D_JET - link (http://www.diamond-air.at/en/products/D-JET/index.htm)

First flight this year, apparently.

AppleMacster

[R8TED THRUST]

I can't see single engine airliners in the future, I think it would be very hard to market to the paying public.

[Final 3 Greens]

As an FQTV, if asked to travel on any one engined aircraft, the reply would be unprintable.

I don't even like travelling on the lighter turboprops and certainly not light twins, such as the Golden Eagle, specicifally because of my perception of the risks involved in engine failure low, slow and heavy.

[lomapaseo]

Can we imagine one engined short haul airplanes in the future ?



absolutely

The decision is nothing more than risk balancing vs economics.

If it can be shown that there is acceptable risk to the users, then the industry will embrace it.

That process is ultimately how our whole life/economy works.

[Kilo-club SNA]

Yeah! And I can remember several incidents/ accidents (label as you wish) where the passangers survived due to pilot skill (and probably a fair amount of luck) operating the aircraft outside of the practiced scenarios, but those scenarios are unique in their own way.
The truth is that gliding an airliner is NOT like gliding a smaller aircraft and quite a few were lost in the earlier days of aviation. however, hats of to the mentioned crew

[BigSteve81]

I seem to remember an AirTransat Airbus that glided to land in the Azores a few years ago after total fuel exhaustion...
Great job by the pilots, regardless of the reasons they were in that situation

If I recall 'Air Crash Investigation'(on The National Geographic Channel) correctly, and you may correct me if im wrong, wasn't this down to faulty maintenance causing a leak in the right wing tank. The pilots didn't realise this and opened the crossfeed to balance the fuel tanks and then forgot to close it before the left wing tank emptied. I think it said they hit the runway at a little over 200knots and the wheels left some big grooves in the runway.
Of course that could just be the NGC dramatising it for TV.
But like dwshimoda said good job regardless of the situation


BS

[PPRuNeUser0172]

Almost certainly never I would have thought, although Never say........!

There was a similar unrest with Twins flying long haul across the pacific/atlantic et al. which lead to ETOPS. Although becoming massively more reliable, nothing is ever perfect and engines will always break. Therefore, who in their right mind would ever certify a single engined aircraft for long haul ops.

I dont think, (I certainly hope) we will never hear the term ESOPS!

[Tinstaafl]

**All** of the operations in aviation are predicated on a certain level of acceptable risk, with some operations considered acceptable at higher probabilities of a failure, accident, injury or death. This extends not just to individual risks per part or manner of operation but also the sum of all those risks. The level of risk is ultimately limited by how many $$$ is considered reasonable to throw at the problem.

If/when someone makes an engine & its ancillary installation that has the same or better level of risk as whatever is the (future) current acceptable multi engined level of risk then single engine ops will happen.

No different to the IFR & night single engine turbine vs light piston twin approvals that's happened/happening in the USA, Australia, New Zealand, Switzerland and other parts of the world.

[KBaB]

thanks AppleMacster that WAS the plane I was thinking of.

Think 1 engine for passanger transport is a bit scarey. I wouldnt like to know that just 1 little thing was keepin my up the air above the sea/mountains away from places to land.

I remember watching 'Air Crash Investigation' about AirTransat and I seem to remember that it was due to maintenance of the aircraft causing a fuel leak, I also remember that the pilots thought it was a fuel ballance issue and moved more fuel to the fault and lost the lot. I think the only reason that they made it to land was because earlier in the flight ATC had moved there flight a bit more south than the flight plan due to traffic, without doing this the plane wouldnt have made the Azores.

Im typing this from memory, but seem to remember thats what was highlighted on the show.

KBaB

[humble_dor]

Just wondering if one engined airplane will burn less fuel than a twin.

Okay, when you lose one engine you lose all power. But there must be means to minimize the CONSEQUENCES of powerless landing/ditching. You can reduce the cinetic energy by lowering the falling/gliding speed with parachute or dragchute.

Airplane designers can put engine intake where the risk of bird strike or ingestion is nill or limited.

[lomapaseo]

Airplane designers can put engine intake where the risk of bird strike or ingestion is nill or limited

If the inlet faces forward the bird will find it.

[VR-HDB]

"I think there is a world market for maybe five computers." - Thomas Watson, chairman of IBM, 1943


R8TED THRUST, could you say that about single engine airliners again... ;)

[422]

No matter how we debate 2-eng for long haul,

here is the "beef" .

2-eng will always be good for long haul until
something happens.
Let us hope is it does not involve anyone we know.

Money talks , and 777 is cheap to operate.
That is until something happens.

So let us 'pray'..



:cool:

[ScienceDoc]

As we all know that the diameters of the 737 fuselage and the 777 engine are about the same, all we need to do to get the first single engined airliner is this:

http://129.13.103.40/droth/suedhalbkugel/pprune/oe.gif

Benefits:

* instant take off performance for the hasty traveller and taxi way users
* advanced bird strike evasion with thrust vectoring
* improved weight capacity at the front desk
* a tool for impressive circular momentum demonstrations

Sorry that I was bored...

;-)

[lomapaseo]

2-eng will always be good for long haul until
something happens.
Let us hope is it does not involve anyone we know.


of course it will happen, its will just be preceeded by two 4 engine aircraft losses for the same causes.

[Cameronian]

Dirty Sanchez - ESOPS, sounds like a fable to me!

[EFP058]

Haha ScienceDoc, at least it looks interesting... ;) Of course I still wouldn´t fly it, but yeah... at least it would look interesting. ;)

[Captain Rat]

ETOPS = Engines Running Or Passengers Swimming

[Old Smokey]

In my 40 years I've had 2 totally unrecoverable, complete engine failures in turbine engined airline aircraft, one upon Rotation, the other in the middle of the night in the middle of nowhere.

In the first case I thank God that an airline CEO, TWA's Charles Fry, had the wisdom and foresight to insist upon a set of certification rules that lead to FAR 25, thus saving numerous lives down the following decades.

In the second case, I thank God that latter day Airline CEOs have not yet found out that single engined airliners may be more economical to operate, and that, on average, a 20 year career before death FOR EACH PILOT is an acceptable risk. In your average large airline that's only 3 to 4 additional fatal crashes per year, definately acceptable to the bean counters.

Mr. Fry would roll over in his grave.

This is a humbug thread.

Old Smokey