Re: A 777 with four engines.

Date:         26 Jul 98 23:57:16 
From:         malc@mci2000.com (Malcolm Weir)
Organization: Little to None
References:   1 2 3 4 5 6
Followups:    1
Next article
View raw article
  or MIME structure

On 19 Jul 98 22:07:33 , "The Warden" <warden@usa.net> caused to appear as if
it was written:

>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...

Boeing, possibly in response <Grin>, is looking into using a thrusting APU
for the longer range B777 derivatives.

Basically, since the APU in the tail of a commercial airline is a turbine
engine, the idea is that you can harness the capabilities of that engine as
a thruster...  the thing is call an Auxilliary Power and Thrust Unit (APTU),
and is basically an engine used only on take-off.

The idea of "take-off assist" engines is not new, ranging from the JATO's
used on things like Consolidated PBY "Catalinas" and currently on Lockheed
C130's, to the *fourth* engine used on the Trident.

Malc.