So, comparing the different airplanes, the relevant factors are:
Wing loading/Stall speed (The second is not completely given by the first, because there are some differences in dirty Coefficient of lift). This is the only part relevant to landing performance in first approach (obviously, because the engines are not producing much thrust on landing whether they are functional, installed but failed or never installed on the airframe).
And thrust-to-weight ratio (which changes with airspeed somewhat). This is what allows aircraft to take off (obviously a glider lands just like any powered plane but cannot take off, and a plane with engines failed or underpowered by design will need a long runway to gather speed, but lands just as easily as an overpowered plane or a glider).
Some numbers for thrust/weight can be seen at
http://www.!!!!!!!!!!!!!!/discussions...ad.main/212727
See Post 9 for twins, including 757-200 (high at 0,341, but less than what 717-200 has at 0,347, also less than ERJ-170, ERJ-135 and CRJ-200) and A330-300 (low at 0,280, only MD-80 has as low as 0,263).
Post 21 has trijets and quads, including B744 (0,286 is high for a quad).
Post 48 has small jets: note that Citation Sovereign has as much as 0,380.
Why higher thrust for twins?
Because of the "what if" cases.
Engine performance does have some relevance to landing, because pilots who are not flying gliders like the ability to go around in case they miss the approach. And the number of engines is relevant on takeoff, because pilots like to be able to climb out of a takeoff if one engine fails late during takeoff run (when it is too late to abort and stop before end of runway).
So, twins have more thrust installed, to keep some spare for one engine out. Which means that with all engines functional, they climb faster than trijets and quads.