5 ms·
I'm surprised they used only a twin-engined aircraft for such a long flight.
by nsstring96 7y ago
I'm surprised they used only a twin-engined aircraft for such a long flight.
- aembleton 7y agoA twin engine jet will be lighter.
- FunnyLookinHat 7y agoYou might find this interesting - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ETOPS https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ETOPS - That's part of what's changed the hub-and-spoke model of the past since twin-engine planes can now go much further from an emergency landing.
- goatforce5 7y agoBy playing around with the ETOPS options on Great Circle Mapper you can see the 787 can fly over any part of the Pacific. Aircraft with lower ETOPS ratings would have had to fly non-direct routes to ensure they didn't stray too far from a usable airport. http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?P=jfk-syd&MS=wls&DU=mi&E=330 http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?P=jfk-syd&MS=wls&DU=mi&E=330 Try dropping the ETOPS to 60 minutes and you'll be able to clearly see where the airports are.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- aphextron 7y agoAll long haul commercial aircraft are twin engine now. The 747 is a relic and used almost exclusively for cargo now, and the A380 has ceased production. The game changer was new ultra high bypass engines like the GE90 that made the fuel savings of a twin engine configuration attainable by having sufficient thrust to replace four. Also with increased reliability, ETOPs regulations have allowed for twin engine jets to operate across practically any stretch of water. And with the decentralization of routes, the need for huge 400 passenger planes has gone as well. The future will be entirely twin jet.
- kensai 7y agoThe future will hopefully be electric. The amount of engines might rise again.
- brilee 7y agoA tesla's battery pack is about 1000 pounds. The gasoline that would get a car to travel the same distance weighs about 100 pounds. For long haul, the fuel/battery weight would dominate engine weight, so unfortunately, I don't think planes will be using batteries for a while.
- spaceandshit 7y agoIf commercial aircraft go electric (which as the other commenter pointed out, won’t be happening for a while), the number of engines would be 0. Electric motors are not the same as gas turbine engines.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- derekp7 7y agoI think you mean there would be no internal combustion engine. According to Oxford, an engine is "a machine with moving parts that converts power into motion". So an electric motor is still an engine.
- spaceandshit 7y agoAh, I guess you're right. In the aerospace world, engines typically mean one type of device. I stand corrected :)
- jason0597 7y agoNothing so far electric has come anywhere close to the energy density of kerosene, and given how important it is for planes to be as lightweight as humanly possible, expect kerosene to remain in use for many decades to come. Unless, of course, a revolution occurs in battery technology that makes them more energy dense than kerosene.
- HatchedLake721 7y agoWhat’s the connection between flight duration and number of engines?
- slededit 7y agoReliability (ETOPS regulations), as well as the fact long hauls are usually fewer larger flights meaning they use larger aircraft.
- Arnt 7y agoTwin-engine aircraft have only one working engine if one fails, and there are rules regarding how far they can be from the nearest suitable airport in that case. In practice that means that each type of twin-engine aircraft has a limit: Can only be that far from shore. For aircraft with more reliable engines the limit is higher, so they don't have to pick island-hopping routes when crossing oceans.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]