Back to Squawk list
  • 16

The Airbus & Boeing Battle Between 2 & 4 Engined Jets

Soumis
 
Today, twinjet aircraft are increasingly becoming more commonplace on long-haul routes. However, at a time, there were concerns about the safety of only having two engines on longer distances, especially over the oceans. This factor is a worry that Airbus once played into. (simpleflying.com) Plus d'info...

Sort type: [Top] [Newest]


RicBen
Ric Ben 3
Sometimes aircraft preferences change after an incident. After being a passenger on a UAL 737-200 about 27 years ago that had an engine failure just seconds after an ORD takeoff during a light Chicago snowstorm, and spending time on a much quieter cabin until returning to the airport, I then preferred flying 747s over DC10 or L1011 from CA to Hawaii.
I was thinking with only a single engine during the winter flight that there was only 50 percent of Bleed Air available including for deicing.
linbb
linbb -3
So seems that you should drive or ride the RR rather than fly. A fellow who was a high time pilot who had flown two and four piston engined aircraft mostly in fire fighting said the more engines the more problems. Same goes for jets also same deal and two engined AC have proven records.
yr2012
matt jensen 3
One engine out on a 747 is an inconvience, not a disaster in the making. Lost two on a C130 during winter ops in Alaska - still able to continue flight at reduced speed. Again just an inconvenience.
RicBen
Ric Ben 1
I agree. I remember reading a FAA Report about a 767-200, UAL Reg. N666UA. Yes, by coincidence a real Reg number. I would bet if you asked those passengers after safely landing whether they wish they were on a 767 or a 747, you could guess what their choice would be.
ON MARCH 4, 2001 AT 1530 LOCAL TIME, UNITED AIRLINES (UALA)
BOEING 767-322, N666UA, FLIGHT 42, (OGG-LAX), EXPERIENCED A POWER LOSS
IN BOTH ENGINES WHILE CLIMBING THROUGH 24,000 FT. THE FLIGHT CREW WAS
ABLE TO RESTART BOTH ENGINES AND THE AIRCRAFT WAS DIVERTED TO KONA
INT'L AIRPORT, KEAHOLE, HAWAII. THE AIRCRAFT LANDED IN AN OVERWEIGHT
CONDITION AND ENCOUNTERED A BRAKE FIRE ON ROLLOUT. THERE WERE TWO
FLIGHT CREW MEMBERS, TEN FLIGHT ATTENDANTS, AND 238 PASSENGERS ON
BOARD. NO INJURIES REPORTED. INVESTIGATION REVEALED THAT THE CREW DID A
PRECAUTIONARY SHUT DOWN OF ONE ENGINE, AND DUE TO FUEL MIS-MANAGEMENT,
THE SECOND ENGINE SHUT DOWN DUE TO FUEL STARVATION.
WhiteKnight77
WhiteKnight77 2
Reliability is the key to this debate. Since it has been shown time and again, that 2 engine aircraft can be reliable, is there a need for more?
RicBen
Ric Ben 1
It is true that the reliability of aircraft and engines has improved over the last few decades. Interestingly, accident statistics of aircraft capable of carrying at least 19 passengers with at least 2 fatalities show that from decades 2000s to 2010s that 'Pilot Error' increased from 50% to 57% and that 'Mechanical Failures' decreased from 23% to 21%.
Also, odds of being on a fight that results in at least one fatality while flying on airlines with good safety records is 1 in 10 Million while flying on airlines with poor safety records are 1 in 1.5 Million.
Looking at the total reliability picture, perhaps the Airline itself might make more of a difference in safety than the number of engines.
chalet
chalet 1
Airbus committed two huge mistakes in the 2 vs. 4 engines fight. After creating the first large twin the AB300 which armed with twin reliable engines could cross the oceans in a safe manner AB tried to emulate Boeing´s runaway success with the almost mythical 707 by designing the 340 family which fell from favor by the airlines who started buying by the dozens the far more economical and fuel efficient 777 family. End of discussion 1. Then AB smart guys invented a flying a mammoth the 380 specimen which neither could compete aginst the all ubiquitous 777 versions. End of discussion 2.
jbermo
jbermo 1
Forget 2 vs 4, that has already been decided. . . . Further front end crew reduction is next up within the march of technology.
jbermo
jbermo 0
The era of manufacturing biplanes, taildraggers, recips, and quad jets for commercial use is over.

Se connecter

Vous n'avez pas de compte? Inscrivez-vous maintenant (gratuitement) pour des fonctionnalités personnalisées, des alertes de vols, et plus encore!
Ce site web utilise des cookies. En utilisant et en naviguant davantage sur ce site, vous acceptez cela.
Rejeter
Saviez-vous que le suivi des vols FlightAware est soutenu par la publicité ?
Vous pouvez nous aider à garder FlightAware gratuit en autorisant les annonces de FlightAware.com. Nous travaillons dur pour que notre publicité reste pertinente et discrète afin de créer une expérience formidable. Il est facile et rapide de mettre les annonces en liste blanche sur FlightAware ou d’examiner nos comptes premium.
Rejeter