5 ms·
Looks to me like it has %50 less engines. That will save a lot of fuel but makes it useless for flights over water.
by strangattractor 5y ago
Looks to me like it has %50 less engines. That will save a lot of fuel but makes it useless for flights over water.
- sokoloff 5y agoThe article says "The tri-wing design, with a double tail fin and two engines mounted to the rear". Two-engine airliners are overwhelmingly the most common configuration today, including for ocean crossings. (I can't tell if you're arguing that 2 is 50% less than 4 and implying that 4 is the standard for water-crossing, or if you think it's a single-engine jet.)
- davewritescode 5y agoWe've been flying twin engine planes over oceans for quite a while now. That's been a think since Boeing and Airbus introduced the 787 and the E350 using something called an ETOPS certification. If anything, we'll probably be seeing a lot more twin engine flights over oceans in the future. https://www.popularmechanics.com/flight/a11987/for-transoceanic-flights-are-two-engines-enough-16991135/ https://www.popularmechanics.com/flight/a11987/for-transocea...
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- acchow 5y agoLong before the 787, ETOPS allowed the 767 to cross the Atlantic in the 80s.
- mulmen 5y agoETOPS was created based on A300 experience in the late 1970s. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ETOPS#Early_ETOPS https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ETOPS#Early_ETOPS
- rmk 5y agoI believe ETOPS was developed to help make the 767 a viable twin-engine option for long flights over water (ETOPS-120). That subsequently led to ETOPS-180 etc. Now there's ETOPS-330! ETOPS-N: N number of minutes over open water, roughly, I think.
- PeterWhittaker 5y agoThe article states “engines” but it is hard to see where the second one might be. There are twin intakes on the body below the tail wings, but I don’t see a second exhaust….
- monocasa 5y agoIt looks like the second exhaust is along the central axis of the fuselage.
- compiler-guy 5y agoThe second engine's exahust is straight out the back of the tail.
- ghaff 5y agoI'd wonder how big an engine you can put back there. Designs like the 727 were before turbofans. I'm not aware of any turbofan designs with an engine built into the fuselage. (But that's a pretty fundamental question so I assume it's been looked at.)
- sokoloff 5y agoThe F-22 has fuselage-mounted turbofans (albeit ones with a lower bypass ratio than a typical modern airliner).
- johntb86 5y agoThe Lockheed L-1011 had an engine at the very rear of the fuselage, though bypass ratios were lower when it was built than today.
- ghaff 5y agoThat was my point though. It can be done but to achieve fuel savings, which is the objective, you probably need high bypass engines.
- 5y ago
- meepmorp 5y ago> Its projected range of 10,500 miles, with a top speed of Mach .90 (690.5 mph), is also greater than other jets in its class. Better range than a 787 or A350.
- gimmeThaBeet 5y agoI think the implication there is sort of operational, that flying in open water, when have an engine failure, flying with two engines likely presents more problems. Not really my discipline. I don't know how long a twin engine plane is expected to be able to fly on one engine, or under what sort of envelope.
- meepmorp 5y agoIt's also a twin engine aircraft.
- gimmeThaBeet 5y agoI assumed the implication of the OC was that 4 engines was the undisputed standard for long flights over open water, which would be kind of true until like, the early 80s.