I am watching this discussion with avid interest, and I'm grateful for the "company" of Uncle Fred, Wiggy, and SeenItAll..
It is now clear to me that my musings in #34 are -- not to put too fine a point on it! -- rubbish and reflect the depths of my naivete.
Something, however, that remains unclear to me is what the advantages are of a two-engined transport aircraft over one with three engines (or four, I suppose) of similar performance, when it comes to marketing an aircraft suitable for long oceanic or polar routes over barren terrain.
In the 1990s I was most courteously welcomed into the jump-seat on the flight deck of a British Airways 747 between Beijing and LHR. I had recently started my academic research into the criminal law aspects of safety and seized every opportunity to interview pilots. The 777 was either not yet or just recently in service -- I can't recall now.
I explained to the captain what I was doing and had already published. He was a large, tough-looking, good-natured bloke with hands the size of dinner-plates and as interested in my work as I was in his.
I asked him how he felt about crossing the Atlantic in a two-engined aircraft. His reaction is imprinted clearly on my memory still, for it was abrupt and forceful.
He lost his good humour in a flash, twisted himself around in his seat, jabbed at me with a finger the size of a substantial piece of good boerewors, and snarled, "When they invent a five-engined airplane I want an immediate transfer!"
Would he have been typical of the time, and would he still be?