Date: 26 Jul 98 23:57:14 From: firstname.lastname@example.org (Terry Schell) Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign References: 1 2 3 4 5 6
View raw article or MIME structure
"The Warden" <email@example.com> writes: >Me who doesn't have much faith in new technology thinks that 4 engines are a >greater safety factor, despite the extra cost. Also, if something happens >and rudder control is lost, the two outboard engines could be pressed into >providing sideways control (can't remember the technical term for it) and >would do a better job than having two engines closer to the center line. For >instance, if UAL 232 had been a 707, 747, A340, or even a DC-8, (first off, >the problem wouldn't have happened, but that's another story), they may have >been able to get a bit more directional movement, and may have been able to >correct for that gust of wind that pushed them off of the runway and made >the wing dig into the ground (if that had not happened, they would have >landed safely). Personally, I think the 777 should be a trijet, at least... This is like saying, "shouldn't we put build planes with titanium shielding to protect against small chunks of space debris re-entering out atmosphere." Theoretically, that could bring a plane down, but the chances are sooooo small that it doesn't warrent the expense of trying to protect from it. Based on millions of flight hours, it is clear that a 4 engine aircraft does not have a significant safety advantage over a comparable twin. If we were to spend an extra 5% of flight expenses in order to increase overall safety, adding extra engines to twins would not be the best investment of those safety dollars.