737 thinks it's a DC-10?

[Kingfish]

http://www.usatoday.com/travel/flights/2007-11-08-saa-jet_N.htm?csp=Travel

Maybe a broken fuse pin like the one that brought down that El Al 747
in Amsterdam back in '92? I know airline pilots train for power loss
during critical phases of flight, but I wonder how differently the
plane handles after shedding an engine?

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Kingfish > wrote in
ups.com:

> http://www.usatoday.com/travel/flights/2007-11-08-saa-jet_N.htm?csp=Tra
> vel
>
> Maybe a broken fuse pin like the one that brought down that El Al 747
> in Amsterdam back in '92? I know airline pilots train for power loss
> during critical phases of flight, but I wonder how differently the
> plane handles after shedding an engine?
>
>

Not too big a deal on a twin. A bit more exciting on a 4 engine airplane,
The damage done by the departing engine can be a problem (AA in Chicago,
'79) and a heavily laden four engined airplane's performance only alows for
the loss of one on takeoff. Two out is a very bad thing. Just ask Air
France.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Kingfish > wrote in
ups.com:

> http://www.usatoday.com/travel/flights/2007-11-08-saa-jet_N.htm?csp=Tra
> vel


BTW, Derman is talking out of his ass. 73's have no dump facility. You can
burn it though!
Of course, it would have been dumping like helll for a little while after
the fuel line was severed


Bertie

[Jim Stewart]

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
> Kingfish > wrote in
> ups.com:
>
>> http://www.usatoday.com/travel/flights/2007-11-08-saa-jet_N.htm?csp=Tra
>> vel
>>
>> Maybe a broken fuse pin like the one that brought down that El Al 747
>> in Amsterdam back in '92? I know airline pilots train for power loss
>> during critical phases of flight, but I wonder how differently the
>> plane handles after shedding an engine?
>>
>>
>
> Not too big a deal on a twin. A bit more exciting on a 4 engine airplane,
> The damage done by the departing engine can be a problem (AA in Chicago,
> '79) and a heavily laden four engined airplane's performance only alows for
> the loss of one on takeoff. Two out is a very bad thing. Just ask Air
> France.

I have heard that a 727 could fly on one
engine. What would that be like?

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Jim Stewart > wrote in
:

> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>> Kingfish > wrote in
>> ups.com:
>>
>>> http://www.usatoday.com/travel/flights/2007-11-08-saa-jet_N.htm?
csp=T
>>> ra vel
>>>
>>> Maybe a broken fuse pin like the one that brought down that El Al
>>> 747 in Amsterdam back in '92? I know airline pilots train for power
>>> loss during critical phases of flight, but I wonder how differently
>>> the plane handles after shedding an engine?
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Not too big a deal on a twin. A bit more exciting on a 4 engine
>> airplane, The damage done by the departing engine can be a problem
>> (AA in Chicago, '79) and a heavily laden four engined airplane's
>> performance only alows for the loss of one on takeoff. Two out is a
>> very bad thing. Just ask Air France.
>
> I have heard that a 727 could fly on one
> engine. What would that be like?
>



I've done it in the sim, but if it happens at V1 and you have any weight
on at all, you're ****ed. The 727 can just barely climb on one once
you're gear up. If you have lost 1&2 and are flying on #3 you have an
additional problem. Only 1&2 have hydraulic pumps. You still have
hydraulics, but only for flight controls and other lightweight
applications.Not the gear and flaps.
Once you stick the gear down and blow out the slats you are going to
come down, period. So, when you are in this situation you do both of
these things as you intercept the glidepath, add a lot of power on the
one engine you have left and try not to let it drift below the glide. If
it happens after takeoff and you are climbing and you dump REAL fast,
you can just about climb if you're not too heavy.
I once did this in the sim. We lost one at v1, and the second at about
400 feet (after gear retraction). I ordered a fuel dump and tried to
hold the climb as best I could. We're talking 50 FPM when it's all going
well, BTW. I was having a lot of troubl eclimbing and keeping my speed
and eventually, the FE's instructor started yelling at him for stopping
the dump halfway. He explained he thought it was a good idea to keep
some in case we had to divert! The dept. airflield was severe clear and
plenty big to land on with partial flap and emergency braking and it had
two runways, so there was no need for that. But leaving that aside,
there is no possilility of a go-around after th eapproach we had to do
anyway.
That's what sims are for.

Still, it's better than 2 out on a twin.

The four engined airplanes will fly with two or even three out, but the
takeoff performance is predicated upon the loss of only one engine.
(outboard being the most critical). Somebody lost one at HEathrow or
Gatwick a few years back and disappeared from the tower's sight at one
point. And i's not terribly hilly around there. I think it might have
been NW, but I can't remember and I'm way too lazy to look it up. if
anyon's inspired,I think it was about ten years ago.
The Concorde at Paris is a good example of this approach to perfmorance
and certifiaction. V1 is calculated based on a loss of one engine at
that point. If you lose one at V1, performance will be sufficient to
rotate, accelerate to V2 and clmb away to clear a screen height at the
end of the runway. If you lose two, you can't make it because there's no
way you can get to V2 and climb before you get to the end of the runway
(this is assuming that you're runway length or obstacle limited, given
enough runway, you could probably do it) In the Concorde accident, what
did them n at the end of the day was the FE shut down a running engine
because it had a fire warning going without consulting anyone else.
Engines are on fire all the time. That is their job. So if he had left
it until after achieving V2, they would have been able to fly, at least.
Whether they would have made it to Le Bourget is another matter, but I
would have bet on their chances of at least landing there.


Bertie

[F. Baum]

On Nov 8, 11:58 am, Kingfish > wrote:
I know airline pilots train for power loss
> during critical phases of flight, but I wonder how differently the
> plane handles after shedding an engine?

I think the only pilots that can answer this are the ones who have
done it. In the checklist it is treated the same as a fire or severe
damage (Like throwing a blade). It happened in England years ago on a
737 and a AA 727 landed with the #3 engine missing and according to
folklore they didnt know the engine acually separated from the
airplane until they were on the ground . It seems the plane would fly
easier without the drag of the windmilling engine.

[F. Baum]

On Nov 8, 2:37 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
..
>
> > I have heard that a 727 could fly on one
> > engine. What would that be like?
>
> I've done it in the sim, but if it happens at V1 and you have any weight
> on at all, you're ****ed. The 727 can just barely climb on one once
> you're gear up. If you have lost 1&2 and are flying on #3 you have an
> additional problem. Only 1&2 have hydraulic pumps. You still have
> hydraulics, but only for flight controls and other lightweight
> applications.Not the gear and flaps.
We had to do a two engine out approach on every other sim check and of
course we always lost 1&2. I was always told by the instructors that
this never actually happened in real life (Can any usenet fans back
this up?), but we did have a crew lose two inflight (Birdstike) but
they managed to restart one so they made the landing with only one
out.
KFB

[Morgans[_2_]]

"F. Baum" > wrote

> I think the only pilots that can answer this are the ones who have
> done it. In the checklist it is treated the same as a fire or severe
> damage (Like throwing a blade). It happened in England years ago on a
> 737 and a AA 727 landed with the #3 engine missing and according to
> folklore they didnt know the engine acually separated from the
> airplane until they were on the ground . It seems the plane would fly
> easier without the drag of the windmilling engine.

I would think that an engine loss would have made a noticeable difference
in CG, no?
--
Jim in NC

[Matt Whiting]

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
> Kingfish > wrote in
> ups.com:
>
>> http://www.usatoday.com/travel/flights/2007-11-08-saa-jet_N.htm?csp=Tra
>> vel
>>
>> Maybe a broken fuse pin like the one that brought down that El Al 747
>> in Amsterdam back in '92? I know airline pilots train for power loss
>> during critical phases of flight, but I wonder how differently the
>> plane handles after shedding an engine?
>>
>>
>
> Not too big a deal on a twin. A bit more exciting on a 4 engine airplane,
> The damage done by the departing engine can be a problem (AA in Chicago,
> '79) and a heavily laden four engined airplane's performance only alows for
> the loss of one on takeoff. Two out is a very bad thing. Just ask Air
> France.

Why is losing 50% of your thrust not as bad as losing only 25%?

Matt

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

"F. Baum" > wrote in news:1194560550.721098.184680
@i13g2000prf.googlegroups.com:

> On Nov 8, 2:37 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> .
>>
>> > I have heard that a 727 could fly on one
>> > engine. What would that be like?
>>
>> I've done it in the sim, but if it happens at V1 and you have any weight
>> on at all, you're ****ed. The 727 can just barely climb on one once
>> you're gear up. If you have lost 1&2 and are flying on #3 you have an
>> additional problem. Only 1&2 have hydraulic pumps. You still have
>> hydraulics, but only for flight controls and other lightweight
>> applications.Not the gear and flaps.
> We had to do a two engine out approach on every other sim check and of
> course we always lost 1&2. I was always told by the instructors that
> this never actually happened in real life (Can any usenet fans back
> this up?), but we did have a crew lose two inflight (Birdstike) but
> they managed to restart one so they made the landing with only one
> out.


I've never heard of one, butg I'd put good money on it having happened at
least once.
I've had three shutdowns on the 727. One oil seal blew, and the other two
were precautionary because the fuel heat got stuck on. It's simply a non-
event with one out, eh?

Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Matt Whiting > wrote in
:

> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>> Kingfish > wrote in
>> ups.com:
>>
>>> http://www.usatoday.com/travel/flights/2007-11-08-saa-jet_N.htm?
csp=T
>>> ra vel
>>>
>>> Maybe a broken fuse pin like the one that brought down that El Al
>>> 747 in Amsterdam back in '92? I know airline pilots train for power
>>> loss during critical phases of flight, but I wonder how differently
>>> the plane handles after shedding an engine?
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Not too big a deal on a twin. A bit more exciting on a 4 engine
>> airplane, The damage done by the departing engine can be a problem
>> (AA in Chicago, '79) and a heavily laden four engined airplane's
>> performance only alows for the loss of one on takeoff. Two out is a
>> very bad thing. Just ask Air France.
>
> Why is losing 50% of your thrust not as bad as losing only 25%?

They load the four engine airplanes up more than they would a twin
because the performance requirement says you only have to be able to
climb away after having lost one engine on each of the airplanes.
There's only enough performance built in to cover requirements, in other
words.
Doing any more means more weight, more fuel burn, more money. So losing
one engine on either a four engine or a twin engine is theoretically
going to get you to the same height at the end of the runway. In
practice, with modern types, you're probably going to be better off with
three or four engines, but this is by no means empirical. The 757, for
instance, will happily take off at near max weight with one engine inop
from the start of the takeoff run. Well, happily may not be the best
word, but it will do it on a runway of reasonable length. If airlines
could operate singe engine airplanes, they would!

Bertie

[Big John]

Bertie

Didn't the German ???? bird do someting like this and took off and
flew back to EU with engine out and passengers on board????

That's when the stinky stuff hit the fan in the media :o)

Big John

************************************************** *****

On Fri, 9 Nov 2007 00:30:54 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip >
wrote:

>Matt Whiting > wrote in
:
>
>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>> Kingfish > wrote in
>>> ups.com:
>>>
>>>> http://www.usatoday.com/travel/flights/2007-11-08-saa-jet_N.htm?
>csp=T
>>>> ra vel
>>>>
>>>> Maybe a broken fuse pin like the one that brought down that El Al
>>>> 747 in Amsterdam back in '92? I know airline pilots train for power
>>>> loss during critical phases of flight, but I wonder how differently
>>>> the plane handles after shedding an engine?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Not too big a deal on a twin. A bit more exciting on a 4 engine
>>> airplane, The damage done by the departing engine can be a problem
>>> (AA in Chicago, '79) and a heavily laden four engined airplane's
>>> performance only alows for the loss of one on takeoff. Two out is a
>>> very bad thing. Just ask Air France.
>>
>> Why is losing 50% of your thrust not as bad as losing only 25%?
>
>They load the four engine airplanes up more than they would a twin
>because the performance requirement says you only have to be able to
>climb away after having lost one engine on each of the airplanes.
>There's only enough performance built in to cover requirements, in other
>words.
>Doing any more means more weight, more fuel burn, more money. So losing
>one engine on either a four engine or a twin engine is theoretically
>going to get you to the same height at the end of the runway. In
>practice, with modern types, you're probably going to be better off with
>three or four engines, but this is by no means empirical. The 757, for
>instance, will happily take off at near max weight with one engine inop
>from the start of the takeoff run. Well, happily may not be the best
>word, but it will do it on a runway of reasonable length. If airlines
>could operate singe engine airplanes, they would!
>
>Bertie
>

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Big John > wrote in
:

> Bertie
>
> Didn't the German ???? bird do someting like this and took off and
> flew back to EU with engine out and passengers on board????
>
> That's when the stinky stuff hit the fan in the media :o)

Oh yeah. BA, I think. LAX LHR maybe? probably as safe to go on as to return
providing they knew why the engine quit and if it had done any damage to
the rest of the airplane.



Bertie

[Big John]

Kingfish

Was over Omaha in a T-39 and oil pressure went to zero on starboard
engine, so shut down. I told passengers we were on one and we made a
slow let down direct to COS (Colorado Springs) our destination. Landed
on one and if we hadn't told the passengers they would never have know
we were on single engine.

Mechs found a broken oil line and fixed over night. No damage to
engine since we shut down early.

This trip was my last flights in T-39 and last trip as aircrew in
USAF. Desk then until I retired as only a limited number of pilot
slots available for desk jockies in Hq :o(

Big John

**********************************

On Thu, 08 Nov 2007 10:58:35 -0800, Kingfish >
wrote:

>http://www.usatoday.com/travel/flights/2007-11-08-saa-jet_N.htm?csp=Travel
>
>Maybe a broken fuse pin like the one that brought down that El Al 747
>in Amsterdam back in '92? I know airline pilots train for power loss
>during critical phases of flight, but I wonder how differently the
>plane handles after shedding an engine?

[Big John]

Bertie

Think they took off with the one caged and passengers and flew home???
I was just trying to agree with your comment about taking off OK with
engine caged.

They made it fine but someone had to open their big mouth :o(

Big John

**********************************

On Fri, 9 Nov 2007 01:31:14 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip >
wrote:

>Big John > wrote in
:
>
>> Bertie
>>
>> Didn't the German ???? bird do someting like this and took off and
>> flew back to EU with engine out and passengers on board????
>>
>> That's when the stinky stuff hit the fan in the media :o)
>
>Oh yeah. BA, I think. LAX LHR maybe? probably as safe to go on as to return
>providing they knew why the engine quit and if it had done any damage to
>the rest of the airplane.
>
>
>
>Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Big John > wrote in
:

> Bertie
>
> Think they took off with the one caged and passengers and flew home???


Wow! with skinny little engines like that?

> I was just trying to agree with your comment about taking off OK with
> engine caged.


Well, I have been told that it's legal to ferry a 757 on one, but for the
life of me I can't figure out why you would want to unless it requires some
very special equiment for an engine change. Seems to me that anyplace you
coudl take off with one engine in a 757 would be accesible enough to get a
herc with a new engine into.
>
> They made it fine but someone had to open their big mouth :o(


There's always one self appointed policeman in every crowd...


Bertie
>

[Matt Whiting]

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
> Matt Whiting > wrote in
> :
>
>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>> Kingfish > wrote in
>>> ups.com:
>>>
>>>> http://www.usatoday.com/travel/flights/2007-11-08-saa-jet_N.htm?
> csp=T
>>>> ra vel
>>>>
>>>> Maybe a broken fuse pin like the one that brought down that El Al
>>>> 747 in Amsterdam back in '92? I know airline pilots train for power
>>>> loss during critical phases of flight, but I wonder how differently
>>>> the plane handles after shedding an engine?
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Not too big a deal on a twin. A bit more exciting on a 4 engine
>>> airplane, The damage done by the departing engine can be a problem
>>> (AA in Chicago, '79) and a heavily laden four engined airplane's
>>> performance only alows for the loss of one on takeoff. Two out is a
>>> very bad thing. Just ask Air France.
>> Why is losing 50% of your thrust not as bad as losing only 25%?
>
> They load the four engine airplanes up more than they would a twin
> because the performance requirement says you only have to be able to
> climb away after having lost one engine on each of the airplanes.
> There's only enough performance built in to cover requirements, in other
> words.
> Doing any more means more weight, more fuel burn, more money. So losing
> one engine on either a four engine or a twin engine is theoretically
> going to get you to the same height at the end of the runway. In
> practice, with modern types, you're probably going to be better off with
> three or four engines, but this is by no means empirical. The 757, for
> instance, will happily take off at near max weight with one engine inop
> from the start of the takeoff run. Well, happily may not be the best
> word, but it will do it on a runway of reasonable length. If airlines
> could operate singe engine airplanes, they would!

So, it really isn't any worse in a 4 engine jet as opposed to a twin.

Matt

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Matt Whiting > wrote in
:

> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>> Matt Whiting > wrote in
>> :
>>
>>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>>> Kingfish > wrote in
>>>> ups.com:
>>>>
>>>>> http://www.usatoday.com/travel/flights/2007-11-08-saa-jet_N.htm?
>> csp=T
>>>>> ra vel
>>>>>
>>>>> Maybe a broken fuse pin like the one that brought down that El Al
>>>>> 747 in Amsterdam back in '92? I know airline pilots train for
>>>>> power loss during critical phases of flight, but I wonder how
>>>>> differently the plane handles after shedding an engine?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> Not too big a deal on a twin. A bit more exciting on a 4 engine
>>>> airplane, The damage done by the departing engine can be a problem
>>>> (AA in Chicago, '79) and a heavily laden four engined airplane's
>>>> performance only alows for the loss of one on takeoff. Two out is a
>>>> very bad thing. Just ask Air France.
>>> Why is losing 50% of your thrust not as bad as losing only 25%?
>>
>> They load the four engine airplanes up more than they would a twin
>> because the performance requirement says you only have to be able to
>> climb away after having lost one engine on each of the airplanes.
>> There's only enough performance built in to cover requirements, in
>> other words.
>> Doing any more means more weight, more fuel burn, more money. So
>> losing one engine on either a four engine or a twin engine is
>> theoretically going to get you to the same height at the end of the
>> runway. In practice, with modern types, you're probably going to be
>> better off with three or four engines, but this is by no means
>> empirical. The 757, for instance, will happily take off at near max
>> weight with one engine inop from the start of the takeoff run. Well,
>> happily may not be the best word, but it will do it on a runway of
>> reasonable length. If airlines could operate singe engine airplanes,
>> they would!
>
> So, it really isn't any worse in a 4 engine jet as opposed to a twin

Losing one isn't any worse, but losing two in a four engine airplane at
MTOW for the runway is very bad news indeed. Losing one in either is
theoretically about the same. Same goes for a three engined airplane. I
know someone who lost an engine at rotation in a 727 and he had a rather
thrilling time climbing out in the mountainous terrain surrounding the
field. The airplane was up against an obstacle performance limit and it
was at night. The emergency turn procedure was followed and it ended
well. If he had lost two at V1 there is no way they would have made it.

One problem with four engine aircraft is that if you lose one and it
tosses some of it's parts around, the second engine on the same side may
also be damaged as a result. This was a particular Achilles heel of the
DH Comet whose paired buried engines were particularly suscepible to
damage caused by it's neighbor coming apart.
But even a 74' or A340 is not immune, particularly if the inboard engine
is first to spew forth fragments. AFAIK, this has never caused an
accident in any four engined airplane, but it is something I'd certainly
have in the back of my head as I rolled if I flew one.



Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

"Morgans" > wrote in
:

>
> "F. Baum" > wrote
>
>> I think the only pilots that can answer this are the ones who have
>> done it. In the checklist it is treated the same as a fire or severe
>> damage (Like throwing a blade). It happened in England years ago on a
>> 737 and a AA 727 landed with the #3 engine missing and according to
>> folklore they didnt know the engine acually separated from the
>> airplane until they were on the ground . It seems the plane would fly
>> easier without the drag of the windmilling engine.
>
> I would think that an engine loss would have made a noticeable
> difference
> in CG, no?

Nah, they're pretty much on the CG on that airplane


Bertie

[Mxsmanic]

Jim Stewart writes:

> I have heard that a 727 could fly on one
> engine. What would that be like?

The 727 could take off with two engines; I'm not sure about one. Being able
to fly in cruise on one engine would be somewhat less impressive.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Bob Moore > wrote in
46.128:

> Bertie the Bunyip wrote
>
>> Losing one in either is theoretically about the same.
>> Same goes for a three engined airplane.
>
> Some additional information.
>
> (b) Takeoff; landing gear retracted. In the takeoff configuration
> existing at the point of the flight path at which the landing gear is
> fully retracted, and in the configuration used in §25.111 but without
> ground effect:
>
> (1) The steady gradient of climb may not be less than 2.4 percent for
> two- engine airplanes, 2.7 percent for three-engine airplanes, and 3.0
> percent for four-engine airplanes, at V2with:
>
> (i) The critical engine inoperative, the remaining engines at the
> takeoff power or thrust available at the time the landing gear is
> fully retracted, determined under §25.111, unless there is a more
> critical power operating condition existing later along the flight
> path but before the point where the airplane reaches a height of 400
> feet above the takeoff surface;
>


I was going to say that ;)

Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Jim Stewart writes:
>
>> I have heard that a 727 could fly on one
>> engine. What would that be like?
>
> The 727 could take off with two engines; I'm not sure about one.

Thanks for playing, be sure to pick a copy of our board game on the way
out.

Bertie

[Kingfish]

On Nov 8, 11:21 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:

> But even a 74' or A340 is not immune, particularly if the inboard engine
> is first to spew forth fragments. AFAIK, this has never caused an
> accident in any four engined airplane,

That's what happened to the El Al 747 in 1992 over Amsterdam. I saw
the "Seconds from Disaster" show recently that chronicled the
investigation. The #3 engine departed the wing and took #4 with it
(and 30ft of the leading edge) Incredibly, the captain was able to
recover the airplane, but when he slowed to make an emergency landing
the wing lost lift and combined with its high drag caused the plane to
roll right and it went in.

BTW, what th' hell is a bunyip??

[Kingfish]

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2007/11/09/219306/foreign-object-ingestion-led-737-to-shed-engine-nationwide.html

Here's an update on the Nationwide 737 engine-shedding incident (we
can't call it an accident, can we?) Apparently it was FOD.

[F. Baum]

On Nov 8, 4:33 pm, "Morgans" > wrote:
>
> I would think that an engine loss would have made a noticeable difference
> in CG, no?
> --
> Jim in NC

Jim, here again, I cant really say. The 727 had a max landing wieght
of 154500 and the GC shfted aft during flight anyways, but it was
probably still noticable. A big problem with fuselage mounted engines
is that anything that comes off the plane went through the engines
(Ice, frost, chunks of tire etc). Most of the time a catastrophic tire
falure on TO would result in FODing out the 1 or 3 engine.
The AA incident was kinda interesting because it resulted from a
malfunction in the lavitory dump valve that caused blue juice to leak
down the side of the fuselage. Of course this stuff froze up at
altitude and then broke off and went through the #3 engine. The crew
handled it as a engine failure and when they got on the ground ATC
made a comment about losing the #3 engine to which they responded how
ATC would know which engine was shut down. This is when they found out
the engine had departed the aircraft.
As for MXs asertion that you can take off with two engines, he is full
of it as usual. There would not be enough directional control to do
this on most of these jets. The only jet that I know of that could be
ferried with an engine out was the DC8. This required special aircrew
training and it still resulted in a few fatal accidents.Hope this
helps.
KB

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Kingfish > wrote in news:1194623360.997381.167320
@v2g2000hsf.googlegroups.com:

> On Nov 8, 11:21 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>
>> But even a 74' or A340 is not immune, particularly if the inboard engine
>> is first to spew forth fragments. AFAIK, this has never caused an
>> accident in any four engined airplane,
>
> That's what happened to the El Al 747 in 1992 over Amsterdam. I saw
> the "Seconds from Disaster" show recently that chronicled the
> investigation. The #3 engine departed the wing and took #4 with it
> (and 30ft of the leading edge) Incredibly, the captain was able to
> recover the airplane, but when he slowed to make an emergency landing
> the wing lost lift and combined with its high drag caused the plane to
> roll right and it went in.


Well, it would have been the mis-shapen wing that finally did those guys
in. I never looked at that one in detail, though. Those Discovery channel
programs are very good indeed, but the evidence can be presented in such a
way as to make some trivial items seem more important than they are.
>
> BTW, what th' hell is a bunyip??

Look me up in Wikipedia. I had nothing to do with the entry, though.


Bertie


>
>

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Kingfish > wrote in
ups.com:

> http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2007/11/09/219306/foreign-object-i
> ngestion-led-737-to-shed-engine-nationwide.html
>
> Here's an update on the Nationwide 737 engine-shedding incident (we
> can't call it an accident, can we?) Apparently it was FOD.
>
>

Yeah, that will do it.

I know of another case exactly like this. The crew had been sitting at the
holding point for ten minutes before takeoff, doing what crews do,
criticising the management. I think you can see where this is going..


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

"F. Baum" > wrote in
ups.com:

> On Nov 8, 4:33 pm, "Morgans" > wrote:
>>
>> I would think that an engine loss would have made a noticeable
>> difference
>> in CG, no?
>> --
>> Jim in NC
>
> Jim, here again, I cant really say. The 727 had a max landing wieght
> of 154500 and the GC shfted aft during flight anyways, but it was
> probably still noticable. A big problem with fuselage mounted engines
> is that anything that comes off the plane went through the engines
> (Ice, frost, chunks of tire etc). Most of the time a catastrophic tire
> falure on TO would result in FODing out the 1 or 3 engine.
> The AA incident was kinda interesting because it resulted from a
> malfunction in the lavitory dump valve that caused blue juice to leak
> down the side of the fuselage. Of course this stuff froze up at
> altitude and then broke off and went through the #3 engine. The crew
> handled it as a engine failure and when they got on the ground ATC
> made a comment about losing the #3 engine to which they responded how
> ATC would know which engine was shut down. This is when they found out
> the engine had departed the aircraft.
> As for MXs asertion that you can take off with two engines, he is full
> of it as usual. There would not be enough directional control to do
> this on most of these jets. The only jet that I know of that could be
> ferried with an engine out was the DC8. This required special aircrew
> training and it still resulted in a few fatal accidents.Hope this
> helps.



He wasn't talking about ferrying, he was talking about a V1 cut as far
as I could see.
You can ferry a 727 with one out. My company has done it and I've seen
the Boeing paperwork for it. It's not a big deal in the 72'
You can also get some twins off on one engine from a standing start!
You just have to introduce power gradually. I've done it in a 757 sim at
210,000 off a 10,000 foot runway. I've been told that it's legal to
ferry a 757 on one engine but I have no credible confirmation of this. I
have no doubt it could be done, though. Why you would want to is beyond
me, though.
I also remember seeing an accident report involving some guy who tried
to get an Apache airborne on one. IIRC it was somewhere in Ohio. He
couldn't get the left one going due cold weather and so decided to try a
windmill start airborne.
Greatest optimist who ever lived.


Bertie

[Mxsmanic]

F. Baum writes:

> As for MXs asertion that you can take off with two engines, he is full
> of it as usual. There would not be enough directional control to do
> this on most of these jets.

Boeing occasionally demonstrated the 727 to prospects by taking off and
setting one engine to idle just before rotation. You might want to write to
them and tell them that they were full of it, too.

[F. Baum]

On Nov 9, 9:33 am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> "F. Baum" > wrote roups.com:
..
> > As for MXs asertion that you can take off with two engines, he is full
> > of it as usual. >
> He wasn't talking about ferrying, he was talking about a V1 cut as far
> as I could see.

OOOOps! Sorry about that MX. I should not have said you are full of
it. Some of your posts are actually entertaining.

> You can ferry a 727 with one out. My company has done it and I've seen
> the Boeing paperwork for it. It's not a big deal in the 72'

Thanks for the update. I always wondered about that so I thought I
would post it here to see if anyone else had a diifferent experience.
At my shop we werent aloud to do this and judging by how much work the
engine out missed was, this would have been alot of fun.
> You can also get some twins off on one engine from a standing start!
> You just have to introduce power gradually. I've done it in a 757 sim at
> 210,000 off a 10,000 foot runway. I've been told that it's legal to
> ferry a 757 on one engine but I have no credible confirmation of this. I
> have no doubt it could be done, though. Why you would want to is beyond
> me, though.

Exactly. I have seen a crew doing engine out touch and goes with a
certain turboprop and I have heard you could this with other twins,
but nothing credible from a standing start.
KFB

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> F. Baum writes:
>
>> As for MXs asertion that you can take off with two engines, he is
>> full of it as usual. There would not be enough directional control to
>> do this on most of these jets.
>
> Boeing occasionally demonstrated the 727 to prospects by taking off
> and setting one engine to idle just before rotation. You might want
> to write to them and tell them that they were full of it, too.
>




You are an idiot. We used to have to do it in the airplnae for crew
certification.

You have no idea of what you're talking about, fjukkktard.


Bertie

[F. Baum]

On Nov 9, 10:27 am, Bob Moore > wrote:
> F. Baum wrote
>
>
> All Boeing 4 engine jets can be three-engine
> ferried. I've done them in B-707s.
>
> Bob Moore
> ATP B-707 B-727
> PanAm (retired)

Bob thanks. I always wondered about this which is why I posted the
comment, to see if anyone had other experiences. The guys who sign my
check aint got no 4 engine jobs (We aint got no 3 engine jobs anymore
either). I asume this requiered a checkout ? I remember reading an
acident report on a frieghter DC8 that tried to do this and on the
second or third attempt they departed the side of the runway and
unfortunatly didnt live to tell about it. They had not been checked
out to do this.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

"F. Baum" > wrote in
ups.com:

> On Nov 9, 9:33 am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> "F. Baum" > wrote
>> roups.com:
> .
>> > As for MXs asertion that you can take off with two engines, he is
>> > full of it as usual. >
>> He wasn't talking about ferrying, he was talking about a V1 cut as
>> far as I could see.
>
> OOOOps! Sorry about that MX. I should not have said you are full of
> it. Some of your posts are actually entertaining.
>
>> You can ferry a 727 with one out. My company has done it and I've
>> seen the Boeing paperwork for it. It's not a big deal in the 72'
>
> Thanks for the update. I always wondered about that so I thought I
> would post it here to see if anyone else had a diifferent experience.
> At my shop we werent aloud to do this and judging by how much work the
> engine out missed was, this would have been alot of fun.

Well, empty it wouldn't have been too different from taking off at max.
Our's had -7s as well and they were 200s so it was no ball of fire on
three heavy.

>> You can also get some twins off on one engine from a standing start!
>> You just have to introduce power gradually. I've done it in a 757 sim
>> at 210,000 off a 10,000 foot runway. I've been told that it's legal
>> to ferry a 757 on one engine but I have no credible confirmation of
>> this. I have no doubt it could be done, though. Why you would want to
>> is beyond me, though.
>
> Exactly. I have seen a crew doing engine out touch and goes with a
> certain turboprop and I have heard you could this with other twins,
> but nothing credible from a standing start.


Well, we used to do V1 cuts in the airplanes which was pretty exciting
in some airplanes, the 737-200 in particular which had a roll yaw
coupling that got your attention. I don;t think anyone in the world is
doing these any more but an empty airplane will do it no problem.
Certified airplanes will do exaclty what it says on the label. I had an
engine blow to bits on a 73 just below V1 on a limiting runway once and
we stopped. We used almost the whole runway, but we stopped just like Mr
Boeing said we would. Another 737 lost one on exactly the same runway
for the same reason (bird strike) and went and it did exactly what they
said it would do there as well,



Bertie


>

[F. Baum]

On Nov 9, 10:28 am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> F. Baum writes:
>
> Boeing occasionally demonstrated the 727 to prospects by taking off and
> setting one engine to idle just before rotation. You might want to write to
> them and tell them that they were full of it, too.

This is called a V1 cut and it is done on every sim check on every
crew for every plane flown in the world. The regs require the planes
weight to be limited so the plane can either stop on the remaining
runway if the engine fails before V1 or continue (and climout) if the
engine fails after V1. Go back and read Moores exellent post on the
subject.
KFBaum

[F. Baum]

On Nov 9, 10:48 am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:

>
> Well, we used to do V1 cuts in the airplanes which was pretty exciting
> in some airplanes, the 737-200 in particular which had a roll yaw
> coupling that got your attention. I don;t think anyone in the world is
> doing these any more but an empty airplane will do it no problem.
> Certified airplanes will do exaclty what it says on the label. I had an
> engine blow to bits on a 73 just below V1 on a limiting runway once and
> we stopped. We used almost the whole runway, but we stopped just like Mr
> Boeing said we would. Another 737 lost one on exactly the same runway
> for the same reason (bird strike) and went and it did exactly what they
> said it would do there as well,

Of all the performance paramaters the accelerate stop charts have
always been the most impresive to me. I had a good kitbuilding buddy
who had a birdstrike in a 300 on a 6400 ft runway that I thought would
be dangerous as all hell and they went past V1 by a few and still
stopped it , without melting the plugs no less. I flew in the next day
with a couple of mecanics and they replaced several fan blades and we
ferried it to a maintenece base for further repairs. Just amazing what
these jets will do.
>

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

"F. Baum" > wrote in news:1194632625.438524.118820
@v29g2000prd.googlegroups.com:

> On Nov 9, 10:48 am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>
>>
>> Well, we used to do V1 cuts in the airplanes which was pretty exciting
>> in some airplanes, the 737-200 in particular which had a roll yaw
>> coupling that got your attention. I don;t think anyone in the world is
>> doing these any more but an empty airplane will do it no problem.
>> Certified airplanes will do exaclty what it says on the label. I had an
>> engine blow to bits on a 73 just below V1 on a limiting runway once and
>> we stopped. We used almost the whole runway, but we stopped just like Mr
>> Boeing said we would. Another 737 lost one on exactly the same runway
>> for the same reason (bird strike) and went and it did exactly what they
>> said it would do there as well,
>
> Of all the performance paramaters the accelerate stop charts have
> always been the most impresive to me. I had a good kitbuilding buddy
> who had a birdstrike in a 300 on a 6400 ft runway that I thought would
> be dangerous as all hell and they went past V1 by a few and still
> stopped it , without melting the plugs no less. I flew in the next day
> with a couple of mecanics and they replaced several fan blades and we
> ferried it to a maintenece base for further repairs. Just amazing what
> these jets will do.


That's short all right. Gives you great confidence in them when you see
taht and makes the V1 decision easy. Bertie

[Big John]

On Fri, 9 Nov 2007 16:33:11 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip >
wrote:

>"F. Baum" > wrote in
ups.com:
>
>> On Nov 8, 4:33 pm, "Morgans" > wrote:
>>>
>>> I would think that an engine loss would have made a noticeable
>>> difference
>>> in CG, no?
>>> --
>>> Jim in NC
>>
>> Jim, here again, I cant really say. The 727 had a max landing wieght
>> of 154500 and the GC shfted aft during flight anyways, but it was
>> probably still noticable. A big problem with fuselage mounted engines
>> is that anything that comes off the plane went through the engines
>> (Ice, frost, chunks of tire etc). Most of the time a catastrophic tire
>> falure on TO would result in FODing out the 1 or 3 engine.
>> The AA incident was kinda interesting because it resulted from a
>> malfunction in the lavitory dump valve that caused blue juice to leak
>> down the side of the fuselage. Of course this stuff froze up at
>> altitude and then broke off and went through the #3 engine. The crew
>> handled it as a engine failure and when they got on the ground ATC
>> made a comment about losing the #3 engine to which they responded how
>> ATC would know which engine was shut down. This is when they found out
>> the engine had departed the aircraft.
>> As for MXs asertion that you can take off with two engines, he is full
>> of it as usual. There would not be enough directional control to do
>> this on most of these jets. The only jet that I know of that could be
>> ferried with an engine out was the DC8. This required special aircrew
>> training and it still resulted in a few fatal accidents.Hope this
>> helps.
>
>
>
>He wasn't talking about ferrying, he was talking about a V1 cut as far
>as I could see.
>You can ferry a 727 with one out. My company has done it and I've seen
>the Boeing paperwork for it. It's not a big deal in the 72'
>You can also get some twins off on one engine from a standing start!
>You just have to introduce power gradually. I've done it in a 757 sim at
>210,000 off a 10,000 foot runway. I've been told that it's legal to
>ferry a 757 on one engine but I have no credible confirmation of this. I
>have no doubt it could be done, though. Why you would want to is beyond
>me, though.
>I also remember seeing an accident report involving some guy who tried
>to get an Apache airborne on one. IIRC it was somewhere in Ohio. He
>couldn't get the left one going due cold weather and so decided to try a
>windmill start airborne.
>Greatest optimist who ever lived.
>
>
>Bertie


Bertie

You have heard about starting a jet fighter with another jet?

At least one time they lined a good jet just ahead of a bad jet
(F-86's as I remember) and forward bird ran it's engine up and the jet
exhaust down the intake of rear fighter spun the engine up to start
RPM and it was started and both flew away.

Some one may remember where this took place and why it had to be done
(Korea???)

They may have landed some place with no maintenance and used this
procedure to get home vs sending in a repair crew???

Big John

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Big John > wrote in
:
>
> Bertie
>
> You have heard about starting a jet fighter with another jet?


Yes, I've seen it done to a stranded 707 when no GPU was available or
likely to be before the thing corroded away.
>
> At least one time they lined a good jet just ahead of a bad jet
> (F-86's as I remember) and forward bird ran it's engine up and the jet
> exhaust down the intake of rear fighter spun the engine up to start
> RPM and it was started and both flew away.
>
> Some one may remember where this took place and why it had to be done
> (Korea???)
>
> They may have landed some place with no maintenance and used this
> procedure to get home vs sending in a repair crew???


Whatever gets you home!

I saw something on the history channel about a pair of F 86's in whihc one
guy pushed the other over back to friendly territory after a flameout. The
flamed-out pilot got out but drowned in his shrouds.


Bertie

[Mxsmanic]

F. Baum writes:

> This is called a V1 cut and it is done on every sim check on every
> crew for every plane flown in the world. The regs require the planes
> weight to be limited so the plane can either stop on the remaining
> runway if the engine fails before V1 or continue (and climout) if the
> engine fails after V1.

The important point is that the aircraft still took off successfully with one
engine set to idle. Therefore it can take off with only two of three engines
providing thrust.

[Mxsmanic]

Bob Moore writes:

> Yes....BUT....that is not the same as taking off on two engines
> because you have used all three to accelerate past the Vmcg speed.

Hmm ... granted. I don't know that they waited until rotation to pull back
the throttle, though (it has been many years since I read about this). The
727 supposedly had a reputation for having plenty of power to spare, at least
compared to its contemporaries.

> Of course, if it is the center engine that is INOP, then of course
> it can be done at a light weight and a long runway.

I don't know which engine they idled, but logically one would expect the
center engine.

[Mxsmanic]

Big John writes:

> At least one time they lined a good jet just ahead of a bad jet
> (F-86's as I remember) and forward bird ran it's engine up and the jet
> exhaust down the intake of rear fighter spun the engine up to start
> RPM and it was started and both flew away.

How did they keep engine temperatures within acceptable limits?

[Tina]

flawed logic: one would demonstrate the airplane's saftey by reduing
the thrust on a critical engine, and one offering off centerline
thrust would be the logical choice,


On Nov 9, 6:43 pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Bob Moore writes:
> > Yes....BUT....that is not the same as taking off on two engines
> > because you have used all three to accelerate past the Vmcg speed.
>
> Hmm ... granted. I don't know that they waited until rotation to pull back
> the throttle, though (it has been many years since I read about this). The
> 727 supposedly had a reputation for having plenty of power to spare, at least
> compared to its contemporaries.
>
> > Of course, if it is the center engine that is INOP, then of course
> > it can be done at a light weight and a long runway.
>
> I don't know which engine they idled, but logically one would expect the
> center engine.

[F. Baum]

On Nov 9, 4:43 pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
..
>
> I don't know which engine they idled, but logically one would expect the
> center engine.

"Logically", you wouldnt argue with people who fly these for a living.
I thought it was clear that you cannot operate a 727 or any other
plane for hire if it cannot fly off the runway after losing an engine.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Big John writes:
>
>> At least one time they lined a good jet just ahead of a bad jet
>> (F-86's as I remember) and forward bird ran it's engine up and the jet
>> exhaust down the intake of rear fighter spun the engine up to start
>> RPM and it was started and both flew away.
>
> How did they keep engine temperatures within acceptable limits?
>

You're an idiot.

Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Bob Moore writes:
>
>> Yes....BUT....that is not the same as taking off on two engines
>> because you have used all three to accelerate past the Vmcg speed.
>
> Hmm ... granted. I don't know that they waited until rotation to pull
> back the throttle, though (it has been many years since I read about
> this). The 727 supposedly had a reputation for having plenty of power
> to spare, at least compared to its contemporaries.


No it dind't, fjukkwit.


>
>> Of course, if it is the center engine that is INOP, then of course
>> it can be done at a light weight and a long runway.
>
> I don't know which engine they idled, but logically one would expect
> the center engine.

How would you know, idiot? We routinely did V1 cuts in all sorts of
airplanes when it was still being done. Not as demos but as routine
training.

Fjukkwit.



Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

"F. Baum" > wrote in news:1194653654.477438.184260
@v2g2000hsf.googlegroups.com:

> On Nov 9, 4:43 pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> .
>>
>> I don't know which engine they idled, but logically one would expect the
>> center engine.
>
> "Logically", you wouldnt argue with people who fly these for a living.
> I thought it was clear that you cannot operate a 727 or any other
> plane for hire if it cannot fly off the runway after losing an engine.
>
>

'Xactly.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> F. Baum writes:
>
>> This is called a V1 cut and it is done on every sim check on every
>> crew for every plane flown in the world. The regs require the planes
>> weight to be limited so the plane can either stop on the remaining
>> runway if the engine fails before V1 or continue (and climout) if the
>> engine fails after V1.
>
> The important point is that the aircraft still took off successfully
> with one engine set to idle. Therefore it can take off with only two
> of three engines providing thrust.


No it isn't mr backpedaler.


Bertie

[Matt Whiting]

Kingfish wrote:
> On Nov 8, 11:21 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>
>> But even a 74' or A340 is not immune, particularly if the inboard engine
>> is first to spew forth fragments. AFAIK, this has never caused an
>> accident in any four engined airplane,
>
> That's what happened to the El Al 747 in 1992 over Amsterdam. I saw
> the "Seconds from Disaster" show recently that chronicled the
> investigation. The #3 engine departed the wing and took #4 with it
> (and 30ft of the leading edge) Incredibly, the captain was able to
> recover the airplane, but when he slowed to make an emergency landing
> the wing lost lift and combined with its high drag caused the plane to
> roll right and it went in.
>
> BTW, what th' hell is a bunyip??
>

You misspelled it. It is buttnip. Make more sense now? :-)

Matt

[Mxsmanic]

Tina writes:

> flawed logic: one would demonstrate the airplane's saftey by reduing
> the thrust on a critical engine, and one offering off centerline
> thrust would be the logical choice,

I don't think they were demonstrating safety so much as power in reserve.

[Mxsmanic]

F. Baum writes:

> "Logically", you wouldnt argue with people who fly these for a living.

I might. Sometimes the ones who fly them for a living crash into mountains,
which implies that they don't know as much as they might think. I don't trust
anyone who hasn't personally demonstrated to me that he knows what he is
talking about, and credentials don't count. Sure, most professional pilots
usually know what they are talking about in the domains with which they are
familiar, but I never take that for granted.

> I thought it was clear that you cannot operate a 727 or any other
> plane for hire if it cannot fly off the runway after losing an engine.

Yes.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> F. Baum writes:
>
>> "Logically", you wouldnt argue with people who fly these for a
>> living.
>
> I might. Sometimes the ones who fly them for a living crash into
> mountains, which implies that they don't know as much as they might
> think. I don't trust anyone who hasn't personally demonstrated to me
> that he knows what he is talking about, and credentials don't count.
> Sure, most professional pilots usually know what they are talking
> about in the domains with which they are familiar, but I never take
> that for granted.

Bwawhahwhahwhahwhawhhahwhahwhahwhahhwhahwhahwhhahw hahwhahwhahwhhahwhahwhahw
hhahwhahwhahhwhahwahhwhahwahhwhahwahhwhahwahhwhahw ahhwhahwahhwhahwahhwhahwa
hhwhahwahhwhahwahhwhahwahhwhahwahhwhahwahhwhahwahh whahwahhwhahwahhwhahwahhw
hahwahhwhahwahhwhahwahhwhahwahhwhahwahhwhahwahhwha hwahhwhahwahhwhahwahhwhah
wahhwhahwahhwhahwahhwhahwahhwhahwahhwhahwahhwhahwa hhwhahwahhwhahwahhwhahwah
hwhahwahhwhahwahhwhahwahhwhahwahhwhahwahhwhahwahhw hahwahhwhahwahhwhahwahhwh
ahwahhwhahwahhwhahwahhwhahwahhwhahwahhwhahwahhwhah wahhwhahwahhwhahwahhwhahw
ahhwhahwahhwhahwahhwhahwahhwhahwahhwhahwahhwhahwah hwhahwahhwhahwahhwhahwahh
whahwahhwhahwahhwhahwahhwhahwahhwhahwahhwhahwahhwh ahwahhwhahwahhwhahwahhwha
hwahhwhahwahhwhahwahhwhahwahhwhahwahhwhahwahhwhahw ahhwhahwahhwhahwahhwhahwa
hhwhahwahhwhahwahhwhahwahhwhahwahhwhahwahhwhahwahh whahwahhwhahwahhwhahwahhw
hahwahhwhahwahhwhahwahhwhahwahhwhahwahhwhahwahhwha hwahhwhahwahhwhahwahhwhah


You can't argue with them because you don't know what you are talking
about,


Fjukkwit,.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Tina writes:
>
>> flawed logic: one would demonstrate the airplane's saftey by reduing
>> the thrust on a critical engine, and one offering off centerline
>> thrust would be the logical choice,
>
> I don't think they were demonstrating safety so much as power in reserve.
>



Once again you are proving you are an idiot.

Not that that's any great feat in itself.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Matt Whiting > wrote in
:

> Kingfish wrote:
>> On Nov 8, 11:21 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>>
>>> But even a 74' or A340 is not immune, particularly if the inboard
>>> engine is first to spew forth fragments. AFAIK, this has never
>>> caused an accident in any four engined airplane,
>>
>> That's what happened to the El Al 747 in 1992 over Amsterdam. I saw
>> the "Seconds from Disaster" show recently that chronicled the
>> investigation. The #3 engine departed the wing and took #4 with it
>> (and 30ft of the leading edge) Incredibly, the captain was able to
>> recover the airplane, but when he slowed to make an emergency landing
>> the wing lost lift and combined with its high drag caused the plane
>> to roll right and it went in.
>>
>> BTW, what th' hell is a bunyip??
>>
>
> You misspelled it. It is buttnip. Make more sense now? :-)
>

I take grevious offence at that.


Bertie

[Matt Whiting]

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
> Matt Whiting > wrote in
> :
>
>> Kingfish wrote:
>>> On Nov 8, 11:21 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>>>
>>>> But even a 74' or A340 is not immune, particularly if the inboard
>>>> engine is first to spew forth fragments. AFAIK, this has never
>>>> caused an accident in any four engined airplane,
>>> That's what happened to the El Al 747 in 1992 over Amsterdam. I saw
>>> the "Seconds from Disaster" show recently that chronicled the
>>> investigation. The #3 engine departed the wing and took #4 with it
>>> (and 30ft of the leading edge) Incredibly, the captain was able to
>>> recover the airplane, but when he slowed to make an emergency landing
>>> the wing lost lift and combined with its high drag caused the plane
>>> to roll right and it went in.
>>>
>>> BTW, what th' hell is a bunyip??
>>>
>> You misspelled it. It is buttnip. Make more sense now? :-)
>>
>
> I take grevious offence at that.

As long as you don't take grievous offense...
:-)

Matt

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Matt Whiting > wrote in news:swiZi.688$2n4.24118
@news1.epix.net:

> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>> Matt Whiting > wrote in
>> :
>>
>>> Kingfish wrote:
>>>> On Nov 8, 11:21 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> But even a 74' or A340 is not immune, particularly if the inboard
>>>>> engine is first to spew forth fragments. AFAIK, this has never
>>>>> caused an accident in any four engined airplane,
>>>> That's what happened to the El Al 747 in 1992 over Amsterdam. I saw
>>>> the "Seconds from Disaster" show recently that chronicled the
>>>> investigation. The #3 engine departed the wing and took #4 with it
>>>> (and 30ft of the leading edge) Incredibly, the captain was able to
>>>> recover the airplane, but when he slowed to make an emergency landing
>>>> the wing lost lift and combined with its high drag caused the plane
>>>> to roll right and it went in.
>>>>
>>>> BTW, what th' hell is a bunyip??
>>>>
>>> You misspelled it. It is buttnip. Make more sense now? :-)
>>>
>>
>> I take grevious offence at that.
>
> As long as you don't take grievous offense...

That what thinking people do, make tpyo lames?


Bertie

[Maxwell]

"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
.. .
> Big John > wrote in
> :
>>
>> Bertie
>>
>> You have heard about starting a jet fighter with another jet?
>
>
> Yes, I've seen it done to a stranded 707 when no GPU was available or
> likely to be before the thing corroded away.
>>
>> At least one time they lined a good jet just ahead of a bad jet
>> (F-86's as I remember) and forward bird ran it's engine up and the jet
>> exhaust down the intake of rear fighter spun the engine up to start
>> RPM and it was started and both flew away.
>>
>> Some one may remember where this took place and why it had to be done
>> (Korea???)
>>
>> They may have landed some place with no maintenance and used this
>> procedure to get home vs sending in a repair crew???
>
>
> Whatever gets you home!
>
> I saw something on the history channel about a pair of F 86's in whihc one
> guy pushed the other over back to friendly territory after a flameout. The
> flamed-out pilot got out but drowned in his shrouds.
>

Yeah, I once knew a hooker that could suck start a Harley.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

"Maxwell" > wrote in
:

>
> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
> .. .
>> Big John > wrote in
>> :
>>>
>>> Bertie
>>>
>>> You have heard about starting a jet fighter with another jet?
>>
>>
>> Yes, I've seen it done to a stranded 707 when no GPU was available or
>> likely to be before the thing corroded away.
>>>
>>> At least one time they lined a good jet just ahead of a bad jet
>>> (F-86's as I remember) and forward bird ran it's engine up and the
>>> jet exhaust down the intake of rear fighter spun the engine up to
>>> start RPM and it was started and both flew away.
>>>
>>> Some one may remember where this took place and why it had to be
>>> done
>>> (Korea???)
>>>
>>> They may have landed some place with no maintenance and used this
>>> procedure to get home vs sending in a repair crew???
>>
>>
>> Whatever gets you home!
>>
>> I saw something on the history channel about a pair of F 86's in
>> whihc one guy pushed the other over back to friendly territory after
>> a flameout. The flamed-out pilot got out but drowned in his shrouds.
>>
>
> Yeah, I once knew a hooker that could suck start a Harley.


Good for you.



Bertie

[george]

On Nov 10, 4:49 am, Kingfish > wrote:

> BTW, what th' hell is a bunyip??

It's some-one who hunts Mxsmanics.


Mxsmanics are things that have sim lives

[Tina]

mxes are endangered and should be a protected species, and hunting
should be limited. There's no evidence at all they are propagating,
they need help securing both food and a life.

I do think the bag limit should be 1.

There should be a way of handicapping the hunter. My first thought was
hunting might be limited to bow and arrow, but even that's giving too
much advantage to the hunted. Should hunting be limited to bare hands
as the weapon, or maybe bombing, since this is
wreck.aviation.piloting, at least when the species in question is
posting -- or more often dropping spore.

Bare hands does have an appeal.


On Nov 10, 5:32 pm, george > wrote:
> On Nov 10, 4:49 am, Kingfish > wrote:
>
> > BTW, what th' hell is a bunyip??
>
> It's some-one who hunts Mxsmanics.
>
> Mxsmanics are things that have sim lives

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Tina" > wrote

> Should hunting be limited to bare hands
> as the weapon, or maybe bombing, since this is
> wreck.aviation.piloting, at least when the species in question is
> posting -- or more often dropping spore.
>
> Bare hands does have an appeal.

Indeed, it does, but that will never get this one. He is too slimey to
grasp.

The only solution is to build a fence around him, and starve him out. If
nobody feeds the fenced in troll, he will starve, or escape to be someone
else's problem.

You're the shrink. What will it take to get everyone to stop feeding him?
Why has it not happened before now?
--
Jim in NC

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

"Morgans" > wrote in
:

>
> "Tina" > wrote
>
>> Should hunting be limited to bare hands
>> as the weapon, or maybe bombing, since this is
>> wreck.aviation.piloting, at least when the species in question is
>> posting -- or more often dropping spore.
>>
>> Bare hands does have an appeal.
>
> Indeed, it does, but that will never get this one. He is too slimey
> to grasp.
>
> The only solution is to build a fence around him, and starve him out.
> If nobody feeds the fenced in troll, he will starve, or escape to be
> someone else's problem.
>
> You're the shrink. What will it take to get everyone to stop feeding
> him? Why has it not happened before now?


It never will. Go to the local arcade and watch the whack a mole machine.
It never rests for long.


Bertie

[Big John]

On Sat, 10 Nov 2007 00:44:44 +0100, Mxsmanic >
wrote:

>Big John writes:
>
>> At least one time they lined a good jet just ahead of a bad jet
>> (F-86's as I remember) and forward bird ran it's engine up and the jet
>> exhaust down the intake of rear fighter spun the engine up to start
>> RPM and it was started and both flew away.
>
>How did they keep engine temperatures within acceptable limits?


What limits?

Big John

[george]

On Nov 11, 12:15 pm, Tina > wrote:
> mxes are endangered and should be a protected species, and hunting
> should be limited. There's no evidence at all they are propagating,
> they need help securing both food and a life.
>
> I do think the bag limit should be 1.
>
> There should be a way of handicapping the hunter. My first thought was
> hunting might be limited to bow and arrow, but even that's giving too
> much advantage to the hunted. Should hunting be limited to bare hands
> as the weapon, or maybe bombing, since this is
> wreck.aviation.piloting, at least when the species in question is
> posting -- or more often dropping spore.

So you think that the hunter has to be handicapped
To fit in with the game I presume
The ideal weapon would be a daisy cutter

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

george > wrote in news:1194751721.135684.4820
@v23g2000prn.googlegroups.com:

> On Nov 11, 12:15 pm, Tina > wrote:
>> mxes are endangered and should be a protected species, and hunting
>> should be limited. There's no evidence at all they are propagating,
>> they need help securing both food and a life.
>>
>> I do think the bag limit should be 1.
>>
>> There should be a way of handicapping the hunter. My first thought was
>> hunting might be limited to bow and arrow, but even that's giving too
>> much advantage to the hunted. Should hunting be limited to bare hands
>> as the weapon, or maybe bombing, since this is
>> wreck.aviation.piloting, at least when the species in question is
>> posting -- or more often dropping spore.
>
> So you think that the hunter has to be handicapped
> To fit in with the game I presume
> The ideal weapon would be a daisy cutter
>
>

A simple loon mallet works fine.


Bertie

[Mxsmanic]

Big John writes:

> What limits?

The major operating limitation on most jet engines is temperature. If the
temperature of the engine rises too high, internal parts soften and melt. It
seems to me that blowing hot exhaust into the intake of a jet engine would
raise EGT to unacceptably high levels, resulting in engine damage.

[george]

On Nov 11, 4:42 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> george > wrote in news:1194751721.135684.4820
> @v23g2000prn.googlegroups.com:
>
>
>
> > On Nov 11, 12:15 pm, Tina > wrote:
> >> mxes are endangered and should be a protected species, and hunting
> >> should be limited. There's no evidence at all they are propagating,
> >> they need help securing both food and a life.
>
> >> I do think the bag limit should be 1.
>
> >> There should be a way of handicapping the hunter. My first thought was
> >> hunting might be limited to bow and arrow, but even that's giving too
> >> much advantage to the hunted. Should hunting be limited to bare hands
> >> as the weapon, or maybe bombing, since this is
> >> wreck.aviation.piloting, at least when the species in question is
> >> posting -- or more often dropping spore.
>
> > So you think that the hunter has to be handicapped
> > To fit in with the game I presume
> > The ideal weapon would be a daisy cutter
>
> A simple loon mallet works fine.
>
Not as effective or as spectacular!
My kook poking stick is in the sharpener as we speak

[george]

On Nov 12, 5:03 am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Big John writes:
> > What limits?
>
> The major operating limitation on most jet engines is temperature. If the
> temperature of the engine rises too high, internal parts soften and melt. It
> seems to me that blowing hot exhaust into the intake of a jet engine would
> raise EGT to unacceptably high levels, resulting in engine damage.

Wow.
I'd include
How about turbine overspeed?
Surging?

Or don't they have a turbine rating on those desktop flight sims you
play ?

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Big John writes:
>
>> What limits?
>
> The major operating limitation on most jet engines is temperature. If
> the temperature of the engine rises too high, internal parts soften
> and melt. It seems to me that blowing hot exhaust into the intake of
> a jet engine would raise EGT to unacceptably high levels, resulting in
> engine damage.
>


You're an idiot.

Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

george > wrote in
ups.com:

> On Nov 11, 4:42 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> george > wrote in news:1194751721.135684.4820
>> @v23g2000prn.googlegroups.com:
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Nov 11, 12:15 pm, Tina > wrote:
>> >> mxes are endangered and should be a protected species, and hunting
>> >> should be limited. There's no evidence at all they are
>> >> propagating, they need help securing both food and a life.
>>
>> >> I do think the bag limit should be 1.
>>
>> >> There should be a way of handicapping the hunter. My first thought
>> >> was hunting might be limited to bow and arrow, but even that's
>> >> giving too much advantage to the hunted. Should hunting be limited
>> >> to bare hands as the weapon, or maybe bombing, since this is
>> >> wreck.aviation.piloting, at least when the species in question is
>> >> posting -- or more often dropping spore.
>>
>> > So you think that the hunter has to be handicapped
>> > To fit in with the game I presume
>> > The ideal weapon would be a daisy cutter
>>
>> A simple loon mallet works fine.
>>
> Not as effective or as spectacular!
> My kook poking stick is in the sharpener as we speak


Well, if oyu use a daisy cutter, they're gone forever more. If you just
whack 'mthey get crazier and crazier.

As evidence I hold forth Anthony's recent sock puppet episode.


Bertie

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote

> Well, if oyu use a daisy cutter, they're gone forever more. If you just
> whack 'mthey get crazier and crazier.
>
> As evidence I hold forth Anthony's recent sock puppet episode.

You say that as if that would be a bad thing.

Bertie, hard as it is for you to believe, there are more of us here that
would rather see a newsgroup totally devoid of kooks and trolls, than people
like you that enjoy tormenting them. I don't think that you understand that
fact.

You should think about getting a hobby, and doing something more worthwhile
with your time, than whacking kooks and trolls, and tormenting us as a
result.

Really.
--
Jim in NC

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

"Morgans" > wrote in
:

>
> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote
>
>> Well, if oyu use a daisy cutter, they're gone forever more. If you
>> just whack 'mthey get crazier and crazier.
>>
>> As evidence I hold forth Anthony's recent sock puppet episode.
>
> You say that as if that would be a bad thing.


Never

>
> Bertie, hard as it is for you to believe, there are more of us here
> that would rather see a newsgroup totally devoid of kooks and trolls,
> than people like you that enjoy tormenting them. I don't think that
> you understand that fact.


Of course I do. I'd also like to see world peace and a Tesla generator
in everu car.

Ain't gonna happen.
>
> You should think about getting a hobby, and doing something more
> worthwhile with your time, than whacking kooks and trolls, and
> tormenting us as a result.


Got several alreadt, thanks. I build anirplanes in between flames




Bertie

[Big John]

On Sun, 11 Nov 2007 17:03:22 +0100, Mxsmanic >
wrote:

>Big John writes:
>
>> What limits?
>
>The major operating limitation on most jet engines is temperature. If the
>temperature of the engine rises too high, internal parts soften and melt. It
>seems to me that blowing hot exhaust into the intake of a jet engine would
>raise EGT to unacceptably high levels, resulting in engine damage.


When the turbine glows like a cigarette lighter in a car, you have
reached the limit.

Big John

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote

> Got several alreadt, thanks. I build anirplanes in between flames

Perhaps you should try building some airplanes, instead of anir-planes. I
find they fly better.

After that, practice your typnenic scills, sum. <g>
--
Jim in NC

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

"Morgans" > wrote in
:

>
> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote
>
>> Got several alreadt, thanks. I build anirplanes in between flames
>
> Perhaps you should try building some airplanes, instead of
> anir-planes. I
> find they fly better.
>
> After that, practice your typnenic scills, sum.

Troll's stock in trade, tpyos are.


Bertie

[Mxsmanic]

Big John writes:

> When the turbine glows like a cigarette lighter in a car, you have
> reached the limit.

Possibly, although that depends on the specific engine design. The internal
turbines of many engines are hot enough to have a visible glow, although it's
often difficult or impossible to see from the outside. They may glow long
before they reach temperature limits.

[Big John]

On Tue, 13 Nov 2007 03:53:40 +0100, Mxsmanic >
wrote:

>Big John writes:
>
>> When the turbine glows like a cigarette lighter in a car, you have
>> reached the limit.
>
>Possibly, although that depends on the specific engine design. The internal
>turbines of many engines are hot enough to have a visible glow, although it's
>often difficult or impossible to see from the outside. They may glow long
>before they reach temperature limits.


Did you ever see a turbine wheel glow in the day time?

How about the compressor blades? Why are some birds Mach limited?

Big John

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Big John writes:
>
>> When the turbine glows like a cigarette lighter in a car, you have
>> reached the limit.
>
> Possibly, although that depends on the specific engine design. The
> internal turbines of many engines are hot enough to have a visible
> glow, although it's often difficult or impossible to see from the
> outside. They may glow long before they reach temperature limits.
>



Wrong again fukkwit.


Bertie

[Mxsmanic]

Big John writes:

> Did you ever see a turbine wheel glow in the day time?

I don't normally risk looking directly into a jet engine exhaust while it is
running, day or night.

> How about the compressor blades?

The high-temperature stages are the most vulnerable, which, as I recall, are
the driven turbine stages after combustion. Compressor inlet temperatures can
also present a problem, however.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Big John writes:
>
>> Did you ever see a turbine wheel glow in the day time?
>
> I don't normally risk looking directly into a jet engine exhaust while
> it is running, day or night.


You don't normally risk looking outside your bedroom door, day or night.

>
>> How about the compressor blades?
>
> The high-temperature stages are the most vulnerable, which, as I
> recall, are the driven turbine stages after combustion. Compressor
> inlet temperatures can also present a problem, however.


Can they now?

Do go on there fjukktard, most enlightening.




Bertie

[Big John]

On Wed, 14 Nov 2007 04:48:14 +0100, Mxsmanic >
wrote:

>Big John writes:
>
>> Did you ever see a turbine wheel glow in the day time?
>
>I don't normally risk looking directly into a jet engine exhaust while it is
>running, day or night.
>
>> How about the compressor blades?
>
>The high-temperature stages are the most vulnerable, which, as I recall, are
>the driven turbine stages after combustion. Compressor inlet temperatures can
>also present a problem, however.


You must be a bean counter, not and engineer?

What does turbine temp have to do with compressor temp? You trying to
fly bird backwards?

Big John

[Big John]

On Tue, 13 Nov 2007 04:36:25 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip >
wrote:

>Mxsmanic > wrote in
:
>
>> Big John writes:
>>
>>> When the turbine glows like a cigarette lighter in a car, you have
>>> reached the limit.
>>
>> Possibly, although that depends on the specific engine design. The
>> internal turbines of many engines are hot enough to have a visible
>> glow, although it's often difficult or impossible to see from the
>> outside. They may glow long before they reach temperature limits.
>>
>
>
>
>Wrong again fukkwit.
>
>
>Bertie


Bertie

I don't think Mxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx understands that a poke in the eye
is a poke in the eye ??????


Big John

[Jim Stewart]

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
> Mxsmanic > wrote in
> :
>
>> Big John writes:
>>
>>> Did you ever see a turbine wheel glow in the day time?
>> I don't normally risk looking directly into a jet engine exhaust while
>> it is running, day or night.
>
>
> You don't normally risk looking outside your bedroom door, day or night.

Thanks for the coffee spew...

Excuse me while I find some paper towels.

[george]

On Nov 15, 6:08 am, Big John > wrote:
> On Tue, 13 Nov 2007 04:36:25 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip >
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >Mxsmanic > wrote in
> :
>
> >> Big John writes:
>
> >>> When the turbine glows like a cigarette lighter in a car, you have
> >>> reached the limit.
>
> >> Possibly, although that depends on the specific engine design. The
> >> internal turbines of many engines are hot enough to have a visible
> >> glow, although it's often difficult or impossible to see from the
> >> outside. They may glow long before they reach temperature limits.
>
> >Wrong again fukkwit.
>
> >Bertie
>
> Bertie
>
> I don't think Mxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx understands that a poke in the eye
> is a poke in the eye ??????
>
I'm waiting for mixedup to tell us about his simulated turbine rating

[Mxsmanic]

Big John writes:

> What does turbine temp have to do with compressor temp?

The compressor is a turbine, also. High compressor inlet temps may damage the
compressor stage, and in any case they will tend to raise the temperature of
later stages in the engine, which may also cause damage.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Big John > wrote in
:

> On Tue, 13 Nov 2007 04:36:25 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip >
> wrote:
>
>>Mxsmanic > wrote in
:
>>
>>> Big John writes:
>>>
>>>> When the turbine glows like a cigarette lighter in a car, you have
>>>> reached the limit.
>>>
>>> Possibly, although that depends on the specific engine design. The
>>> internal turbines of many engines are hot enough to have a visible
>>> glow, although it's often difficult or impossible to see from the
>>> outside. They may glow long before they reach temperature limits.
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>Wrong again fukkwit.
>>
>>
>>Bertie
>
>
> Bertie
>
> I don't think Mxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx understands that a poke in the eye
> is a poke in the eye ??????
>

Not sure I want to know where he thinks it's a poke...

Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Big John writes:
>
>> What does turbine temp have to do with compressor temp?
>
> The compressor is a turbine, also. High compressor inlet temps may
> damage the compressor stage, and in any case they will tend to raise
> the temperature of later stages in the engine, which may also cause
> damage.
>

You're an idiot and have no idea what you're talking about.



Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Jim Stewart > wrote in
:

> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>> Mxsmanic > wrote in
>> :
>>
>>> Big John writes:
>>>
>>>> Did you ever see a turbine wheel glow in the day time?
>>> I don't normally risk looking directly into a jet engine exhaust
>>> while it is running, day or night.
>>
>>
>> You don't normally risk looking outside your bedroom door, day or
>> night.
>
> Thanks for the coffee spew...

It's what I live for.


Bertie

[Big John]

On Wed, 14 Nov 2007 21:59:05 +0100, Mxsmanic >
wrote:

>Big John writes:
>
>> What does turbine temp have to do with compressor temp?
>
>The compressor is a turbine, also. High compressor inlet temps may damage the
>compressor stage, and in any case they will tend to raise the temperature of
>later stages in the engine, which may also cause damage.


Oh my God!!!!!!!!!!!

Big John