Usecase for more than 1 engine on a commercial plane?
ETOPS
>>2055177Everything on a commercial airline has a backup.
>>2055177reducing 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
>>2055177The best engine is no engineBring on the commercial gliders
>>2055219>faster>commercial flight anon are you retarded?
>>20552211 engine = 1 fast2 engine = 2 fastIt's perfectly rational.
>>2055222commercial 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 hullSlow = less fuel consumption and cheaper materials. A single engine can easily get you to 500mph whilst sipping fuel.
>>2055224Irrelevant. 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 speedpic 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.
>>2055222kek'd 'n' check'd
>>2055222
>>2055184I found its predecessor. Only one was ever built.
>>2055184
>>2055177fine-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 BruneiWho got it worse?
>>2055184Piper might've been unsuccessful (in fairness, so were Diamond and Eclipse), but Cirrus and Flaris managed to make monojets a reality.
