Thread 2055177

Usecase for more than 1 engine on a commercial plane?

ETOPS

>>2055177 (OP)
Everything on a commercial airline has a backup.

>>2055177 (OP)
reducing insurance premiums

More than 1 engine = go faster than with just 1 engine. It's quite simple, really. Not sure how you don't understand this

>>2055177 (OP)
The best engine is no engine
Bring on the commercial gliders

>>2055219
>faster
>commercial flight
anon are you retarded?

>>2055221
1 engine = 1 fast
2 engine = 2 fast
It's perfectly rational.

>>2055222
commercial airlines don't care about speed. There is also a legal cap on air speed.
Faster doesn't just mean two engines. You have to also reinforce it's hull

Slow = less fuel consumption and cheaper materials. A single engine can easily get you to 500mph whilst sipping fuel.

>>2055224
Irrelevant. The use case for having more engines on an an aircraft is having more speed. Fly away, troll.

>>2055224
>commercial airlines don't care about speed.
Their customers do. The ones that prefer cheap over fast have time that is worth nothing. Might as well travel steerage on an ocean liner.

>There is also a legal cap on air speed.
Over the USA. In other places, no.

>>2055225
>more engines on an an aircraft
>more speed
pic related

>>2055225
>The use case for having more engines on an an aircraft is having more speed.
No, it's the second segment climb performance when you lose an engine at V1.

>>2055222
kek'd 'n' check'd

>>2055184
I found its predecessor. Only one was ever built.

>>2055177 (OP)
fine-tuning yaw via throttle between the engines

>>2055750
>>2055751

>Cessna and Beechcraft got bought by the conglomerate Textron
>Piper went bankrupt and got sold to the government of Brunei

Who got it worse?

>>2055184
Piper might've been unsuccessful (in fairness, so were Diamond and Eclipse), but Cirrus and Flaris managed to make monojets a reality.