Date: 26 Jul 98 23:57:16 From: email@example.com (Malcolm Weir) Organization: Little to None References: 1 2 3 4 5 6 Followups: 1
View raw article or MIME structure
On 19 Jul 98 22:07:33 , "The Warden" <firstname.lastname@example.org> 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.