5 ms·

I think it should be obvious that I am responding to the claim "they could go faster with a single larger engine." no-one is arguing against redundancy (in whic

• deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
• chrisseaton 6y ago
  If they needed to go faster, they could do that with a single larger engine if they wanted to (which they may have to develop.) But they don't, because they're limited as you've explained. > no-one is arguing against redundancy Sn0wCoder said they reason they had two engines was to go faster and not redundancy, and m00dy thinks they can't fly without two engines.
  • mannykannot 6y ago
    Point taken that some people had mistaken ideas about twin-engine airplanes, but those mistakes are most straightforwardly resolved by the redundancy consideration alone, which dominates other issues. > If they needed to go faster, they could do that with a single larger engine if they wanted to (which they may have to develop.) Plus a significantly different airframe and perhaps engine intakes to deal with the transonic issue that I also mentioned. It is an idea that bubbles up perennially [1], but so far, the economics have ensured that it doesn't go much beyond the concept stage. This has become rather silly, but it seques into a related issue: It seems to me that fan-blade failure incidents (or at least uncontained fan-blade failure incidents) have increased in frequency in the last few years. If so, maybe this is a sign that we are already pushing a bit too hard on the limits of current technology? [1] https://www.boeing.com/features/2019/01/spreading-our-wings-01-19.page https://www.boeing.com/features/2019/01/spreading-our-wings-...