jim
Posts: 448
Joined: Thu Jul 29, 1999 8:12 am

747-400 Electrical Question

Fri Dec 19, 2008 11:51 pm

Hey ya'll! Firstly, have a great Holiday!

Now to my question: I am having a 'heated' discussion with a co-worker regarding the 747-400 electrical system, specifically this -- I know that the APU cannot be started in flight. BUT, if it were to happen that the APU were running at take off, AND the flight crew de-selected all four IDGs, would the APU generators power the synch bus and thus the AC buses? I know that the APU generator AVAIL and ON lights would extinguish at rotation, due to air/ground input from truck tilt, but would the flight-deck 'go dark'?

Not that I expect anyone to try it and get back to me  Wink , but perhaps a 744 pilot may have done this in simulator training?

Any replies I might get would be very welcome!

Thanks again!

Jim
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 9731
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

RE: 747-400 Electrical Question

Sat Dec 20, 2008 5:24 am

No simple answer, some 744 APUs can be stared and used in flight (operator request), most don't.
We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
 
PhilSquares
Posts: 3371
Joined: Sun Mar 28, 2004 6:06 pm

RE: 747-400 Electrical Question

Sat Dec 20, 2008 11:36 am

As Zeke pointed out, the 744 APU can't be started in flight. While it was an option on the classic of in-flight start or not, I can't remember ever seeing it listed as an option on the 744.

The primary reason for the 744 APU being available on takeoff is for a bleeds off takeoff. Having the bleeds off gives a slight improvement on takeoff performance and by using the APU bleed, the packs can still run and provide cabin cooling.

The APU GENS will not power the sync bus when the aircraft is in flight.
Fly fast, live slow
 
jim
Posts: 448
Joined: Thu Jul 29, 1999 8:12 am

RE: 747-400 Electrical Question

Fri Jan 23, 2009 4:33 am

Zeke and PhilSquares,

Thanks for taking the time to answer my question. I have continued my research, and I simply CANNOT find any air/ground inputs to the APBs, and NONE to the AGCUs. So, can you tell me HOW an air/groiund transision causes the APBs to trip open?

Again, thanks for your time!

Jim
 
User avatar
CCA
Posts: 769
Joined: Wed Oct 02, 2002 7:29 pm

RE: 747-400 Electrical Question

Fri Jan 23, 2009 5:32 am

Would the same logic that trips the Avail light off trip the APU gens off the sync bus?

How is the aircraft powered during a gear swing? Are CBs pulled to allow Ground power to supply the sync bus?
P1 in A330, A340, A346, B742, B744, B748.
 
777wt
Posts: 828
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 7:45 am

RE: 747-400 Electrical Question

Wed Mar 25, 2009 11:25 pm

Is there a reason why the APU on a 744 can't start in flight? by design?
 
tdscanuck
Posts: 8572
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 7:25 am

RE: 747-400 Electrical Question

Thu Mar 26, 2009 1:35 am



Quoting 777WT (Reply 5):
Is there a reason why the APU on a 744 can't start in flight? by design?

By design. There's was no need for it (in theory), since the 747 is never supposed to be in a situation where all four engines stop providing electrical or pneumatic power. 747's have since had total electrical power loss events, but the appropriate fix there is to eliminate the common-mode failure, rather than an air-starting APU.

I'm not aware of any case of a 747 loosing all four engines in a fashion that wouldn't also render the APU useless.

Tom.
 
bridge
Posts: 11
Joined: Sat Mar 07, 2009 5:55 am

RE: 747-400 Electrical Question

Thu Mar 26, 2009 4:48 am



Quoting Jim (Thread starter):



Quoting Jim (Thread starter):
I'm not aware of any case of a 747 loosing all four engines in a fashion that wouldn't also render the APU useless.

http://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=19820624-0
 
tdscanuck
Posts: 8572
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 7:25 am

RE: 747-400 Electrical Question

Sat Mar 28, 2009 4:44 am



Quoting Bridge (Reply 7):
Quoting Jim (Thread starter):
I'm not aware of any case of a 747 loosing all four engines in a fashion that wouldn't also render the APU useless.

That's actually my quote from Reply 6, not Jim's.

Quoting Bridge (Reply 7):

http://aviation-safety.net/database/...624-0

Of you've got enough ash to kill an engine, why do we think the APU would have kept running? The APU is considerably less tolerant of solids due to tighter clearances.

Tom.
 
bridge
Posts: 11
Joined: Sat Mar 07, 2009 5:55 am

RE: 747-400 Electrical Question

Sun Mar 29, 2009 4:52 am

I thought the APU was successfully started in the BA009 incident...I could be wrong, however. I tried to find some more info online but came up with nothing.

The ash encounter that knocked out the main engines was relatively brief...it was then simple to start the APU as normal. The aircraft was out of the ash cloud by then, albeit with severely damaged main engines.

As you said, though, had the APU been running, it surely would have been knocked out as well.

A bit off topic, but why have some classic 747s been modified to disallow the use of the APU in flight?
 
lowrider
Posts: 2542
Joined: Wed Jun 30, 2004 3:09 am

RE: 747-400 Electrical Question

Sun Mar 29, 2009 7:31 pm



Quoting Bridge (Reply 9):
but why have some classic 747s been modified

I don't know of any that have been modified to prohibit the use of the APU in flight, but the classic came with 3 possible APU start options. 1. Inflight operation prohibited. 2. Inflight operation permitted only after starting on the ground. 3. Inflight start and operation permitted. The distingiushing feature was the design and operation of the intake door.

Quoting Tdscanuck (Reply 8):
Of you've got enough ash to kill an engine, why do we think the APU would have kept running? The APU is considerably less tolerant of solids due to tighter clearances.

Assuming you are still in the ash cloud, the APU would probably not last long, but a few minutes of air to help crank ash impaired engines is preferable to a windmilling start.
Proud OOTSK member

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: jeffrey0032j, TailDragging and 13 guests