Date: 16 Sep 97 02:35:24 From: jf mezei <"[non-spam]jfmezei"@videotron.ca> Organization: VTL References: 1 2 Followups: 1
View raw article or MIME structure
C. Marin Faure wrote: > limit. After several bad crashes of twin-engine piston airliners in the > 1950s after they lost one engine and burned up the other one trying to > reach an airport, On modern jetliners, if one engine fails during cruise, is the remaining engine really used to the max ? Or can the plane continue to fly safely with the remaining engine well below its maximum thrust at a regime that is sustainable "forever" ? Or is there still a need to limit single-engine operations to a certain length because the remaining engine, being tested to its limit, really has a higher risk of failure ? > safe flight after the in-flight shutdown of an engine. The fire > supression system must be able to keep a lower hold cargo fire from > spreading for 180 minutes, the backup electrical and hydraulic systems > must be able to keep the airplane's control systems functioning for 180 > minutes, the battery(s) must be able to keep certain critical > communication and navigation systems functioning for 180 minutes, and so > forth. Are these requirements any different from 3 or 4 engined jets ? Considering the history of fires which consume airplanes in the matter of minutes, if you can survive 180 minutes after a fire has been declared, doesn't this mean that the fire was totally extinguished and hence, you could continue forever ? Also, for the backup electrical/hydraulic systems, if one engine fails, won't all these systems continue to operate safely from the remaining engine ? Or would they really be put to the test with significantly higher likelyhood of failure ? Now, if the remaining engine fails, is it not rather pointless to require the true backup electrical systems (battery and prop-turbine) to operate for 180 minutes ? bAren't we talking more like 15-20 minutes before the plane becomes a boat ?