Phantom Flyer

You are absolutely correct. The discussion of "two engines vs. three" is very valid; however, one must narrow the parameters somewhat. If one takes the broad scope of "aircraft" the discussion runs the gamut from corporate aircraft up to wide body transport category aircraft. The Falcon 7X, for example, with three engines/two pilots is economical as a corporate jet and very functional, yet the three engine/two pilot wide body is not economical because of crew costing primarily. The MD-11, for example, did not meet performance requirements and promised fuel burn figures and was never purchased or used in significant quantity by the majors. Crew costs were an advantage; however, the overall economics were not and it went by the wayside as did the DC-10 and L-1011, which economics drove to the desert.

The international commercial market has always been served by four engine aircraft for a variety of reasons. At the size and weight of a B-747-400, A-340, 380, one has to design and build a four engine aircraft for the design loads and performance requirements. Also, as mentioned, a four engine aircraft deletes the ETOPS requirements, which are significant ! Incidentally, we are up to 207 minute ETOPS in the Pacific. In the north Atlantic theater, 180 minute ETOPS is all that's required.

In working with a client who wanted to buy two B-777's for an international corporate operation, once one examined all of the parameters, the B-747-400 won out hands down for the reasons stated above.

This is a good, valid discussion. Let's just narrow down the discussion parameters and enlighten ourselves.

G'Day Mates