[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next] - [Date Index][Thread Index][Author Index]

Re: was Arcjet, was solid boosters, now airplanes

At 08:50 PM 6/4/2001 , you wrote:
> > > Drw, Your concept is only correct if the plane can fly with just one 
> engine.
> > > I think the end result of going across the ocean without ditching is much
> > > more statically supported with the four engines. What is not supported is
> > > MONEY. It is much cheaper to fly two engines then four. Fuel, maintance,
>The FAA won't type-certify an airliner as capable of transoceanic flight
>unless it is capable of making the trip on one engine.

Just because the FAA says it can be done does not mean that any pilot would 
want to attempt it.
The 777 has one engine in the middle of each wing. If one engine goes out 
at 35,000 feet with full passengers, cargo and fuel it would be one very 
scary and rapid descent and ride ... heading for an emergency landing. Over 
the Atlantic there are places to divert too in an emergency (much closer 
than 1200 miles) ... unlike the ride between Hawaii and the west coast of 
the USA [which I consider to be one of the most dangerous routes to fly].

The FAA certifies that the AIRPLANE can take it and survive ... not that 
there will be no injuries or casualties among the passengers or crew. I 
will fly a 3-4 engine airplane over the Pacific as long as the option is 
available. The L-1011 (3 engines is a good choice). I don't like DC-10s. My 
favorites are the 747 and 727. and the DC-9 over the USA. The DC-9 can get 
into shorter fields in case of emergency and there are not too many other 
passengers in your way in case of a crash.

Via the amsat-bb mailing list at AMSAT.ORG courtesy of AMSAT-NA.
To unsubscribe, send "unsubscribe amsat-bb" to Majordomo@amsat.org