Single Engine (big) Airliner? Possibly...

M

meritflyer

Well-Known Member
One concept from Lockheed Martin.

Lockheed.JPG
Not sure how I'd feel about flying that across the pond.
 
I guess Boeing is learning a lot (and the hard way) with the 787. This might open a new era in aviation. But so far since the 50's nothing much has changed, same speeds (or slower) and same altitudes. Sure the whole experience has been optimized somehow, but I'd rather see a long range supersonic transport, a super-Concorde, now that would make sense. Dividing the travel time by half would be quite a feast...
 
The fist concorde never made the airlines any money because of the restrictions the enviromentalists placed on it's operation. I don't think the political landscape has changed lately that would accomodate loud airplanes. If anything, it's gotten more restrictive.

As far as single engine airliners, how would that work with ETOPS? You need to demonstrate an ability to fly for a fixed amount of time when one of your engines shuts down. Kinda hard to do when you suddenly become a huge glider.
 
Cptnchia said:
As far as single engine airliners, how would that work with ETOPS? You need to demonstrate an ability to fly for a fixed amount of time when one of your engines shuts down. Kinda hard to do when you suddenly become a huge glider.
Click to expand...

Fly reeeeal high I suppose. :D
 
Is this from the same article that included the concept design with the twin boom fuselages? Talk about a logistical nightmare. It was bad enough to modify the handful of airports for the A380.
 
Doubtful. It's going to be hard to sell a single engine airliner with "redundancy" a staple word of safety.
 
It's hard to see on the picture attached in this thread, but if you look here, it's pretty clear that there is another engine on the right side, partially hidden by the fuselage.
 
What about making a concorde type passenger plane capable of supercruise? I dunno how that solves the noise problem, and something tells me that I'm not the first person to have suggested this.
 
Autothrust Blue said:
(14 CFR 121.159)
Click to expand...
swisspilot said:
What about Caravans flown 121?
Click to expand...

§ 121.159 Single-engine airplanes prohibited.
No certificate holder may operate a single-engine airplane under this part.​

Nothing about takeoff weight or anything. If someone's flying Caravans for Part 121 business, it seems like they're doing it wrong. Unless it's in Alaska... you can probably get a waiver there or something. :)

Also, this biplane-in-disguise looks like something you'd use to peel potatoes. Alton Brown does not approve!

Also, also, NASA FAIL! for not even naming the program under which the contracts were awarded to Boeing, Lockheed-Martin, and Northrop to develop designs for their 2025 aircraft in the info release on nasa.gov.
 
swisspilot said:
you don`t need a rudder
Click to expand...
Phooey, and other such comments. All REAL airplanes have rudders.

Is there anyone who flies the 'van 121? I was operating under the impression it was all 135 flying, or 91.

And the flying wing got a bad rap because, well, one doesn't stall a flying wing airplane and recover from it ordinarily...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top