red750 Posted June 27 Posted June 27 The Lockheed C-5 Galaxy is a very large aircraft that often has mechanical issues. This is expected since it's a 50-year-old jet with many systems spread across its large airframe. Luckily, USAF mechanics are skilled at fixing it. For example, instead of flying with a broken engine, mechanics remove it completely to reduce drag. This makes the flight easier. Taking off with only three engines on a four-engine plane requires careful control to avoid losing control on the runway. Pilots must advance two engines first, then gradually the third to maintain balance. 1
facthunter Posted June 29 Posted June 29 These would require a Permit to fly. That covers a lot of abnormal conditions with many aircraft types and usually applies to ferry flight only to get it repaired. Nev
naremman Posted June 30 Posted June 30 Air France 066, following one of it's Airbus 380 lobbing an outboard engine core onto Greenland in 2017 considered the following: (courtesy of Wiki) "Air France originally announced plans to ferry the aircraft back to Europe for repair, with an inoperable replacement engine installed, for reasons of weight and balance.[25] Such a flight requires special operating procedures, and thus rehearsal by the crew in a simulator.[25] That plan was revised and the aircraft was ferried back from Goose Bay Airport to Charles de Gaulle Airport[26] on 6 December 2017 using four operational engines and an Air France crew.["
Deano747 Posted June 30 Posted June 30 QANTAS certainly had a procedure for a 3 engine ferry on the 747's, and there was a story that they used it to recover one from Darwin during the Cyclone Tracy evacuations. The inoperable engine was blanked off the same way as when carrying an extra engine underwing. Ferry with essential crew only. 1
naremman Posted June 30 Posted June 30 1 hour ago, Deano747 said: QANTAS certainly had a procedure for a 3 engine ferry on the 747's, and there was a story that they used it to recover one from Darwin during the Cyclone Tracy evacuations. The inoperable engine was blanked off the same way as when carrying an extra engine underwing. Ferry with essential crew only. Hi Deano, Probably only one of many interesting stories post Cyclone Tracy. Trying to recall being in a conversation with Capt Reg Adkins (I Flew For MMA fame) many years ago when MMA, or whatever iteration followed it, introduced the BAE 146 in WA, and developed a habit of leaving passengers stranded all over the state. I understand 3 engined retrivals occurred there. I find it interesting that in the Air France scenario that the three engine option was run through the simulator, but not put in practice.
Red Posted June 30 Posted June 30 Take 5 https://image-prod.iol.co.za/16x9/800/Quantas-747-with-a-fifth-engine-took-to-the-sky-to-deliver-the-engine-in-Johannesburg-according-to-a-twitter-feed-Picture-Twitter?source=https://iol-prod.appspot.com/image/2c6ce01669a6ae35dce8618fad6496fc8461bc93/2000&operation=CROP&offset=0x44&resize=2000x1125&webp=true
Bennyboy320 Posted June 30 Posted June 30 We had a 3 engine ferry procedure on the BAe146 when I flew it with National Jet Systems, actually used it once to get an a/c to the BNE maintenance facility.
planedriver Posted June 30 Posted June 30 (edited) 2 hours ago, Bennyboy320 said: We had a 3 engine ferry procedure on the BAe146 when I flew it with National Jet Systems, actually used it once to get an a/c to the BNE maintenance facility. I understood the 146 sometimes needed a 5th. One to carry as a spare? Perhaps that's why they are so quiet. Edited June 30 by planedriver 1
Bennyboy320 Posted July 1 Posted July 1 1 hour ago, planedriver said: I understood the 146 sometimes needed a 5th. One to carry as a spare? Very true, the only a/c that had 5 APU’s 😂 1
cscotthendry Posted July 3 Posted July 3 LOL The 146 was four vaccuum cleaners flying in formation. But seriously, I always wondered at the design decision that equipped such a small aircraft with four engines. 1
planedriver Posted July 3 Posted July 3 Always a few of them at Bankstown being worked on. Popular for night freight runs during curfew hours as they are very quiet, and possibly relatively cheap to buy given their age.
Marty_d Posted July 4 Posted July 4 Didn't our current monarch drive one of them off a runway once? 1
Bennyboy320 Posted July 4 Posted July 4 6 hours ago, cscotthendry said: But seriously, I always wondered at the design decision that equipped such a small aircraft with four engines. If I remember my Performance A from many years ago, basically the second segment climb gradient of a 2 engine a/c is 2.4% & a 4 engine a/c it’s 3.0% which gives you better obstacle clearance following an engine failure at V1. Other reasons they chose 4 engines was greater redundancy plus better takeoff performance from short runways. 1
onetrack Posted July 4 Posted July 4 The design criteria behind the BAE146 was straight-out quietness, to ensure they could run U.K. to Europe and return outside noise curfews. Plus, the little vacuum cleaner engines (Avco-Lycoming ALF502's) were plentiful and cheap, being a derivative of the Lycoming T55 that powers the Chinook helicopter. In addition, the design called for as much "off-the-shelf" componentry as possible to keep the construction and running costs down. And finally, they were designed for steep departure and arrival angles, so they could slot into tight airports in congested areas. Overall, they were a success by anyones measure, and they were produced for nearly 20 years. And yes, our dear Monarch would've had his licence lifted if it wasn't for the fact he was the Queens favourite son - after he landed too fast and too high, and shat himself, and locked the wheels and wrecked the tyres with excessive braking, when he overran an airstrip at Islay, and ended up bogging his machine. The Captain got a reaming for not taking over when it was obvious Charlies landing skills were deficient. I guess he was reluctant to tell a future Monarch he was taking over. /graphics/ICAOtype/B461.gif Accident British Aerospace BAe-146-100 ZE700, Wednesday 29 June 1994 ASN.FLIGHTSAFETY.ORG A BAe-146-100, operated by the Queens Flight, was substantially damaged when it was involved in an accident at Islay-Glenegedale Airport (ILY/EGPI), United Kingdom. There were no injuries... British Aerospace 146 - Wikipedia EN.WIKIPEDIA.ORG 2
facthunter Posted July 5 Posted July 5 I think they had frequent reporting's of cabin air contamination.. I don't think they were a bad plane. Charlles was high and had too much tailwind component and landed on the nosewheel obviously too fast an airspeed as well The approach should have been aborted early It was NEVER going to work.. Nev 1
johnm Posted July 5 Posted July 5 4 minutes ago, facthunter said: ............... Charlles was high and had too much .......................... ............... careful what you say about the king FH - we don't want you dissapearing on us 2
facthunter Posted July 5 Posted July 5 It's the PIC's fault. The buck stops with him. HE's the MASTER of the Vessel. Nev 1
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now