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 ? |
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 |
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 |
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. |
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. Great job by the pilots, regardless of the reasons they were in that situation |
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? First flight this year, apparently. AppleMacster |
I can't see single engine airliners in the future, I think it would be very hard to market to the paying public.
|
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. |
Can we imagine one engined short haul airplanes in the future ? 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. |
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 |
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 Of course that could just be the NGC dramatising it for TV. But like dwshimoda said good job regardless of the situation BS |
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! |
**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. |
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 |
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. |
Airplane designers can put engine intake where the risk of bird strike or ingestion is nill or limited |
"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... ;) |
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'.. :cool: |
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:
http://129.13.103.40/droth/suedhalbkugel/pprune/oe.gif 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... ;-) |
2-eng will always be good for long haul until something happens. Let us hope is it does not involve anyone we know. |
All times are GMT. The time now is 15:19. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.