The War has begun for the skies...

[Ramius]

Two engines are more attractive from a reliability angle than a single one, regardless of the fact that the additional systems decrease the statistical reliability. Many twin-engined aircraft are designed to be capable of at least a marginal climb on one engine, even carrying the maximum load at take-off. But by doubling the number of engines, the chance of one failing is at least doubled. However, the chance of both failing at the same time becomes very small. Frequently, the greater economy and simplicity of a single-engine aircraft is deemed preferable to the added reliability of a twin, especially for non-commercial use.

Here is something that I grabbed online about statistics of air crashes:

An accident survey [1] (http://www.planecrashinfo.com/cause.htm) of 2,147 airplane accidents from 1950 through 2004 determined the causes to be as follows:

* 37%: Pilot error
* 33%: Undetermined or missing in the record
* 13%: Mechanical failure
* 7%: Weather
* 5%: Sabotage (bombs, hijackings, shoot-downs)
* 4%: Other human error (air traffic controller error, improper loading of aircraft, improper maintenance, fuel contamination, etc.)
* 1%: Other cause

The survey excluded military, private, and charter aircraft.

---

When talking of engine reliability, there is not really any way to tell what is more reliable, whether it be GE, Pratt & Whittney etc.

[Ramius]

See, I told you it was just psychological...

And those statistics have nothing to do with the debate on engine reliability.
According to the table, you're better off in a 737 with its 2 engines than a 747 with 4.

When it comes to comparing these two, the 747 is the safer of the two aircraft. The 747 with 27 fatal incidents includes 9 hijackings/bombings, so it is the plane of choice for that particular incident. Also, several of the fatalities did not actually require the aircraft to crash. 1 involved severe turbulance and an in flight system killed someone, Mum always said TV was a bad thing. Another case was when smoking was allowed on flights a person had a reaction to the ambient smoke and died.

I would be so bold to say that aircraft safety is increased by having multiple engines, but the real cause of air incidents don't have anything to do with engine malfunction.

Oh, and lastly, your more likely to survive an incident in a 747 that a 737, the FLE (full loss equivalents) of the 747 is 13.73 whereas the 737 is 39.28.

[marty]

can't really compare the 747-100 to a 744 though, or 763, or any of the new generation widebody a/c. the engine technology on new high bypass fans outstrips the old jt9 etc by leaps and bounds. they are twice as powerful, and use 1/2 the fuel. a JT9 on a 742 will use about 10 litres of oil over a 9 hour flight (that's per engine). an rb211/cf6 hanging on a 744/763 will use a couple at the most.

you know why 747 pilots won't fly anything else though?

cause there's no pax jets with 5 engines....

AND did you know that the dreamliner 7E7 can be spec'd with a thrust(about 5000lbs i think) capable APU?

[Ramius]

can't really compare the 747-100 to a 744 though, or 763, or any of the new generation widebody a/c. the engine technology on new high bypass fans outstrips the old jt9 etc by leaps and bounds. they are twice as powerful, and use 1/2 the fuel. a JT9 on a 742 will use about 10 litres of oil over a 9 hour flight (that's per engine). an rb211/cf6 hanging on a 744/763 will use a couple at the most.

you know why 747 pilots won't fly anything else though?

cause there's no pax jets with 5 engines....

AND did you know that the dreamliner 7E7 can be spec'd with a thrust(about 5000lbs i think) capable APU?

Dare I ask, what is a 5000lbs thrust going to do for an aircraft that has each engine provinding between 55,000 - 70,000lb of thrust depending on which engine is chosen (Two models have been chosen for the 787, GENX & Roll-Royce Trent 1000)? And as an APU, I guess you are referring to an Auxillary Power Unit, which the FAA had this to say:
An Auxiliary Power Unit (APU) is any gas turbine-powered unit delivering rotating shaft power or compressed air, or both, that is not intended for direct propulsion of an aircraft. APU's often drive aircraft generators, air-conditioning packs and in some cases can be used as an additional source of energy to start the primary propulsive engines.

And as for oil consumption, what really matters I would think is Fuel consumption.

[250learna]

BRING BACK CONCORDE!!!

[Ramius]

BRING BACK CONCORDE!!!

Or you could go for the Spruce Goose, what a wonderful piece of machinery

[Ixion]

Or you could go for the Spruce Goose, what a wonderful piece of machinery

I always like the Sunderlands. Flying boats are cool. And extremely safe

[MikeL]

I always like the Sunderlands. Flying boats are cool. And extremely safe

No they're not. Some models had an unfortunate tendency to explode in mid-air...

The reason flying boats enjoyed brief popularity had little to do with inherent safety and a lot to do with the lack of suitable runways for conventional aircraft.

[ben444]

im learin to fly, ive got 16 hours, and payin $75 an hour

$75 an hour??!!.. what you flyin and who with... I'll be there Monday.

[Coyote]

Isn't the Antonov An-225 still the largest plane in the world, or has it been beaten?



http://members.lycos.co.uk/aerospace...ov/an-225.html

[Coyote]

The Russians sure know how to make awesome aircraft

[Ixion]

No they're not. Some models had an unfortunate tendency to explode in mid-air...

Well, apart from exploding in mid air, they're safe. Nothings perfect after all

[Jantar]

$75 an hour??!!.. what you flyin and who with... I'll be there Monday.

I'll teach you to fly for $48 per hour plus $15 per flight. As long as you are happy to learn how to fly without an engine. But if you are one of those poor demented soles who insist on having a propeller whirling around in front, then the price goes up to $150 per hour.

[Ixion]

Isn't the Antonov An-225 still the largest plane in the world, or has it been beaten?

I like all the littel wheels. Reminds me of the Luggage

[ben444]

I'll teach you to fly for $48 per hour plus $15 per flight. As long as you are happy to learn how to fly without an engine. But if you are one of those poor demented soles who insist on having a propeller whirling around in front, then the price goes up to $150 per hour.

You won't need to teach me... bit of paper says I already know... common sense says I got a lot more to learn. Have you got anything aerobatic in Alex