Boeing wins MMA comp

Neil Gerace wrote:
"Thomas Schoene" wrote in message
link.net...
Also, Boeing has shown
off the ability of a similar 737 BBJ to climb from sea level on one
engine (I think this was at MMA patrol weights), so an engine
failure need not be catastrophic even down low.

I thought all twin-engined airliners were required to be able to
climb out on one engine.

Probably true, come to think of it. This was just one of the things Boeing
showed off to P-3 pilots during its barnstorming campaign. I think they
needed to be shown this performance feature, even if it is standard on
twin-jets.

--
Tom Schoene Replace "invalid" with "net" to e-mail
"Our country, right or wrong. When right, to be kept right, when
wrong to be put right." - Senator Carl Schurz, 1872

"Thomas Schoene" wrote in message hlink.net...
Neil Gerace wrote:
"Thomas Schoene" wrote in message
link.net...
Also, Boeing has shown
off the ability of a similar 737 BBJ to climb from sea level on one
engine (I think this was at MMA patrol weights), so an engine
failure need not be catastrophic even down low.

I thought all twin-engined airliners were required to be able to
climb out on one engine.

Probably true, come to think of it. This was just one of the things Boeing
showed off to P-3 pilots during its barnstorming campaign. I think they
needed to be shown this performance feature, even if it is standard on
twin-jets.

Yes FAR Par 25 certification does require the ability to lose an
engine, accelerate, and then LAND! That scenario is whole lot
different than losing an engine while down on the deck on a distant
station.
Its also true that the 737 Next Gen's were designed with ETOPS in
mind. However, that scenario presupposes engine loss in the flight
levels and then the possibility of unpressurized flight at ~FL100. I
might add that the few times the ETOPS scenario has been realized,
fuel consumption has been higher than planned (mainly due to the
unrealistic still air crteria that makes up part of the rule).
That is still a much different deal than losing an engine while
already down low. Operational procedures for this aircraft will have
to take into account the prevention of a "coffin corner" single engine
scenario where the aircraft wont make it home before it runs out of
gas.

"Kevin Brooks" wrote in message ...
"Paul J. Adam" wrote in message
...
In message , Errol Cavit
writes
Does anyone know the comparative loss rates for the Atlantique vs P3?

'Not many' versus 'Not many', but neither have had to do combat AFAIK.

At least one P-3 was a combat loss over South Vietnam (enemy ground fire,
IIRC); others have participated in combat operations, to include firing SLAM
missiles during the Kosovo operation.

Brooks

Brooks is contradicting himself here. His previous premise was that
such airliner/faux warbirds would *NEVER* be threatened.
The Navy will have to come to grips with two harsh realities he
1: The RCS of a rather substantial office building.
2: The "glass jaw" nature of these aircraft in regards to their very
vulnerable electrical and fuel systems. (and the potential of FOD on
less than perfect fields-those CFM Next Gen's are way different than
the JT-8 737's running around Africa)

"sameolesid" wrote in message
m...

That is still a much different deal than losing an engine while
already down low.

But twin-engined airliners have to be able to deal with that too, e.g.
immediately before or after takeoff. And in any case, is 'down low' even the
best place for a maritime patrol aircraft to be?

That is still a much different deal than losing an engine while
already down low.

But twin-engined airliners have to be able to deal with that too, e.g.
immediately before or after takeoff. And in any case, is 'down low'
even the
best place for a maritime patrol aircraft to be?


Your last point is well taken. Changes in operational MPA doctirne are
a done deal with MMA.
That said there is plenty of reason to be on the deck for rigging,
SAR, etc. I don't remember what the max altitude for a MK-46 drop is.
The FAR Pt 25engine loss on take off assumes the aircraft will do a go
around and land. Thats what is way differnt than having to maybe claw
out of the worst of wx- like icing conditions- and then fly hundreds
of miles to feet dry.