4 ms·
Except this ignores that the motivation was not increased safety but money. It does seem true that twin-engine planes can be quite safe but if Boeing/Airbus wer
by sajomojo 7y ago
Except this ignores that the motivation was not increased safety but money. It does seem true that twin-engine planes can be quite safe but if Boeing/Airbus were motivated to create the safest possible plane, it would probably have four engines.
I doubt the US President will be flying on a twin-engine plane any time soon. They'll choose the safest (American made) option. Probably an updated 747 model, no?
- DuskStar 7y agoAnd my point was that motivation is irrelevant, and I would find it quite plausible that a two engined airliner would be safer than a four engined jet. Two fewer things to explode, after all. The president flies a 747 for size and prestige more than safety. Safest option would be to recommission an Iowa and use it as an armed ocean liner or something and skip planes entirely. Or just to stay home.
- Piskvorrr 7y agoIf we're talking about a command center, "stay at home" is not safe at all. Even Google Maps knows the coordinates and elevation for 2600 Pennsylvania Avenue (or Cheyenne Mountain, or Area 51, or whatever). Hence, Air Force One.
- furgooswft13 7y agoPresidents often fly on a 757 when the destination airport cannot accommodate the larger 747 [1]. They also fly on Marine One (helicopter) which is probably less safe overall than any modern airliner. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_C-32 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_C-32