Why Did Tri-Jet Passenger Planes Not Become Popular?
Вставка
- Опубліковано 6 лип 2020
- In the 1970s, 80s, and 90s tri-jet passenger planes were a core part of many commercial airline fleets. Aircraft like the McDonnell Douglas DC-10 and MD-11 had their role as high-capacity, long-haul jets for airlines like American Airlines, Swissair, Garuda Indonesia, and more. But while twin-jets, and to a lesser extent quad-jets, have been updated and re-released as newer versions over the last few decades, why are tri-jets no longer in-production? Let’s find out.
Article link: simpleflying.com/tri-jet-pass...
Video source links:
L-1011 Tristar • Cuts of the Ceremony f...
Dc-10 FedEx • FedEx MD-10-30 (DC-10)...
A300 Historical Doc • A300 Birth of a Saga E...
A300 historical doc • A300 Birth of a Saga E...
767-400 Boeing • Boeing 767-400 Promoti...
777 customers • Boeing 777 Team: Flow...
Pan Am's Ad 747 (Commercial, 1969, color) • Pan Am's Brand New 747...
Pan Am • Pan AM Clipper Magic w...
Website: simpleflying.com/
Instagram: / simpleflyingnews
Twitter: / simple_flying
#Aviation #Flight #Avgeek
The pilot had to warn his passengers that one of the four engines had failed. He calmed passengers by saying it was perfectly safe on 3 engines but they'd just be a little slower and thus delayed. Then a second engine failed. Same calming message and an announcement of a further delay as two engines were just going to be slower. When the third engine failed a male passenger turned to his wife and shrieked, "crap, if that last engine fails we'll be up here all night".
Anthony Morris - old joke, poorly told.
@@markfox1545 Limited space. You sound like you'd be real fun at a party.
Anthony Morris 🤣
Don't worry, with 4 engines failed, the pilots have the rest of their lives, to think about a solution.....
Guust ... Buy a man a plane ticket and he flies for a few hours. Push a man out of a flying plane with no parachute and he flies for the rest of his life.
ETOPS stands for 'engines turn or passengers swim' lol
wendover productions haha
learnt that from wikipedia
nah man it stands for eat the other people’s skin
@@staycgirlsitsgoingdown2 Nice
@@zayedibrahim why you always trying to one up him
A big problem is that the third engine is totally unique and much harder to access than an under-wing engine. An under-wing engine is totally exposed for maintainance and relatively easy to swap out, either for an engine of the same type or even a drop-in replacement engine. Having an engine incorporated into the tail with ducts is a nightmare for maintainance.
Yes, access is more difficult. But the core is the same as the other engine.
@@greentriumph1643 but it needs a custom housing which is much more complicated. And it no doubt complicates the design of the core to allow it to mount in either location. I wouldn't be surprised if a wing engine core has slight differences from a tail engine core.
@@ERPP8 A jet engine 'core' is the hot section. Enormous engineering and design involved. It is the same as the rest of the engines. It is not 'totally unique'.
@@greentriumph1643 it's incredibly difficult to make such a complex piece of machinery work in two different environments. Even if they are identical, it makes for a harder to design core.
@@ERPP8 Environments are the same. The air temperatures and pressures are the same for tail and wing.
The L1011 Tristar, the most elegant airliner ever to take to the skies.
I always enjoy that beauty on NASA stream everytime Orbital ATK launch the Pegasus rocket. Too bad there will be no more launches in the future :(
It was a commercial failure for Lockheed, but it was technically very advanced for the time, it could even land by itself (remarkably, it is a aircraft from the 70s).
@@simonm1447 It was not as successful as Lockheed hoped because of the bankruptcy of Rolls-Royce. And no other engine could replace the particular Rolls-Royce engine developed for the L-1011. The DC-10 turned out to be a dangerous aircraft, because it was rushed to market.
@@simonm1447 so it's a first aircraft with ILS and APPR?
@@frothe42 yes, the DC-10 was dangerous at the beginning, and technically inferior to the Tristar.
Simple Answer: They aren't efficient and increase operational costs
@ungratefulmetalpansy brain size mega
ungratefulmetalpansy big brain
@ungratefulmetalpansy what if we replace the engine gears with even more engines
@ungratefulmetalpansy fractal engine design!
@@cabbagememes2852 Yeah, this is big brain time..
The L1011was a big favorite of passengers and delta The most advanced aircraft in that decade
Especially when placed alongside a DC-10, it was well ahead of its time
But it was A300 being the game changer, and probably the only lasting widebody of its size in that era.
I loved flying Delta’s L1011s from Atlanta to London Gatwick back in the 1990s. Very advanced and comfortable aircraft.
The awful DC-10, on the other hand, was an aircraft I actively avoided after only a couple of flights in it. The hard-edged WHINE of its awful engines was ANNOYING beyond belief!
I flew on Delta L1011’s frequently from Atlanta to Orlando in the 1990s, working on computers (HP-UX 9.04, I miss you). Roomy, classy service, food on board, flying was fun. No internet, so you had 90 minutes to yourself.
? ? Not quite true, sold the least. Wasn't the most advanced. But had the best safety record.DC-10 had only 2nd best safety record. Believe it or not the wide body with the worst safety record sold the best and was considered by some to be the favorite. Politics can play an important part. Please do not consider bad or good press to be a deciding factor. Cuz politics instead of facts will win out. Like POTUS populous preference isn't obvously always the better.
it still is surprising to me how dassault manages to make their tri jets much more fuel efficient than their competitors twin jets...
I agree bro
Simple, because the twin engined widebodies were more economical to operate. But for comfort and space, the early DC-10s and L-1011s were Heaven for passengers. So glad I got to experience them
Unfortunately they are a thing of the past, just like the flight engineer
I don't think so. Look how the manufacturers try so desperately to stuff the most enormous engines under their jets' wings. As the Boeing 737-MAX showed, this logic is reaching its limits. They'll soon have to get back to tri and quad jets in order to keep some ground clearance. Also, passenger prefer tri and quad jets not only for security, but also because these airliners often offer more cabin space, look much more impressive and are much quieter in flight (since half of the power is far from the cabin), especially the A340s and A380s.
@@julosx The 737Max issue was that it sits too low to the ground, the Airbus similar to the Max is higher off the ground and they don't have the same issue with bigger engines like the Super Max. Boeing should have designed the 737 to sit higher off the ground like the Airbus, that way they could have hung the larger engine correctly and have no need for the special software modifications.
@@julosx Here's the thing.. Trijets doesn't bring more cabin space for airlines, rather it's the opposite because the third engine takes up space in the rear of the plane, plus the rear seats will also get a lot of engine noise (not great for passenger).
Trijet setup also makes engine maintenance & upgrade quite a headache (the rear engine specifically)
And the navigator.
Yes, and the iconic 747, for which Boeing will cease production, once the current orders are done. But this is the technological progress, which allows for transcontinental passenger planes with only two engines. And now, I never felt less safe in a 767 or any other twin-engine plane. As for most parts, the safety of modern aircrafts is way better than 50 years ago, when tri-engines were developed (MAX is the exception, but this was clearly a decision profits over security and not only by Boeing, also by its customers...)
One simple thing is that the tri-jet died when companies (like GE) found ways to make more powerful engines but conserve even more fuel. So it's more that jet engines today are way more fuel efficient and can generate the same or more power than jet engines of 20-30 years ago.
All these engines even modern breaks often like re trent and gc9
Honestly i love watching dc10s and md11s flying roaming the sky
Is ok go to ups and ask them to see thier md 11 and ask if u can fly on them
A350: Whatever you do, I can do better
A340: Try this, hotshot.
A350: What?
A340: I just shut down two engines kid
Edit: wow more than a 100 likes for this!
Edit: thanks for 200+ likes!
Actually, there won’t be enough power for an A340, if it’s only flying with two engine. Yes, it still has power, just not enough.
@@airforce66 not enough power to remain airborne? I think you might recheck your info.
Frank Bama
Yes, I’m Sure. It does not have enough power to fly with two engines.
1. The engines of the A340 all together generate 15% More power than the A330, but the plane is 20% Larger!
2. Believe it or not, the A330 was reported to lack in thrust (source: Skyships Eng). As the result, Airbus added 2 extra engines on their slightly larger A340, And added the powerful RR T7000 On Their A330neo. A single engine of the A330 generates 72,000 lbs of thrust but a single A340 engine only generates 56,000 lbs. If they were to lose 2 engines, the aircraft would be significantly less powerful than the A330! (and the plane is 20% larger too!)
3. McDonell Douglas suggested Airbus that the trijet concept is more promising. Meaning that the A340 COULD work with 3 engines, but not two.
4. I’ve been on a flight simulation (virtually/just 4 fun) back when I was living in the UAE. I switched of two engines off the A340-600 when climbing to FL250. The plane immediately lost speed and stalled. I tried to recover by putting full throttle, but it only slows down the deceleration. Less than four minutes later, the plane hit the ground hard.
So, yeah, it can’t fly with 2 engines.
@@airforce66 for 4, did you try to pitch down to gain speed? It Should be possible to fly only with two engines with the correct procedures. (IMO)
@@airforce66 should be enough power to land at nearest airport, but got to check my facts.
Yes. I love trijets. The most I like the TriStar L-1011
Your production quality is excellent. I really enjoy your videos. Informative and to the point. Keep it up.
Thanks for the feedback. - TB
Next to the 747, I believe that the L-1011 was one of the most beautiful aircraft built. And I loved flying on it.
Never got to fly in the L1011... pity. But did fly on a 747 once.
The L-1011 is IMO, the greatest passenger airliner ever built!
If it wasn't for the delay of the RB211 development by Rolls Royce, which was and still is an incredible design, the fate of this aircraft would have been much different.
TriStar Forever!
I think the tri-jets still had a place in aviation even with the twin-engine doing medium range work. I for one would travel on a tri-jet if they were still being used, not overly wrapped with those giants they just don't appeal.
How doesn't this channel have at least 1 million subs ?? :(
Love your content guys
I still miss the Lockheed Tristar L1011.... I loved flying on that plane.
I loved the MD11. It is a beautiful aircraft and as a pilot myself flying the beauty I feel it was done wrong.
"Why Did Tri-Jet Passenger Planes Not Become Popular?
"
Eh? There were just over 5000 commercial airliner trijets built until production of the TU-154 stopped in 2013. I'd say they were pretty popular.
Yeah, video title should be changed
I think they meant popular right now, but it is still quite ambiguous
Right now? Because twins became efficient and better suited.
The DC-10 was an amazing aircraft to fly on.
„Are we missing anything?“
Yes! We do! We miss this beautiful aircrafts like the L1011 or the MD11! These beautys are gone and will never come back 😨😔
MD-11 still used for cargo
because they were "tri" hards. hahah get it
Bruh these puns are getting out of hand
😂😂
No pun intended they were!
Y is your channel called “UA-cam” 😅😂
@@Yolo-hy9rg lol why not?
Hy, I've flown both types of aircraft. The only thing for me is
if one engine is lost at least there's 2 more to give me some
kind of piece of mind....
Except thos were such a mess that engine failures were much more common
#MD-11Gang
I am a true DC-10 lover.... but sadly, my answer is that, Yes, they are a thing of the past.
Tri jet might be coming back as electric 3rd engine
L1011 and Dc10 and md11 are beautiful jets.
The McDonnell Douglas MD-11 could've been very successful aircraft actually and may have quiet well eclipsed that of the A340 series. The reason being with so many carriers world-wide operating various DC-10s. The issue however was McDonnell Douglas lacking any form of innovation and didn't bother adding a new wing to the aircraft and other refinements to make it more aerodynamically efficient. In addition Pratt and Whitney and General Electric didn't help much either as their engines intially burned more fuel than expected. Of course ETOPS came around and that hampered sales even more...
If the performance in 1995 and 96 had been there in the initial 1991 deliveries, I think more MD-11’s would have been built.
My first flight was in a DC10, then the L10-11 Tristar. Both Gatwick to LA. Used the 727 a lot within the States while I was there. 1980/81.
“Do tri-jets still have a place in modern aviation?” If only there were value to beauty in aviation, and not just cost efficiency. I live not to far from PTI, and although rare, it’s always a thrill for me to see a FedEx MD-10 or MD-11 rotate off the tarmac. Also, the presidential VC-25s will do touch-and-gos down here on occasion, usually with a KC-10 refueler. It will be sad to see them go. The price of technological advancement, I suppose.
"tarmac"... theres no physical part called a tarmac, there is the Apron, the Taxiways, and the Runways.
beauty is not important, twin engines have a lot of advantages over the tri-jets, of course cost efficiency is important, but also and more important is less co2, alone from reducing weight is a quite big win.
@@carterrissmiller2510 the tarmac is the only part of an airport news reporters think exist.
TriStar forever!!!
The L-1011 was the best and most beautiful of them all, it was ahead to its time! Tri-jets have it tough to get into the markets today because of economy savings, although you have a point in terms of safety with that extra engine, and that could be a good reason to return. Technology would have to catch up to bring them back to the game with competitive efficency.
Considering multiple cargo airlines operate the MD-11 they clearly still have a place in modern aviation
I loved the 727-200. Ansett Airlines had those and my mum was an aircraft cleaner so I often got to go to work with her. I also got to fly in them and they were a really nice aircraft. Was sad to see them go....
Well it sucks to say that FedEx is retiring their remaining DC-10s sometime next year. But I love to see them (DC-10s & MD-11s) still flying as cargo aircraft.
I’ve always loved a tri jet
I flew on an MD11 (or DC10) once. There is a design quirk/flaw with the plane. I'm not sure if all tri-jets suffer from this but the MD11 or DC10 did. On takeoff, all three engines would be going well, but once the plane rotates (nose pitches up for taking off) the tail engine would get spoiled air and become starved for it because the air at this point in the take off will be flowing around the fuselage instead of directly into the engine. And sometimes the engine will stall. So essentially you have a three engine plane trying to take off with just the two wing engines.
Pilot on the flight I was on explained this to the cabin when it happened on our flight. I didn't even notice it when it happened but suddenly realized that maybe the cool looking tri-jet wasn't all that it's cracked up to be.
@T38 Talon Just reporting what the pilot said.
I flew on a Trident a couple of times and simply loved it. I have no specific reason, but I seem to remember it feeling more spacious, and the internal environment (sound, smell, and head space) left one feeling less like you had been stuffed into a tube. As an engineer I am always wary of the 'hunt for efficiency and reliability', not because it is not a good idea, nor a really great driver of engineering innovation, but rather because management, and accountants have different attitudes to the topic and tend to ask for 'what is not really there yet'. Boeing may in fact be the best current example of this management attitude - with its associated costs to human life and profits.
I so much enjoyed (as a kid) flying on Laker's DC-10 ! They gave away games for teens and the staff was modern and appreciative of families. I was not so fond of the single aisle 727 that felt cramped.
I must have flown in a 727 dozens of times. It was very popular in Brazil
0:27 illustrates Trident tri-jet with a four-engined version :P
Tell me how you spotted this( yes I have a little phone)?
A little booster engine for takeoff. The 3 main engines were used in flight, while the little booster was shut off
@@deweywatts8456 Helps that I already knew that four-engined versions of the Trident existed.
@@sylviaelse5086 Cool!
Certainly would love to see a modern trijet
Was the md 11 the first with spilt scrims?
Yes I believe Tri-Jets do still have a place on aviation today, as Freighters like the DC-10F for UPS and Fed-Ex
These trijets should be in modern aviation.
I've always liked Tri-Jets. So distinctive and elegant (I find the tail engine elegant somehow, especially in the DC-10 and the MD-11 😅). It's kind of a shame we don't see them in passenger service anymore
Yes ofcourse the trijets are definitely useful and it gives passengers a peace of mind, very useful information😎
I agree with all below on the L-1011. The most beautiful of aircraft. Sure, let's see a revival in trijets
Soon we'll be going from 2 to 1 engines
lol
Then if the trend continues.... 0
where would it go
@@gavinguy148 And then -1
@@fahmirblx it does not make sense
0:12 I see you didn't do the L1011
Love from BANGLADESH 🇧🇩
it's funny how they say twinjets are more fuel efficient than trijets and with ETOPS gone there was no need for trijets anymore, but look at the ole 747 quadjet thought up in the 70s still in operation today. And the A340 was also doing its thing in the 90s and 00s. So the idea that 3 jets are more efficient than 4 wasnt the real reason.
Not popular? Well they certainly were at one time! Especially 727s and DC-10s! To a lesser extent, the L1011!
In 1988, I rode on a DC-10 from Baltimore to London!
Md-11 and md-10 are punching the air right now
Imagine if Boeing revive the md11 program and made a Modern version of the aircraft , but shorter and more efficent and the wings like the Boeing 777x and made this version the new middle market , btw great content on this channel , keep it up man
If only they did...
That's sound great and more as a new middle market 👍 #boeing , revive this amazing plane please! Imagine a "BMD11x" they are a lot of letters , but you what I'm talking about 😉
2 GE90-115s are more powerful than the 3 engines on MD 11 combined. Meanwhile fitting large engines at the tail could be prohibitively complicated, but modern engines essentially gain efficiency by making size and therefore bypass ratio larger.
I grew up on the flight path of Manchester Airport. I was lucky enough to see concord fly over my house on many occasions and the odd Guppy and other random aircraft. I'd lie in bed watching planes fly past my window at night and in the morning. I realised recently that I really miss seeing tri-jet planes. It's a funny thing really but I do miss them.
I do love me some L-1011, and I run the Facebook group devoted to it's little brother, the only 4-engined bizjet: the L-1329. :-)
I love the aesthetics of the trijet design.
Where is the footage from for the 48 second to 1 minute from with the VC10? Looks like it's from a film
Lockheed L-1011: did you actually forgotten about me?
1:51 oh never mind.
I am still hoping that someone rich would ever create an airline with fleet consisting of iconic models. Not talking necessarily about the Concorde, but about the trijets, A380, 747,...
I think I would travel anywhere for the chance of flying with one of those planes... They are vanishing fast... And it is indeed super sad...
A well produced video and good summary. Trans-oceanic air travel started with flying boats which had the contingency of landing at sea in extremis. Post WWII the landscape had changed with land planes that could easily fly oceanic routes. But these were the big piston engined types and reliability just wasn't good enough for public transport in twins. That is why the 4 engine rule was introduced in the first place.
The first generation of commercial turbine engines were more reliable, but they were stuck with the 4 engine rule and later the 3 engine rule. These days, the shutdown rate of the modern turbine is 60 times better than those old piston engines. And that's per flight hour so it is actually about 120 times better in terms of air miles due to the jets cruising at double the speed.
Despite this outstanding improvement in reliability, the regulations that govern remote and oceanic operations have become more stringent in every way except number of engines. The aircraft comes certified for a specified diversion time (regardles of how many engines it has) but a lot of other factors come into play before an airline can fly a route. For instance, is there enough accommodation for the passengers carried available in the vicinity of the diversion? Does the airport have the requisite firefighting capacity for the size of aircraft? There is a documentary series called "21st Century Jet" about the development of the 777 that explores those issues as the commercial success of that big twin really depended on them getting approval for diversion times beyond 3hrs.
Thanks for the feedback! - TB
Used to see a ton of these and 747s at KPDX, not so much anymore
I don’t feel safer on quad jets but I just like them because they are different and stand out. The A380 is so big and the 747 is iconic for its hump and nostalgia. The DC-10 and L-1011 just look stunning.
3:44 Those people again: Oh no I forgot to fasten my seat belt, now the plane will fall down.
Ikr, people who have an irrational fear of flying are annoying. Planes are much safer than cars and people still have a fear of flying.
For their time these aircraft (and the B747 for that matter) were very efficient and reduced the cost of air travel.
It wasn't just ETOPS, it was what engines were available. High Bypass turbofans were new technology, and there weren't many types around.
The sheer size of the widebody airliners largely dictated their engine choice. Three engines of existing types gave the thrust requirements.
Commercial passenger aircraft have to be able to complete a take-off with an engine failure, with a twin engined plane that means 1 engine, with a 3 engine plane, that's 2 engines.
It's much easier (particularly at the time) to achieve your thrust requirements with 2 engines than with 1, especially when you're that big!
The overall reliability of 60's/70's powerplants was less than it is now.
The RAF certainly liked the TriStar - they flew them through many crucial operations in the late-20th and into the 21st century as strategic transport aircraft and air tankers, all the way up to 2011! Now most of them are holed up at Bruntingthorpe, having received a buyer in the states who plans to use them as private air tankers a-la Omni Air International, though I haven’t heard much about what they intend to do with them following the initial announcements.
In my humble opinion, the L1011 Tristar was the best Tri engine plane ever built. It was safe, gave pilots the perfect flying environment, and was fun to fly in.
Enjoyed flying in the L-1011, nice space in the rear to stand up and stretch legs on trans-Atlantic flight, flew a many trip between Frankfurt Germany and the USA. The new A-330 and Boeing’s fell more like flying cans.
I read an article speculating that hybrid turboprop and turbofan tri engines were being developed, or at least researched. The idea being that smaller regional jets would sustain flight with the single tail turbofan and the turboprops would be used to climb and take off. For carbon emission reduction, these hybrids were also speculated to fly slower than current A320s and 737s for greater efficiency. The turboprops also favor some form of electrification better than turbofans.
I never flew in a more comfortable and spacious jet than the L1011 Tri-Star! Always felt safer on a plane with 3+ engines, too! Not nearly as much "peace-of-mind" crossing oceans with only 2 engines. A terrible, terrible shame the 3+ engine passenger jet is disappearing from the skies forever! 😥
Most people don’t know that commercial a/c have to be able to continue to take off, climb and land in the event of an engine failure after V1 irrespectively of how many engines they have, as a result twin engined a/c under normal take off conditions have more power than a triple or quad engined a/c and are therefore safer under normal circumstances. I cannot recall any crash where a second engine failure on a twin engine a/c has caused a crash unless the pilots shut down the wrong engine. Eg British Midland B737-400 crash at Luton airport. Assuming engine failures rates are the same the chances of an engine failure during take off are twice as high on a quad engine a/c than on a twin a/c. In these circumstances it is easy to see why operators like the improved economics of twin engined a/c.
My most favorite movie with a Trijet is "Passenger 57"
The B727 wasn't really an ETOPS jet, it was designed for short-mid haul routes. The third engine made the 727 far more popular than its sister ship, the B737 and the DC-9 because its density altitude performance was superior. It was a great performer for flying in and out of high and hot airports. The continued success of the Dassault Falcon trijets shows that there's still a need for that added performance. I can think of a number of airports where losing a single engine of a 2-engine plane would be fatal. Not surprisingly you see a lot of the French 3-holers at those airports.
Good to know 👍
Great video, I also wondered why we don’t have any high tail aircraft anymore like the MD82 and the BAC1-11, does anyone have an answer ?
Thanks for the feedback. - TB
T-tails have potential problems in a deep stall recovery situation. www.skybrary.aero/index.php/File:Deep_Stall.png In a nose up attitude the wake of the main wings can disrupt the airflow over the elevators on the T tail, reducing or killing its effectiveness when it's most needed.
Loved Tri-Star.
Trijets had a reputation for being quieter, but I presume modern twinjets are also quieter than 40 year old technology. Some of the new designs for smaller supersonic jets suggest an interest in three engined planes again. Bearing in mind that trijets have had a long and successful career in air cargo and military uses, perhaps there might still be a functional advantage to such a configuration for very heavy loading.
There was something rather pleasing about the look of trijets; the Lockheed Tristar especialy, imo, but pleasing exterior design is not the primary feature when designing practical and economic planes. If the things were cheap, fast and safe, they could look like flying bricks, I'd guess.
There is also the issue of being tail heavy, thus had higher stall speeds so approaches and landings had to be fast.
I do miss the ol’ md11. Although most ordinary passengers don’t know what they’re plane looks like since they don’t care about the type and can often see too little of the aircraft whilst boarding, so it’s hard to make a call on whether the third engine brings about extra reassurance. The only way that trijets would have a place in today’s aviation world is if they offered range and efficiency like the 777 which is unrealistic so...
Think what you will but the 4 engine 747 has the best safety record out there.
I’ve flown on one and there’s simply nothing else like it. I don’t care if I have to pay more.
They’re comfortable, roomy, quiet and in my opinion the best long range cruiser ever built.
Tupolev Tu-154, Yak-42: Are we a joke to you?
They're all Russian planes this one talk about Western airplanes that are trijets
What were the tri-jets like to fly as a pilot? To me from an engineering perspective it seems that the rear engine in the tail is in a very good location to be able to offer stability to the aircraft, and also allows the weight of the plane and cargo to be more evenly balanced between all three engines.
Aircraft Mechanic here, do you know how difficult and how much extra-time it takes to perform Maintenance on an engine that's not easily accessible by ground? We're glad tri-engines have faded out of popularity lol.
Definitely bring back the Tri-Jet.
Does anyone know the name of the Soundtracks ?
Conventional airplanes are always tail heavy because of all the metal required for the vertical and horizontal stabilizers. Throwing on a third engine in the back just makes the problem worse. That's why on a DC-10 or MD-11 you must watch your fuel load when taking on fuel because if you don't you can sit the airplane on its butt and toss everyone inside all the way to the back. Then the press comes out and takes pictures which make national news. Ask anyone who worked for DynAir in Phoenix they will verify it happened. Getting the nose back on the ground was a little more difficult than they first thought.
Finally an engineering comment. Thank you sir.
Without ETOPS, most tri-jet airliners would never have existed.
The Trident and 727 were exceptions, for specific requirements (high and hot operations mostly) that needed more thrust than the engines OF THE TIME could provide with only 2 engines.
But Tri jets just look cool 😍😍😍
I always travel with KLM from Amsterdam to Santiago, Chile
I love trijets
its because the 3rd engine sometimes falls off, taking the vert stabilizer with it and causing crash which kills everybody
On a honest note tri jet main purpose honestly was to circumvent the two engine ban over water. Before etops was invented, the only plane besides the tri jet that can fly over water was 747 and sometimes they didn’t make enough money to recoup costs of operation
Wide body Twin jets had taken over short and medium range market. Once ETOPS eased further on twin jets, it is game over for wide body trijets.
Twin engines planes are more efficient than three or four engines planes which were long needed for safety reasons on long haul routes. But since the generalization of Etops certifications for twin engines planes, there is no more need for less efficient three or four engines planes. This is why three and four engines planes are disappearing.
Another problem with three engines planes was that there was no fully satisfying location for the third engine.
Trijets have a place in modern commercial aviation, but not with current designs. I know one version of the BWB is actually a trijet, and it would be far more efficient and carry more passengers and cargo further than some twin jets. But as technology evolves you will definitely see features come and go.
The title is misleading because the 727 was the MOST popular, best selling tri-jet of all time. The only reason that it is no longer around, is because technology, newer, more powerful but quieter engines and more advanced flight controls, led to the development of the 757. Which was the 727's replacement. And it was only fitting, that the 757 surpassed her predecessor in winning hearts and loyalty. ❤💖💜🥰🤗
Tri jets have a high possibility of coming back. Maybe larger 4 engined aircraft can be reconfigured to run on 3. And future SSCs will probably go with the trijet model.
American flight regulations that were probably someone outdated at the time.
That being said, it isn't *that* bad of a configuration. Tu-154 did a tail-mounted tri-jet, despite having absolutely no need to fly transatlantic given the constraints and conditions of the Warsaw pact.
727 and Trident didn't fly Transatlantic either.
Peace of mind? The DC-10 had a very checkered history, and some famous crashes were caused directly by the third engine failing and taking out vial systems such as hydraulics with it. More engines always means more chances for a failure on a given flight. I don't think that many pilots or passengers think that trijets are any safer than modern twinjets.
Correct, but also that Douglas placed all its critical control cables and hoses in one area, while Boeing separates them, some on each side of the airplane or wing (front/rear spar). One instance of DC10 crash was a faulty cargo door that blew open. With decompression, the piano in the bar above fell thru the floor, severing critical control cables.
@@Greatdome99 I always knew pianos were dangerous.
@Greatdome99 Boeing did not separate them, see JAL123. Lockheed separated them.