Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
Matt Whiting 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.
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