From: firstname.lastname@example.org (Michael Woodhams) Organization: Princeton University Observatory Date: 17 Feb 93 23:49:34 PST References: 1 2 Followups: 1
View raw article or MIME structure
In article <airliners.1993.183@ohare.Chicago.COM> email@example.com (Robert Dorsett) writes: [...] >The important thing to note about this arrangement is that all these >accessories require the engine blades to be spinning, NOT necessarily >for the engine to be ON. I.e., they aren't "steam-driven" from the [...] >When we start taking away engines, though, the RAT becomes an attractive >alternate power source. If one loses all four engines on, say, a 747, >one is still developing a lot of independent power. If one loses one or >both engines on a twin, one has suddenly put a very large control burden So if a 747 (or other airplane with no RAT) has a loss of all engines in such a way that they no longer spin, the airplane is without power, and it is time to start dictating your will into the cockpit voice recorder? The only single cause I can think of for this would be flying into a volcanic ash cloud. Does this clog the engines sufficiently to prevent generating power from windmilling? (I guess not, as a 747 has survived this scenario.) If a 757, say, lost both engines in ash, would the ash prevent the RAT from operating? Michael W.