The Trislander is much like other trimotors in that its engine out performance is not brilliant, so it will just take you quicker to the crash site. I heard an interesting anecdote from an ex-Trislander pilot with Loganair in Scotland once. Because of the isolation of some of the airfields in the islands surrounding the Scottish mainland, the captain and first officer loaded the bags aboard the aircraft and with the Trislander, because of the engine above the rear fuse, it is adviseable to load pax first, then bags, but this guy told me that he put the bags on first and then proceded to watch the aircraft sit on its tail!
This is a Great Barrier Islands (New Zealand) Trislander that was badly damaged in a tarmac fire a couple of years ago. Note the stay propping up the tail.
There was prejudice against trimotors in the USA following TWA 599, which led to enormous changes in the US civil aviation organisation and the development of airliner technology. Not to forget the death of Knute Rockne.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TWA_Flight_599
The engine out safety factor with the majority of trimotors was cancelled out by the fact that they still couldn't hold height without all three engines running - piston engine models, that is. The proliferation of twins subsequently shows that the Trimotor was a bit of a throw back and was adopted for the same reasons in the jet age - lack of power with size and weight increase. When the Tristar and DC-10 were introduced, Boeing trumped the lot of them and went for the 747. Another example is the MD-11 versus the 777. The stretched DC-10 should have been a world beater, but its wing was a bit draggy and it was slower than predicted - and it had three engines, when the 777 had two. Needless to say, the MD-11 has faded into history as a bit of an also-ran by comparison - although it makes a good freighter (!). ETOPS has changed twin operations dramatically, although the trijet was certainly ground breaking in the respect of range and distance flown from diversionary fields, back in the early 70s. The only trimotor jets around these days are Dassault's Falcon business jets, which are seriously quick, but maintenance intensive.
This is a Great Barrier Islands (New Zealand) Trislander that was badly damaged in a tarmac fire a couple of years ago. Note the stay propping up the tail.
There was prejudice against trimotors in the USA following TWA 599, which led to enormous changes in the US civil aviation organisation and the development of airliner technology. Not to forget the death of Knute Rockne.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TWA_Flight_599
The engine out safety factor with the majority of trimotors was cancelled out by the fact that they still couldn't hold height without all three engines running - piston engine models, that is. The proliferation of twins subsequently shows that the Trimotor was a bit of a throw back and was adopted for the same reasons in the jet age - lack of power with size and weight increase. When the Tristar and DC-10 were introduced, Boeing trumped the lot of them and went for the 747. Another example is the MD-11 versus the 777. The stretched DC-10 should have been a world beater, but its wing was a bit draggy and it was slower than predicted - and it had three engines, when the 777 had two. Needless to say, the MD-11 has faded into history as a bit of an also-ran by comparison - although it makes a good freighter (!). ETOPS has changed twin operations dramatically, although the trijet was certainly ground breaking in the respect of range and distance flown from diversionary fields, back in the early 70s. The only trimotor jets around these days are Dassault's Falcon business jets, which are seriously quick, but maintenance intensive.
Last edited: