|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#51
|
|||
|
|||
Neil Gerace wrote:
"Pat Flannery" wrote in message ... Back in the early days of jet engines, thought was given to simply clustering large numbers of small jet engines to power aircraft I think that's because not much thought was given to building large engines; the small ones being built were quite unreliable enough. It's a pity I can't find a drawing of this thing on the web...if you ever see a copy of "Project Canceled"; take a gander at the Short P.17D VTOL platform that is supposed to carry the P.17A attack plane on its back and up to the altitude where it will leave on its mission...this thing looks straight out of "Thunderbirds", and is powered by forty-four RB.108 fixed lift engines, sixteen RB.108 tilting lift engines, and ten RB.108 or RB.145 propulsion engines with 60 degree jet deflection. One aircraft..._seventy_ jet engines... :-D Pat |
#52
|
|||
|
|||
Jeff Findley wrote:
"Mary Pegg" wrote in message news There's a lesson, but it's a lesson in economics. It's cheaper to have two than four. On the other hand, a 747 with two engines out will get there, a 777 with two engines out is a glider. Hence the ETOPS (Extended Twin OPerationS) regulations which apply to both the aircraft type *and* the operator. Compare a 747 with 1/2 its engines out to a 777 with 1/2 of its engines out. For lots of fun, try a 747 with both of the left engines out and see how it flies and lands. If you pay for the sim time, I'd love to. From an old pprune thread archived he http://www.geocities.com/profemery/aviation/ferry.html ''I had a flight engineer once in the Air Force. Typical cigar smoking, beer drinking, big handed kind of guy. When he heard I was leaving to fly ETOPS airplanes he said "Sir, you know why I only ever fly four engined airplanes over water? "No, Chief, tell me" I said. "CAUSE THEY DON'T MAKE EM WITH FIVE!" '' -- Nothing to be done. |
#53
|
|||
|
|||
In article ,
Mary Pegg wrote: Compare a 747 with 1/2 its engines out to a 777 with 1/2 of its engines out. For lots of fun, try a 747 with both of the left engines out and see how it flies and lands. If you pay for the sim time, I'd love to. Do it in MS Flight Simulator - close enough for most people who aren't multi-engine jet certified. -- Herb Schaltegger, B.S., J.D., GPG Key ID: BBF6FC1C "Pray: To ask that the laws of the universe be annulled in behalf of a single petitioner confessedly unworthy." -- Ambrose Bierce http://dischordia.blogspot.com http://www.angryherb.net |
#54
|
|||
|
|||
"Mary Pegg" wrote in message
... Jeff Findley wrote: Compare a 747 with 1/2 its engines out to a 777 with 1/2 of its engines out. For lots of fun, try a 747 with both of the left engines out and see how it flies and lands. If you pay for the sim time, I'd love to. A quick web search didn't turn up much of anything relevant to a 747 loosing both engines on one side (besides flame wars and trolling). I'm sure Boeing has some idea. ;-) Jeff -- Remove icky phrase from email address to get a valid address. |
#55
|
|||
|
|||
"Jeff Findley" wrote in message
... "Mary Pegg" wrote in message ... Jeff Findley wrote: Compare a 747 with 1/2 its engines out to a 777 with 1/2 of its engines out. For lots of fun, try a 747 with both of the left engines out and see how it flies and lands. If you pay for the sim time, I'd love to. A quick web search didn't turn up much of anything relevant to a 747 loosing both engines on one side (besides flame wars and trolling). I'm sure Boeing has some idea. ;-) Wonder what the engine failure pattern on the one that flew threw volcanic ash was. Jeff -- Remove icky phrase from email address to get a valid address. |
#56
|
|||
|
|||
Jeff Findley wrote:
Compare a 747 with 1/2 its engines out to a 777 with 1/2 of its engines out. For lots of fun, try a 747 with both of the left engines out and see how it flies and lands. If you pay for the sim time, I'd love to. A quick web search didn't turn up much of anything relevant to a 747 loosing both engines on one side (besides flame wars and trolling). I'm sure Boeing has some idea. ;-) Jeff United Airlines flight 811 (Boeing 747) from Sydney to Los Angeles via Honolulu on February 24, 1989 "....After leaving Honolulu, on a flight from Los Angeles to Sydney, Australia, the loss of an improperly latched forward lower lobe cargo door resulted in explosive decompression and loss of power in the No. 3 and 4 engines. Nine passengers were sucked out of the plane and lost at sea. The plane landed safely. The cargo door opening was attributed to a faulty switch or wiring in the door control system which permitted electrical actuation of the door latches towards the unlatched position after initial door closure and before takeoff..." http://www.planecrashinfo.com/cvr890224.htm - Rusty |
#57
|
|||
|
|||
Greg D. Moore (Strider) wrote:
[747 engine failure] Wonder what the engine failure pattern on the one that flew threw volcanic ash was. The most famous incident is this one: "Ladies and gentlemen, this is your Captain speaking. We have a small problem. All four engines have stopped. We are doing our damnedest to get them going again. I trust you are not in too much distress." - Captain Eric Moody, British Airways, on the passenger PA after flying through volcanic ash in a B-747 [source: http://flatrock.org.nz/topics/flying...lass_isnt.htm] The actual pattern was 4, 2, and then 1 & 3 almost simultaneously. [source: www.aviationcentral.co.uk/ books-index-req-visit-bkid-46-orderid-2.htm ] More on www.ericmoody.com, which doesn't play nicely with my browser. -- Nothing to be done. |
#58
|
|||
|
|||
Number of engines, was: earliest moon landing
On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 17:34:03 -0600, in a place far, far away, "Rusty"
made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that: "....After leaving Honolulu, on a flight from Los Angeles to Sydney, Australia, the loss of an improperly latched forward lower lobe cargo door resulted in explosive decompression and loss of power in the No. 3 and 4 engines. Nine passengers were sucked out of the plane and lost at sea. I hate when that happens. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
The Apollo Hoax FAQ (is not spam) :-) | Nathan Jones | UK Astronomy | 8 | August 1st 04 09:08 PM |
The Apollo Hoax FAQ (is not spam) :-) | Nathan Jones | Astronomy Misc | 5 | July 29th 04 06:14 AM |
The Apollo Hoax FAQ | darla | Misc | 10 | July 25th 04 02:57 PM |
The Apollo Hoax FAQ | darla | UK Astronomy | 11 | July 25th 04 02:57 PM |
The Apollo Hoax FAQ | Nathan Jones | Astronomy Misc | 5 | November 7th 03 08:53 PM |