unsuccessful Tri-Jets

[FlyMD-12]

Hi,

I'm just wondering, why Tri-Jets are unsuccessful? like TriStar,MD-11, Trident....etc... comparing to B747's and later B777.

Thanks.

[chimbu warrior]

How dare you.................the 727 will always be Queen of the skies!

[Engineer]

Believe FedEx may disagree with you (MD10/11 and DC10 operator) Eva Air and Luft cargo to mention other operators of the MD11. :ok:

Depends on your definition of successful :{

But you guys on the bottom end of the earth do things different down there :O

[Capt Claret]

If I recall correctly the B727 was until about 10 or so years ago the most prolific airliner with something between 1100 and 1200 units produced.

It was eventually overtaken by the B737.

I'm with Chimbu, there's not a sexier aircraft built IMHO. The VC10 a not too distant second.

[Woomera]

I would suggest advanced engine technology may have put an end to the tri jet. These days, for most applications, two engines will do the job.

Chuck is right - the 727 was queen of the skies - in an era when two engines didn't have enough grunt to push enough people far enough (DC9, BAC1-11 etc).

Ah, the DC10 - a great machine for it's era!! The MD11 was simply too late.

Technology put an end to the queens of the sky. Connies, Comets, Electras, Viscounts - they never wore out, simply got superceded.

Woomera

[Chimbu chuckles]

Once upon a time there was a general rule of thumb that said 'two if by land 3 if by sea'.....then beancounters got hold of the airlines....and Boeing wanted to sell more 767s so came up with ETOPs.

[18-Wheeler]

Best not see this test model from Boeing then ....

http://www.billzilla.org/tri_747.jpg

Not bad eh?

[Woomera]

Looks like something that literally came out of the Boeing - MDC merger?

:}

[Howard Hughes]

What about unsuccesful 4 engine jets, may I suggest that both the A-340 and the venerable 747 are both LESS SUCCESSFUL that the 727!!;)

:ok:

[Buster Hyman]

When's the school project due FlyMD-12?

Tri-Star was always my favourite. Only cockpit I could ever stand up straight in! (AN124 as well I suppose!)

[Shiny Side Up]

Not forgetting the Dassault Falcon 3 holers.
I'd take one over a Gulfstream any day.
Any day I've got a spare 25 Million knocking about that is :ok:

Shiny

[belowMDA]

Yeah I reckon the Trislander was not too bad a jet. Count myself lucky to have so much trulti time:}

wasn't the L-1011 meant to be an extremely well engineered aircraft for it's time?

[Ultralights]

http://home.exetel.com.au/pamuva/FLYING!!!/Work%20images%20QF%20RAAF/ace.jpg

[HKG Phooey]

I always thought the 146 was an unsucsessful try (to be) jet......


;)

sweet.....

[criticalmass]

The L-1011 was an extremely advanced aircraft for its time with a flight management system second to none. A BA crew once did as "hands-off" transatlantic flight from takeoff roll to rollout after touchdown in the Tristar and the pilots who flew 'em loved 'em. Lockheed built a pearl in that one, only the early RB-211s prevented it being the commercial success it deserved to be.

The 727 was also universally loved by its pilots and the way the wing semi-disassembled itself for landing was truly awesome to see. It was a fast mover as well. You can still hear and see them crackling off into the distance at the head of faint smoke-trails at many regional airports well away from the USA or Western Europe.

The good old Diesel 10 in the series 30 is rated as one of the three strongest airframes ever built to carry pax/freight. Slightly quieter than the 747 in cruise, although it flew with a slightly higher body angle, the guys lucky enough to fly them also get dewy-eyed when they reminisce.

The MD-11 was externally similar but was a substantially different aircraft under the skin, with significant differences in manufacture in a number of areas. The airframe was capable of some performance tweaks, and engines that failed to meet promised performance initially resulted in sales not meeting expectations. However, both DC-10s and MD-11s will be in the skies for decades to come hauling freight.

The British knew how to build a good aircraft too - when they were allowed to without undue government interference. Ask Trident pilots about their aircraft - they will give you a ringing endorsement of the aircraft, although they may have a differnet opinion as to how it was marketed.

Sadly, the era of Trijets, both narrow and wide, is slowly coming to a close. There was nothing wrong with the concept, but the relentless development of higher bypass ratios and more fuel-efficient cores meant two could do the job of three.

A British Air Marshall was once asked by a journalist how many engines he considered were sufficient for a large aircraft. He replied something to the effect that when the flight engineer says "number seven engine has failed, Captain" and the Captain replies "number seven, yes, but on which wing?" then I think you've probably got enough engines.

[gaunty]

Aaaaaaaaaah the DC10 what a machine, hewn out of solid granite, best First Class cabin in the world.
I believe the airlines who operated them just loved em to bits.
Same as the DC8 and with the CFM? engines was a world beater for load and speed.

L1011 of the same ilk maybe technomoligically superior, pity about the RB211s. One can only wonder what the market would now be if the Brits had got the engine right first time.