NightFlier From United States of America, joined May 2004, 284 posts, RR: 2 Posted (8 years 10 months 2 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 6290 times:
I was watching a program on television one day and saw a pilot doing a demonstration with a Falcon 50, were he brought the # 1 engine to idle to simulate an engine failure. When he did this the airplane did not appear to be effected by the idling engine and the pilot explained how well the airplane handled on just 2 engines and how the effects of the #1 engine were not even felt by the passenger's and crew. So I was wondering even though the MD-11 has the #1 and #3 engines mounted below the wings, would it react similar to the Falcon if the MD-11 lost the #1 or #3 engine at any part of the flight ?
Airplanes are only as good as the people who fly&fix them.
Nosedive From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 1, posted (8 years 10 months 2 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 6207 times:
Well, I do know my dad had a bat go through his #1, when he landed the mech pointed to the fleshy stuff in the engine, coming out of Subic Bay. He said it felt more like the nose gear wasn't coming up quickly, and that the aircraft dragged a tad. So I guess the MD11 performs decent enough when it loses power to #1 or #3. I'll ask him for some more details later on.
Cubsrule From United States of America, joined May 2004, 21210 posts, RR: 19 Reply 2, posted (8 years 10 months 2 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 6190 times:
From a merely qualitative point of view, I would imagine the MD-11 would be harder to control with no #1 or #3 engine because the thrust from the 2 working engines would be much further from being symmetric than that of the Falcon 50. I've been out of school for nearly 2 months and am thus far too lazy to do any calculations to give you a better idea of how severe the effect would be.
I can't decide whether I miss the tulip or the bowling shoe more
RiffedAAMech From United States of America, joined Jun 2004, 52 posts, RR: 0 Reply 3, posted (8 years 10 months 2 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 5782 times:
When I worked at McDonnel Douglas on the MD-11, we would always hear that the cargo carriers who used the MD-11 would shut down the #2 engine in flight to maximize fuel economy. Never verified if this was accepted operating procedure but it did sound like it was possible.
MD11Engineer From Germany, joined Oct 2003, 13330 posts, RR: 64 Reply 4, posted (8 years 10 months 2 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 5774 times:
AAMech,
No, you wouldn´t want to shut down an engine in flight without an emergency. Prolonged windmilling will damage the engine due to bad lubrication (You don´t have the internal bleed air to keep the bearing chambers sealed while windmilling). There is even a windmilling inspection in the AMM.
Throttle back, yes, but not shut down.
FDXmech From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 3251 posts, RR: 38 Reply 5, posted (8 years 10 months 2 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 5756 times:
In addition, you would have to drift down to a lower altitude.
Reading the engine parameters on ACARS pretty much everyday, I've never seen this done. I suspect the flight crew would have to answer to his chief pilot, FAA, etc on violating established procedures.
NightFlyer From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 95 posts, RR: 3 Reply 6, posted (8 years 10 months 1 week 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 5551 times:
Well, I've only flown it with the engines failed (1 and 2 engines at a time) in the simulator. It yaws a little more than the EMB145 that I used to fly but throw in a little rudder trim and you're good to go.
We don't shut the #2 engine down in flight to save fuel, we don't even shut one down for taxiing.
MidnightMike From United States of America, joined Mar 2003, 2892 posts, RR: 16 Reply 7, posted (8 years 10 months 1 week 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 5473 times:
I would imagine that it will be very stable, all aircraft goes through a rigorous testing process. Then MD11 would have been tested with the #1 engine shutdown, #2 engine shutdown, #3 engine shut down, #1 & #3 engine shutdown, and so on.
All of this data is recorded and evaluated by the FAA, data is then gone over by the eningeers, and then this data is then uploaded into the databanks when they start building the full flight simulators.
Take for example the A380, they would perform months & months of inflight testing, shutting down the engines in every possible combinations, nothing is left to surprise.
NightFlier From United States of America, joined May 2004, 284 posts, RR: 2 Reply 8, posted (8 years 10 months 1 week 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 5201 times:
Sounds good to me thanks for the help every one.
NightFlier
Airplanes are only as good as the people who fly&fix them.
AmericanAirFan From United States of America, joined Jun 2004, 397 posts, RR: 3 Reply 9, posted (8 years 10 months 1 week 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 5024 times:
Well I read a story about a Delta Airlines Flight 1141 August 1988 and they had up to an hour of taxi delays at DFW and requested to shut of # 2 engine and give thema 2 minute warning before takeoff to start the engine.(that was the Delta flight that crashed due to wrong fuel loads)
_Justin
"American 1881 Cleared For Takeoff One Seven Left"
NightFlyer From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 95 posts, RR: 3 Reply 10, posted (8 years 10 months 1 week 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 5013 times:
AmericanAirFan,
If you're refering to the Delta 727 that crashed at DFW, it crashed because they forgot to set the flaps for takeoff.
AmericanAirFan From United States of America, joined Jun 2004, 397 posts, RR: 3 Reply 11, posted (8 years 10 months 1 week 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 4983 times:
I got the story from a book called the black box and they hav all the transmitions and stements of the flight and there was a fuel gauage that did not work and the tanks were not filled equaly if you have a webpage to back it up prove me wrong Im not saying im right
_Justin
"American 1881 Cleared For Takeoff One Seven Left"
NightFlyer From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 95 posts, RR: 3 Reply 12, posted (8 years 10 months 1 week 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 4807 times:
Crosswind From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2000, 2571 posts, RR: 59 Reply 13, posted (8 years 10 months 1 week 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 4674 times:
I have heard that in the early 1970s some US carriers experimented with a procedure to throttle back the #2 engine in the cruise, in order to try and save fuel, at the expense of a slower cruise speed. This was during the height of the fuel crisis when oil prices had risen sharply.
It was found to be counter-productive, as intake-drag from the #2 engine being throttled back prevented any increase in efficiency.
NightFlyer From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 95 posts, RR: 3 Reply 15, posted (8 years 9 months 4 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 4399 times:
MD-90,
I believe you're thinking of the NW DC9 that crashed in Detroit.
Freshlove1 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 16, posted (8 years 9 months 4 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 4395 times:
I never recall a DL flight crashing in AUG of 88' due to incorrect fuel loads. I do recall a DL flight crashing in DFW due to the flaps not being set correctly because the crew was to busy joking with the F/A's during the taxi. The NW flight was an MD-80 not a 727 and that did crash due to the flaps not being set.
Thrust From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 2673 posts, RR: 11 Reply 18, posted (8 years 9 months 3 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 4222 times:
No matter how fuel-inefficient, you want to all the engines when flying an aircraft...I certainly would...you can fly faster...you are safer...and it is dangerous flying without one of your engines. I would certainly feel uncomfortable, don't know 'bout any of you daredevils though
Thrust From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 2673 posts, RR: 11 Reply 19, posted (8 years 9 months 3 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 4235 times:
No matter how fuel-inefficient, you want to use all the engines when flying an aircraft...I certainly would...you can fly faster...you are safer...and it is dangerous flying without one of your engines. I would certainly feel uncomfortable, don't know 'bout any of you daredevils though
Sponsor Message: 
From United States of America, joined May 2004, 284 posts, 
From Germany, joined Oct 2003, 13330 posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2000, 2571 posts, 
Sponsor Message: 
Printer friendly format
