Originally Posted by
QuietSpike
I will take the pepsi challenge on runway numbers with a 550 and a 7x...
Losing only 1/3 of the power on a 3 engine plane and 1/2 the power on a 2 engine plane is not accurate. 2 engine aircraft have much more power out of each engine, thus the need for only 2. I think you'd be surprised to see actual numbers with your statement!
Falcon 7x engine makes 6100 lbs thrust x3= 18300... x2=12200. G550 engines make 15385 each, x2=30,770. Single engine, the 550 makes more than the 7x (bigger plane, but you see the difference is about nil). Dont buy into falcon's "3 engines are safer" BS that they have been trying for years! They make a great plane, dont get me wrong! However they used to raz gulfstreams by saying "winglets are a product of poor aerodynamic design"... Now all new falcons have winglets
The 550 wing is *incredibly* efficient. Able to cruise up to .89, with a normal cruise of .85 (everyday), and a typical ref speed in the very low 100's-- all with no leading edge devices. The less moving parts, the less ****** breaks!
-spike
While I agree with you that the "safety of three" can be bogus, depening on the airplane comparison, I can't follow your logic on amount of thrust lost in the event of an engine failure. On a three engine airplane if you lose one engine you have indeed lost one third of your thrust and on a two engine plane if you lose an engine you have lost one half of your thrust.
The question is how much PERFORMANCE has been lost by the engine failure! In your example I would agree that the GV would have the better engine out performance by far.
Although I have no data, I'm not so sure with other comparisons. B-727 vs DC-9 engine out performance comes to mind.
CG