To: dead
I ain't going over any pond with only two engines. Period. I betcha the gas mileage is good though.
8 posted on
02/02/2006 1:44:27 PM PST by
jmq
(Islam=Religion of Peace)
To: jmq
Dang, we lose one more and it'll take us forever to get there! (old punchline)
9 posted on
02/02/2006 1:46:00 PM PST by
SlowBoat407
(The best stuff happens just before the thread snaps.)
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: jmq
"I ain't going over any pond with only two engines. Period. I betcha the gas mileage is good though."
You aint kidding. I've worked with aircraft all my life, and I'll never get on an airplane crossing an ocean with only two engines. If you lose one, you lose 50 percent of your power.
That's Boeing and airline stupidity, period. Lets risk the lives of our passengers to save a few bucks per trip.
41 posted on
02/02/2006 2:23:19 PM PST by
DesScorp
To: jmq
I ain't going over any pond with only two engines. I went to CH via DeGaul on 767 within a few months of the FAA allowing twin engine flights. Must have been around 1985.
IIRC, they had to fly further North to be within X amount of time of land at any given time.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson