Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
146 Departing With 3 Engines?  
User currently offlinePe@rson From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2001, 19230 posts, RR: 52
Posted (11 years 3 weeks 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 2949 times:

Four or five years ago, I remember being at LHR when a Manx 146 changed to the departure frequency for takeoff from 27L.

After the usual commentry, the pilot operating the radio (the first officer) stated that it will be departing using three engines - not four - and thus it will need to apply full power before releasing the breaks.

Has anyone experienced this as a passenger or otherwise?

I presume that such incidents rarely occur, but how roughly how frequently do they happen?

What is the likely cause of this? A mechanical problem?

Thanks,

James.


"Everyone writing for the Telegraph knows that the way to grab eyeballs is with Ryanair and/or sex."
15 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineMEA-707 From Netherlands, joined Nov 1999, 4328 posts, RR: 35
Reply 1, posted (11 years 3 weeks 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 2882 times:

I am sure you were listening to the scanner and not on board? It can't possibly have been a passenger flight, presumeably the 146 went tech, most 4 engined planes are known to make 3 engine empty ferry flights to their maintenance base once in a while. I don't think 2 engined planes are allowed to take off with one engine, and I doubt about threeholers.


nobody has ever died from hard work, but why take the risk?
User currently offlinePe@rson From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2001, 19230 posts, RR: 52
Reply 2, posted (11 years 3 weeks 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 2857 times:

No, it was a scheduled passenger flight - it used its normal flight number on its LHR-IOM service.

Yeah, I was listening to a scanner.



"Everyone writing for the Telegraph knows that the way to grab eyeballs is with Ryanair and/or sex."
User currently offlineOPNLguy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (11 years 3 weeks 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 2784 times:

Engines sometimes need to be changed for various reasons, such as internal problems such as failed bearings or metal shavings from a failed component, or due to birdstrike damage, or other reasons. When the determination is made that an engine needs changing, the aircraft may not necessarily be at a location where the airline involved has a spare engine and folks to change it.

Three- and four-engined aircraft can ferry (sans passengers) to locations where the engine can be changed. This is usually done with a management crew flown in especially for the flight. Such a ferry usually isn't a problem, but sometimes they crop up. An ATI DC-8 freighter taking off from KMCI a few years ago on a three-engine ferry aborted takeoff, taxied back and tried again, only to crash on the second attempt. Back in the 1980s sometime, an Eastern L-1011 on a 2-engine ferry coming out of Mexico City to KMIA lost another engine on departure, and they returned safely to MMMX on a single engine. Those are the exceptions; most go off without a hitch.

With two-engined aircraft, the engine must come to wherever the aircraft happens to be, and changed on-site. Here in the US, that means that you usually truck-in a new engine (which can take a day or two, depending how far the aircraft and replacement engine are from one another). In some other cases (with larger engines, or at remote places) a new engine has to be flown in either a dedicated cargo plane, or ferried in as an "extra" engine on a scheduled flight. There a number of photos of 747s and DC-10s in the database that show an extra engine hanging on the wing.

Hope this helps...


User currently offlinePositive rate From Australia, joined Sep 2001, 2143 posts, RR: 1
Reply 4, posted (11 years 3 weeks 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 2654 times:

I would have like to have seen the rate of climb of that 146. It climbs bad enough with all 4 engines running let alone with 3. Must of been a real dog!

User currently offlineTjwgrr From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 2444 posts, RR: 2
Reply 5, posted (11 years 3 weeks 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 2657 times:

I witnessed a NWA DC-10 take off from GRR on a ferry flight (w/o pax) to DTW on two engines a number of years ago. The flight had diverted into GRR due to the mx problem.

Takeoff wasn't all that spectacular, but the a/c did use a fair amount of runway and climbed rather slowly....



Direct KNOBS, maintain 2700' until established on the localizer, cleared ILS runway 26 left approach.
User currently offlineDispatch From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (11 years 3 weeks 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 2548 times:

I once saw a 747 take off with FIVE engines, does that count in this thread  Big thumbs up

Peter


User currently offlineGigneil From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 16347 posts, RR: 84
Reply 7, posted (11 years 3 weeks 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 2486 times:

It climbs bad enough with all 4 engines running let alone with 3.


Hmm... I dunno. Climb performance, and specificially 3 engine climb performance, is the reason why the 146 is the only commercial jet airliner that can serve places like ASE.

N


User currently offlineCapital146 From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2003, 2125 posts, RR: 43
Reply 8, posted (11 years 3 weeks 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 2403 times:

Gigneil,
not to mention London City! Runway length under 4000ft!



Like a fine wine, one gets better with age.
User currently offlineVC-10 From United Kingdom, joined Oct 1999, 3701 posts, RR: 34
Reply 9, posted (11 years 3 weeks 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 2347 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

No, it was a scheduled passenger flight

I can assure you it wouldn't have been a pax flight. Only operating crew are allowed on 3-Eng ferries.

Can you imagine the compnsation claims if it had taken off with pax and them gone down?


User currently offlinePe@rson From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2001, 19230 posts, RR: 52
Reply 10, posted (11 years 3 weeks 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 2249 times:

"I can assure you it wouldn't have been a pax flight."

It's odd, then, why it was using the normal flight number. Ho hum.



"Everyone writing for the Telegraph knows that the way to grab eyeballs is with Ryanair and/or sex."
User currently offlineMeister808 From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 973 posts, RR: 1
Reply 11, posted (11 years 3 weeks 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 2218 times:

Positive rate:

Have you ever flown on a 146 or ARJ??? The takeoff is pretty spectacular, and certainly not "bad" as you allude to.



Twin Cessna 812 Victor, Minneapolis Center, we observe your operation in the immediate vicinity of extreme precipitation
User currently offlineFritzi From United Arab Emirates, joined Jun 2001, 2762 posts, RR: 2
Reply 12, posted (11 years 3 weeks 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 2210 times:

...and thus it will need to apply full power before releasing the breaks.

B R A K E S  Big grin

Hopefully he didn´t apply full thrust on all three engines at the same time.

Normally you increase the power on the engines positioned at the same location under each wing before you apply power on the third one, otherwise you wouldn´t be able to keep the aircraft on the rwy due to the uneven thrust. The thrust on the third engine would be increased slowly as your speed builds up to maintain control of the aircraft.


User currently offlinePe@rson From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2001, 19230 posts, RR: 52
Reply 13, posted (11 years 3 weeks 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 2191 times:

"B R A K E S "

Indeed!  Big grin Time I had a BREAK, though. :p



"Everyone writing for the Telegraph knows that the way to grab eyeballs is with Ryanair and/or sex."
User currently offlinePositive rate From Australia, joined Sep 2001, 2143 posts, RR: 1
Reply 14, posted (11 years 3 weeks 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 2016 times:

No i haven't actually flown on the 146 but i've spoken to many people who say the 146 is a poor performer. For starters it's equipped with 4 "blowdryers", and the reason it's got 4 is because each on their own produce so little thrust it needs all 4. ATC often make jokes about the 146 and its slow climb rate. Plus it's limited to 25,000feet altitude(at least here in Australia it is). The RJ is the uprated version so it has better performance- i'm referring to the older 146-100/200/300 series. And yeah i've seen them takeoff, nothing spectacular to look at really. The 737 takeoff is much more impressive.

User currently offlineTavong From Colombia, joined Jul 2001, 836 posts, RR: 4
Reply 15, posted (11 years 3 weeks 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 2015 times:

Well about the performance here in Colobia SAM tried to operate with Avro RJ-100 but their performance here was so poor that they returned them but Colombia has special things that makes a lot of planes difficult to operate, same happened to 737-100.


Gustavo.



Colombian coffee, the best...take a cup and you will see how delicious it is.
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
A380: MSN 009 With Engines. posted Sun Feb 19 2006 22:12:31 by AirbusA346
What Just Landed At TPA With 4 Engines? posted Sat Feb 18 2006 21:53:20 by SWA TPA
Can You Imagine 777 With 4 Engines? posted Tue Nov 29 2005 23:34:17 by AirCanada014
New KLM A330-200 Pic With Engines Mounted posted Tue Jul 26 2005 19:28:56 by GlobeTrekker
Shorts Belfast At SEN With 2 Engines Now? posted Tue May 10 2005 20:47:25 by R3500vdp
BA 744 Flies LAX-MAN With 3 Engines...WITH Pax! posted Fri Feb 25 2005 02:51:17 by Pacific
747 With 3 Engines Takes Off From Detroit posted Mon Nov 1 2004 17:34:12 by Dayflyer
Qantas Boeing 744 With 6 Engines? posted Sat May 22 2004 14:53:31 by FJWH
AA 777 With 4 Engines? posted Wed Sep 17 2003 03:51:31 by Flyingbronco05
747-200 With 5 Engines? posted Tue Jun 24 2003 01:16:49 by Bigmo747