|
|
 Up |
|
|
  |
Author: David ZDavid Z Date: Aug 18, 2008 07:02
I've noticed that V Australia are using a 777 on their Sydney to LA route.
Is this such a good idea? I mean, the 777 only has 2 engines, so if
something were to happen to one of them, would the plane be able to fly with
just the 1 engine? Would you really want to risk it on a 15-hour non-stop
flight over the Pacific Ocean? I'd much rather be in a 4 engine jet.
|
| |
|
| | 25 Comments |
|
|
Author: PitsPits Date: Aug 18, 2008 07:13
On Aug 18, 10:02Â pm, "David Z" hotmail.com> wrote:> I've noticed that V Australia are using a 777 on their Sydney to LA route.
> Is this such a good idea? Â I mean, the 777 only has 2 engines, so if
> something were to happen to one of them, would the plane be able to fly with
> just the 1 engine? Â Would you really want to risk it on a 15-hour non-stop
> flight over the Pacific Ocean? Â I'd much rather be in a 4 engine jet.
There is a term called ETOPS
Engines turning or pax swimming enjoy your 747 trip . Others on here
will fill you in on the minutia
|
| |
|
| | no comments |
|
|
Author: David BennettsDavid Bennetts Date: Aug 18, 2008 14:58
> I've noticed that V Australia are using a 777 on their Sydney to LA route.
> Is this such a good idea? I mean, the 777 only has 2 engines, so if
> something were to happen to one of them, would the plane be able to fly
> with just the 1 engine? Would you really want to risk it on a 15-hour
> non-stop flight over the Pacific Ocean? I'd much rather be in a 4 engine
> jet.
The planes can fly with one engine for considerable distances. 777s are a
reliable aircraft and I don't very often hear of engine failure with them.
There are a number of airports on the way across on various islands which
could take a 777 - eg New Zealand, Fiji, Hawaii so you wouldn't have to do 7
hours on one engine in the event of one failing.
Air Canada flies the Pacific using 777s (was 767s until 2 or 3 years ago)
and I can't recall any incidents where engines had to be shut down.
Yes it's your personal preference but I'd rather fly in a newer aircraft
with two engines than an ageing one with four.
Regards
David Bennetts
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: David BennettsDavid Bennetts Date: Aug 18, 2008 15:13
"Pits" gmail.com> wrote in message
news:93c52647-8599-4829-b41d-84067b7f1c46@n33g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
On Aug 18, 10:02 pm, "David Z" hotmail.com> wrote:> I've noticed that V Australia are using a 777 on their Sydney to LA route.
> Is this such a good idea? I mean, the 777 only has 2 engines, so if
> something were to happen to one of them, would the plane be able to fly
> with
> just the 1 engine? Would you really want to risk it on a 15-hour non-stop
> flight over the Pacific Ocean? I'd much rather be in a 4 engine jet.
There is a term called ETOPS
Engines turning or pax swimming enjoy your 747 trip . Others on here
will fill you in on the minutia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ETOPS
ETOPS doesn't specifically refer to over water flights, but distance to
nearest diversionary airport when flying on one engine.
The Federal Aviation Authority gave the 777 an ETOPS rating of 3 hours.
Regards
David Bennetts
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: David LesherDavid Lesher Date: Aug 18, 2008 17:02
"David Bennetts" yahoo.com.au> writes:
>The planes can fly with one engine for considerable distances. 777s are a
>reliable aircraft and I don't very often hear of engine failure with them.
>There are a number of airports on the way across on various islands which
>could take a 777 - eg New Zealand, Fiji, Hawaii so you wouldn't have to do 7
>hours on one engine in the event of one failing.
--
A host is a host from coast to coast.................wb8foz@ nrk.com
& no one will talk to a host that's close........[v].(301) 56-LINUX
Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433
is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: PitsPits Date: Aug 18, 2008 17:36
On Aug 19, 8:02Â am, David Lesher panix.com> wrote:> "David Bennetts" yahoo.com.au> writes:>>The planes can fly with one engine for considerable distances. Â 777s are a
>>reliable aircraft and I don't very often hear of engine failure with them.
>>There are a number of  airports on the way across on various islands which
>>could take a 777 - eg New Zealand, Fiji, Hawaii so you wouldn't have to do 7
>>hours on one engine in the event of one failing.
>
> See < http://gc.kls2.com/> for the real picture....
>
> --
> A host is a host from coast to coast.................wb8...@ nrk.com
> & no one will talk to a host that's close........[v].(301) 56-LINUX
> Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433
> is busy, hung or dead.......................
|
| Show full article (0.88Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Date: Aug 18, 2008 19:28
David Z wrote:
>
> I've noticed that V Australia are using a 777 on their Sydney to LA route.
> Is this such a good idea? I mean, the 777 only has 2 engines, so if
> something were to happen to one of them, would the plane be able to fly with
> just the 1 engine? Would you really want to risk it on a 15-hour non-stop
> flight over the Pacific Ocean? I'd much rather be in a 4 engine jet.
The 777 has had better dispatch (and associated engine reliability) than
the 747 ever did. Boeing is looking at getting the 787 certified for EDTO
330 - 5 1/2 hours - meaning that it essentially has worldwide coverage.
The V Aus fleet is certified for EDTO-180.
If QF had 777s, or the 787, you can bet that they would be using those
aircraft across the pond as opposed to the 747. It's the only way they'll
ever remain competitive with V.
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: David LesherDavid Lesher Date: Aug 18, 2008 23:07
>David thanks for that link -what a handy little application
Indeed. With it you can see that SYN-LAX is not a lot further
than South America...
--
A host is a host from coast to coast.................wb8foz@ nrk.com
& no one will talk to a host that's close........[v].(301) 56-LINUX
Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433
is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
Date: Aug 19, 2008 00:05
David Z wrote:
>I've noticed that V Australia are using a 777 on their Sydney to LA route.
>Is this such a good idea? I mean, the 777 only has 2 engines, so if
>something were to happen to one of them, would the plane be able to fly with
>just the 1 engine? Would you really want to risk it on a 15-hour non-stop
>flight over the Pacific Ocean? I'd much rather be in a 4 engine jet.
Q'aintass has been flying 767s trans-Pacific for years - as has skAir Niu
Zeeland. And twins are now flown everywhere, by every carrier. But
notwithstanding the outstanding reliability of (particularly) Boeing aircraft
and of modern turbo jet engines, after around almost 50 years and 35k hours,
I still share your sentiments vis-Ã -vis a redundancy of engines. Five hours
flying sixteen hundred and fifty Nautical, in a single, theoretically
possible under the "180" Rule, might be fun for a Jim Hazelton or for "the
swimmer," Ray 'Wetback" Clamback -- but no airline company worthy of the name
aught contemplate it for its air crews, its cabin help
-- or its customers.
Eh?
--
The Aviator
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
|
|
|
Author: RTRT Date: Aug 19, 2008 06:23
"GB" threefiddy.com> wrote in message news:00baaeb9$0$20325
> Boeing did a brilliant job with the B777. It's a crying shame that
> they've made such an unmitigated fuck-up of the B787. (Have I
> mentioned before that I'm using the B787 as an example of what not
> to do in one of my classes this semester, and asking my students
> to write an assignment on what Boeing /should/ have done?!!!)
Ok - what have I missed? Wot's wrong with the 787?
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
|
|
