Date: 17 Dec 99 01:57:44 From: Erik Verheijden <firstname.lastname@example.org> Organization: @Home Network References: 1 Followups: 1
View raw article or MIME structure
> > Perversely, a 4 engine aircraft is less likely to get you where you are > going than a 2 engine most of the time. Engine failure is more likely on > a 4 engine aircraft because there are more engines (D10's have to turn > back because of engine failures less often than 747's, even though 747 > engines are more reliable, the problem is the 747 engine needs to be at > least 33% more reliable)... I couldn't agree more. It seems like abusing statistics when stating that a 4 engine a/c has twice the chance of an engine failure that a two engine a/c has. A closer look at statistics tells us that of all recent incidents/accidents to large airliners, the number of engines on the a/c wouldn't have made a difference in a single case. Safety in a/c design is all about statistics. A mishap is allowed every couple of million flight hours. Adding engines (why not use 6 to be on the safe side?) does not affect the rate at which break-ups, fires and decompressions occur. Those statistics involve to many factors to simply improve by adding engines. Erik Verheijden.