Talk:Trijet

message: "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)
thread_title:  Trijet prevalence 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Ridiculous statements 

message: 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)
replies: text: We have an article on it at Aircraft engine position number MilborneOne (talk) 12:31, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Numbering 

message: 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.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:17, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018)