> SATL382G, you stated ....One thing's for sure... Those who KNOW aren't going to say...
I agree! That jet likely has top-notch SECRET stuff onboard (avionics, etc).
> Starlionblue, Thanks for explaining that running a jet engine at idle for more than 10 hours at a stretch could create lubrication problems. We have a brand new engine mechanic (IFIXCF6) as part of this thread, so hopefully he'll let us know for sure about that.
Also, I'm sure that SATL382G's comment was about my comment on SECRET avionics that may be onboard the E-4B ....... not the engines/nuclear bombs
> Avioniker, Thanks for explaining why one engine is kept running at all times and that if it needs to be serviced, it can be shut down, and another one can be started. I must admit, because I was born in 1966, I've never heard of Gen LeMay or Curtis LeMay and their involvement with bomber fleets during the Cold War. Very interesting to learn about. I guess you can't read everything!
> Litz, Thanks for your info about switching around what engine is running. I have a feeling though, that member IFIXCF6 doesn't agree with you that having an engine running will make it faster to start the other three .... based on his post.
> RG828, Thanks for your info about the E-4B that visited Sao Paulo GRU
. I doubt that all 4 engines were running though IMO. That's a lot of fuel burning.
> IFIXCF6, Welcome Aboard!!!
, so now I know that you can't service a jet engine with oil while it's running (I thought it might be possible because they're so technical - unlike a car's engine
), hey, I was just curious.
You mentioned .......
.........Fuel burn: about 1100-1300 lbs/hr at idle.
Well, 4 complete 24 hour days equals 96 hours. I doubt the E-4B in the photo that landed at Eindhoven (EHEN) arrived at 00:01 hrs on the first day and departed at 23:59 hrs on the fourth day, so, for the sake of an example, if the 747 arrived at 07:00 hrs and departed at 19:00 hrs 4 days later, that would mean the one engine (if it was just one) was running for 84 hours.
So, if we take the middle value between 1100 & 1300 lbs of 1200 lbs and multiply it by 84 hrs, we get ........ 100,800 lbs of fuel burned at idle over the 4 days on the ground.
If a U.S. gallon of fuel weighs 6 lbs (for this example's sake), then 100,800 lbs divided by 6 = 16,800 gallons. Did I do that math correctly? I'm not the greatest at it.
A 747-400 has a fuel capacity of +/- 60,495 U.S. gallons depending on how many body tanks it has, so 16,800 gallons seems like a lot of burned fuel (at least to me it does). Then again, who knows how much fuel an E-4B (747-200) can carry? It's cargo hold could be loaded with many auxiliary body fuel tanks.
........But I really do not see why you would need to run engines when the 747 has 2 APU generators.
At first, I honestly thought the photographer was mistaking the sound of the 747's APUs for an engine, but, I wasn't there, and I've learned from this discussion that 747s like the USA's Air Force One, do indeed leave an engine running while on the ground.
Sorry for the long post!