If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
"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. |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
"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) |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
"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? |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Boeing Boondoggle | Larry Dighera | Military Aviation | 77 | September 15th 04 02:39 AM |
Boeing Team Wins Multi-Mission Maritime Aircraft Program | Harry Andreas | Military Aviation | 0 | June 15th 04 12:02 AM |
More good news from Boeing | noname | Military Aviation | 0 | December 6th 03 01:50 AM |
AOPA and ATC Privatization | Chip Jones | Instrument Flight Rules | 139 | November 12th 03 08:26 PM |
Boeing shares rose as high as $38.90, up $2.86, in morning trade! | Larry Dighera | Military Aviation | 0 | October 29th 03 08:49 PM |