Yousef727 From Denmark, joined Apr 2004, 22 posts, RR: 0 Posted (11 years 4 months 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 2287 times:
We have all heard the story about Air Canada's Gimli glider and probably seen the movie about on TV. In the movie you see this little propeller coming out from the bottom of the fuselage when the aircraft ran out of fuel. This should generate power for the electrical systems and hydraulics. So far so good, now my question is if such a propeller is mounted on all big jets?
I know it's also mounted on the A330 because it was on the Air Transat A330 that ran out of fuel and landed on the Azores.
FredT From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2002, 2185 posts, RR: 26
Reply 7, posted (11 years 4 months 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 2042 times:
Yes, plenty of jet fighters have RATs. Others have chemical batteries (thermal batteries) to provide emergency hydraulic and electrical power for at least as long as it takes to get a restart underway or get the APU going should the engine(s) flame out.
Running out of fuel would provide a nice silence even in a quad... it does happen, as we've seen.
The placement of the RAT on the F4 isn't strange I think. Remember, unless extreme angles of attack cause flow separation, the airflow will follow the fuselage nicely. Yes, it might be more effective somewhere else but jet fighter design is largely about cramming about four times more things into the fuselage than there is really room for. If that is where there's a few litres of room to spare then that is where the RAT will end up.
I thought I was doing good trying to avoid those airport hotels... and look at me now.
Bragi From Iceland, joined May 2001, 218 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (11 years 4 months 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 1984 times:
The crew of the BA B747 managed to restart two of their engines, which was sufficient to get them to the nearest airport.
What a difficult announcement to make; "Ladies and gentlemen, we have appearantly lost all engines"!
Muhammad Ali: "Superman don’t need no seat belt." Flight Attendant: "Superman don’t need no airplane, either."
Mr Spaceman From Canada, joined Mar 2001, 2787 posts, RR: 8
Reply 10, posted (11 years 4 months 21 hours ago) and read 1941 times:
> FredT, Thanks for your reply. Regarding the placement of the RAT on the F-4C Phantom II, I understand what you're saying about how if there's a few litres of room to spare somewhere in the airframe, then that's where the RAT will end up. That makes sense to me.
I was actually curious about how the angle of the prop blades on the RAT appear to not be in-line with where the blast of relative airflow / ram air would come from ........ the nose of the F-4.
The RAT on the F-4 appears to me to be positioned sideways as though it is pointing towards the left wingtip instead of the F-4's nose. However, I understand that perhaps it was in the transition of being stowed away when the photo was taken and that it might rotate about 90 degrees while retracting. Just an observation. Not a big deal.