Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR
71Zulu wrote:This time without passengers?
Sent from my SM-N920T using Tapatalk
vorellanaj wrote:71Zulu wrote:This time without passengers?
Sent from my SM-N920T using Tapatalk
No aircraft can be granted for clearing takeoff in revenue service with an inoperative or missing engine.
In case of twins , AOG only (under FAA regulations, taking off a twin engined aircraft with one engine is illegal). Trijets and quads could to takeoff only to ferry for maintenance under special conditions and strict procedures.
sgbroimp wrote:And then there was the Connie,
vorellanaj wrote:71Zulu wrote:This time without passengers?
Sent from my SM-N920T using Tapatalk
No aircraft can be granted for clearing takeoff in revenue service with an inoperative or missing engine.
In case of twins , AOG only (under FAA regulations, taking off a twin engined aircraft with one engine is illegal). Trijets and quads could to takeoff only to ferry for maintenance under special conditions and strict procedures.
KVH68 wrote:I have seen a 747-400 being ferried with only 3 operating engines. The fan blades were removed from the damaged engine and an aerodynamic cover was placed over the center of the engine to prevent air going into the compressor section.
Flighty wrote:Generally speaking, the 744 seems to be a talented 3 engine performer, but what if they lose another engine after v1? Can a 744 really climb out on 2 engines?
Goodyear wrote:Saw it fly over yesterday. Interesting...when was the last time BA did a 5 engine ferry?
mpdpilot wrote:This might be a stupid question, but how does an airline plan for a flight like this? Is there a 3 engine profile for flight planning?
vorellanaj wrote:No GE 744 have V-Pods because the engine fan are too big to be fitted in a pod for ferry. I don't know if any PW 744 operator ordered V-Pod feature.
RR : 86in , PW 94in , GE 106in.
flyPIT wrote:sgbroimp wrote:And then there was the Connie,
And yet again there is the other Connie, who's aircraft physically transition to 3 engine aircraft in flight!
747classic wrote:vorellanaj wrote:No GE 744 have V-Pods because the engine fan are too big to be fitted in a pod for ferry. I don't know if any PW 744 operator ordered V-Pod feature.
RR : 86in , PW 94in , GE 106in.
No GE engines (-50E/E1/E2 and -80C2B series) were certified for fifth pod operation. Both GE engine types were designed to be split for (lower deck) transportation and all early 747/CF6 operators (KL, AF, LH, etc) had 74M and/or 74F in their fleets, able to transport a spare engine (no splitting required) at the main cargo deck.
See : viewtopic.php?t=770041#p11110281
trijetsonly wrote:747classic wrote:vorellanaj wrote:No GE 744 have V-Pods because the engine fan are too big to be fitted in a pod for ferry. I don't know if any PW 744 operator ordered V-Pod feature.
RR : 86in , PW 94in , GE 106in.
No GE engines (-50E/E1/E2 and -80C2B series) were certified for fifth pod operation. Both GE engine types were designed to be split for (lower deck) transportation and all early 747/CF6 operators (KL, AF, LH, etc) had 74M and/or 74F in their fleets, able to transport a spare engine (no splitting required) at the main cargo deck.
See : viewtopic.php?t=770041#p11110281
Slightly off-topic but GE CF6-50C engines could be transported as additional pod on the DC-10:
This might be a stupid question, but how does an airline plan for a flight like this? Is there a 3 engine profile for flight planning?
airzona11 wrote:The engine flameout was very loud. Very cool that the 747 can do that.
jetsetterusa wrote:
DocLightning wrote:This appears to have been some sort of contained failure. Bits of hot metal suggest that a spinny part inappropriately contacted a non-spinny part.
rajincajun01 wrote:LH did a TATL flight after losing an engine just after takeoff from DEN-FRA earlier this year.
Arion640 wrote:BA once had an engine shut down inflight on a 747 from LAX and the captain continued to Heathrow instead of diverting. He did eventually divert to MAN, and shortly after he was then suspended.
CHI87LG wrote:Indeed, the pilot talked to dispatch and they advised him to go as far as he could so he wouldn't have to dump 70 tons of fuel. Once they got to the Atlantic, conditions were not as favorable. They made it across the pond but didn't have enough fuel to make it to London, so they diverted.
The dust-up comes from the FAA declaring this unsafe, and the UK's CAA disagreeing. The pilot didn't do anything erroneous, he followed the directions he was given. It's not like he blew an engine, kept it a secret and flew a few hundred souls across the Atlantic.
It's BA 268. 2005. Feel free to look it up. Interesting occurrence.
eamondzhang wrote:rajincajun01 wrote:LH did a TATL flight after losing an engine just after takeoff from DEN-FRA earlier this year.
Did they? I don't see any mentions in the news. Rather they did an IFSD in 2012 (on A346) when they just started their transatlantic journey; they chose to continue to Munich in that occasion (this one: http://avherald.com/h?article=452374ea&opt=0).
Michael
rajincajun01 wrote:eamondzhang wrote:rajincajun01 wrote:LH did a TATL flight after losing an engine just after takeoff from DEN-FRA earlier this year.
Did they? I don't see any mentions in the news. Rather they did an IFSD in 2012 (on A346) when they just started their transatlantic journey; they chose to continue to Munich in that occasion (this one: http://avherald.com/h?article=452374ea&opt=0).
Michael
It happened a bit further into the flight than I remembered. Still flew nearly six hours on three engines. But here is the story: https://www.aeroinside.com/item/9128/lu ... -in-flight
TUGMASTER wrote:Yep,
including horoscope checks.
Home soon.
TUGMASTER wrote:horoscope checks.
77west wrote:TUGMASTER wrote:Yep,
including horoscope checks.
Home soon.
Horoscope - you dont want to know what I pictured when reading that line!