411A From United States of America, joined Nov 2001, 1826 posts, RR: 9 Reply 1, posted (9 years 8 months 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 18419 times:
A Lockheed L1011 can indeed remain airbourne with two engines inoperative, provided the weight is reasonable.
In addition, on approach, a go-around is possible (again at reasonable weights) provided the maneuver is begun at no less than 800agl.
The single engine approach/landing is done each six months in the simulator for training/check purposes, for Captains only.
Positive rate From Australia, joined Sep 2001, 2143 posts, RR: 1 Reply 2, posted (9 years 8 months 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 18376 times:
As i recall there was an Eastern L1011 that had to do just that. It was flying somewhere in the Carribean when all 3 engines failed and the crew managed to restart 1(i think number 2) and limped back to the airport on 1 engine alone.
B747skipper From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 3, posted (9 years 8 months 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 18381 times:
Allthough not a requirement, but yes the 747 could fly on one angine.
Again, what our friend 411A answered as far as weight is concerned, the same does apply to the 747, it would have to be light.
Four engine airplanes flight crew training does not include this, as a required maneuver, we have to fly on two engines, but I have done "single engine" approaches in a 747 simulator many times, with number 1 or number 4 as the only engine operating.
Incidentally, all 3 engine airplanes i.e. DC-10, 727, Falcon 50 must be able to be flown on 1 engine.
Cptkrell From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 2555 posts, RR: 14 Reply 4, posted (9 years 8 months 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 18353 times:
Not entirely germain (sp?) to the question, but semi-relative, my best school buddy (who is now mustering out of 727 freighters) and I were talking a couple of days ago about two single-engine 72 circumstances. Also, somewhere, in the basement, I have an airshow publicity photo of EAL CPT neighbor executing an airshow single-engine pass in new (195?) L188 Electra; not much weight, of course, but impressive nontheless. I should not want to have a ticket on B747Skipper's single engine excursion, but if the chance ever arose, I'm sure I'd be with the best man I could hope for...jack
Buzz From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 697 posts, RR: 24 Reply 6, posted (9 years 8 months 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 18008 times:
Hi TarzanBoy, Buzz here. I recall a story from the late '80s (yes, in the previous century) about a 747-123 that UAL had bought and overhauled. We called 'em the "Lemon Sisters". The -123 series was orginally built for American, these 4 had been through a few owners before UAL bought 'em. As i recall the 4 airframes cost about 64 million... half the price of a new one. To say that the airframes needed work was to put it mildly.
Anyway, one fuel gauge was deferred per MEL. After takeoff the #2 main tank crossfeed failed closed. Normally on climbout the engines feed off the center tank first, then #2 and #3 main, then when the tanks are about equal they go tank-to-engine.
About 3/4 of the way from SFO to NRT the hard working flight engineer discovered his math was wrong and there would be fuel problems. I understand that that Lemon Sister flew the approach into NRT on #2 engine and APU, with all the pax in life vests.
"Don't try this at home", once you've built up your airspeed and altitude you have some options. At PDX one day a Falcon 20 tried a single engine takeoff (planning to air start after takeoff?) He lifted off in ground effect. As the end of the runway passed below him and he was still looking up at the streetlights of the employee parking lot he decided to slide into the grass of the over-run instead of hitting something harder.
Good judgement comes from experience. Experience comes from poor judgement.
Buzz Fuselsausage: LIne Mechanic by night, DC-3 Crew Chief by Choice, taildragger pilot for fun.
ExPanAmer From United States of America, joined Jul 2001, 36 posts, RR: 0 Reply 8, posted (9 years 8 months 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 17645 times:
Don't forget the United 747 out of HNL (not 100% sure) that had the front cargo door blow off.Number 3 and 4 are out,a big hole in the side,various systems failures and still a controlled, successful landing at the airport with all that water just wanting to give that bird a bath!
B747skipper From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 11, posted (9 years 8 months 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 17548 times:
Ever since that BA 747 incident over Indonesia, Boeing has incorporated a "volcanic ash" relight procedure in their QRH... the "quick reference handbook" which contains check lists, and all essential abnormal or emergency procedures for the 747.
Due to a clever design, one feature of the 747 hydraulic systems (4 systems) can all be operated normally (for flight controls), although with some reduction in pressure and flow, as if the 4 engines were operating. Even windmilling engines can produce some amount of hydraulic pressure. A great concept... In the old days, the loss of a certain engines (inboard engines) i.e. 707, DC-8, created partial hydraulic system failures. The 747 does not have that problem.
The problem with JAL 123 was totally different in nature, the 4 hydraulic systems were fully depleted, by failure of the aft pressure bulkhead... Al Haynes should have been in command of JAL 123... HE would have brought that airplane back, probably... (Al Haynes, DC-10 UAL, Sioux City)...
B747skipper From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 13, posted (9 years 8 months 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 17468 times:
Dear friend triple Seven:
I never heard that... the concept of "engine pods" and "pylons" was that airplanes could loose an engine (torned off) from the wing, without much damage to the wing's integrity... I have a friend who had that experience with an old 747 in Anchorage, some 8 years ago, the engine separated from the wing, fell in the city (near a gas station), but he brought the airplane back. to a safe landing, no casualties.
A windmilling engine causes drag, obvious, but a 747 flies fine with a failed engine. I am "3 engine ferry qualified" and I have flown, from A to B, 747 with a failed engine, taking off... three times in my "notorious career". There is a complete procedure to do that, the engine N1 (fan) rotation can be secured by belts (the type used to secure freight pallets) - or with an engine plug (cover) - it is no problem, really.
Boeing nut From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 14, posted (9 years 8 months 6 hours ago) and read 17282 times:
The Eastern L1011 was flying from MIA to NAS when they had engine trouble. They elected to turn back to MIA and indeed landed with only the #2 engine lit.
I remember that! The problem was that oil seal rings were not replaced by mechanics after engine work. They were damn lucky to get #2 lit! Thats about as close as a widebody has ever come to ditching in the Atlantic.