To: jmq
I ain't going over any pond with only two engines. Period. I betcha the gas mileage is good though. According to engineers - more engines means more probablity something will go wrong with an engine. But saying it in my head and sitting in said plane are 2 different things :)
13 posted on
02/02/2006 1:49:45 PM PST by
Godwinson
("The desire to rule is the mother of heresies." -- St. John Chrysostom)
To: Godwinson; jmq
I've flown across both the Atlantic and the Pacific on 777s. Lots of airlines do it all the time. What's the BFD?
16 posted on
02/02/2006 1:51:52 PM PST by
ArrogantBustard
(Western Civilisation is aborting, buggering, and contracepting itself out of existence.)
To: Godwinson
I ain't going over any pond with only two engines. Period It can fly on just one. And those engines will eat nearly anything without stopping.
Water? Birds? Ice? No problem! It's a very, very reliable power plant.
30 posted on
02/02/2006 2:04:39 PM PST by
TChris
("Unless you act, you're going to lose your world." - Mark Steyn)
To: Godwinson
According to engineers - more engines means more probability something will go wrong with an engine. That sounds like the statistician that, after learning the astronomical odds of having two bombs on board an aircraft, made sure to pack a bomb in his carry on luggage.
33 posted on
02/02/2006 2:10:57 PM PST by
Yo-Yo
To: Godwinson; jmq
According to engineers - more engines means more probablity something will go wrong with an engine.The let's pass laws prohibiting planes from having any engines. Then flying will be completely safe.
That being said, I've crossed the Atlantic on planes with 2, 3 and 4 engines. (707, DC-8, 747, A-340; L-1011; 767, 777.) Anything that's going to cause 2 engines to fail is probably going to cause all of the engines to fail.
56 posted on
02/02/2006 3:23:53 PM PST by
PAR35
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson