i'm writing a paper for my wx class on the crash of USAir 1016. what i'm looking for is any info about the performance of the JT8D-7B engines that were on the airplane. many have told me that they were underpowered. what amount of thrust were they rated for?
also, if anyone has any info they'd be willing to share on the flight i'm all ears (and eyes). i already have the NTSB report, ATC transcript and other synopsis of the events.
Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR
RE: USAir 1016
The engines and their performance had nothing at all to do wit the crash. It got into a severe downdraft from a thunderstorm and was slammed into the ground.
RE: USAir 1016
yes, i know. but i still want to know about the engines...
RE: USAir 1016
| Quoting Cancidas (Thread starter): many have told me that they were underpowered |
I'm always amazed at comments regarding modern certified airliners being 'underpowered'. In order to pass certification, they must be able to perform all of the required engine-out takeoff requirements, etc. etc., just like every other airliner. Sure, some have more available power than others .. of course ... but none are underpowered.
Oh, to answer your question, 14,000lbs I believe.
Jimbo
-
- stratosphere
- Posts: 2184
- Joined:
RE: USAir 1016
| Quoting Bond007 (Reply 3): I'm always amazed at comments regarding modern certified airliners being 'underpowered'. |
I know what you mean aircraft have to pass balanced field length engine out protocol. But I will tell you what...I was on the cockpit jumpseat on a DC-9-50 full load on a hot summer day and I was sweatin it during the TO roll I don't care what anyone says we were pushin the limit even the capt said if we lose an engine were goin swimming. I believed it too. Iwould have much had -217 engines like those on the MD-80 on that day. You can never have enough power.
RE: USAir 1016
| Quoting Stratosphere (Reply 4): Quoting Bond007 (Reply 3): I'm always amazed at comments regarding modern certified airliners being 'underpowered'. I know what you mean aircraft have to pass balanced field length engine out protocol. But I will tell you what...I was on the cockpit jumpseat on a DC-9-50 full load on a hot summer day and I was sweatin it during the TO roll I don't care what anyone says we were pushin the limit even the capt said if we lose an engine were goin swimming. I believed it too. Iwould have much had -217 engines like those on the MD-80 on that day. You can never have enough power. |
Of course a heavily loaded aircraft has a longer TO roll and lower rate of climb than an identical aircraft lightly loaded, but the fact remains that at all times the aircraft can have any engine fail with assurance of safety. Both runway and climb limits are computed and taken into account before every takeoff under FAR 121 (or similar regulations from other nations).
You actually CAN have too much power. More power means more structure (weight) and less efficiency. More power also has adverse Vmca implications in some instances.
RE: USAir 1016
| Quoting Stratosphere (Reply 4): I was sweatin it during the TO roll I don't care what anyone says we were pushin the limit even the capt said if we lose an engine were goin swimming. |
Then he must have been breaking all kind of FARs right?
Jimbo
RE: USAir 1016
| Quoting Stratosphere (Reply 4): TO roll I don't care what anyone says we were pushin the limit even the capt said if we lose an engine were goin swimming. |
The DC9-50 were pushing the limits of the JT8D series engines, until the -217 and -219 came along. Yes, on a hot day the JT8-17's are a little anemic with a fully loaded DC9-50.
| Quoting Bond007 (Reply 3): Oh, to answer your question, 14,000lbs I believe. |
Yup 14k it is, but the biggest thing to keep in mind with a -7A is that they are aggonizingly slow to spool up when compared to the spool up time for a -15, or a -17.
Patronie could clip and light a cigar in the time it takes a -7A to get from idle to takeoff.
I read that the flaps were in transit on that DC-9 when it encountered the wind shear. The wind shear warning system is not enabled when the flaps are in transit.
-
- stratosphere
- Posts: 2184
- Joined:
RE: USAir 1016
| Quoting Bond007 (Reply 6): Then he must have been breaking all kind of FARs right? |
No it is legal..But the original poster is referring to US 1016. And even though PGNCS is a pilot and yes I suppose there is a limit to even too much power. Being legal is one thing being in a situation is another in a windshear condition close to the ground I say better to have more power and not need it than need more power and not have it.
RE: USAir 1016
| Quoting Stratosphere (Reply 8): Quoting Bond007 (Reply 6): Then he must have been breaking all kind of FARs right? No it is legal.. |
Not if he said this:
| Quoting Stratosphere (Reply 4): if we lose an engine were goin swimming. |
Jimbo
RE: USAir 1016
| Quoting EMBQA (Reply 1): The engines and their performance had nothing at all to do wit the crash. It got into a severe downdraft from a thunderstorm and was slammed into the ground. |
According the NTSB report the flight crew failed to set the engines at their required go-around EPR. The engines/performance definately played a critical role in the accident
RE: USAir 1016
| Quoting EMBQA (Reply 11): The flight crews failure to correctly set them to the correct EPR was the failure.. the engines did not fail |
No one said anything about engines failing, but the lack of adequate performance coming from the engines was a contributing factor to the accident, regardless of who failed to set the power.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: aballack50 and 36 guests