Unless you need all three engines to stay aloft . If you do, you are no better off with three, than with one really big engine.

You reckon an A380 will fly on one engine "just fine"???? (or am I missing something?)

Yeah right, and Boeing make their own engines as well. :rolleyes:

No, you are not missing anything - there is no way in hell an A380, or any four engined commercial airliner for that matter, will fly on only one engine. He was refering to modern twin engine aircraft.

I remember back in the '80's it was a very big deal when the 767 earned ETOPS certification. While I can't remember what the blasted acronym means (I'm sure our pilots will chime in), it's something like extended twin engine engine out operation. The gist of it is an extension of the allowed operational range from a suitable airport for twin engine aircraft. The idea is that it can only be so far from a landing strip in case it loses one engine. ETOPS for the 767 meant it was the first twin that was allowed to fly trans-Atlantic routes, a service it then dominated for years (it actually still might). So, essentially what that says is that the 767 had proven it could lose an engine out in the middle of the Atlantic and still fly safely to an airport. Asymetrical thrust and all.

Engines Turn Or Passengers Swim

Yes I know that Airbus does not make their own engines. And I also know that Boeing has made HUGE mistakes lately outsourcing critical components. That being said, Boeing is still making the world's finest commercial airliners, hands down. It is incredulous to me that there is any controversy over who should supply my country with its next generation of military tankers. Hard to believe that discussion can be taking place by people with straight faces.

No to hijack, but there was some "interesting" background on how things transpired:

More Documents Show Darleen Druyun's Inappropriate Role in Boeing Leasing Deal

The whole case is now studied exhaustively.

Interesting, Paul. Hard to believe that humans might behave selfishly when contract values have eleven digits.

Not to hijack, but I just see three very basic considerations.

1) Nobody seems to dispute that Boeing makes the world's finest airplanes. Pilots seem to rarely (if ever) take the position that Airbus planes are superior, or even equivalent. Certainly, I think beyond question, Boeing airplanes are at least as good as Airbus'.

2) What if international relations (for military or even economic reasons) were to become strained? What about supply? Boeing and Pratt and Whitney can thumb their nose at the rest of the planet, of necessary.

3) Jobs. Capital. Hello......?

I prefer Boeing...

However price and schedule decide what airplane I'm going to fly in.

ETOPS = Extended Twin Engine Operations

With more than 2 engines, LROPS = Long Range Operations

Joe is correct about the wing damage. This is much more troublesome in my view. We do extensive research during product development on rotor burst. Many systems are routed specifically to avoid the possible damage due to an uncontained rotor burst. Looks like Airbus passed the ultimate test by making it home safely.

See where a Quantas 747 had an engine failure this am (Rolls Royce supplied , like the Airbus)

Those planes cost $300 million each??? Bet they aren't grounded long.

That is so interesting...in the Navy aircraft I flew (helos, jets and even some turbo props) there was less consideration about rotor burst than aircraft performance.

So many stories. I trained in single jet engine helos...

Well done on the engineering.

Jet engines are so reliable, so ubiquitous we take them for granted.

Thank you for your perspective.

Supe, I'll send you what I know...a trail of tears.

<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/qmF1Lh4f3OM?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/qmF1Lh4f3OM?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

Had a few close calls but still true today - never had a crash. Their A380's are still grounded by management - Singapore Airlines ones are back n the air already (same engines)

Logic/statistics would tend to say that either they are very safety focused at Qantas OR they are way overdue for a big one! I worked for a services company as the Qantas account manager for 3 years - my experience with them is that they are VERY safety focused and protective of their record.

Yeah, so what about this? That is a different model engine in the 747, right?

Thank you. I needed a laugh today.

+1

Rolls Royce makes very, very reliable and efficient engines. The entire AA 757 fleet is equipped with them.

Everyone makes good engines. They all run a tremendous amount of air miles before failure. Modern aircraft are the closest thing to a perpetual running machine as you can get today. (just add jet A). They can run at 30,000 rpm for YEARS before rebuilding.