Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Flight Deck Forums > Tech Log
Reload this Page >

2 engines 4 longhaul

Wikiposts
Search
Tech Log The very best in practical technical discussion on the web

2 engines 4 longhaul

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 5th Jan 2005, 18:29
  #1 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: France
Posts: 36
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
2 engines 4 longhaul

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 ?
humble_dor is offline  
Old 5th Jan 2005, 19:45
  #2 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: The Netherlands
Age: 41
Posts: 157
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
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
Lil' Pilot is offline  
Old 6th Jan 2005, 10:29
  #3 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: NE UK
Posts: 32
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
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
KBaB is offline  
Old 6th Jan 2005, 10:45
  #4 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Snowland
Posts: 71
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
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.
Kilo-club SNA is offline  
Old 6th Jan 2005, 11:17
  #5 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Over Mache Grande?
Posts: 563
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
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
dwshimoda is offline  
Old 6th Jan 2005, 11:40
  #6 (permalink)  
Ramasseur des pommes
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 802
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
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

First flight this year, apparently.

AppleMacster
AppleMacster is offline  
Old 6th Jan 2005, 12:08
  #7 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Land of the midnight sun
Posts: 57
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I can't see single engine airliners in the future, I think it would be very hard to market to the paying public.
R8TED THRUST is offline  
Old 6th Jan 2005, 13:01
  #8 (permalink)  
Final 3 Greens
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
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.
 
Old 6th Jan 2005, 15:56
  #9 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Florida
Posts: 4,569
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
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.
lomapaseo is offline  
Old 6th Jan 2005, 16:17
  #10 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Snowland
Posts: 71
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
dwshimoda

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
Kilo-club SNA is offline  
Old 6th Jan 2005, 17:36
  #11 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Newcastle
Age: 42
Posts: 34
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
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
BigSteve81 is offline  
Old 6th Jan 2005, 17:43
  #12 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 339
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
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!
PPRuNeUser0172 is offline  
Old 6th Jan 2005, 18:16
  #13 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 1998
Location: Escapee from Ultima Thule
Posts: 4,273
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
**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.
Tinstaafl is offline  
Old 6th Jan 2005, 19:35
  #14 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: NE UK
Posts: 32
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
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
KBaB is offline  
Old 7th Jan 2005, 16:25
  #15 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: France
Posts: 36
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
When will it happen ?

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.
humble_dor is offline  
Old 7th Jan 2005, 20:06
  #16 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Florida
Posts: 4,569
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
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.
lomapaseo is offline  
Old 7th Jan 2005, 20:25
  #17 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Europe
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
"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...
VR-HDB is offline  
Old 8th Jan 2005, 10:02
  #18 (permalink)  
422
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Hamilton
Age: 50
Posts: 117
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
2-eng is good

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'..



422 is offline  
Old 8th Jan 2005, 15:46
  #19 (permalink)  
ScienceDoc
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
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:



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...

;-)
 
Old 8th Jan 2005, 17:13
  #20 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Florida
Posts: 4,569
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
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.
lomapaseo is offline  


Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.