The Old 2 Engine VS 4 Engine Debate, Wait What Not PC-12?

This forum has been developed to discuss aviation related topics.

Moderators: Sulako, lilfssister, North Shore, sky's the limit, sepia, I WAS Birddog

Post Reply
ScudRunner
Rank 11
Rank 11
Posts: 3239
Joined: Tue Jun 08, 2004 11:58 am

The Old 2 Engine VS 4 Engine Debate, Wait What Not PC-12?

Post by ScudRunner »

Twin-Engine Accident 'Bound To Happen'

12:14pm UK, Tuesday June 02, 2009

Mark Stone, Sky News reporter
The aviation industry has extended the range of its two-jet engine airliners so far that an accident was bound to happen, a former British Airways captain has told Sky News.

Captain Eric Moody was speaking after it emerged a packed Air France jet, a twin-engined Airbus 330-200, had disappeared over the Atlantic Ocean.

He said: "They have changed the rules and now they have extended the range that two engine aircraft have to be away from an airfield at which they could land.
"They have stretched it and stretched it. I am afraid to say that at some stage there had to be this sort of incident."
The Airbus A330 is one of a number of different aircraft models with two rather than four jet engines.

Some analysts worry that twin engine jets, which have become the primary workhorses for trans-Atlantic flights, are at greater risk to tragedy than those with four engines.
They argue that aircraft with more than two engines provide a higher margin of safety.
In the event of engine failure in one or two engines, the plane can fly on the remaining ones.


Despite only having two engines, the Airbus A330 is among the most reliable of the Airbus fleet having only suffered two incidents of engine failure in its 11-year history.

It is a medium/long-range aircraft and was developed to compete with the Boeing 767.

There are two versions: the A330-200 and the slightly-longer A330-300.

The A330-200 was launched in 1995 and introduced in 1998.

According to Airbus's website, there are currently 341 in service around the world with a further 557 on order. Along with Air France, the planes are used by airlines including Ethiad, Qantas and KLM.

Only two have ever been lost.

The first, in June 1994, involved a test flight of the plane. An engine failure saw it crash at the Airbus headquarters in Toulouse, killing all seven crew on board.

The other incident, in March 2000, involved a Malaysia Airlines A330-300. The cause was established to be a corrosive liquid leak and not aircraft failure. The plane was written off.

The most remarkable incident involving this aircraft type was on 24th August 2001.

An Air Transat A330-243 completed what is thought to be the world's longest recorded glide over the Atlantic Ocean after a fuel leak resulted in both engines shutting down.

For nearly half an hour the plane glided powerless. It remained airborne for 65 nautical miles before landing in the Azores. There were no injuries.

The plane can carry up to 293 passengers depending on the seat configuration. It has a range of 12,500km.


http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/World- ... _Stretched
---------- ADS -----------
 
GoinNowhereFast
Rank 5
Rank 5
Posts: 372
Joined: Tue Jun 02, 2009 11:35 pm

Re: The Old 2 Engine VS 4 Engine Debate, Wait What Not PC-12?

Post by GoinNowhereFast »

I don't really believe that a 4 engine transport jet is safer than a 2 engine jet. Modern turbofan engines are among the most reliable powerplants available. ETOPS sets the reliability standards of these airplanes.
In almost all cases, when both engines fail it's the result of fuel starvation, and in that case, it doesn't matter if it's a B-52 or a PC12. [flying through a flock of birds isn't very common].

What would happen to a 747, A380 or tri-jets like the 727 if they lost 2 engines? Any help here? I'm no expert, but I doubt a 727 could maintain altitude on 1 engine. Could a 747 in the middle of the Pacific make it to shore on 2 engines with the higher fuel burn and all?

All the regs I've seen involve losing the "most critical engine" at the "most criticle phase of flight", which coveres all mutli engine airplanes. It doesn't say anything about losing 2 engines. The way I understand it, if you loose 2 engines, your pretty much on your on, regardless of how many you started with. All the extras are there for power. Only 1 backup engine is required, eg. "multi-engined aircraft with the most criticle engine failed"

Anybody with time in a 3 or 4 engine airplane know any better?
---------- ADS -----------
 
Sarcasm is the body's natural defense against stupidity
2.5milefinal
Rank 4
Rank 4
Posts: 252
Joined: Sat May 16, 2009 10:39 am

Re: The Old 2 Engine VS 4 Engine Debate, Wait What Not PC-12?

Post by 2.5milefinal »

1,2,3 or 4
It does not mean a thing when the shit hits the fan or you forget how to fly.
I really have my doubts this Air France accident had anything to do with number of engines.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Opinions cant be proven false.
rigpiggy
Rank 10
Rank 10
Posts: 2964
Joined: Sun Jan 16, 2005 7:17 pm
Location: west to east and west again

Re: The Old 2 Engine VS 4 Engine Debate, Wait What Not PC-12?

Post by rigpiggy »

GoinNowhereFast wrote: What would happen to a 747, A380 or tri-jets like the 727 if they lost 2 engines? Any help here? I'm no expert, but I doubt a 727 could maintain altitude on 1 engine. Could a 747 in the middle of the Pacific make it to shore on 2 engines with the higher fuel burn and all?

Anybody with time in a 3 or 4 engine airplane know any better?
The Captain's training on the 27 also had a dual engine failure, push it over to 210 I believe and she would climb out at around 200 fpm. WRT the 47 I can't say, but a dual engine failure should allow a divert.
---------- ADS -----------
 
teacher
Rank 10
Rank 10
Posts: 2450
Joined: Thu Feb 19, 2004 3:25 pm

Re: The Old 2 Engine VS 4 Engine Debate, Wait What Not PC-12?

Post by teacher »

The '27 can maintain flight with only 1 engine running however it depends on weight for the altitude.

As for this accident from what it sounds it was a massive electrical malfunction brought on by something. 4 engines in my opinion would have made little difference.
---------- ADS -----------
 
https://eresonatemedia.com/
https://bambaits.ca/
https://youtube.com/channel/UCWit8N8YCJSvSaiSw5EWWeQ
User avatar
KAG
Rank 11
Rank 11
Posts: 3619
Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2004 11:24 pm

Re: The Old 2 Engine VS 4 Engine Debate, Wait What Not PC-12?

Post by KAG »

Ask a 330/340 pilot which they would rather fly and they all say (MY RP buddies) the 330. Has better preformance loaded then a loaded 340.
I think in this case, the number of engines would have been a moot point.
---------- ADS -----------
 
The feet you step on today might be attached to the ass you're kissing tomorrow.
Chase lifestyle not metal.
rigpiggy
Rank 10
Rank 10
Posts: 2964
Joined: Sun Jan 16, 2005 7:17 pm
Location: west to east and west again

Re: The Old 2 Engine VS 4 Engine Debate, Wait What Not PC-12?

Post by rigpiggy »

that`s because a 330 loses one it is down to 60,000lbs thrust i think. the 340 is only down to 75,000
---------- ADS -----------
 
ScudRunner
Rank 11
Rank 11
Posts: 3239
Joined: Tue Jun 08, 2004 11:58 am

Re: The Old 2 Engine VS 4 Engine Debate, Wait What Not PC-12?

Post by ScudRunner »

I just love the fact that this guy is all over the media hours after the plane's disappearance blaming ETOPS. :roll:

The only reason A340's climb is the Curvature of the Earth and I saw a sticker on a flight bag that said "4 Engines for long haul".
---------- ADS -----------
 
whiteguy
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1059
Joined: Wed Jul 27, 2005 1:33 pm
Location: YYC

Re: The Old 2 Engine VS 4 Engine Debate, Wait What Not PC-12?

Post by whiteguy »

rigpiggy wrote:that`s because a 330 loses one it is down to 60,000lbs thrust i think. the 340 is only down to 75,000
I believe AC A330s are 72,000 lbs each engine.
---------- ADS -----------
 
iflyforpie
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 8132
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 12:25 pm
Location: Winterfell...

Re: The Old 2 Engine VS 4 Engine Debate, Wait What Not PC-12?

Post by iflyforpie »

I flew on a A340 from Honolulu a few years back and I thought we were still taxiing. No, that was the takeoff roll.

Sure the 340 has more thrust than the 330, but it also has more weight. I could never believe that they used practically the same engines on the 340 as the old DC-8-70s, which were a lot lighter.

For engine power on the 727... When I was at Flightcraft, they did a two-engine ferry of a 727, takeoff out of YYC in the summer on tired old JT8D-7s. Empty mind you.


I highly doubt that ETOPS had anything to do with the crash. If Sully was flying a 340, maybe the birds would have got all four engines. BA lost all four when flying through volcanic ash in a 747. Fuel starvation is a great equalizer, so is fire, so is bad weather.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Geez did I say that....? Or just think it....?
rigpiggy
Rank 10
Rank 10
Posts: 2964
Joined: Sun Jan 16, 2005 7:17 pm
Location: west to east and west again

Re: The Old 2 Engine VS 4 Engine Debate, Wait What Not PC-12?

Post by rigpiggy »

Numbers for both, with both turning the 330 has a better power/weight ratio. When OEI the 340 will win.

A330-200 - Choice of two 300.3kN (67,500lb) General Electric CF6-80E1A2s, 286.7kN (64,000lb) Pratt & Whitney PW-4164s, or PW-4168s or 302.5kN (68,000lb) RollsRoyce Trent 768 or Trent 772 turbofans.
A330-200 - Operating empty 120,150kg (264,875lb) with CF6 engines, 120,750kg (266,200lb) with PW4168s, or 120,250kg (265,150lb) with Trents. Max takeoff 230,000-233,000kg (507,050-513,670lb).


Four 138.8kN (31,200lb) CFM International CFM56-5C or 145kN (32,550lb) CFM56-5C3 turbofans.
A340-200 - Operating empty 126,000kg (277,775lb), max takeoff 260,000kg (573,200lb).
---------- ADS -----------
 
tiggermoth
Rank 4
Rank 4
Posts: 220
Joined: Fri May 04, 2007 11:00 pm
Location: little bit west, little bit north

Re: The Old 2 Engine VS 4 Engine Debate, Wait What Not PC-12?

Post by tiggermoth »

I love how many "experts" come popping out of the woodwork when there is an catastrophe like this. And they all have to run to the nearest newspaper to share their "expertise" with the world. Just like the guy who is qouted in some newspaper after the Colgan air crash in Buffalo that he heard the engines sputter like it had carburetor ice, and he is a pilot and has seen carb ice before. Okaay buddy whatever. This gentleman here says 4 engines might have saved AF447. HHmmm, last I check severe thunderstorms don't care how many engines you have.

Sounds to me like he is just bitter because he wanted to fly a 4 engine airplane but got sent to twins instead :)

I hope they can find out the real cause soon for the sake of the families, and so the all the armchair experts will be quieted.
---------- ADS -----------
 
jetmech
Rank 1
Rank 1
Posts: 38
Joined: Fri Nov 11, 2005 8:32 pm

Re: The Old 2 Engine VS 4 Engine Debate, Wait What Not PC-12?

Post by jetmech »

Ahh the 340....the only Airplane with five APU's.
---------- ADS -----------
 
User avatar
Siddley Hawker
Rank 11
Rank 11
Posts: 3353
Joined: Tue Aug 10, 2004 6:56 pm
Location: 50.13N 66.17W

Re: The Old 2 Engine VS 4 Engine Debate, Wait What Not PC-12?

Post by Siddley Hawker »

Sounds to me like he is just bitter because he wanted to fly a 4 engine airplane but got sent to twins instead.
I suggest you google Eric Moody, then come back and explain that remark. :D
---------- ADS -----------
 
GoinNowhereFast
Rank 5
Rank 5
Posts: 372
Joined: Tue Jun 02, 2009 11:35 pm

Re: The Old 2 Engine VS 4 Engine Debate, Wait What Not PC-12?

Post by GoinNowhereFast »

jetmech wrote:Ahh the 340....the only Airplane with five APU's.
God forbid you loose 4 APUs while sitting on the ground, you'll need #5 :D
---------- ADS -----------
 
Sarcasm is the body's natural defense against stupidity
tiggermoth
Rank 4
Rank 4
Posts: 220
Joined: Fri May 04, 2007 11:00 pm
Location: little bit west, little bit north

Re: The Old 2 Engine VS 4 Engine Debate, Wait What Not PC-12?

Post by tiggermoth »

I suggest you google Eric Moody, then come back and explain that remark.
I did just that, and I do take back that remark. Quite a story and kudos to him. Actually I'm glad I did look kim up just to read about that volcanic ash incident.

HOWEVER:

It can still be said: Those extra two engines didn't help him out there did they :lol:
---------- ADS -----------
 
User avatar
Panama Jack
Rank 11
Rank 11
Posts: 3265
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2004 8:10 am
Location: Back here

Re: The Old 2 Engine VS 4 Engine Debate, Wait What Not PC-12?

Post by Panama Jack »

KAG wrote:Ask a 330/340 pilot which they would rather fly and they all say (MY RP buddies) the 330.
Really? At my Company anybody who I every talked to about the topic says they seem to prefer the A340-- not quite as squirly (the "Flying Cadillac"). Guys also prefer the A340 going into Kathmandu for the steep approach profile because it is not as aerodymanically slippery as the A330-- so they are stabilized on the approach earlier than on the A330 which is just a few seconds before touchdown. (Note: I am comparing 340-300's to 330-200's).

Ah yes, the infamous A340 climb rate. Believe me, after spending many years flying Single Engine Cessnas, I have no trouble with the A340 climb rate. And contrary to what .. . seems to think about the climb only being thanks to the Earth's curvature, he is not entirely correct. Sometimes it is also thanks to the suction under our seats. :wink:
---------- ADS -----------
 
“If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. If it stops moving, subsidize it.”
-President Ronald Reagan
Liquid Charlie
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1461
Joined: Thu Oct 25, 2007 7:40 am
Location: YXL
Contact:

Re: The Old 2 Engine VS 4 Engine Debate, Wait What Not PC-12?

Post by Liquid Charlie »

I knew an Old AC captain (long dead now) who retired before he would go on a DC-9 for that reason. :)
---------- ADS -----------
 
Black Air has no Lift - Extra Fuel has no Weight

ACTPA :kriz:
Post Reply

Return to “General Comments”