Twin take off on one engine?

[Dallas]

I'm wondering if it's legal? I'm referring to a recent crash where the
pilot decided to take off on one engine and clipped a tree.

Looking over 91.205, you can't take off with out a magnetic compass.. but
it doesn't say anything about one engine out of two.


--
Dallas

[a[_3_]]

On Aug 28, 3:06*pm, Dallas > wrote:
> I'm wondering if it's legal? *I'm referring to a recent crash where the
> pilot decided to take off on one engine and clipped a tree.
>
> Looking over 91.205, you can't take off with out a magnetic compass.. *but
> it doesn't say anything about one engine out of two.
>
> --
> Dallas

You'll find the limitations in the pilot operating handbook: the fars
demand you observe those handbook limitations.

[jan olieslagers[_2_]]

a schreef:
> On Aug 28, 3:06 pm, Dallas > wrote:
>> I'm wondering if it's legal? I'm referring to a recent crash where the
>> pilot decided to take off on one engine and clipped a tree.
>>
>> Looking over 91.205, you can't take off with out a magnetic compass.. but
>> it doesn't say anything about one engine out of two.
>>
>> --
>> Dallas
>
> You'll find the limitations in the pilot operating handbook: the fars
> demand you observe those handbook limitations.

The POH seems to me the ultimate source of wisdom indeed. But what
is/are fars? Something USA-specific, probably?

[Jim Logajan]

jan olieslagers > wrote:
> a schreef:
>> On Aug 28, 3:06 pm, Dallas > wrote:
>>> I'm wondering if it's legal? I'm referring to a recent crash where
>>> the pilot decided to take off on one engine and clipped a tree.
>>>
>>> Looking over 91.205, you can't take off with out a magnetic
>>> compass.. but it doesn't say anything about one engine out of two.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Dallas
>>
>> You'll find the limitations in the pilot operating handbook: the fars
>> demand you observe those handbook limitations.
>
> The POH seems to me the ultimate source of wisdom indeed. But what
> is/are fars? Something USA-specific, probably?

He meant to type "fear". Fear demands you observe handbook limitations.
Otherwise you will not go very far.

[Robert Moore]

Jim Logajan > wrote
> He meant to type "fear". Fear demands you observe handbook limitations.
> Otherwise you will not go very far.

Jan asked what seems to me to be a serious question and got nothing but
a stupid answer.

Jan... the original answer would have been a bit more clear if it had
stated "the FARs" meaning the USofA Federal Aviation Regulations.

Bob Moore

[Jim Logajan]

Robert Moore > wrote:
> Jim Logajan > wrote
>> He meant to type "fear". Fear demands you observe handbook
>> limitations. Otherwise you will not go very far.
>
> Jan asked what seems to me to be a serious question and got nothing
> but a stupid answer.

Perhaps it was a serious question, but I have observed Jan to post the
occasional sardonic and tongue-in-cheek messages, so I assumed this was
another one. Here are a few of Jan's past postings that made me assume
he knew what was intended by "fars" and probably wasn't being serious:

------
Subject: Re: Flight time barter
From: jan olieslagers >
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.piloting

schreef:
> would like to barter with
> someone to finish my hours.

And what's your prefered way to go?
City gas? Strangling in nylon hose?
Engine failure on take-off? Poison?
Veins cut while immersed in hot bath?

And, err, what have you to offer for barter?
Better than nylon hose, I hope?

-----
Subject: Re: short guide to learning to fly
From: jan olieslagers >
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.piloting

d17uk schreef:
> Hi all if your interested in learning to fly and want to read a short
> guide, visit www.shortguidetolearningtofly.com

Thanks & congrats for your efforts.
You might well wish to better define yur subject:

<quote>

interested in learning to fly

<to add>

-) _a real _airplane_ i.e. requiring a PPL, not an ultralight neither an
LSA

-) in the US of A, or under USA i.e. FAA regulations

</to add>
</quote>

-----
Subject: Re: short guide to learning to fly
From: jan olieslagers >
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.piloting

d17uk schreef:
> Hi all if your interested in learning to fly and want to read a short
> guide, visit www.shortguidetolearningtofly.com

PS while you're at version 2.0, some spelling check wouldn't hurt
either. To begin with "if you're interested"" ...
Keep up the good work!
KA

[Orval Fairbairn[_2_]]

In article >,
Dallas > wrote:

> I'm wondering if it's legal? I'm referring to a recent crash where the
> pilot decided to take off on one engine and clipped a tree.
>
> Looking over 91.205, you can't take off with out a magnetic compass.. but
> it doesn't say anything about one engine out of two.

Actually, it is theoretically possible to do so, given enough runway to
attain single-engine rate-of climb prior to liftoff.

Simply making VMC won't suffice, unless you have enough excess power to
make it to the higher speed.

--
Remove _'s from email address to talk to me.

[vaughn[_2_]]

"a" > wrote in message
...

>You'll find the limitations in the pilot operating handbook: the fars
>demand you observe those handbook limitations.

That would be 91.213 Inoperative instruments & equipment.

Of course, if there happens to be an approved minimum equipment list that
says that single engine takeoff is OK...

Vaughn

[Dallas]

On Fri, 28 Aug 2009 23:02:33 -0400, Orval Fairbairn wrote:

> Simply making VMC won't suffice, unless you have enough excess power to
> make it to the higher speed.

So I gather from all this that we can't find anything that says you "can't
take off" in the FARs?
--
Dallas

[buttman]

On Aug 29, 12:50*am, Dallas > wrote:
> On Fri, 28 Aug 2009 23:02:33 -0400, Orval Fairbairn wrote:
> > Simply making VMC won't suffice, unless you have enough excess power to
> > make it to the higher speed.
>
> So I gather from all this that we can't find anything that says you "can't
> take off" in the FARs?
> --
> Dallas

I remember reading about a publicity stunt some manufacturer did back
in the 70s where they flew their aircraft a few hundred miles with one
of the props completely unattached to the aircraft/engine. I think it
was the Aero Commander 500, IIRC.

[Orval Fairbairn[_2_]]

In article
>,
buttman > wrote:

> On Aug 29, 12:50*am, Dallas > wrote:
> > On Fri, 28 Aug 2009 23:02:33 -0400, Orval Fairbairn wrote:
> > > Simply making VMC won't suffice, unless you have enough excess power to
> > > make it to the higher speed.
> >
> > So I gather from all this that we can't find anything that says you "can't
> > take off" in the FARs?
> > --
> > Dallas
>
> I remember reading about a publicity stunt some manufacturer did back
> in the 70s where they flew their aircraft a few hundred miles with one
> of the props completely unattached to the aircraft/engine. I think it
> was the Aero Commander 500, IIRC.

Actually, it was the prototype Aero Commander, back in the early 1950s.
They flew from Oklahoma to Washington, DC, with one of the props
strapped to the cabin floor.

--
Remove _'s from email address to talk to me.

[Dave[_19_]]

I understand some learjet dealers used to take off on one engine with
a load at high airports to make a point.. :)

But it had enough power that you could exceed the airframe redline in
level flight if you pushed the throttles up....

Dave



On Sat, 29 Aug 2009 14:16:50 -0400, Orval Fairbairn
> wrote:

>In article
>,
> buttman > wrote:
>
>> On Aug 29, 12:50*am, Dallas > wrote:
>> > On Fri, 28 Aug 2009 23:02:33 -0400, Orval Fairbairn wrote:
>> > > Simply making VMC won't suffice, unless you have enough excess power to
>> > > make it to the higher speed.
>> >
>> > So I gather from all this that we can't find anything that says you "can't
>> > take off" in the FARs?
>> > --
>> > Dallas
>>
>> I remember reading about a publicity stunt some manufacturer did back
>> in the 70s where they flew their aircraft a few hundred miles with one
>> of the props completely unattached to the aircraft/engine. I think it
>> was the Aero Commander 500, IIRC.
>
>Actually, it was the prototype Aero Commander, back in the early 1950s.
>They flew from Oklahoma to Washington, DC, with one of the props
>strapped to the cabin floor.

[Mike Granby]

On Aug 28, 11:23*pm, "vaughn" >
wrote:
> "a" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
> >You'll find the limitations in the pilot operating handbook: the fars
> >demand you observe those handbook limitations.
>
> That would be 91.213 *Inoperative instruments & equipment.
>
> Of course, if there happens to be an approved minimum equipment list that
> says that single engine takeoff is OK...
>
> Vaughn

So you could disable it and placard it inop?

[Robert Moore]

Clark > wrote

> Considering a 747 has been fairied on one engine

I doubt that very seriously. You probably meant to say "with one
engine inop". BTW, it's called "ferried", past tense of "ferry".

> I imagine that under the right circumstances a twin might legally
> depart on one engine.

If the FAA would issue a "Ferry Permit", also doubtful.

Bob Moore
ATP B-707, B-727
CFI ASEL-IA

[Peter Dohm]

"Dallas" > wrote in message
...
>
> I'm wondering if it's legal? I'm referring to a recent crash where the
> pilot decided to take off on one engine and clipped a tree.
>
> Looking over 91.205, you can't take off with out a magnetic compass.. but
> it doesn't say anything about one engine out of two.
>
>
> --
> Dallas

OK, so this thread is beginning to bother me; and, news reports being what
they are, it is not possible to parse the meaning from the original post.
In the particular case of the accident aircraft: was the take off attempted,
in its entirety, with an inoperative engine or did an engine failure occur
at some later point in the takeoff seqfuence?

The reason for asking is that, in the event that the failure occured at some
point during the normal take off sequence; then the questions would center
on the preflight calculations regaerding density altitude, gradient,
distance to obstacles, and adherence to recommended pilot techniques. OTOH;
if the take off was attempted, in its entirety, with an inoperative engine
(which seems improbable); then the questions center on the proper planning
and execution of a test flight--especially the planning to avoid any
collateral damage and the assurance that only necessary crew would be on
board.

So, since the information provide did not readily facilitate a search for
the report of the particular incident, please be a little more specific.

Thanks,
Peter

[Richard[_11_]]

On Aug 29, 1:16*pm, Orval Fairbairn >
wrote:
> In article
> >,
>
> *buttman > wrote:
> > On Aug 29, 12:50*am, Dallas > wrote:
> > > On Fri, 28 Aug 2009 23:02:33 -0400, Orval Fairbairn wrote:
> > > > Simply making VMC won't suffice, unless you have enough excess power to
> > > > make it to the higher speed.
>
> > > So I gather from all this that we can't find anything that says you "can't
> > > take off" in the FARs?
> > > --
> > > Dallas
>
> > I remember reading about a publicity stunt some manufacturer did back
> > in the 70s where they flew their aircraft a few hundred miles with one
> > of the props completely unattached to the aircraft/engine. I think it
> > was the Aero Commander 500, IIRC.
>
> Actually, it was the prototype Aero Commander, back in the early 1950s.
> They flew from Oklahoma to Washington, DC, with one of the props
> strapped to the cabin floor.
>
> --
> Remove _'s *from email address to talk to me.

No, that was Bob Hoover strapped to the cabin door.

Oh I do crack me up.

[Darkwing]

"Clark" > wrote in message
...
> Robert Moore > wrote in
> .247:
>
>> Clark > wrote
>>
>>> Considering a 747 has been fairied on one engine
>>
>> I doubt that very seriously. You probably meant to say "with one
>> engine inop". BTW, it's called "ferried", past tense of "ferry".
>
> Doubt it all you like. Your doubt won't change the fact that it occurred.
> The
> aircraft was grounded at some eastern Europe airport with three dead
> engines
> and it turned out to be feasible and cheaper to fly the plane to
> maintenance
> rather than bring the maintenance to the plane. I believe it was written
> up
> in Flying magazine.
>


Seems unlikely that a 747 could even take off on one engine. Maybe if the
runway was 10 miles long.

[Curt Johnson[_2_]]

Dallas wrote:
> I'm wondering if it's legal? I'm referring to a recent crash where the
> pilot decided to take off on one engine and clipped a tree.
>
> Looking over 91.205, you can't take off with out a magnetic compass.. but
> it doesn't say anything about one engine out of two.
>
>
He violated 91.13a, careless and reckless operation endangering the life
or property of another, unless he owned the aircraft, the crash site,
and the tree.

Curt

[Brian Whatcott]

Robert Moore wrote:
> Clark > wrote
>
>> Considering a 747 has been fairied on one engine
>
> I doubt that very seriously. You probably meant to say "with one
> engine inop". BTW, it's called "ferried", past tense of "ferry".
>
>> I imagine that under the right circumstances a twin might legally
>> depart on one engine.
>
> If the FAA would issue a "Ferry Permit", also doubtful.
>
> Bob Moore
> ATP B-707, B-727
> CFI ASEL-IA

In the early days of the 747, one arrived at London Heathrow with one
engine silent. Not only silent, but missing....

Brian W

[Dallas]

On Sun, 30 Aug 2009 19:40:51 -0400, Peter Dohm wrote:

> So, since the information provide did not readily facilitate a search for
> the report of the particular incident, please be a little more specific.

I replied via email.. but basically the sketchy details are here:
http://www.brantford.com/news.cfm?page=news&section=read&articleId=4997

I'd say he's going to need at least a couple of new engine mounts.

"brantford.com contacted VanBerlo today but he declined to comment."

Yeah.. no kidding... I wouldn't have even given them my name.

--
Dallas

[Dallas]

On Sun, 30 Aug 2009 04:47:43 -0700 (PDT), Mike Granby wrote:

> So you could disable it and placard it inop?

Sure, just put a big ole trash bag over it and write "inoperative" on it.

LOL
--
Dallas

[Orval Fairbairn[_2_]]

In article >,
Dallas > wrote:

> On Sun, 30 Aug 2009 04:47:43 -0700 (PDT), Mike Granby wrote:
>
> > So you could disable it and placard it inop?
>
> Sure, just put a big ole trash bag over it and write "inoperative" on it.
>
> LOL

I noticed that neither prop was feathered and that the landing gear was
down -- not a healthy condition for single-engine operation!

How was one engine inop? did it not pass mag check? did he lose it
during takeoff roll?

--
Remove _'s from email address to talk to me.

[Martin X. Moleski, SJ]

On Wed, 2 Sep 2009 00:23:11 -0500, Dallas > wrote in
>:

> ... the sketchy details are here:
>http://www.brantford.com/news.cfm?page=news&section=read&articleId=4997

>I'd say he's going to need at least a couple of new engine mounts.

And some touch-up paint. :-O

Another source says the engine quit on takeoff:

http://www.brantfordexpositor.ca/ArticleDisplay.aspx?e=1713744

http://www.brantfordexpositor.ca/ArticleDisplay.aspx?e=1715485

"The Transportation Safety Board is investigating the cause of a
plane crash near the Brantford Airport in which a pilot was
lucky to walk away with only minor injuries.

"TSB investigators completed Tuesday their inspection of the
crash scene in a corn field just off a runway at the airport,
where a twin-engine Piper Aztec crashed at about 5 p. m.
the evening before, then turned to other parts of the investigation.

"The plane, flown by an unidentifi ed 50-year-old male pilot,
had just left the runway when one engine seized for an
unknown reason. The aircraft struck a pine tree, then
crashed in a cornfield at the western border of the
airport territory."

Marty
--
Big-8 newsgroups: humanities.*, misc.*, news.*, rec.*, sci.*, soc.*, talk.*
See http://www.big-8.org for info on how to add or remove newsgroups.

[Morgans[_7_]]

"Dallas" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 30 Aug 2009 04:47:43 -0700 (PDT), Mike Granby wrote:
>
>> So you could disable it and placard it inop?
>
> Sure, just put a big ole trash bag over it and write "inoperative" on it.
>
> LOL

<Chuckle>
If you really want to "disable" it, you could always pour some concrete into
the spark plug holes. That would also solve any windmilling problems, too.
<ggg>
--
Jim in NC

[Dallas]

On Wed, 02 Sep 2009 11:01:32 -0400, Orval Fairbairn wrote:

> How was one engine inop? did it not pass mag check? did he lose it
> during takeoff roll?

Check further down this thread and you'll see that looks like another case
of the usual clueless aviation reporting.

--
Dallas

[Brian Whatcott]

Morgans wrote:
>
> "Dallas" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On Sun, 30 Aug 2009 04:47:43 -0700 (PDT), Mike Granby wrote:
>>
>>> So you could disable it and placard it inop?
>>
>> Sure, just put a big ole trash bag over it and write "inoperative" on it.
>>
>> LOL
>
> <Chuckle>
> If you really want to "disable" it, you could always pour some concrete
> into the spark plug holes. That would also solve any windmilling
> problems, too. <ggg>

I hear that a gallon of sodium silicate ("Waterglass") is the preferred
fluid - at least for clunker refunds.... the engine runs for 10 seconds
to several minutes - then seizes.

Brian W

[Dallas]

On Sun, 30 Aug 2009 19:40:51 -0400, Peter Dohm wrote:

> then the questions would center on the preflight calculations
> regaerding density altitude, gradient, distance to obstacles,


If you Google Earth CYFD you'll see it's 98% farmland, except off RWY 11
about 3,000 feet, there's looks to be a small stand of pine trees.

This is still a weird crash... Why couldn't he continue his take off with
one engine and 3,000 feet?... Why couldn't he bank a little to the left
and avoid the trees in favor of some pretty nice uncultivated farmland?

--
Dallas

[Flaps_50!]

On Aug 31, 11:35*am, Clark > wrote:
> Robert Moore > wrote 85.247:
>
> > Clark > wrote
>
> >> Considering a 747 has been fairied on one engine
>
> > I doubt that very seriously. You probably meant to say "with one
> > engine inop". BTW, it's called "ferried", past tense of "ferry".
>
> Doubt it all you like. Your doubt won't change the fact that it occurred. The
> aircraft was grounded at some eastern Europe airport with three dead engines
> and it turned out to be feasible and cheaper to fly the plane to maintenance
> rather than bring the maintenance to the plane. I believe it was written up
> in Flying magazine.
>
> Sorry you don't get the joke of a single engine operative 747 imitating a
> fairy.
>
>
>
> >> I imagine that under the right circumstances a twin might legally
> >> depart on one engine.
>
> > If the FAA would issue a "Ferry Permit", also doubtful.
>
> Let's see here now. It's happened in the past and somehow it's doubtful that
> it'll happen again. Hmmm, can't agree with you there.
>
>
>
> > Bob Moore
> > ATP B-707, B-727
> > CFI ASEL-IA
>
> --
> ---
> there should be a "sig" here

According to the data I can find, the 747 can't climb on one engine so
how can it take off?
Cheers

[Richard[_11_]]

On Sep 3, 3:47*pm, Clark > wrote:
> "Flaps_50!" > wrote in news:d7b4faf4-4167-46cd-8692-
> :
>
>
>
> > According to the data I can find, the 747 can't climb on one engine so
> > how can it take off?
> > Cheers
>
> Hmmm, empty weight is about 360,000 lbs plus a little fuel and 50,000 lbs of
> thrust. It aught to work. I suspect your data are in error or perhaps you're
> considering a loaded 747.
>
> --
> ---
> there should be a "sig" here

Yeah, but how *long* would the runway have to be assuming ideal
conditions of say 68 F at sea level and head wind of 20mph? Its not
just the weight, it's the rolling resistance of the mains as well.
What's the longest runway in the world? (Edwards, Groom Lake,
Bonneville salt flats notwithstanding).

I googled the heck out of it and could not find any thing re:single
engine take off of a 747.

[Richard[_11_]]

On Sep 3, 3:47*pm, Clark > wrote:
> "Flaps_50!" > wrote in news:d7b4faf4-4167-46cd-8692-
> :
>
>
>
> > According to the data I can find, the 747 can't climb on one engine so
> > how can it take off?
> > Cheers
>
> Hmmm, empty weight is about 360,000 lbs plus a little fuel and 50,000 lbs of
> thrust. It aught to work. I suspect your data are in error or perhaps you're
> considering a loaded 747.
>
> --
> ---
> there should be a "sig" here

Here's some good relevent reading:

http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/tech_ops/read.main/69428

[Martin X. Moleski, SJ]

On Thu, 3 Sep 2009 17:42:52 -0700 (PDT), Richard > wrote in
>:

> ... I googled the heck out of it and could not find any thing re:single
> engine take off of a 747.

I couldn't find anything I thought was reliable--some
claims and counterclaims on groups or forums like this.

What is clear is that the 747 can and has done lots of
ferry flights with one of the four engines inoperative.

If you're already up in the air with decent altitude
and a light payload, one engine might keep you in
the air.

My personal bet is that one engine won't do for liftoff.
Two would probably be OK. Three--people have done it,
so there's no doubt about it.

Marty
--
Big-8 newsgroups: humanities.*, misc.*, news.*, rec.*, sci.*, soc.*, talk.*
See http://www.big-8.org for info on how to add or remove newsgroups.

[Ron Reagun[_2_]]

You could probably do it in a skymaster. We had a 58 barron loose one
engine and was almost impossible to taxi. No was you could take off. Legal
or not

[Flaps_50!]

On Sep 4, 8:47*am, Clark > wrote:
> "Flaps_50!" > wrote in news:d7b4faf4-4167-46cd-8692-
> :
>
>
>
> > According to the data I can find, the 747 can't climb on one engine so
> > how can it take off?
> > Cheers
>
> Hmmm, empty weight is about 360,000 lbs plus a little fuel and 50,000 lbs of
> thrust. It aught to work. I suspect your data are in error or perhaps you're
> considering a loaded 747.
>

It comes from the certification requirements of a commercial 747
climbing on 3 engines. The excess thrust is calculated from the rate
of climb in that condition and knowing that 1 HP is 33,000 ft lbs /
rminute. Perhaps my math is wrong but I don't calculate an excess
thrust of 120,000 lbs... What do you get?

Cheers

[Flaps_50!]

On Sep 4, 3:26*pm, "Martin X. Moleski, SJ" >
wrote:
> On Thu, 3 Sep 2009 17:42:52 -0700 (PDT), Richard > wrote in
> >:
>
> > ... I googled the heck out of it and could not find any thing re:single
> > engine take off of a 747.
>
> I couldn't find anything I thought was reliable--some
> claims and counterclaims on groups or forums like this.
>
> What is clear is that the 747 can and has done lots of
> ferry flights with one of the four engines inoperative.
>
> If you're already up in the air with decent altitude
> and a light payload, one engine might keep you in
> the air.
>

Wasn't there was a case of a single engine landing with no go around
being possible?
Cheers

[Peter Dohm]

"Clark" > wrote in message
...
> "Flaps_50!" > wrote in news:2ce85d20-5c84-4425-a1bf-
> :
>
>> On Sep 4, 8:47 am, Clark > wrote:
>>> "Flaps_50!" > wrote in news:d7b4faf4-4167-46cd-8692-
>>> :
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> > According to the data I can find, the 747 can't climb on one engine so
>>> > how can it take off?
>>> > Cheers
>>>
>>> Hmmm, empty weight is about 360,000 lbs plus a little fuel and 50,000
>>> lbs
>> of
>>> thrust. It aught to work. I suspect your data are in error or perhaps
>>> you
>> 're
>>> considering a loaded 747.
>>>
>>
>> It comes from the certification requirements of a commercial 747
>> climbing on 3 engines. The excess thrust is calculated from the rate
>> of climb in that condition and knowing that 1 HP is 33,000 ft lbs /
>> rminute. Perhaps my math is wrong but I don't calculate an excess
>> thrust of 120,000 lbs... What do you get?
>>
>> Cheers
>
> What I get is that I suspect your numbers are at gross weight. I suggest
> looking at the problem as stated rather than making up your own
> conditions.
>
>
> --
> ---
> there should be a "sig" here

What I get is the latest successfull troll: please ignore him.

[Flaps_50!]

On Sep 11, 1:02*am, "Peter Dohm" > wrote:
> "Clark" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
>
>
> > "Flaps_50!" > wrote in news:2ce85d20-5c84-4425-a1bf-
> > :
>
> >> On Sep 4, 8:47 am, Clark > wrote:
> >>> "Flaps_50!" > wrote in news:d7b4faf4-4167-46cd-8692-
> >>> :
>
> >>> > According to the data I can find, the 747 can't climb on one engine so
> >>> > how can it take off?
> >>> > Cheers
>
> >>> Hmmm, empty weight is about 360,000 lbs plus a little fuel and 50,000
> >>> lbs
> >> *of
> >>> thrust. It aught to work. I suspect your data are in error or perhaps
> >>> you
> >> 're
> >>> considering a loaded 747.
>
> >> It comes from the certification requirements of a commercial 747
> >> climbing on 3 engines. The excess thrust is calculated from the rate
> >> of climb in that condition and knowing that 1 HP is 33,000 ft lbs /
> >> rminute. Perhaps my math is wrong but I don't calculate an excess
> >> thrust of 120,000 lbs... What do you get?
>
> >> Cheers
>
> > What I get is that I suspect your numbers are at gross weight. I suggest
> > looking at the problem as stated rather than making up your own
> > conditions.
>
> > --
> > ---
> > there should be a "sig" here
>
> What I get is the latest successfull troll: *please ignore him.

I see, discussion using physics and aeronautics about real aircraft
performance is a troll to you. You clearly prefer BS.
The 747 figures I used: empty weight 403,000 #, MTOW 870,000 #.
Minimum fuel 70,000 #, thrust available 60,000 #. That gave me TOW of
473,000 # which is quite a bit more than Clark 'estimated' so the drag
would be proportionally higher. In the absence of any ref to the
claimed actual takeoff on one engine, it sounds like urban piloting
myth.

[Flaps_50!]

On Sep 11, 2:19*pm, Clark > wrote:
> "Flaps_50!" > wrote :
>
>
>
> > On Sep 11, 1:02*am, "Peter Dohm" > wrote:
> >> "Clark" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
> >> > "Flaps_50!" > wrote in
> >> > news:2ce85d20-5c84-4425-a1bf
> > -
> >> > :
>
> >> >> On Sep 4, 8:47 am, Clark > wrote:
> >> >>> "Flaps_50!" > wrote in
> >> >>> news:d7b4faf4-4167-46cd-86
> > 92-
> >> >>> :
>
> >> >>> > According to the data I can find, the 747 can't climb on one
> >> >>> > engine
> > *so
> >> >>> > how can it take off?
> >> >>> > Cheers
>
> >> >>> Hmmm, empty weight is about 360,000 lbs plus a little fuel and
> >> >>> 50,000 lbs
> >> >> *of
> >> >>> thrust. It aught to work. I suspect your data are in error or
> >> >>> perhaps you
> >> >> 're
> >> >>> considering a loaded 747.
>
> >> >> It comes from the certification requirements of a commercial 747
> >> >> climbing on 3 engines. The excess thrust is calculated from the rate
> >> >> of climb in that condition and knowing that 1 HP is 33,000 ft lbs /
> >> >> rminute. Perhaps my math is wrong but I don't calculate an excess
> >> >> thrust of 120,000 lbs... What do you get?
>
> >> >> Cheers
>
> >> > What I get is that I suspect your numbers are at gross weight. I
> >> > sugges
> > t
> >> > looking at the problem as stated rather than making up your own
> >> > conditions.
>
> >> > --
> >> > ---
> >> > there should be a "sig" here
>
> >> What I get is the latest successfull troll: *please ignore him.
>
> > I see, discussion using physics and aeronautics about real aircraft
> > performance is a troll to you. You clearly prefer BS.
> > The 747 figures I used: empty weight 403,000 #, MTOW 870,000 #.
> > Minimum fuel 70,000 #, thrust available 60,000 #. That gave me TOW of
> > 473,000 # which is quite a bit more than Clark 'estimated' so the drag
> > would be proportionally higher. In the absence of any ref to the
> > claimed actual takeoff on one engine, it sounds like urban piloting
> > myth.
>
> While your efforts are some-what commendable (at least you tried) they
> don't fit the timeframe and conditions. It was a one time deal on an early
> model 747. Lower empty weight and minimum fuel wouldn't necessarily apply
> as long as W&B and structural load conditions were met. It was reported as
> a one-off ferry flight.
>
> I believe that Peter is rather overly sensitive to say the least.
>

Thank you for the further info. Even if our opinions differ on this
question, I really would appreciate a pointer to the actual event so I
can look into the difference between my theoretical drag estimates and
some heavy performance data. i

Cheers

[vaughn[_2_]]

"Flaps_50!" > wrote in message
...
:
>Thank you for the further info. Even if our opinions differ on this
>question, I really would appreciate a pointer to the actual event so I
>can look into the difference between my theoretical drag estimates and
>some heavy performance data. i

I invested 20 minutes of my life in a Google search for a 747
single-engine takeoff and found nothing. I assume that I am not alone but I
also acknowledge that a single search proves nothing one way or another..
Perhaps more importantly, the collective memories of this group have come up
with nothing specific over the last week or two. Until I see a believable
reference, I respectfully choose to believe that it didn't happen.

Vaughn

[JDS Davis]

Re: Aztec crash.
Vr is 70mph. Vmc is 80mph. Vy is 120mph.

The latest article said he knew he had an engine out and was taking
off single engine. Prop wouldn't be feathered because you can't
feather Piper twins on the ground after the engine is dead; you need
800rpm.

Best effort takeoff with 25 degrees flaps, 2 engines, he'd need around
1200' to clear 50' obstacle. No flaps for him because it's too much
drag, so add 50%. Half the engine power is gone, so assuming no loss
to lift, you'd still take twice as long to accelerate. That's 3600'.

What sort of climb should he expect? Best climb at 120mph at sea level
will be about 250fpm. Sub out 50fpm for being 815' MSL Plus 50'
obstacle. Assume he was at 4000lbs and add 150fpm. So, call it 350fpm
at 120mph clean (gear up, prop feathered).

At Vr, he's not going to climb out of ground effect. With gear down,
he's not going to get out of ground effect. With an unfeathered prop
he's not going to get out of ground effect. He's have to hug ground
effect for best acceleration, as pulling up too much would induce too
much drag.

Assuming he had all of that resolved, you'd still have to factor in
the distance to get to a climbing airspeed. Vyse of 120 means he
probably could expect climb performance at about 100 or 105mph. Based
on a whole lot of best case assumptions, you've still chewed up the
entire 5000' runway just to get to some minimum climb speed.

Add in best practices of abort if not climbing by 2/3 down the runway,
and another 25% distance because it's obviously not in new condition,
he shouldn't have attempted such a takeoff, even on a ferry flight,
unless he had 9000' to go with.

Even so, the POH says that if you haven't gotten to within 5mph of
Vyse before the engine fails, that you should abort the takeoff, even
if you're in the air. "Power to idle, land straight ahead."


Re: 747 single engine takeoff
Can it fly on 1 engine? Yes. Can it maintain altitude? Maybe. Can
it take off? If it were stripped, light on fuel, maybe.

The Boeing 747 has four turbofans. 4-engine transport category
aircraft are required to demonstrate a 3% positive gradient with an
engine out and gear up.

BEW is about half of MGW on a 747. Parasite drag is 2.2%, and you're
looking at around 150% engine power for climb. But there would be
more induced drag from the rudder pressures, so you might have to
strip the plane and unload 2 of the engine pods. Boeing might also go
past the mins, or use derated engines, so you this might all be
doable. Even so, you'd probably need 5 miles to accelerate to V2.

With passengers, landing fuel, cargo, luggage, SEATS, single engine,
max power, you're still descending.

That's all hypothetical though. A decent flight sim could probably
test this with some model tweaks. AA's sim center could probably test
this. Boeing might have some calculations for this on file somewhere.

[Martin X. Moleski, SJ]

On Tue, 15 Sep 2009 19:02:38 -0700 (PDT), JDS Davis > wrote in
>:

>Re: Aztec crash.

> ... The latest article said he knew he had an engine out and was taking
>off single engine. ...

Do you have a link to the latest article?

A reference?

Marty
--
Big-8 newsgroups: humanities.*, misc.*, news.*, rec.*, sci.*, soc.*, talk.*
See http://www.big-8.org for info on how to add or remove newsgroups.

[Martin X. Moleski, SJ]

On Tue, 15 Sep 2009 19:02:38 -0700 (PDT), JDS Davis > wrote in
>:

> ... The latest article said he knew he had an engine out and was taking
>off single engine. ...

OK. I went looking for the latest article myself:

http://www.brantford.com/news.cfm?page=news&section=read&articleId=4997

Published: Thu, 27 Aug 2009 by Tom Kennedy

The Transport Safety Board of Canada yesterday concluded its
investigation into a plane crash which occurred at Brantford
Municipal Airport on Monday afternoon [24 Aug 2009].

The investigation finished yesterday as TSB officials determined the
reason for the crash was not an unavoidable malfunction.

On the contrary, TSB’s senior regional investigator Peter Rowntree
said the pilot, Peter VanBerlo of Simcoe, had attempted to take off
from the Brantford airport with the knowledge that one of his
engines was not working.

VanBerlo’s twin engine Aztec Piper was down one engine when he
attempted to take off and, Rowntree said, he subsequently clipped a
line of evergreen trees on the edge of the runway and caused
irreparable damage to the plane causing him to crash in a cornfield
bordering the western side of the airport.

Rowntree said while it isn’t uncommon for pilots to fly with one
engine, it is very dangerous to attempt a takeoff.

“It’s not wise to take off in a two-engine aircraft when only one is
working,” he said.

The crash happened at around 5 p.m. Monday and Brant County OPP,
Brantford police and fire and ambulance crews were on scene but
VanBerlo only suffered minor injuries to his head and was released
from hospital the following day.

==== end quote ====

<http://www.avcanada.ca/forums2/viewtopic.php?f=54&t=57597&sid=9217e1945ec9b5c64833597ab6e50812&start=25>

A09O0179: The privately owned Piper PA23-250, registration C-FGAZ,
arriving from the United States stopped in Brantford to clear
customs before continuing to his private strip. When the pilot was
preparing to depart Brantford, he was unable to get to the right
engine to start. The pilot elected to attempt a single engine
takeoff from runway 23. During the take off roll the pilot was
unable to maintain direction control and the aircraft departed the
right side of the runway just prior to the intersection of taxiway
echo and runway 23. The aircraft struck a taxiway light and
continued across the taxiway becoming airborne. The aircraft began a
slow climb, but was unable to clear trees at the edge of the airport
property. The aircraft's right wing struck a tree approximately 20
feet from the ground severing the outboard portion of the right
wing. The aircraft crashed into a cornfield approximately 300 feet
beyond the tree and was substantially damaged. The pilot was the
only occupant on board and received minor injuries.

==== end quote ====

--
Big-8 newsgroups: humanities.*, misc.*, news.*, rec.*, sci.*, soc.*, talk.*
See http://www.big-8.org for info on how to add or remove newsgroups.