Date: 16 Mar 2001 05:56:29
From: Wolfgang Keller <w_keller@gmx.de>
Organization: [Posted via] Interactive Networx
References: 1
Followups: 1 2
View raw article
or MIME structure
BTW: Great to see this newsgroup working again.
Congratulations to the moderator. :-)
On Tue, 25 Jul 2000 21:57:48 +0200, Helen Rose wrote
(in message <w3em4i6kzn.fsf@kline-station.ckdhr.com>):
> The usual eyewitness reports have surfaced about the plane being alight
> before crashing (which appear to be correct, at least from the photos
> that I have viewed).
According to some recent eyewhitness reports, the engines were already on
fire while the aircraft was still on the runway, but it was already beyond
the 'point of no return'. It seems that in this case, however, the
'default' option to take off with was the less good choice. But obviously
the pilot had no chance to know that. :-(
Question to the more competent people here: How 'flyable' would a Concorde
with two failed engines (on one side) be. I thought I've read somewhere
that during the original trials, the manufacturers had to make the
experience that the loss of one engine already made the aircraft yaw quite
lot. So with both engines on one side lost, I guess there might have been
problems with the other two no longer getting enough air in the intakes?
And another question: Is there any case in which the 'pilot manuals' (or
whatever they are called) recommend to abort the takeoff even beyond the
'point of no return'?
--
Wolfgang Keller
Zu Risiken und Nebenwirkungen von Junkmail lesen Sie
de.admin.net-abuse.mail und fragen sie Ihren Postmaster oder Provider
