Re: A 777 with four engines.

Date:         06 Aug 98 11:26:28 
From:         Spoon1 <noctulius@usa.net>
Organization: Flashnet Communications, http://www.flash.net
References:   1 2 3 4 5 6
Next article
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.