Why does the Falcons have 3 engines?
With the exception of the Falcon 2000, all new Falcons (as long as I know) have 3 engines. Why?
Is it for the passengers / owners feel safer? It doesn't make sense, at least in the costs aspect. |
I've had a P&W rep tell me it's so's you can finish a flight on two, but I suspect he was biased.;)
|
It's so that they can do long range flights without having to worry about ETOPS certification
|
I had a Challenger rep tell me it's because Dassault fit "Garrett Grenades" but I think he was being a little unfair!
|
It gives the fat cat that owns it a little piece of mind when out over the pond. And.....mostly because if you can afford a new Falcon, engine maintenance is not one of your worries. :E
|
And why does (did?) the Lockheed Jetstar have 4?
|
And the B-52: Eight (8)!
|
...and the Dornier Do X had TEN!
|
I suppose that's why those last 2, and others like them, had all those engineers on board - just to work the throttles!
|
Gentlemen, please. Enough with the terrible jokes already. Time for a serious answer. :D :p
The Jetstar prototype was originally built for a military application with two 4800 lb thrust Bristol Orpheus engines - that were to be built under license by Curtiss-Wright - and no slipper tanks. The deal to build the Orpheus in the US fell through, and the American military were reluctant to acquire an aircraft with a foreign built engine. Lockheed went back to drawing board and added two pairs of 3000 lb thrust P&W JT12's in place of the single powerplant, added two 560 gallon slipper tanks to counter the increased fuel requirement and as they say in French "Viola!" Trivia tidbit: The four rear mounted engines configuration Lockheed used was first proposed by Vickers in 1956, for the project that became the VC10.:cool: |
What's wrong with terrible jokes ?
I thought I saw a VC10 once, but it was only an Ilyushin !!!! |
Educated guess - at the time of the inception of the first of the Falcon trijets, the Falcon 50, the only proven light fan engine was the TFE 731 series which had a track record on the LR35/36 and 125-700 (the later 731-5 series was fitted to the Falcon 900 and 125-800).
The only other suitable contender in the power bracket for a 2 engined alternative being the ALF502 from Avco Lycoming which at the time has all sorts of teething problems which were being experienced by operators of the 146 and Challenger 600. |
Specnut727, that has to be the worst aviation joke I have ever read.
Made me smile :D D |
3 Engines on Falcons
I don't know, but it feels really good to have 3 throttles in my hand. I have flown a Falcon 50 for a couple of years, and it is a wonderful airplane.
Also, if you lose one engine on a twin, you loose a lot of your excess power(which makes you climb). If you lose one of three, you lose a lot less of your excess power on a percentage basis. The airplane has an amazing performance envelope. We operate out of a 4300 foot strip, and can legally carry 3.5 hours of fuel on a wet runway, ISA day. Off longer runways we can non-stop it to Western Europe. |
specnut727!! LOL - :D
VC10 was a thing of beauty! Sad to see her retire from airline ops as indeed I was with Tridents and my beloved 1-11's! |
So then the answer must be it has three engines because it has three throttles.:cool:
|
DA50driver Also, if you lose one engine on a twin, you loose a lot of your excess power(which makes you climb). If you lose one of three, you lose a lot less of your excess power on a percentage basis. takeoff first segment (gear down): on a twin: "positive" climb (25.121(a)) On a trijet: 0.3% climb (25.121 (a)) takeoff second segment (gear up): on a twin: 2.4% climb (25.121 (b)) On a trijet: 2.7% climb (25.121 (b)) above 400ft: on a twin: 1.2% climb (25.111(c)(3)(i)) On a trijet: 1.5% climb (25.111(c)(3)(ii)) So following engine failure the climb gradients are not dissimilar - which means that all other things being equal a twin will have better performance (in terms of excess thrust) when all engines are operating, which is the most common case (you hope :)). So unless that 0.3% difference is make-or-break - in which case the twin won't be taking off without unloading - the twin is usually a better climber. |
There is a bit more than just the certification to it mad scientist. What you quote is the certification requirements. I can't think of any of the aircraft quoted above that wouldn't exceed those requirements, some by a large margin. So the difference lies in the figures actually achieved by the individual aircraft.
|
Ripper:
No, the real answer is that it doesn't fly very well on 2 engines. |
...and the thrust reverser on the center engine is to make noise so you think it's slowing you down. ;)
|
All times are GMT. The time now is 14:54. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.