Talk:Trijet

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Aviation: Aircraft This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.AviationWikipedia:WikiProject AviationTemplate:WikiProject Aviationaviation articles This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met This article is supported by the aircraft project. Russia: Technology & engineering Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Russia, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of Russia on Wikipedia. To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.RussiaWikipedia:WikiProject RussiaTemplate:WikiProject RussiaRussia articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the technology and engineering in Russia task force.

"During the late 1970s and early 1980s, three was the most common number of engines on US jet airlines, making up a majority of all such aircraft in 1980."

Er... what about all the bi-jets being sold at the time, like the 737 (best-selling passenger plane at the time), the Tu-134, the DC-9, the emerging Airbus 300/310 and so on which were, if I understand it correctly from reading the comparison charts right here in Wikipedia, vastly outselling any trijets in the late 70s and early 80s (and of course later on)? OK, the Tupolev and Airbus were not relevant to U.S. sales at the time, but against the combined sales of 727s, various models by Bombardier, and the various quad-jets being offered at the time, I don't really see a prevalence of trijets. Could we have some actual sales numbers on that, please?

What you failed to realise, is that the aircraft which were in service in 1980, were the aircraft which had been sold to airlines during the past 12 or 15 years prior to 1980, not just the aircraft sales in that year. And you also apparently failed to realise that the 727 is a trijet. Lathamibird (talk) 14:45, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We currently have " As such, having more than two engines is no longer considered necessary, except for very large aircraft such as the Boeing 747 and Airbus A380, or for flights through the Southern Hemisphere, primarily to and from Australia (which has not yet adopted the ETOPS 330 standard), where the most direct route is over Antarctica. "

This is rather silly. The "most direct route" to Australia "is over Antarctica" ??? From where ? There are only about 2 flights a day between Australia and South Africa, and also about 2 flights a day to Santiago, Chile. And these are operated by twin-jet aircraft. And neither fly directly over Antarctica. Four engines are still used for very large aircraft on long intercontinental routes, because of cargo capacity and other economic factors not directly connected to the safety considerations of the number of engines.Lathamibird (talk) 14:43, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How are the engines numbered? Is No. 2 the middle one? Relevant e.g. for Aeroflot Flight 3519 --Mopskatze (talk) 02:17, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We have an article on it at Aircraft engine position number MilborneOne (talk) 12:31, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Trijet. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140728081821/http://www.aerionsupersonic.com/as2-specifications.aspx to http://www.aerionsupersonic.com/as2-specifications.aspx
• Added archive http://arquivo.pt/wayback/20160515192215/http://adg.stanford.edu/aa241/propulsion/engineplacement.html to http://adg.stanford.edu/aa241/propulsion/engineplacement.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080511211119/http://md-eleven.net/MD11-MD12-undeveloped-models to http://www.md-eleven.net/MD11-MD12-Undeveloped-Models

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:17, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The article says One consideration with trijets is positioning the central engine. This is usually accomplished by placing the engine along the centerline. Why "usually"? Are there any trijets which have the center engine not on the aircraft centerline? RoySmith (talk) 16:26, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Under "Advantages and drawbacks", we talk about how moving the CG aft improves fuel efficiency but reduces stability. This is true for any given design as the loading changes, but with a rear-mounted engine design, the wings move back so the aircraft is still operating with the CG forward of the center of lift. So it doesn't really make sense what we're saying. RoySmith (talk) 16:41, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]