Date: 06 Aug 98 11:26:28 From: Spoon1 <firstname.lastname@example.org> Organization: Flashnet Communications, http://www.flash.net References: 1 2 3 4 5 6
View raw article or MIME structure
The Warden wrote: > 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... I think you are wrong, The 777-200/300's have very dependable engines. In United 232's case, a 777-200 is powered by a Pratt & Whitney PW 40-84. United chose the engine because it was powerful and dependable. Besides a plane the size of a 777-200 has alot of momentum on landing. It's not the engines that could have saved United 232.