737 thinks it's a DC-10?

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!

Bertie

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 )

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/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!

Bertie

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 )

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

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 (

Big John

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

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

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

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 (

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 )

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 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 (


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


Bertie

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

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/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

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

"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

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.