Which plane is more fuel efficient?

Kevin assures us that a modern three engine jet plane is more fuel efficient than a two engine jet plane.  While my many Boeing friends assure me that that this is not the case, the proof is in the pudding.  As commercial plane maker across the world attempt to increase fuel efficiency, not one is looking at three or four engine jet planes.  The next thing you know, Kevin will tell us the Trump screwed Oregon on how many vaccine doses his state received.

Maybe PJ will add his opinion.

I havent worked in the industry since 2008 nd I dont know specifically what engines you are comparing.

As a general rule newer planes are vastly more efficient that older planes.     And thats probably the right comparison.      Some airlines are still flying jets manufactured in the 70's and 80's.      

My old airline used to fly L10-11's which were massive three engine planes and were gas guzzlers.    We mostly used them to fly troops to Afghanisan and back and the military paid for their own fuel....so it worked out nice.

Any valid comparison would have to be the same generation of engine, the same (or roughly the same) payload/cargo capacity, the same (or roughly the same) size airframe.

The above statement "Kevin assures us..." is another Boiler lie, the kind he loves so much. What makes me laugh is that HE said that there are no modern three-engine jet airliners!

The true reason why two-engine planes predominate is that jet engines have become more efficient, reducing the inherent advantage of the three-engine configuration. Keep in mind that I was talking about X amount of thrust to handle X amount of payload. The largest airliners of prior decades (70s-80s) wouldn't get by on two of even the largest engines unless they were willing to put up with ghastly fuel inefficiency. Now, it's quite possible to design a high-capacity two-engine airliner, given the improvements in jet engine technology.

Boiler's mental fog is making him think that Oregon's vaccine supply has something to do with the number of engines on airliners, but I think I'd better just talk to him quietly until that fog clears.

The only question for this silly Boiler-type discussion would be what was the fuel consumption of a two-engine plane carrying the same payload as the L-1011, at the same time in aviation history. There may not have been such a plane, which may have been why three-engine configurations were used.

My point was that when trijets were common, the reason was that twinjets couldn't carry large payloads without being very inefficient--because even the largest engines would have been working too hard to carry the load that, say, an L-1011 carried.

If someone designed a three-engine plane today that matched the thrust and payload of a two-engine plane, the comparison that Boiler craves could be made. But because modern jet engines are so powerful and efficient, there's no need for a trijet configuration now.

Kevin, you told us that the three engine jet is more fuel efficient when compared to a two engine jet.  Since the #1 goal of aircraft producers is fuel efficiency, why aren't three engine jets being produced?

Since the first part of your second sentence is completely incorrect, the question is meaningless.

Kevin, here's what Wikipeida has to say about your views on modern "trijets".  There is one trijet across the globe being produced today, and it's stricly used for private use (the Falcon).  The designs are not modern, but instead they are 55 year old plane designs.  They were only popular because a plane needed to be able to say in the air with the loss of an engine, and back then one engine couldn't do the job.

I don't believe that there is a single trijet flying today for standard commercial use across the entire globe.  A few are flown for charter and cargo, and that's it.  If Kevin want to correct this, I'd love to hear his stats on the % of these 55 year old dinasours being used for commercial aviation.

Yeah, Wikipedia--that faultless source of truth. In point of fact, NO two-engine plane ever manufactured, airliner or otherwise, has been unable to stay aloft if one engine fails--because what would be the point of having two engines?

If you had done real research, you would have found out that any FAA-certified twin-engine aircraft must be able to not only stay aloft but also CLIMB with only one engine operating.

Boiler, I was never talking about airliners produced TODAY, but this discussion is silly. So tell you what--you're absolutely right, whatever it is you're saying. Feel better now? On to other topics.