737 thinks it's a DC-10?

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

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

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??

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...ationwide.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.

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

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

Kingfish wrote in
ups.com:

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...reign-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

"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

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.

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