number of engines on planes
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Some where over the rainbow
Age: 37
Posts: 223
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
number of engines on planes
hey this has been bugging me for a while now and i have to write an essay on it now!
basically, why does a B777 have 2 engines while an A340 have 4. they are both very similar aircrafts in terms of weight and cruise speed, so what are the advantages of both designs?
basically, why does a B777 have 2 engines while an A340 have 4. they are both very similar aircrafts in terms of weight and cruise speed, so what are the advantages of both designs?
To be certified, an aircraft needs to have enough power to continue flight safely if one engine fails just after takeoff.
Say a given aircraft needs 100 units of thrust to fulfil this.
If you equip it with 2 engines, they need to yield 200 units of thrust total.
If you equip it with 4 engines, they only need to yeld 133 units of thrust. So you have some savings here. People wiser than me will elaborate on weight and fuel burn implications :-)
Also, 2 engined aircraft have some limits imposed upon them for flight over water, they need to stay withing X minutes of flight to a suitable airport. Think the regulations are called ETOPS.
Say a given aircraft needs 100 units of thrust to fulfil this.
If you equip it with 2 engines, they need to yield 200 units of thrust total.
If you equip it with 4 engines, they only need to yeld 133 units of thrust. So you have some savings here. People wiser than me will elaborate on weight and fuel burn implications :-)
Also, 2 engined aircraft have some limits imposed upon them for flight over water, they need to stay withing X minutes of flight to a suitable airport. Think the regulations are called ETOPS.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Some where over the rainbow
Age: 37
Posts: 223
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
sounds like it would be wiser to have future planes to have 4 engines right? since the engines can be of smaller ones, also it doesnt have to comply with ETOPS. yet not that many planes have 4 engines......
i think boeing built the 777 to compete with the a340 right? so they must have a reason to design it with 2 engines and also no winglets! which i dont understand the reason to.
i think boeing built the 777 to compete with the a340 right? so they must have a reason to design it with 2 engines and also no winglets! which i dont understand the reason to.
The Analog Kid
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Brecon Beacons National Park
Age: 57
Posts: 239
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
sounds like it would be wiser to have future planes to have 4 engines right? since the engines can be of smaller ones
Just whisper it in Toulouse
Cheers,
Rich.
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Wor Yerm
Age: 68
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Remember that rules and legislation come from people called politicians. These people are lawyers, not scientists - just 21st century Snake Oil salesman. They'll listen to the press, their friends etc. but rarely to scientific argument. As consequence, they believe that more engines equals more safety and therefore less stringent operating conditions can be allowed. Therefore, aircraft are still built with four engines when two would have done. Unfortunately, the most likely reason for diversion is icky pax and other non-technical reasons which are nothing to do with the plane. And when you look at four engined ops, what is the most worrying? Pressurisation failure at the wrong place!
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: La Belle Province
Posts: 2,179
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Swings and roundabouts, different compromises, is the answer.
As noted, 2 engined a/c by regulation end up with significantly more thrust when all engines are operating than a 4-engine aircraft, assuming both meet the mninima for one engine inop.
That makes two engined aircraft less close to the design goal for AEO ops, since they are 'overengined'. That's usually bad. (in terms of design optimization).
It also gives a typical two engine aircraft more performance margin for AEO - e.g. for windshear. that's good.
Four engined aircraft can afford to lose two engines. Two engined can't, obviously. Four engines good.
But four engines instead of two means roughly twice the inflight shutdown rate. So four engined aircraft have more engine failures. That's bad.
Four engined aircraft may well end up lighter (due to less thrust excess by design). That's good.
But 4 sets of engine 'stuff' - gearboxes and nacelles and the like - may weigh more than two sets of bigger stuff. That's bad.
And twice the number of engines may cost more to operate due to maintenance and the like.
In the end, someone waves their hands in the air and does a few sums and tries to guess which will be better. Sometimes it just comes down to what's available - if you're designing a new a/c and don't want a new, expensive, engine, you may have to choose it off the shelf. that may limit your choices such that only one of the two options is viable.
As noted, 2 engined a/c by regulation end up with significantly more thrust when all engines are operating than a 4-engine aircraft, assuming both meet the mninima for one engine inop.
That makes two engined aircraft less close to the design goal for AEO ops, since they are 'overengined'. That's usually bad. (in terms of design optimization).
It also gives a typical two engine aircraft more performance margin for AEO - e.g. for windshear. that's good.
Four engined aircraft can afford to lose two engines. Two engined can't, obviously. Four engines good.
But four engines instead of two means roughly twice the inflight shutdown rate. So four engined aircraft have more engine failures. That's bad.
Four engined aircraft may well end up lighter (due to less thrust excess by design). That's good.
But 4 sets of engine 'stuff' - gearboxes and nacelles and the like - may weigh more than two sets of bigger stuff. That's bad.
And twice the number of engines may cost more to operate due to maintenance and the like.
In the end, someone waves their hands in the air and does a few sums and tries to guess which will be better. Sometimes it just comes down to what's available - if you're designing a new a/c and don't want a new, expensive, engine, you may have to choose it off the shelf. that may limit your choices such that only one of the two options is viable.
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: uk
Posts: 53
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
so they couldn't make up their minds in the case of the tri star, L1011 and DC10 eh?????????????
Winglets.....a more recent innovation, designed and perfected a little too late for the B777
Winglets.....a more recent innovation, designed and perfected a little too late for the B777
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,843
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
so they couldn't make up their minds in the case of the tri star, L1011 and DC10 eh?????????????
Given that the aircraft mentioned had 3 engines of APPROXIMATELY 45,000 Lb thrust each, 90,000 Lb (2 engines) would be required to meet the OEI requirement. To make the L1011 and DC10/MD11 two engined aircrafrt would have required engines of a little less than 90,000 Lb thrust each.
Nice post, Mad (Flt) Scientist, a good summary in simple terms. I think that you neglected to mention that the IFSD (In-Flight Shutdown) Rate for the 4 engined aircraft is somewhat more than twice that for the 2 engined aircraft. In Normal operations (i.e. the 99.999% of the time that an engine DOESN'T fail), the 2 engined aircraft is operating with 100% thrust excess above the minimum requirement, whilst the 4 engined aircraft has a mere 33% excess. Thus, the 4 engined aircraft is operating at high thrust levels (Takeoff and Climb) for a MUCH longer period, and, as most turbine engine failures are due to cumulative stress, and the cumulative stress for the 4 engined aircraft is much higher, with a commensurately higher IFSD Rate per engine than for the twin.
"Four engined aircraft can afford to lose two engines" - True, but not on Takeoff, or early in the flight at high gross weights, unless you can dump fuel fast enough before impact.
"Four engined aircraft may well end up lighter (due to less thrust excess by design). " - Absolutely true, plus lighter wing structure needed to provide wing bending relief due to the outboard engines. The 3 engined aircraft is WORST in this respect.
"And twice the number of engines may cost more to operate due to maintenance and the like." - Absolutely true again. Increased size does not necessarily mean increased labour for overhaul. Roughly, twice as many engines cost twice as much to overhaul, irrespective of size.
Mad (Flt) Scientist, not in any way a criticism of your post, it was an excellent summary provoking further thought and comment.
Given that 99.999% of the flights that I've operated in 2, 3, and 4 engined aircraft did NOT suffer an engine failure, my clear preference for safety is for the aircraft with the greatest performance margin to get out of a sticky situation - the twin.
Pray that the IFSD Rate never reaches ZERO, because when it does, the accountants will be calling for single engined aircraft
Regards,
Old Smokey
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: fairly close to the colonial capitol
Age: 55
Posts: 1,693
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
so they couldn't make up their minds in the case of the tri star, L1011 and DC10 eh?????????????
A large 2-engined airliner was unthinkable back then - not only due to the prevailing beliefs of the designers and the engines that were available to them - it was also the collective public memory of the not-so distant piston powered days would make a transoceanic twin a most unattractive conveyance for an airline to sell to passengers at that time.
A large 2-engined airliner was unthinkable back then
Is there an engine powerful enough today so that a pair can drive such beasts ?
Tabs please !
Also, 2 engined aircraft have some limits imposed upon them for flight over water, they need to stay withing X minutes of flight to a suitable airport. Think the regulations are called *ETOPS.
Politics does indeed play a part, the A340 uses French engines supplied by Moulinex. Earlier this year, I was on an Air Jamaica A340 from Heathrow to Kingston and I am sure we ran a red light in Hounslow High St
Thankfully, the larger -600 has good old RR engines.Interesting point about the 727 and Trident, the Trident 3B had four engines with the extra donkey being housed above the tailpipe of number two. I vaguely recall the spare engine being used to give crews a four engine qualification.
Getting back to the 2 v 4 discussion, all twins tend to look the same these days which makes the world a dull place. Thankfully the A380 looks distinctive....fugly but distinctive
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Some where over the rainbow
Age: 37
Posts: 223
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
in my essay i have actually finally decided to build the new plane, which should be heavier than a a380 with a 3 engine design.
that may sound mad but i have taken into account "asymmetric thrust" into main consideration. i have thought that 2 engine would not generate enough thrust whereas 4 engines is the main contributor to "asymmetric thrust" if an engine was to fail.
so i was thinking with 3 engines, the rudder could be smaller then and also with 3 engines the weight would be further reduced. i know the wing would have to be further reinforced but i was wondering if the other 2 factors would outweigh that.
finally, did the decision of the a340 having 4 engines was influenced by politicians?
that may sound mad but i have taken into account "asymmetric thrust" into main consideration. i have thought that 2 engine would not generate enough thrust whereas 4 engines is the main contributor to "asymmetric thrust" if an engine was to fail.
so i was thinking with 3 engines, the rudder could be smaller then and also with 3 engines the weight would be further reduced. i know the wing would have to be further reinforced but i was wondering if the other 2 factors would outweigh that.
finally, did the decision of the a340 having 4 engines was influenced by politicians?
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,843
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
did the decision of the a340 having 4 engines was influenced by politicians?
Regards,
Old Smokey
Paxing All Over The World
pilotho you have no idea the debate that you have reignited as powerfully as Concorde's reheat (and that's 4 engined re-heat ) Just for the record, here is the definitive answer.
Two engines only look good on small machines. The 767, 777 and 787 are swollen beyond what nature intended and cannot ever look good.
Tri-motor machines have always been a horrendous abberation and the sooner the last ones are retired the better.
Four engined machines are where it's at, however, this is not to say that all x4s are good - the 380 is ugly as sin and even if I overcome my conern about evacuation times from it, I would not want to be travelling in something so hideous.
The 747 has a natural grace and authority to it that is timeless. The DC8 + 707 tried but, ultimately, only looked average. Which, since Concorde is in a class of beauty all her own, leaves us with the VC-10. Yes, that is the one to hold in your mind's eye as the reason that man created four bl@@dy strong engines and strapped them on to the place where they would look the best.
I can now leave PPRuNe, content in the knowledge that i have insulted almost everyone!
--------------------
"I tell you, we are here on Earth to fart around, and don't let anybody tell you any different." Kurt Vonnegut, Jr.
) Just for the record, here is the definitive answer.Two engines only look good on small machines. The 767, 777 and 787 are swollen beyond what nature intended and cannot ever look good.
Tri-motor machines have always been a horrendous abberation and the sooner the last ones are retired the better.
Four engined machines are where it's at, however, this is not to say that all x4s are good - the 380 is ugly as sin and even if I overcome my conern about evacuation times from it, I would not want to be travelling in something so hideous.
The 747 has a natural grace and authority to it that is timeless. The DC8 + 707 tried but, ultimately, only looked average. Which, since Concorde is in a class of beauty all her own, leaves us with the VC-10. Yes, that is the one to hold in your mind's eye as the reason that man created four bl@@dy strong engines and strapped them on to the place where they would look the best.
I can now leave PPRuNe, content in the knowledge that i have insulted almost everyone!
--------------------
"I tell you, we are here on Earth to fart around, and don't let anybody tell you any different." Kurt Vonnegut, Jr.
Moderator
One point which I don't recall seeing noted in the earlier posts.
Pre-ETOPS there was an operational and design restriction on distance unless the aircraft could operate with two engines shutdown. Hence twins were limited other than in areas with a reasonable aerodrome density. Three motor jobs were a cheaper way to get around this problem than were four motor jobs.
Pre-ETOPS there was an operational and design restriction on distance unless the aircraft could operate with two engines shutdown. Hence twins were limited other than in areas with a reasonable aerodrome density. Three motor jobs were a cheaper way to get around this problem than were four motor jobs.
It should also be noted that the ONLY reason any four engined aircraft is currently in production is that, at the time it was designed, there weren't engines with sufficient thrust to make it a twin. Before anyone jumps up and down, name one quad which COULD have been a twin?
Nobody uses a four engined aircraft where a twin will do the job.
Nobody uses a four engined aircraft where a twin will do the job.
Less thrust, but 45 tonnes extra max AUW due to the different rules for 4 vs 2 engines as explained above. There were no engines capable of lifting a 275 tonne aircraft in twin configuration, so they HAD to go for a quad.
Now better technologies are available, what are they developing? the TWIN engine A350, with no plans for a 4 engine derivative.
Now better technologies are available, what are they developing? the TWIN engine A350, with no plans for a 4 engine derivative.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Nirvana South
Posts: 734
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Don't forget that both the 727 and Trident were not designed for optimum efficiency but to make very specific - and taxing - performance requirements. The '27 was built to a United requirement for a transcontinental aircraft that could get out of La Guardia (short runways, high temps in Summer) and the Trident to meet similar problems with Heathrow/Mediterranean. The ultimate Trident IIE added the RB166 lift engine (the 4th) just to do the hot weather performance with increased loads.