quote:

Originally posted by Scuba Steve Sig:

quote:

Originally posted by H&K-Guy:

quote:

Originally posted by mcrimm:
Brings to mind Twilight Zone episode "Nightmare at 20,000 Feet" where the Gremlin is tearing apart the plane.

It's bad form to reply without reading the other posts in a thread, on any board. I'm not trying to go all Emily Post on you, but it's bad etiquette.

Check out the very first reply.

H&K-Guy

I think he meant someone got the plane wet or fueled it after midnight.

Yeah, you've probably got that right.

Still bad form.

H&K-Guy

quote:

Originally posted by H&K-Guy:

quote:

Originally posted by mcrimm:
Brings to mind Twilight Zone episode "Nightmare at 20,000 Feet" where the Gremlin is tearing apart the plane.

It's bad form to reply without reading the other posts in a thread, on any board. I'm not trying to go all Emily Post on you, but it's bad etiquette.

Check out the very first reply.

H&K-Guy

I saw the post but didn't make the connection....Sorry.
Mike

It's all good, dawg. Don't sweat it.

H&K-Guy

quote:

Originally posted by BBMW:
I don't think a 4 holer can stay up on one engine. I'm not sure they can with two. Twins are designed to do their entire flight envelope on one engine.

quote:

Originally posted by Jimbo54:
No biggy, 1 down, 3 to go for a nightmare situation. 1 down with 1 to go would be a whole different animal.

Jim

When I was working in London in the mid 80s one of the US Majors (United I think, but don't quote me on that) cut their fuel a little tight and limped into Thiefrow on one engine in a 747. That last one flamed out before they got to the gate. Oops...

Probably the worst and scariest ride I ever took was on Aeroflot. Coming into Moscow in the darkening afternoon sun was an 'experience'. The flight attendants faces looked terrified and troubled, as if the fates had whispered something evil to them in the night.

The chairs, which would have been far more stable, had somebody bothered to screw them to the floor with an ounce of effort, moved about the cabin, giving sway to every last vibration.

The landing was like we were on a boat being twisted and turned about by every gust of wind and every pull of every wave.

The actual touchdown, which to this day the Russians claim everybody survived, was about as much fun as Syphilis. It was a heavy jolt, which seemed to dislodge all stowed baggage and every loose bolt, so that they rained down upon us.

When it was over and we made our way down the staircase, we could see what looked like door dings all over the fuselage where the door met the frame. Some places looked as if a wild grizzly had scratched and taken little bits from it.

I will NEVER fly Aeroflot again.

H&K-Guy

quote:

Probably the worst and scariest ride I ever took was on Aeroflot. Coming into Moscow in the darkening afternoon sun was an 'experience'. The flight attendants faces looked terrified and troubled, as if the fates had whispered something evil to them in the night.

The chairs, which would have been far more stable, had somebody bothered to screw them to the floor with an ounce of effort, moved about the cabin, giving sway to every last vibration.

The landing was like we were on a boat being twisted and turned about by every gust of wind and every pull of every wave.

The actual touchdown, which to this day the Russians claim everybody survived, was about as much fun as Syphilis. It was a heavy jolt, which seemed to dislodge all stowed baggage and every loose bolt, so that they rained down upon us.

When it was over and we made our way down the staircase, we could see what looked like door dings all over the fuselage where the door met the frame. Some places looked as if a wild grizzly had scratched and taken little bits from it.

I will NEVER fly Aeroflot again.

IL-62?
TU-134?
The evasive maneuvers landing in Moscow seem to be routine; we figured there were restricted areas they needed to go around, and maybe the pilot was an ex-Soviet air force guy.

Landing in the middle of winter is fun. No jetway, just a motorized ladder.
Somehow they seem to get there, although their domestic record was not good.

What was lost? The spinner and cowling, or the high bypass fan and cowling?

quote:

Originally posted by H&K-Guy:

quote:

Originally posted by Scuba Steve Sig:

quote:

Originally posted by H&K-Guy:

quote:

Originally posted by mcrimm:
Brings to mind Twilight Zone episode "Nightmare at 20,000 Feet" where the Gremlin is tearing apart the plane.

It's bad form to reply without reading the other posts in a thread, on any board. I'm not trying to go all Emily Post on you, but it's bad etiquette.

Check out the very first reply.

H&K-Guy

I think he meant someone got the plane wet or fueled it after midnight.

Yeah, you've probably got that right.

Still bad form.

H&K-Guy

Well it ain't Vendell Villkie!

Here's a bit more info. AF from Paris to LAX.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/...-goose-bay-1.4315132

RMD

Just a rapid unplanned disassembly. Some of the fan was liberated from the shaft. Nice thing is, there was no rapid oxidation event. So all is good!

That doesn't look good but at least it's still going.

I'm sad to it admit it since I don't care for one of my wife's favorite "have to stop and watch" movies but my first thought on reading the title was a Colonial woman on the wing churning butter.

This, IMHO, is more alarming.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...inue=5&v=roS6oFjCDhc

Yep. That looked like no fun at all for either end of the airplane.

RMD

quote:

Originally posted by chuck416:
This, IMHO, is more alarming.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...inue=5&v=roS6oFjCDhc

Holy crap! Can you imagine what the rear passengers were thinking? The side to side motion in the back must have been crazy!

When my daughter was deployed to Iraq in 2011 they connected in Maine, where they boarded a charter flight. About an hour over the Atlantic, in the middle of the night, one of the engines exploded with a huge fireball. The plane turned around and made it safely back to the airport.

When my dad worked for Pan Am in the test cell back at JFK he would mention that the 747 was capable of flying on one engine, he loved that aircraft..

quote:

Originally posted by BBMW:
I don't think a 4 holer can stay up on one engine. I'm not sure they can with two. Twins are designed to do their entire flight envelope on one engine.

SOP during training and sim checks in a four-engine aircraft is a two engine approach and landing.

I'm personally familiar with two different four-engine failures in a four engine airplanes. One reciprocating powered, one turbofan.

Three-engine approaches are not a big deal, though with loss of one engine, the flight will continue with approximately the same fuel burn as with all four turning.

quote:

Originally posted by valkyrie1:
When my dad worked for Pan Am in the test cell back at JFK he would mention that the 747 was capable of flying on one engine, he loved that aircraft..

Your father was partially correct. It's not going to be cruising or holding altitude, but it will be descending on one. Performance is minimal on two engines, especially two on the same side. One engine not only sees loss of the other three, but a drag increase offsetting the asymmetric thrust means that less than 25% of the original thrust is available for flight. Additionally, because each engine powers more than just thrust, but has bleed for leading edge devices and anti-ice, electrical, and hydraulic powering one of four systems, numerous functions on board are lost with each engine.

The 747 is designed very well and has redundancy among certain controls and systems, double controls in some cases. Still, down to one engine will impact pressurization and other systems, and will impact fuel heat in various cells, sharply limiting the amount of fuel at altitude over a given period of time.

Loss of one engine is an abnormal situation, not usually an emergency. Loss of two can be. Loss of three is unquestionably so.

There's an old story about a couple sitting in business class over the ocean when there's a bang and a rumble, and out the right window they see an engine flame, smoke, and go out. The over the public address, they hear "This is your captain speaking. We've lost our number four engine, but not to worry, the 747 flies perfectly well on three. We will, unfortunately, be one hour late into Heathrow."

Some time later, another rumble is heard, and out the left wing, some flame, then smoke, then the vibration goes away. Again on the PA, "Ladies and gents, this is your captain. We have lost our number one engine, but fear not. The 747 flies perfectly well on two engines. Unfortunately, we shall be delayed two hours into Heathrow."

Some time later, on the right side, a ball of flame erupts from another engine, the aircraft shakes and shudders, then the engine smokes, and goes out. The Captain announces "Ladies and gentlemen, I regret to tell you that we have lost our number three engine, but you needn't fear. The 747 will continue on one, but we'll be three hours late."

The husband shakes his head and says to his wife, "Just great. If we lose one more, we'll be up here all day."

quote:

Originally posted by sns3guppy:

Your father was partially correct. It's not going to be cruising or holding altitude, but it will be descending on one. Performance is minimal on two engines, especially two on the same side. One engine not only sees loss of the other three, but a drag increase offsetting the asymmetric thrust means that less than 25% of the original thrust is available for flight. Additionally, because each engine powers more than just thrust, but has bleed for leading edge devices and anti-ice, electrical, and hydraulic powering one of four systems, numerous functions on board are lost with each engine.

I hate be That Guy...but I'm going to anyway.

It all depends on weight. When I was doing my new hire training on the Whale, one of my simulator instructors gave me and my partner a "confidence exercise". With the airplane set at about 500,000 pounds, we took off, and lost an engine right before rotating (V1 cut). We climbed out did a visual pattern and did a touch and go. right at rotation we lost a second engine. We climbed out a bit more crookedly and flew a visual pattern to a another touch and go. Right after rotation, we lost a third engine. We climbed out quite slowly, leveled off at pattern altitude, flying quite sideways, and limped around the pattern to a landing. The airplane handled it fine.

Now granted that was a solid 350,000 lbs below max take-off weight, and a very heavy airplane on one engine would be in trouble, but it was more than 100,000 above a minimum realistic flight weight. At a lighter weight, it could fly plenty level on one engine and even climb a bit.

Yes, one engine is a very serious and likely devastating situation, but not automatically a crash. The devil is, as always, in the details.

And if you will indulge me a moment, I am curious about your comment about heat in the fuel cells. I've never heard of an airliner that had any kind of heat system in the fuel tanks, just fuel/oil heat exchangers to cool the oil and warm up and thin out the jet fuel before being it gets shot into the burner cans. The MD-11 could warm the fuel a bit by automatically running the fuel pumps to recirculate the fuel, but that's about it.

I hate when that happens ...