With twins eating up 747 and A380 orders, with further lengthening of the 777-X and A350 being mooted, with the A380's programme in great uncertainty and with the 747-8 programme relying on Freighter orders...are four-holers done for good?

If not, is there a way for four-holers to carve out a market and make a comeback?

The US Presidential jet apparently must be a four holer, other than that I doubt it. Outsize cargo birds maybe...

I'm sure the next generation SST will have four engines...(!)

Well, the number of air passengers carried each year increased by roughly a billion from 2000-2010, and from 2010-2015 that number increased by about 800 million. It doesn't look like air traffic growth is slowing down either.

There should always be a market for VLAs, no matter how small this market is compared to the twin-aisle market.

Hope there is a chance for the shorter length, longer range 748 Boeing were pitching to Emirates and British Airways.

CanadaFair wrote:

Hope there is a chance for the shorter length, longer range 748 Boeing were pitching to Emirates and British Airways.

I didn't here about this.

For Boeing, the UPS orders extended the cargo version of the 748 for awhile. I'd be shocked if any passenger airlines order it. The Air Force needs two for VC25 replacements, but our new president is complaining about the cost. they will eventually get built. I suspect the 380 will die once EK's orders are completed (I'm a tad skeptical they will take all 140). Aside from the odd ANA order, there haven't been any new customers for a long time. The 20 Amadeo birds aren't even going to be built because they can't find any customers. Big twins are the future.

tomaheath wrote:

CanadaFair wrote:

Hope there is a chance for the shorter length, longer range 748 Boeing were pitching to Emirates and British Airways.

I didn't here about this.

Wikipedia mentions it.

there are currently only two commercial planes for sale that have 4 engines. The A380 which has sold only 13 planes in the past 4 years which includes -2 net orders in the past two years and the Boeing 747-800 which I think has sold even less in the same time frame. I think at this point it comes down to a matter of pride, who will be the first to pull the plug on the death grip on the 4 engine plane, will it Airbus or Boeing....

KaiTak747 wrote:

Well, the number of air passengers carried each year increased by roughly a billion from 2000-2010, and from 2010-2015 that number increased by about 800 million. It doesn't look like air traffic growth is slowing down either.

There should always be a market for VLAs, no matter how small this market is compared to the twin-aisle market.

No reason why future VLA won't be a twin,

As engine technology improves twins get bigger

Perhaps one day 777W, 777X, 350-1000 size aircraft will be single engine and 380/747 size twins

CanadaFair wrote:

Hope there is a chance for the shorter length, longer range 748 Boeing were pitching to Emirates and British Airways.

The model that was produced was eventually given the range (DXB to US West Coast) that EK wanted, and they still didn't buy it.

Never say never, but the chance of Boeing investing further money into a pax 747 variant is about as close to "0" as one can get...

Because of ETOPS 240 to 330 certification, the 747-8I and the A380-800 will likely be the last of the four-engined long-range airliners. Especially now with the coming of the Boeing 777-9, which may reach a range of 8,000 nm in an eventual higher MTOW version.

Four engine jets are done with now. Airlines are retiring them because twins can do the job just fine. Other than the A380, no other four engine jet will survive. The 747 passenger models (including the 748) will all be phased out because no airline will want to operate them in the future. The A340 is dead and can be replaced with the A350. There is no need for new four engine aircraft in the future.

NichCage wrote:

Four engine jets are done with now. Airlines are retiring them because twins can do the job just fine. Other than the A380, no other four engine jet will survive. The 747 passenger models (including the 748) will all be phased out because no airline will want to operate them in the future. The A340 is dead and can be replaced with the A350. There is no need for new four engine aircraft in the future.

The 748i isn't going away that soon. The three airlines flying them seem happy, and they are new. They'll be around well into the 2020's. (Longer for the VC25, assuming that will be it's designation). I suspect the Whalebus will leave airlines fleets except EK by then as well.

jumbojet wrote:

there are currently only two commercial planes for sale that have 4 engines. The A380 which has sold only 13 planes in the past 4 years which includes -2 net orders in the past two years and the Boeing 747-800 which I think has sold even less in the same time frame. I think at this point it comes down to a matter of pride, who will be the first to pull the plug on the death grip on the 4 engine plane, will it Airbus or Boeing....

Actually a tough question. Boeing may still have a genuine business in the 747 Freighter. Airbus IMO doesn't, but their recent investment is so huge, an the platform is relatively 30 years more modern, that they will soldier on a while?

An A380 is just a twin engine per deck... it's an obvious statement but people seem to forget this. While the 747 is a 4 engines for 1.5 aircraft... or A340 was 4 engines for 1 aircraft. These are totally different stories.

JannEejit wrote:

The US Presidential jet apparently must be a four holer, other than that I doubt it. Outsize cargo birds maybe...

For military transport, the concept will likely continue. After the 748 version is built, perhaps the following US presidential transport will have to be built out of something like a C-5 or C-17. Or, maybe by then, we'll all just go everywhere by hyperloop. Ha! Who wants to start up hyperloopers.net???

I see a slight possibility of a 4 holer returning, but its a very specific case. It seems to me as thrust scales up in the two holers, the engines seem to get wider and heavier rapidly. I suspect that, as the smaller, high efficiency turbofans continue to improve, someone will put forth the case that the smaller engines are lighter, allowing for a lighter and simpler wing structure (weight is spread out more, and much less at any single point). I think it is also the case that, above a certain level, frontal area is smaller per unit thrust when spread across 4 engines instead of two. The larger turbofans, produced in far smaller numbers, are fiendishly expensive, both to purchase (or lease via pbth) and to maintain. The smaller engines are much more available, and summarily, cheaper. Perhaps the Boeing MOM could have four PW1521Gs instead of having two 40+K lb thrust engines, or a 787-4X could have 4 CFM LEAP-1A26s.

I doubt it will happen, but, there are possible configurations that could provide a cost effective solution.

Aither wrote:

An A380 is just a twin engine per deck... it's an obvious statement but people seem to forget this. While the 747 is a 4 engines for 1.5 aircraft... or A340 was 4 engines for 1 aircraft. These are totally different stories.

yet they are bundled together and cannot fly at different time or to different location

c933103 wrote:

Aither wrote:

An A380 is just a twin engine per deck... it's an obvious statement but people seem to forget this. While the 747 is a 4 engines for 1.5 aircraft... or A340 was 4 engines for 1 aircraft. These are totally different stories.

yet they are bundled together and cannot fly at different time or to different location

It's a market size issue then, not a cost issue due to having 4 engines.

There are very few airline routes that need the ETOPS range that only 4 engine aircraft can provide, and that would most likely be in the South Pacific Ocean or a few hostile areas of the world, like the Ukraine. You don't have the airspace restrictions as in the past like with China and the former USSR, where political and military security meant longer routes with few diversion airports available. Very few want or need to be on an aircraft over 12 hours and the economics are not in favor of ULH in parts due to the massive amounts of fuel needed, its own costs to fly with and very high fares few can afford.
As to VLA's there is a limited market, mainly out of certain airports like LAX and LHR with almost no other way to increase pax numbers except with VLA's. VLA's, as we have seen in the past, present issues of year round per seat yields on most major routes so airlines will see they are better off with slightly with smaller twins.

KaiTak747 wrote:

Well, the number of air passengers carried each year increased by roughly a billion from 2000-2010, and from 2010-2015 that number increased by about 800 million. It doesn't look like air traffic growth is slowing down either.

There should always be a market for VLAs, no matter how small this market is compared to the twin-aisle market.

I completely agree.

People are always quick to write off the A380 as a commercial failure (which it is) but that doesn't translate into there being no market or niche for the VLA. The A380 is currently carrying tens of thousands of passengers around the world daily and if the type disappeared tomorrow, those pax would have to be catered for somehow. Diverting them onto smaller aircraft would pressure already congested airways and airport slots. Try swapping EK's 3 daily A380 flights into LHR for four 77Ws, and see how far you get.

And air travel as whole is increasing at a stratospheric rate.

So there will at least for the forseeable future be a market for the VLA and this will probably also need to be a four engined aircraft. There is a maximum size turbofans can get to before they become inefficient; and we're not far off that point now.

The A380 is toast. Too large on the outside, too small on the inside and too heavy in general; it is struggling to compete even now let alone in ten years time. The 777 will (regrettably) dominate the skies for the next decade. Towards the end of that timeframe I'm expecting Boeing will announce an all new VLA with technology to make the 787 seem like a homely old DC-8.

The only way we'll ever see a new 4-holer is if engine technology advances in such a way that it becomes cheaper to operate 4 engines over 2. I can't at this point envision such a scenario but I've never been one to say never when it comes to engineering advances and I'll leave you with 1 thought: ETOPS is not free.

All depends if Airbus is willing to take another gamble on the A380 and produce an A380-850/900. It needs to be bigger to justify the expense of two extra engines.

One thing I think about is when it comes to 4 hole aircraft and their eminent demise...in the coming X number of years - is that once they are cancelled and no longer available...it would be so typically human to want it again and the ones flying for the Lufthansa and Korean and Air China (?) for the 748, will hold onto them like a child with their teddy bear! Same with the A380.
I bet I can write the threads today that will see many years from now asking "could the 748/A380 line be start up again?" or "should have airlines like BA or UA bought the 748 when they had the chance?" I also bet the airlines who have them will keep them for many, many years, like Lufthansa and their 748's, deploying them on the optimal routes for them, so we have a long time to enjoy looking at or flying them long after the lines are shut down. (IMHO)

JannEejit wrote:

The US Presidential jet apparently must be a four holer, other than that I doubt it. Outsize cargo birds maybe...

Does anyone have an idea what might happen when the plane needs to be replaced after the 747-8i? Will they relax on that requirement given how well twins operate?

Aither wrote:

c933103 wrote:

Aither wrote:

An A380 is just a twin engine per deck... it's an obvious statement but people seem to forget this. While the 747 is a 4 engines for 1.5 aircraft... or A340 was 4 engines for 1 aircraft. These are totally different stories.

yet they are bundled together and cannot fly at different time or to different location

It's a market size issue then, not a cost issue due to having 4 engines.

But if the A380 had two engines then it would be 1 engine per a deck, instead of the standard 2 engines per a deck

It is a current technology issue, not cost issue. If it was viable in 2000 to make a twin engine A380 Airbus would have done it.

jumbojet wrote:

there are currently only two commercial planes for sale that have 4 engines. The A380 which has sold only 13 planes in the past 4 years which includes -2 net orders in the past two years and the Boeing 747-800 which I think has sold even less in the same time frame. I think at this point it comes down to a matter of pride, who will be the first to pull the plug on the death grip on the 4 engine plane, will it Airbus or Boeing....

Actually the last REAL order was from EK the previous year. Responding to a discount offer from Airbus EK ordered 50 replacement frames that some here think they may never take. The following year's recording of 13 orders was the result of Amedeo (which is really not an order)
and 7 cancellations.

I am old enough to remember when the A330 and A340 were new, and marketed to airlines. Granted, there were a few die-hard airlines that swore they'd never fly a twin engined aircraft long haul (and have since changed there minds), but ... Airbus stated at the time, that there was a cutoff flight length, I think it was about 10 hours, where the 4 engined aircraft had the advantage in fuel burn.

The theory was that the huge total thrust required for a twin was a disadvantage during cruise with higher fuel burns. They claimed that the lower fuel burns of the quad eventually overcame the cost of the four engines. I am wondering if that now has changed.

Also, a lot of people don't realize that a lot of airframe advances have always been tied in with engine development. Let's face it, when the 747-100 was built, with its "huge" 40,000 lb thrust engines, did anyone ever imagine that 130,000 lb thrust engines would ever appear? So now we have airframes approaching 1,000,000 lbs. Imagine the size of the single engine that would have to be developed that would carry it from V1 to a safe altitude. When that engine is developed, then too will an airframe be to match it!

Dutchy wrote:

All depends if Airbus is willing to take another gamble on the A380 and produce an A380-850/900. It needs to be bigger to justify the expense of two extra engines.

And for Airbus to pay to keep the global supply chain. The rule of thumb is every 1% increase in efficiency gains one more year of sales. Going by prior tends, the A380+ might gain a dozen sales...


To others:
The reality is there is less risk with multiple flights as capacity will be redirected with demand changes. Metropolitan areas with impacted airports will have to add capacity or watch growth go to other cities.

Right now much of the growth is secondary cities to major hubs. Since that is 787 or A350 levels of demand or less.

For example, I often must hub at DEN, DFW, or ATL for domestic travel. But given a chance, I'll take a convenient non-stop, even to an airport an hour or two further from my destination, any chance I have. The NEO, MAX, 787, and A350 will give those options.

Metropolitan airports that have business growth and can expand will. For example, I love all the added flights to and from Florida.

There is a reason the ME3 hubs grew. People needed more options to more destinations. I'm excited to see the next 20 years of fragmentation.

Lightsaber

Polot wrote:

Aither wrote:

c933103 wrote:

yet they are bundled together and cannot fly at different time or to different location

It's a market size issue then, not a cost issue due to having 4 engines.

But if the A380 had two engines then it would be 1 engine per a deck, instead of the standard 2 engines per a deck

It is a current technology issue, not cost issue. If it was viable in 2000 to make a twin engine A380 Airbus would have done it.

The engines of the A380 are derivative of previously developed engines. If it had been a twin engine, I guess it would have required totally different designs, and therefore it would have been too expensive. My guess only.

But I'm surprised people complain about the A380 being a quad. It has the capacity of 2 aircraft, it's a lot of revenues. And in term of cost per seat, providing you put more than 500 seats, it beats 777-300ER hands down, which is a twin.

I think the major issue is the desaparition of the gap that separated twins vs quads. If a twin grows to the size of a quad, of course there will be adantages in the operations figures. The quads have been "cursed" by the sales arguments of the twins, but we got the excellent example from LH, that operates quads and make good money from them.

ZeeZoo wrote:

With twins eating up 747 and A380 orders, with further lengthening of the 777-X and A350 being mooted, with the A380's programme in great uncertainty and with the 747-8 programme relying on Freighter orders...are four-holers done for good?

If not, is there a way for four-holers to carve out a market and make a comeback?

To be honest? ONLY of a twin engine airplane loses an engine and the airplane falls from the skies due to lack of power (which is highly unlikely)

TransGlobalGold wrote:

For Boeing, the UPS orders extended the cargo version of the 748 for awhile. I'd be shocked if any passenger airlines order it. The Air Force needs two for VC25 replacements, but our new president is complaining about the cost. they will eventually get built. I suspect the 380 will die once EK's orders are completed (I'm a tad skeptical they will take all 140). Aside from the odd ANA order, there haven't been any new customers for a long time. The 20 Amadeo birds aren't even going to be built because they can't find any customers. Big twins are the future.

There are white tail planes that were destined for Transaero that are parked in the desert...why doesn't Trump negotiate a sale for those frames? As for four engine planes...their market really is just cargo.

Boeing's SUGAR Volt program may also lead to a change in the number of holes. If the idea of a hybrid turbofan scales differently than our current technology, it may well be worth having 4 relatively smaller engines on a larger bird.

Specifically, if the fuel savings are as advertised, but the development costs of the engine is great, I could see a single engine working with the MOM being used for an eventual quad 777 replacement.

More to the point, if one engine could supply the electric power to operate all four fans in a cruise mode, you could build a large hybrid aircraft with much less weight in batteries to haul around.

A lot of "ifs" in that statement, but the original question did include the word might.

I can see a plane being offered with four or more ducted fans, but only one gas generator. That's probably as close as it'll get. New hybrid propulsion methods using the new energy-dense battery technologies of things like graphene and sodium batteries start to make this look viable as there's generational changes over current lithium batteries, and in the case of sodium the explosion risks go away too.

Graphene would offer a hefty weight reduction.

Channex757 wrote:

I can see a plane being offered with four or more ducted fans, but only one gas generator. That's probably as close as it'll get. New hybrid propulsion methods using the new energy-dense battery technologies of things like graphene and sodium batteries start to make this look viable as there's generational changes over current lithium batteries, and in the case of sodium the explosion risks go away too.

Graphene would offer a hefty weight reduction.

and what happens if the one and only gas generator you described above fails?

jumbojet wrote:

Channex757 wrote:

I can see a plane being offered with four or more ducted fans, but only one gas generator. That's probably as close as it'll get. New hybrid propulsion methods using the new energy-dense battery technologies of things like graphene and sodium batteries start to make this look viable as there's generational changes over current lithium batteries, and in the case of sodium the explosion risks go away too.

Graphene would offer a hefty weight reduction.

and what happens if the one and only gas generator you described above fails?

The gas generator is only there to keep the batteries topped up and at takeoff when extra power is needed.

If the turbine fails, the batteries provide sufficient range to divert or complete the journey.

Channex757 wrote:

The gas generator is only there to keep the batteries topped up and at takeoff when extra power is needed.

If the turbine fails, the batteries provide sufficient range to divert or complete the journey.

Alternatively, the two inboard engines are also gas turbines, and you have full redundancy. Batteries are removed, in cruise mode only one of the engines operate operating as a generator powering all four fans.

There is a small niche for 4 holers among small operators with long range requirements but without the resources to get ETOPS/EDTO certification.

That's only the second hand market of course, but at least it'll keep a few of them in the air for a while longer...
Small victories.

Aither wrote:

c933103 wrote:

Aither wrote:

An A380 is just a twin engine per deck... it's an obvious statement but people seem to forget this. While the 747 is a 4 engines for 1.5 aircraft... or A340 was 4 engines for 1 aircraft. These are totally different stories.

yet they are bundled together and cannot fly at different time or to different location

It's a market size issue then, not a cost issue due to having 4 engines.

It is always the market size issue. The cost part is simply that no one want 4 engines when it is doable by 2, if you have a market that you can cover with quad but not by twin then the cost part is a non-issue. It is the market size plus technological development make most of those missions achievable by 4 can be done with 2 engines. If there is a market for a plane twice as large as current largest twin, then twin would not be able to replace quad no matter as long as such an airplane being more efficent than 2 planes, but the market is not here and that's why they are replaced by twins with cost as the reason

Airbus started the A380 program, because they believed that long-distance, international travel would be hub-to-hub, with connections on either end to smaller aircraft.

For instance, Airbus probably believed that Star would fly A380s between ORD and FRA, with UA offering connections at ORD, and LH offering connections at FRA. It would be a similar situation for Oneworld on ORD-LHR or DFW-LHR.

Boeing decided to build an airplane that could do long-haul, international flying on a point-to-point basis. So, you had BA starting SAN-LHR with the 788. Now, it flies AUS-LHR with a 789.

Then, there is the whole business model built on frequency. Just as U.S. carriers prefer narrowbodies to widebodies and RJs to narrowbodies for domestic routes, the 787 and A350 allow a carrier to offer multiple frequencies. Flying a 747 or A380 on a route means fewer flights, so that passengers will fill a VLA.

I still think Boeing has opportunities with the 748F, simply because too many manufacturers need to move parts and finished goods quickly and in large quantities. Unlike moving passengers, air freight doesn't need multiple frequencies on a route. So, a freight carrier may find that two 748Fs on Shanghai-Los Angeles is more cost effective and satisfies shippers, while a passenger carrier may need a 773, 2 779s, and a 778, in order to maximize passenger volume on the same route.

aemoreira1981 wrote:

TransGlobalGold wrote:

For Boeing, the UPS orders extended the cargo version of the 748 for awhile. I'd be shocked if any passenger airlines order it. The Air Force needs two for VC25 replacements, but our new president is complaining about the cost. they will eventually get built. I suspect the 380 will die once EK's orders are completed (I'm a tad skeptical they will take all 140). Aside from the odd ANA order, there haven't been any new customers for a long time. The 20 Amadeo birds aren't even going to be built because they can't find any customers. Big twins are the future.

There are white tail planes that were destined for Transaero that are parked in the desert...why doesn't Trump negotiate a sale for those frames? As for four engine planes...their market really is just cargo.

You are aware what the VC25 has to be able to do right? I seriously doubt they can take a white tail sitting in the desert and make it EMP proof. Reconfiguring it for air-to-air refueling, there so many necessary things only a new build could provide.

Speaking of four-holers, I recently read that the IL-96-400M was going into production, and that if and when the PD-14 is available it will be able to compete against the next generation of the 777 in terms of cost and fuel consumption. Russia's UAC somehow arrived to the conclusion some other posters stated above, that as smaller engines become lighter and more efficient this will offset the benefits provided by the twin-engined aircraft.

If you love aircraft you have to enjoy the ones that exist when you are on this mortal coil.When I was ever so little my dad took me to Heathrow (you could view back then).He wanted to see the new 'jet ' aircraft (707/Comet).But one aircraft caught my eye that day as a little boy.It had three tails!It was of course the Lockheed Constellation.I have been lucky enough to see the end of the great prop aircraft and fly on the Vicount and Vanguard (BEA).As an adult in my travels in South America I have flown on DC3's.But unlike many of my friends I did not 'put myself out' and fly on Concorde -then suddenly it was too late - biiiig mistake.
So enjoy the mighty 747's and 380's.They are going to be around for a good while yet.But they will be the last of their kind (IMHO).
And if you get a chance to fly something special - take it!
I was lucky that in my time engineers were experimenting and developing new concepts (true of military as well).So there have been many different solutions tried.Today they have worked out the best.It a podded wing mounted twin. But you never know.With all the environmental pressures a new golden age may be right around the corner with all sorts of different ideas sprouting up.I hope so.

Wayfarer515 wrote:

Speaking of four-holers, I recently read that the IL-96-400M was going into production, and that if and when the PD-14 is available it will be able to compete against the next generation of the 777 in terms of cost and fuel consumption. Russia's UAC somehow arrived to the conclusion some other posters stated above, that as smaller engines become lighter and more efficient this will offset the benefits provided by the twin-engined aircraft.

Yet they will still reengine it with 2* PD35 when such engine become available...

[twoid][/twoid]

Francoflier wrote:

There is a small niche for 4 holers among small operators with long range requirements but without the resources to get ETOPS/EDTO certification.

That's only the second hand market of course, but at least it'll keep a few of them in the air for a while longer...
Small victories.

I disagree. Only in intermittent charter could those small operators thrive. Otherwise there much more efficient competitors will thrive. For example, LATAM is not who they were a decade ago and thus have made the region so much more competitive.

Airlines are now a mature industry.

Lightsaber

rta wrote:

JannEejit wrote:

The US Presidential jet apparently must be a four holer, other than that I doubt it. Outsize cargo birds maybe...

Does anyone have an idea what might happen when the plane needs to be replaced after the 747-8i? Will they relax on that requirement given how well twins operate?

Considering that decision will likely come around in the 2040s you can never know now.

To me looks like that we Will not see any time soon another quad design, the engine technology easily can follow the increasing of the size of the aircrafts. If the market keep growing with the same rhythm, I believe that will be no reason for quad. Only if a VLA much bigger than the exciting are required in the very near future, only then is possible to see a quad again.
Even with very low prizes of fuel, a quad is still more expensive in maintenance, and the ETOPS I believe that will be easy to reach from a twin.
On the other hand the cargo market is equipped with the available passenger frames, so if those are twins, the cargo airplanes will be also twins.
May in the future only military frames will be quad.

I feel confident in stating that we will never see a new quad design for commercial aircraft. And the existing ones will slowly fade away.