PPRuNe Forums - View Single Post - 2 engine vs. 4 engine fuel burn
View Single Post
Old 10th Apr 2006, 11:23
  #18 (permalink)  
chornedsnorkack
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Estonia
Posts: 834
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Bolty McBolt
SMOKEY
I appreciate your good work.
Correct me if I am wrong the difference between 777-300ER and 777-300 is additional fuel tanks and an uprated engine = extra range...
Regards
MBolt
I think the wing, too.
Thus the bigger wing to carry more weight, bigger engine for the same (is there any change in landing gear?) - those distinguish -300ER from -300 and -200LR from -200ER.

One wonders how the Boeing 747-800 is to be competitive with 777-300ER?

Or perhaps it is not... no one wants Intercontinental, months after "launch".

Anyway, Boeing tried, and failed, to design a 747 trijet after DC-10 and Tristar turned out to be in some respect cheaper to fly than 747. The upper deck bump disturbed airflow into the inlet, so they had to keep 4 engines on the SP. How exactly does the fuel burn of SP compare with DC-10?

Since 747-800 does not extend the upper deck all the way to tail, centre engine is out of question. Or perhaps it would be better to fly 747 as a twinjet, like 777? The engines seem almost big enough...
chornedsnorkack is offline