Malaysian Jet

Quote: Pacomartin

The 707's could do some long distances, but only with reduced payloads. I suspect that they only did east coast to Europe, and west coast to Hawaii to Japan.

At the time the choices were the 707, the DC-8 (virtually a twin) and the short-lived de Havilland Comet. They used turbojet engines, which deliver a great deal of thrust but are rather inefficient. Modern jets use turbofan engines, which mostly use a turbine to push large volumes of compressed air aft, and are much more efficient.

They scale up better, too. That's how come the 767 and 777 can do long haul flights on two engines.

Other gains in range are due to lighter materials, like carbon composites, in some structural parts. Advances in aerodynamics, like the winglets and wing fences used in some models. It all adds up.

Babs, do you know which of these single isle jets are ETOPS rated and able to fly across a wide body of water?

On a seperate note, do you guys feel more save in an aircraft with 4 engines as opposed to 2?

Quote: Tomspur

On a seperate note, do you guys feel more save in an aircraft with 4 engines as opposed to 2?

I'd feel safer with some active telemetry, working oxygen, a parachute and a way to escape if necessary.

Planes can fly with one engine I believe.

Actually, it would be pretty cool if you could hook in (got an app for that?) to your plane's data, just like the pilot is getting.

Quote: rxwine

I'd feel safer with some active telemetry, working oxygen, a parachute and a way to escape if necessary.

Planes can fly with one engine I believe.

Yeah, planes can absolutely fly with one engine only. My question was though, would you feel more safe on a plane that had 4 engines? If one had failed, you still have 3, or if two fail you still have 2. I don't think that I have ever heard of a 4 barreler who lost 3 or more engines at the same time.....

There are some reports now that the co-Pilot either switched on his phone or attempted to make a call just before the plane disappeared from radar.
There is also other reports that the plane "zig zagged like a fighter jet" in order to avoid radar contact......

I have no idea if any of these stories are substantiated or what they would mean for the overall story.

Quote: Tomspur

Babs, do you know which of these single isle jets are ETOPS rated and able to fly across a wide body of water?

On a seperate note, do you guys feel more save in an aircraft with 4 engines as opposed to 2?

I think all of the jets are certified ETOPS-120 which allows travel over the North Atlantic. In a similar manner many versions of 777 are certified to go over 10,000 miles nonstops (even with a full payload).

But there are no flights anymore over 8600 miles, and there are no regular priced single aisle service over the Atlantic (that I know of). Single aisle jets that cross the Atlantic are leases and tiny executive service like JFK to London City Airport. It just isn't cost effective to fly point to point trips with small planes.

Barcelona, for instance, might be able to support single aisle jet service on off season from these three seasonal airports.
Air Canada Rouge Toronto-Pearson (begins 9 May 2014) Seasonal: Montréal-Trudeau (begins 4 June 2014),
American Airlines Miami, New York-JFK
Delta Air Lines New York-JFK Seasonal: Atlanta
United Airlines Newark
US Airways Philadelphia Seasonal: Charlotte (begins 23 May 2014)

I understand, there obviously needs to be more seats sold in order to make the flight profitable.

I was once told that the Economy class ticket sales paid for the flight costs and the business and first class sales were the profit margins. Could it be quantified this easily?

I'm hoping they start putting mid-sized jets from this island in Canada to London. They keep discussing it at least.

Quote: Tomspur

On a seperate note, do you guys feel more save in an aircraft with 4 engines as opposed to 2?

Feel more safe? I refer you to the Gimli Glider incident. Gimli being the small town in Canada where the plane would up and Glider indicating how many of its engines were working at the time.

It depends upon pilot experience involving total loss of power.

None of the engines are a "spare"

In a light twin I feel less at ease than in a heavy single. Assymetric thrust is dangerous and so are in experienced pilots who may be unable to deal with it properly.

Quote: Fleastiff

Feel more safe? I refer you to the Gimli Glider incident. Gimli being the small town in Canada where the plane would up and Glider indicating how many of its engines were working at the time.

It depends upon pilot experience involving total loss of power.

None of the engines are a "spare"

In a light twin I feel less at ease than in a heavy single. Assymetric thrust is dangerous and so are in experienced pilots who may be unable to deal with it properly.

I'm with you Flea, completely but I just wanted to know if our posters have an inherent feeling of "safety" in one aircraft or another? Things can go pearshaped in either version, look at all the catastrophic events involving fire (SAA 295 as an example). It wouldn't have mattered if you had a 100 engines, you were not going to make it.

Still, people feel more or less save in different forms of transportation. Remember, most people don't have the luxury of knowing a lot about aviation and simply knows that, if one or two of the engines die, at least we have 2 or 3 left :)