Sponsor Message:
Aviation Technical / Operations Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
A "Would You Rather" Question For Everyone...  
User currently offlinelexkid12300 From United States of America, joined Mar 2011, 89 posts, RR: 0
Posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 3675 times:

Hi all,

I'd like to ask everyone to participate in a "would you rather" conversation regarding which aircraft you'd want to be flying in under a certain circumstance...

Here is the circumstance (in modern day):

You're aircraft is at cruise altitude over land, and the aircraft loses ALL engine power, ALL electrics, ALL hydraulics, and all battery power. Would you rather be in a:

1. 1965-1979 Douglas DC-9
2. 1963-1984 Boeing 727
3. Douglas DC-10
4. Boeing 747-400

Which would you rather be flying in, and why? Looking forward to your responses!!

30 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineStarlionblue From Greenland, joined Feb 2004, 17068 posts, RR: 66
Reply 1, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 3645 times:

The DC-9. It has servo tabs on the controls.


"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots."
User currently offlineCrimsonNL From Netherlands, joined Dec 2007, 1887 posts, RR: 42
Reply 2, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 3642 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
CHAT OPERATOR

I guess the DC-9. It's the smallest so I think it would take the least effort to fly without hydraulics.

Martijn



Nothing's worse then flying the same registration twice, except flying it 4 times..
User currently onlineNWADC9 From United States of America, joined May 2004, 4897 posts, RR: 10
Reply 3, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 3402 times:

Quoting lexkid12300 (Thread starter):
ALL engine power

Something with a high aspect ratio

Quoting lexkid12300 (Thread starter):
ALL electrics

Something basic, maybe even built before electronic toys became prevalent in aviation

Quoting lexkid12300 (Thread starter):
ALL hydraulics

Something light and not heavily dependent on hydraulics

Quoting lexkid12300 (Thread starter):
all battery power

Same as electrics

Hands down, the DC-9.



Flying an aeroplane with only a single propeller to keep you in the air. Can you imagine that? -Capt. Picard
User currently offlinebueb0g From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2010, 648 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 3341 times:

Quoting lexkid12300 (Thread starter):
1. 1965-1979 Douglas DC-9

Can be flown without hydraulics and is relatively small so has to be the -9.

Quoting lexkid12300 (Thread starter):
3. Douglas DC-10

With no elec, engines or hyd you'd have no control at all.

Quoting lexkid12300 (Thread starter):
4. Boeing 747-400

Same here.



Roger roger, what's our vector, victor?
User currently offlineflyingturtle From Switzerland, joined Oct 2011, 2442 posts, RR: 14
Reply 5, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 3213 times:

Quoting lexkid12300 (Thread starter):

DC-9 and the 727 are out, because they have - AFAIK - a worse glide ratio.

After reading the book about the Turkish Airlines 981 flight, I'm biased towards the 747.


Just my rapidly devaluating 2 cents. 


David



Keeping calm is terrorism against those who want to live in fear.
User currently offlinemmo From Qatar, joined Apr 2013, 128 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 3208 times:

Logic would dictate either the DC-9 or 727.

For the DC-10/744, without wind milling hydraulics, there is no flight control. With the 727/DC-9 there is manual reversion so, you would have some control as long as you kept your speed up.

The DC-9/727 don't really require any thing else to keep it in the air. You would have a great deal of control available. I can remember doing manual reversion on the 727 in the Sim. Not fun, but certainly very controllable.

My vote would be either the DC-9 or 727. Most likely the 727 as I have more of a feel for that aircraft.



If we weren't all crazy we would all go insane
User currently offlinebueb0g From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2010, 648 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 3164 times:

Quoting flyingturtle (Reply 5):
DC-9 and the 727 are out, because they have - AFAIK - a worse glide ratio.

After reading the book about the Turkish Airlines 981 flight, I'm biased towards the 747.

The glide ratio is irrelevant if you have no flight controls...



Roger roger, what's our vector, victor?
User currently offlineflyingturtle From Switzerland, joined Oct 2011, 2442 posts, RR: 14
Reply 8, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 3150 times:

Quoting bueb0g (Reply 7):

I think he specified no hydraulics, no electrics, but no loss of control.


David



Keeping calm is terrorism against those who want to live in fear.
User currently offlineHAWK21M From India, joined Jan 2001, 31684 posts, RR: 56
Reply 9, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 3146 times:

No Hydraulics.....No Electrics then.....Go for the DC9.


Think of the brighter side!
User currently offlineflyingturtle From Switzerland, joined Oct 2011, 2442 posts, RR: 14
Reply 10, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 3139 times:

Quoting HAWK21M (Reply 9):

...so the DC-9 is the only one with manual reversion?


David



Keeping calm is terrorism against those who want to live in fear.
User currently offlineyeelep From United States of America, joined Apr 2011, 666 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 3122 times:

Quoting flyingturtle (Reply 10):

The 727 has manual reversion for the ailerons and elevator but the rudder is only hydraulically powered. The DC9 has unpowered ailerons, elevator and manual reversion on the rudder. The DC-10 and 747 are uncontrollable if all power sources are lost.


User currently offlineboeingfixer From Canada, joined Jul 2005, 534 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 3072 times:

Quoting flyingturtle (Reply 8):
I think he specified no hydraulics, no electrics, but no loss of control.


David

Actually the OP did not list no loss of control in the post. Taking the scenario that the OP posted, there really are only 2 choices. First would be the DC-9 and second the B727. Both the DC-10 and B744 would not be controllable in that situation.

Cheers,

John



Cheers, John YYC
User currently offlinetb727 From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 1612 posts, RR: 9
Reply 13, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 3054 times:

It would be the order you put them in for me. I fly the 727 once a year in manual reversion in the sim. It's like arm wrestling a chimp and is sluggish, like a wet sponge. Your scenario is a nightmare.


Too lazy to work, too scared to steal!
User currently offline26point2 From United States of America, joined Mar 2010, 836 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 3037 times:

DC-10 the only one listed with a RAT, no? DC-10 it is.

User currently offlineStarlionblue From Greenland, joined Feb 2004, 17068 posts, RR: 66
Reply 15, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 3016 times:

Quoting 26point2 (Reply 14):
DC-10 the only one listed with a RAT, no? DC-10 it is.

Can't use the RAT since you have no electrics and hydraulics for it to power. On a side note, the 747 uses the windmilling engines in lieu of RAT (except the -8 which has one).



"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots."
User currently offlineBoeingGuy From United States of America, joined Dec 2010, 3151 posts, RR: 7
Reply 16, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 3008 times:

Quoting bueb0g (Reply 7):
After reading the book about the Turkish Airlines 981 flight, I'm biased towards the 747.

The glide ratio is irrelevant if you have no flight controls...

You would have flight controls on the 747-400. All four engines would be windmilling, which would power the hydraulics. All Boeing airplanes are designed to have flight controls with all engines out, and on battery power only.

Quoting 26point2 (Reply 14):
DC-10 the only one listed with a RAT, no? DC-10 it is.

747-400 has the equivalent function of a RAT with all four engines windmilling. Personally I'd want to be in a 787 or 777. Each supposedly have amazing glide ratios.


User currently offlinemmo From Qatar, joined Apr 2013, 128 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 2989 times:

Quoting lexkid12300 (Thread starter):
You're aircraft is at cruise altitude over land, and the aircraft loses ALL engine power, ALL electrics, ALL hydraulics, and all battery power. Would you rather be in a:

Again, as from the specifications set out by the OP, there is no hydraulics....therefore, no wind-milling hydraulics, thus no flight controls.

To be honest, it's not a very fair question, but given the criteria the 727/DC-9 are really the only options. IMHO



If we weren't all crazy we would all go insane
User currently offlineBoeingGuy From United States of America, joined Dec 2010, 3151 posts, RR: 7
Reply 18, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 2985 times:

Quoting mmo (Reply 17):
Quoting lexkid12300 (Thread starter):
You're aircraft is at cruise altitude over land, and the aircraft loses ALL engine power, ALL electrics, ALL hydraulics, and all battery power. Would you rather be in a:

Again, as from the specifications set out by the OP, there is no hydraulics....therefore, no wind-milling hydraulics, thus no flight controls.

So that is really an unrealistic question. All Boeing airplanes (and I would assume other manufacturers also) have a Battery that will give at least 30 minutes of electrical power to get you to the nearest airport. There really isn't any way to lose all Hydraulics either.

Obviously you wouldn't want a failure mode to cause the loss of all hydraulics or electrical power and airplanes are designed accordingly.


User currently offlineflyingturtle From Switzerland, joined Oct 2011, 2442 posts, RR: 14
Reply 19, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 2965 times:

Quoting BoeingGuy (Reply 18):
There really isn't any way to lose all Hydraulics either.

Yet there is. In the case of the DC-9 and 727, ironically. A catastrophic engine failure can take out all the remaining engines (has not happend to date, AFAIK), and all hydraulic systems (United 232).

Question: Since when are A/C routinely equipped with hydraulic fuse plugs?

In the DC-10, you would at least have differential thrust on the two remaining engines, while the hydraulic lines are severed in the tail. So the 747 must be the safest aircraft of that list, but I'm digressing from the route planned by the OP. 


David



Keeping calm is terrorism against those who want to live in fear.
User currently offlineBoeingGuy From United States of America, joined Dec 2010, 3151 posts, RR: 7
Reply 20, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 2943 times:

Quoting flyingturtle (Reply 19):
Yet there is. In the case of the DC-9 and 727, ironically. A catastrophic engine failure can take out all the remaining engines (has not happend to date, AFAIK), and all hydraulic systems (United 232).

Current Boeing airplanes have the Hydraulic systems physically separated and have check valves. So in theory UA 232 and AA 191 wouldn't happen.

That's the point. The airplanes are designed so that loss of all Hydraulic systems by any means is calculated to be less than 1x10-9. Doesn't matter if all engines fail. You have RAT and/or windmilling engines supplying Hydraulic pressure.


User currently offlinelexkid12300 From United States of America, joined Mar 2011, 89 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 2791 times:

I've really enjoyed everyone's comments, keep them coming!

My personal pick would be the DC9, for reasons mentioned above. The ailerons, elevators, and rudder can all be operated with no electric, engine or hydraulic power. In fact, i'm doubtful a crew would notice any difference in their controls for the ailerons and elevators with loss of all power, since they're controlled by manual cables only (to the tabs). I just wouldn't want to be in a stall, as the hydraulic "down" pressure for the elevators would be inoperative. And i definitely wouldn't look forward to the landing as there would be no nose-gear steering, right?


User currently onlineNWADC9 From United States of America, joined May 2004, 4897 posts, RR: 10
Reply 22, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 2769 times:

Quoting flyingturtle (Reply 5):
DC-9 and the 727 are out, because they have - AFAIK - a worse glide ratio.

Some numbers I found...

Boeing 747-100 17.7
Douglas DC-10 17.7
Douglas DC-9 16.5
Boeing 727-200 16.4

They're about the same.



Flying an aeroplane with only a single propeller to keep you in the air. Can you imagine that? -Capt. Picard
User currently onlineMax Q From United States of America, joined May 2001, 4653 posts, RR: 19
Reply 23, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 2765 times:

Unrealistic scenario but the DC9 would be my choice.


B727 reverts to manual reversion but it's a real pig to fly.


In the -9 you're always in manual reversion !


So no big deal.



The best contribution to safety is a competent Pilot.
User currently offlineStarlionblue From Greenland, joined Feb 2004, 17068 posts, RR: 66
Reply 24, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 2760 times:

Quoting lexkid12300 (Reply 21):
And i definitely wouldn't look forward to the landing as there would be no nose-gear steering, right?

If this were a real scenario that would be the least of your worries. In any case you could control the plane down to 60-80 knots with the rudder and once below that you could brake to a stop well before any significant deviation from centerline.



"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots."
User currently offlinebueb0g From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2010, 648 posts, RR: 0
Reply 25, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 2863 times:

Quoting BoeingGuy (Reply 20):
Current Boeing airplanes have the Hydraulic systems physically separated and have check valves. So in theory UA 232 and AA 191 wouldn't happen.

That's what they thought before UA232... Things you didn't expect can always happen, and it certainly is still possible, if highly improbable that a Boeing could loose all hydraulics.



Roger roger, what's our vector, victor?
User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21677 posts, RR: 55
Reply 26, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 2863 times:

Quoting BoeingGuy (Reply 16):
Personally I'd want to be in a 787 or 777. Each supposedly have amazing glide ratios.

But without any electrics, either of those planes will be completely crippled and uncontrollable.

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlineflyingturtle From Switzerland, joined Oct 2011, 2442 posts, RR: 14
Reply 27, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 2852 times:

Quoting NWADC9 (Reply 22):

Thank you for shattering my false beliefs.  


Cheers, David



Keeping calm is terrorism against those who want to live in fear.
User currently offlineBoeingGuy From United States of America, joined Dec 2010, 3151 posts, RR: 7
Reply 28, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 2774 times:

Quoting Mir (Reply 26):
Quoting BoeingGuy (Reply 16):
Personally I'd want to be in a 787 or 777. Each supposedly have amazing glide ratios.

But without any electrics, either of those planes will be completely crippled and uncontrollable.

That's not my point. It's pretty much impossible for either airplane to lose it's electrics. Besides standby batteries, each airplane has electrical power generated from the RAT. The 777 and 787 have so much electrical redundancy it isn't funny.

Sure what you say is true. It just would never actually happen.


User currently offlinelonghauler From Canada, joined Mar 2004, 5051 posts, RR: 43
Reply 29, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 2778 times:

Quoting mmo (Reply 17):
To be honest, it's not a very fair question, but given the criteria the 727/DC-9 are really the only options. IMHO

I agree, if you are going to say NO hydraulics, then NO hydraulics it is. Doesn't matter if you have something powering them, they aren't there!

Quoting tb727 (Reply 13):
It would be the order you put them in for me. I fly the 727 once a year in manual reversion in the sim. It's like arm wrestling a chimp and is sluggish, like a wet sponge. Your scenario is a nightmare.

I did the same thing yearly in the B737-200, it wasn't pretty, and a real handful. But ... it WAS controllable!

Quoting NWADC9 (Reply 22):
Some numbers I found...

Boeing 747-100 17.7
Douglas DC-10 17.7
Douglas DC-9 16.5
Boeing 727-200 16.4

They're about the same.

This makes sense. An airplane with a poor glide ratio would require more power in cruise than one with a good one. Jet transport aircraft are designed to be very efficient when cruising, so it really isn't a surprise that the glide ratios are about the same.



Never gonna grow up, never gonna slow down .... Barefoot Blue Jean Night
User currently offlineJetlagged From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 2565 posts, RR: 25
Reply 30, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 2218 times:

Quoting BoeingGuy (Reply 28):
That's not my point. It's pretty much impossible for either airplane to lose it's electrics. Besides standby batteries, each airplane has electrical power generated from the RAT. The 777 and 787 have so much electrical redundancy it isn't funny.

Maybe, but it's a hypothetical question so you've lost electrics and hydraulics - somehow. Anyway, they weren't on the list of options. Losing the battery in all the aircraft listed is equally unlikely, but that is the condition specified.

Quoting BoeingGuy (Reply 20):
Current Boeing airplanes have the Hydraulic systems physically separated and have check valves. So in theory UA 232 and AA 191 wouldn't happen.

You are forgetting the JAL 747 that lost all hydraulics when the aft pressure bulkhead blew the fin off. It can happen in practice, even to a Boeing. The tail section is the vulnerable area because all the separate redundant hydraulic systems have to be routed through that one small zone.

Quoting Max Q (Reply 23):
B727 reverts to manual reversion but it's a real pig to fly.


In the -9 you're always in manual reversion !

Max Q has summed up the situation perfectly, the DC-9 is the clear winner in a no backup scenario. I have to say that even with all the equipment functional of that list I'd still choose the Diesel 9, if I was given the choice for a personal jet.  



The glass isn't half empty, or half full, it's twice as big as it needs to be.
Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic A "Would You Rather" Question For Everyone...
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • Tech/Ops related posts only!
  • Not Tech/Ops related? Use the other forums
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
  • DETAILED RULES
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)


Similar topics:More similar topics...
TCX Ops Staff - Question For You..... posted Sun Feb 7 2010 04:33:28 by Lekky-Man
What Would You Buy For A First Plane. posted Tue Aug 15 2006 20:22:34 by Airfoilsguy
Question For All You Mechanics Out There posted Fri Mar 1 2002 17:25:35 by Boeingnut
Question For UA AMEs/pilots posted Tue Jan 22 2013 18:57:57 by JAGflyer
Ops Question For VS LHR-LAX-LHR posted Wed Dec 19 2012 08:01:13 by readytotaxi
Stabilator Question For The Gurus posted Thu Nov 8 2012 13:59:12 by flanker
What Would You Change/improve posted Sun Apr 8 2012 11:54:01 by baje427
How Would You Integrate An SLI? posted Thu Sep 29 2011 04:26:47 by bjorn14
Question For SFO-Area ATC Or Those Familiar posted Sat Aug 21 2010 19:29:51 by suseJ772
Question For SWA Ramp Agents posted Fri Jul 16 2010 13:25:27 by contrails15

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format