Pe@rson From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2001, 18847 posts, RR: 54 Posted (9 years 9 months 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 2234 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."
MEA-707 From Netherlands, joined Nov 1999, 4117 posts, RR: 37 Reply 1, posted (9 years 9 months 1 day ago) and read 2167 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?
OPNLguy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 3, posted (9 years 9 months 1 day ago) and read 2069 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.
Positive rate From Australia, joined Sep 2001, 2143 posts, RR: 1 Reply 4, posted (9 years 9 months 23 hours ago) and read 1939 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!
Tjwgrr From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 2297 posts, RR: 3 Reply 5, posted (9 years 9 months 23 hours ago) and read 1942 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.
Gigneil From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 16215 posts, RR: 88 Reply 7, posted (9 years 9 months 21 hours ago) and read 1771 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.
Fritzi From United Arab Emirates, joined Jun 2001, 2762 posts, RR: 2 Reply 12, posted (9 years 9 months 20 hours ago) and read 1495 times:
...and thus it will need to apply full power before releasing the breaks.
B R A K E S
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.
Positive rate From Australia, joined Sep 2001, 2143 posts, RR: 1 Reply 14, posted (9 years 9 months 10 hours ago) and read 1301 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.
Tavong From Colombia, joined Jul 2001, 834 posts, RR: 5 Reply 15, posted (9 years 9 months 10 hours ago) and read 1300 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.
Sponsor Message: 
From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2001, 18847 posts, 
From Netherlands, joined Nov 1999, 4117 posts, 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
From Australia, joined Sep 2001, 2143 posts, 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
From United Arab Emirates, joined Jun 2001, 2762 posts, 
Time I had a BREAK, though. :p
From Colombia, joined Jul 2001, 834 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
