737 thinks it's a DC-10?

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

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

Kingfish wrote in
ups.com:

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

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" 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

"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

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

"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