Re: 3X Jet

Date:         28 Jun 98 18:47:23 
From:         "Pierre Bertrand" <pierre31@total.net>
Organization: TotalNet Inc.
References:   1 2
Next article
View raw article
  or MIME structure


Jim Eadie <james.m.eadie@boeing.com> wrote in article <airliners.1998.973@ohare.Chicago.COM>...
> One obvious problem is the loss of thrust if the large engine failed during
> takeoff or climb.  See 14 CFR 25.121 "Climb: One-engine-inoperative" and
> 25.123 "En route flight paths"

hence the name 3X jet.
The small engine is the same size as one of the engines if the aircraft was
a twin.  So it meets all the OEI (One Engine Inoperative) requirements by
design (this is what sizes the small engine).
So the big engine is twice that size, hence the name 3X.  2X for the big
engine and 1X for the little one.  A more accurate nomenclature would be
1.5X, since the aircraft is overpowered by 50% according to conventional
twin aircraft standards but i think they thought 3X had more zing....
Yes Virginia, the aircraft is overpowered by 50%, and so the aircraft is
heavier and costlier for it.  It doesn't take a genius to figure out the
advantage claimed by the inventor is not that obvious and requires detailed
analysis.
And the answer is different depending on whether you use creative
accounting or not....