pittmike wrote:
NWsider4-3-3 wrote:
Franky T wrote:
Last one ever to be made rolled off the assembly line today. Built in the same hanger where the 747 was first produced in 1967. I guess I would have thought airplane manufacturing would have evolved more in 55 years.
too many engines. current rolls-royce engines on a twin engine 787 produce nearly as much pound force as 4 pratt & whitney engines on a 747. 2 engines burn less fuel than 4 engines, the jet fuel (current prices $2.90-$3.00/gal) savings is a big deal for airlines.
For sure. I thought however they would have upgraded engines etc over 50 years. Also whether cargo or people the 747 carried twice as much.
Personally I never wanted to trust a two engine plane flying transoceanic.
747s flying with rolls-royce engines - not the same rolls-royce 787 engines, but, it's still 4 engines burning fuel. airbus manufactured a wide-body double-decker with 4 engines. not sure of the configuration for the operators, but they must have plenty and sell a lot of premium/first-class seats and flying routes with heavy freight. airbus stopped manufacturing that model and i'm guessing it's the 4 engine x 2 engine issue and the need for a larger flight crew. british flies that double-decker airbus (a-380) to chicago everyday.
etops started the trend away from 4 engines over an ocean...shortened the life of 3 engine dc-10s and md-11s. even with etops certification, many usa-europe/europe-usa routes still fly north then east/west near greenland and iceland. the further north you are, east and west distances are decreased.
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
