what happened to the trijet?

Twinjets were allowed on intercontinental flights

>>1094834
This. Trijets are far less efficient than twins and regulations no longer require more than two engines for transoceanic flights.

And now we're seeing the slow death of quadjets. Although this time it is purely because of efficiency rather than regulations on top of that.

>>1094834
>>1094839
Do you think Boeing or airbus will develop any more quadjets, or is the market simply not there?

>>1094846
No. No more quadjets will be developed.

>>1094815
ETOPS happened

>>1094839
I'd say costs rather than efficiency proper but yeah.

Would a twinjet A380 be possible or would you run into the size limit for engine dictated by physics?

File: 1.jpg (36KB, 400x259px)

36KB, 400x259px

>what happened to the trijet?

hard landings

>>1094846
Sure, for military

>>1094815
The development of engine technology rendered trijets redundant just like how 757 replaced 727 instead of 7X7

>>1094938
I think it is doable with current tech level, but its development cost would be huge

>>1094937
Cost is a function of efficiency.

>>1094962
Doubt it even then. Strategic airlift sized aircraft are the only current generation ones with 4 engines. The next gen of such aircraft will more likely than not be blended or hybrid wing body designs with 2 massive top-mounted turbofans.

>>1094965
What? If anything, the 737 replaced the 727 in fleets.

>>1094938
>Would a twinjet A380 be possible
No. In single engine operation, the yaw moment would be ridiculous because you'd need more than double the thrust of a single engine currently on the aircraft. Otherwise, you'd never be able to climb with an engine failure after V1.

>>1094970
There are also other aircrafts like Kawasaki P-1 using 4 jet engines.
And I doubt strategic airlifter will use designs like blended wing body because of dimension of equipments they are supposed to carry

>>1094971
(Rereading relevant onfo online) An more appropriate description is probably 757 being developed instead of 727-300

>>1094990
You have some reading to do, because you are very wrong.

>>1094846
So far in the quest for efficiency, the latest thing is geared turbofans, which enable greater thrust without the turbine blades going supersonic at the outside edges (they're designed to be able to do that, but it is noisy and inefficient).

The next step will be electrically geared turbofans.

After that one interesting possibility is split electrically geared turbofans
(two engines producing thrust and electricity + two additional ducted fans consuming electricity to produce thrust).

>>1094815
ETOPS killed it.

The third engine on the tail was always a bitch to maintain, and it died when twin-engine airliners like 767 became certified to fly transoceanic flights.

File: bwb7.jpg (116KB, 595x335px)

116KB, 595x335px

BWB WHEN?

>>1095679
That's a HWB.

File: flex_flap2.jpg (88KB, 578x175px) Image search: [Google]

88KB, 578x175px

>>1095683
HWB WHEN?

ALSO AEROELASTIC CONTROL SURFACES WHEN?

File: 797 patent.jpg (45KB, 920x613px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 920x613px

>>1094839

>And now we're seeing the slow death of quadjets.

Pic related will probably be the eventual 747 replacement.

>>1098004
You couldn't be more wrong if you tried. That patent filing is very out of date and we already know with very little doubt that the 797 will be the NMA/MOM aircraft from Boeing. There is no foreseeable replacement on the scale of the 747. The 777X is the closest thing.

File: grach70.jpg (165KB, 1420x1024px) Image search: [Google]

165KB, 1420x1024px

>>1098011
Just because.

>>1098033
>grach70.jpg
Brilliant!

https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=ru&u=http://www.buran.ru/htm/foto19.htm&prev=search

File: lightning.jpg (334KB, 1024x768px) Image search: [Google]

334KB, 1024x768px

>>1094978
>Implying implications
Just build it like this, duh.
Airbus please give me money

>>1094815
There is a Youtube Video explaning why there is trijet and how it went obselete.

>>1094815
>>1098672
Forgot the link
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HSxSgbNQi-g

File: hires_080607-F-7564C-232.jpg (50KB, 630x422px) Image search: [Google]

50KB, 630x422px

>>1094970
They will never be wing type aircraft. Main issue is a large cargo hold is needed, and also the maintenance would be a bitch for that crew of NCOs. The amount of shit you have to peel through to get to parts. Also high wing aircraft are better for rough strips and attempting to prevent FOD damage

File: hwb.jpg (822KB, 1920x1080px)

822KB, 1920x1080px

>>1098786
This is a dumb statement that ignores suggested designs.

>>1098789
I want to see that land on a dirt strip in Africa while getting shot up, its a massive target. How come not a single AF in the world has even considered replacing its fleet?

>>1098791
> How come not a single AF in the world has even considered replacing its fleet?

This isn't even true. And you've made zero argument as to why that would be worse off than a C-17 in such a scenario.