Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
ironspud said:True. But they only work if the engines stay attached to the airplane.
T-Gates said:I wasn't under the impression that the engine that fell off was on fire though....
bombinha said:I hope they always fall off as they were suposed to do. Because I don't wanna have a uncontroled engine fire with 200+ thousand pounds of jetfuel on my wings and the engine still attached.
There is a class that started on Monday January 31st, appx. 12 people. All are Aeroservice students buying there B-747 types and Southern has offered them first dibs on interviews and possible hiring when class is finished.
T-Gates said:The system's purpose is for the engine to shear off at random points in time? You lost me there.....
You're right, AA had a DC-10 loose an engine off the wing....with less than stellar results. And El Al lost one on a Classic 747 which promptly took out it's neighboring engine, causing it to crash into an apartment building in Amsterdam.
I'm going to say the loss of thrust, and drag from a whole engine mounted on the outbard of the wing might have some slight effect on flight.
The reason AA lost that DC-10 over Chicago had nothing to do with loss of thrust or drag. It had everything to do with their training. Their training specified that when you lose an engine, you're IMMIDEATELY to fly v2. They were approx 30-40 knots above v2 when they lost their engine- when the PF pulled up the nose to slow to v2, he stalled the wing.
Don't forget- transport category aircraft are certified to fly with a positive rate of climb even with the loss of an engine. Yes, even if it falls off. (Which, if you think about it, would lessen the drag coefficient)
Don't remember the El Al flight, but it seems that that was just bad luck, to have one engine fly into another.
gringo said:T-Gates said:The reason AA lost that DC-10 over Chicago had nothing to do with loss of thrust or drag. It had everything to do with their training. Their training specified that when you lose an engine, you're IMMIDEATELY to fly v2. They were approx 30-40 knots above v2 when they lost their engine- when the PF pulled up the nose to slow to v2, he stalled the wing.
Edited. Dang, ATR beat me to it!
You mean besides a faulty MX procedure as well as a shift change of mechanics during the engine swap coupled with the fact that when the engine came off it severed the hydraulic lines causing the leading edge devices to retract, giving it less lift.
Did AA, or any other DC-10 operator for that matter, have any training dealing with that exact scenario? I would think that somebody who puts the MF'n-10 on their info would know that.
The sad part is the mechanic that was held liable ended up committing suicide shortly after. We pilots only get one chance to kill people, mechanics get to kill people till they are caught. I heard that from a mechanic.
gringo said:T-Gates said:The system's purpose is for the engine to shear off at random points in time? You lost me there.....
You're right, AA had a DC-10 loose an engine off the wing....with less than stellar results. And El Al lost one on a Classic 747 which promptly took out it's neighboring engine, causing it to crash into an apartment building in Amsterdam.
I'm going to say the loss of thrust, and drag from a whole engine mounted on the outbard of the wing might have some slight effect on flight.
The reason AA lost that DC-10 over Chicago had nothing to do with loss of thrust or drag. It had everything to do with their training. Their training specified that when you lose an engine, you're IMMIDEATELY to fly v2. They were approx 30-40 knots above v2 when they lost their engine- when the PF pulled up the nose to slow to v2, he stalled the wing.
Don't forget- transport category aircraft are certified to fly with a positive rate of climb even with the loss of an engine. Yes, even if it falls off. (Which, if you think about it, would lessen the drag coefficient)
Don't remember the El Al flight, but it seems that that was just bad luck, to have one engine fly into another.
The hydraulics were also severed causing the leading edge devices to slide back to a stowed position. That is what brought about the dramatic increase in the stall speed of one wing. In essence one wing flying with an engine producing max thrust, and another wing stalled with no engine.
The crew assumed the engine had failed, not fallen off. There was no indication in the cockpit that would indicate your engine has fallen off.
It would have been no problem to climb at V2 if the engine had failed and everything else had worked. Not sure if that V2 is accurate. The guys at the school house said it was V2+10. Will have to ask around, as it has been awhile since we were given the whole story and presentation.
Regards
AA
T-Gates said:The system's purpose is for the engine to shear off at random points in time? You lost me there.....
You're right, AA had a DC-10 loose an engine off the wing....with less than stellar results. And El Al lost one on a Classic 747 which promptly took out it's neighboring engine, causing it to crash into an apartment building in Amsterdam.
I'm going to say the loss of thrust, and drag from a whole engine mounted on the outbard of the wing might have some slight effect on flight.
727....does it matter?
I fly old Boeings too, I'm not slamming Kalitta....I just can't follow the logic of your posts (every single one of them).
ATR-DRIVR said:He stalled the wing because when the engine went over the top of the wing, the slats retracted on that wing due to hydraulic lines being cut.