Jim Stewart wrote in
:

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
Kingfish wrote in
ups.com:

http://www.usatoday.com/travel/fligh...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