Re: 2 Vs 4 engines - CFM56 Engineering Dept Costs

Date:         06 Jan 2000 01:26:19 
From:         "Daniel P. B. Smith" <dpbsmith@bellatlantic.net>
References:   1 2 3
Followups:    1 2 3 4
Next article
View raw article
  or MIME structure

In article <airliners.1999.1283@ohare.Chicago.COM>, James Weber
<mattheww@uswest.net> wrote:

> On 17 Dec 99 01:57:44 , Erik Verheijden <erikv@home.nl> wrote:
> >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.
>
> I would disagree. I think there is a reasonable chance the loss of the
> Lauda Air 767 might have been avoided had it been a 4 engine aircraft,
> however that is probably the only case.

Airbus has been running some ads lately, notably one in The Wall Street
Journal, _strongly, strongly implying_ that four-engine airliners are
safer than two-engine craft.  "When you're flying over water in remote
locations... you really want to be between four engines," or words to
that effect.  Very interesting.  First time I can remember an aircraft
company making a competitive safety claim in an advertisement.  I wonder
if they have any statistics to back it up?

--
Daniel P. B. Smith
current email address: dpbsmith@bellatlantic.net
"Lifetime forwarding address:" dpbsmith@alum.mit.edu