i would have thought the flight control computer would automatically balance out the thrust by backing off engines on the other side. i'm unsure whether they could still generate lift though.. what's v2?
No. How about you? I don't see the relevance of your uncle getting retrenched to the topic of this thread. Reaper
Qantas have announced they are re-recording their theme. "I still call Australia home, but keep being diverted to Singapore."
no, not my cup of tea. Relevance?, he worked for qantas. And now to my shock he works at avalon. Its plenty on line with threads current path, so relax a bit.
I'm loving all the couch experts in this thread! :rofl: Engines don't generate lift. Wings do. And they do it with fast enough airflow over them. Generate enough forward thrust and you get enough airflow over the wings to generate lift. It doesn't matter how many engines you have, if you can generate enough forward thrust in order to maintain lift over the wings (yes lift come from the top of the wing, not the bottom) and not stall the wings, you will keep flying. So even in twin engine planes, they can fly on one. The minimum safe speed to climb after take off. It's usually just before, at the same time as, or just after rotate speed. V1 is the speed at which you're committed to taking off and it happens before V2. At any point before V1, you can still safely abort the takeoff.
sorry but that's wrong. lift comes from the pressure differential between the top and bottom of the wings - not just the top. i understand what generates lift. to generate that pressure differential, you need speed which is where the thrust comes in. my question was that if an engine fails on takeoff (after v1 as you explained it) and if thrust for one on the other bank needs to be reduced to prevent lateral rotation (turning), can the plane still achieve v2, before the end of the runway arrives. thanks for that.
if a engine failure occurs during take off the only real option you have is to put the nose down to try and maintain airspeed. it really depends on the severity of the failure and type of air craft as well as the gross weight. lets say a complete failure on a aircraft close to or at MAUW (maximum all up weight) using 100% of available thrust the pilot will be sweating buckets. different airlines have different policies/procedures (as well as the airport policies/ capabilities/procedures) but normally the pilot is in full control during the take off and landing phases and lets the autopilot do the rest in between. i know when we simulate a engine failure (single engine), you get the nose down (maintain airspeed), keep the wings level and look for somewhere to put it down. probably the most well known crash (recently) with a engine failure would be the Concorde crash in France (although the primary cause wasn't engine failure, the resultant engine failure/shut down was a result of the damage. the actual reason for the crash is still been argued about). without enough thrust to get the required air speed (and a delta wing aircraft needs lots of air speed to get enough lift) gravity is always going to win. in this case sadly with the loss of many lives
FYI - Autopilot landings on commercial airlines are more common than manual ones. The pilots knew they were screwed on the Concorde. They'd passed V1 so had to commit to taking off (according to procedure) but as you said, couldn't maintain lift without the thrust of both engines. As for the cause, most accepted is a locking pin missing from the landing gear do it failed on take off. There's actually been a lot of talk about putting the Concorde back into service. There's still a market for it.
LOL, things have probably changed somewhat since i last took the controls of a air plane. i'll ask a old friend of mine what the current procedures are at auckland International airport. (he's a air traffic controller)
Wrong. It used to be an acronym (Queensland and Northern Territory Aerial Services Ltd) when the company was first registered many years ago. It is now a proper name, one of the few English words not having a "u" after the "Q". List of English words containing Q not followed by U - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia You are also wrong about Qantas being the only airline to have 0% casualties. There have been 72 casualties in Qantas history. List of Qantas fatal accidents - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I used to be an ATC Officer in the RAAF, and at joint RAAF/civil bases/airports (such as Newcastle) it's solely RAAF controllers. Just going by what I know.
LMAO, look at the dates and type of planes. Surely we are talking about modern aviation not back at the beginning of last century.
Sash Those accidents may have happened many years ago, but the common misconception is that QANTAS has never had a fatal accident. However, compared to just about any airline, large or small, their safety record is outstanding and the fact that the last fatality occurred so far back in time just makes it even more so. I can recall when PanAm crashes were so common, you were surprised when one DIDN't occur for a while.
The safety claim for Qantas has been no fatalities in the jet era. Also 59 years since a fatality is nothing to sneeze at considering the level of Aviation activity by Qantas over that period.
My understanding is they have never lost an aircraft in the Jet age. Which is why the one that ended up in the golf course in Bali (???) a few years back was repaired at great expense when otherwise due to it's age, it wouldn't have been. Reaper
You mean the 747 that ran off the end of the runway in Bangkok? And golf course? WTF? It skidded to a stop with it's nose on the perimeter road of the airport. It wasn't seriously damaged and wasn't very old. Replacement cost is staggering compared to repairing. Where did you hear that nonsense about only repairing it to maintain their record? For the record, that was mostly cause by Pilot error.
Not from what I heard. No doubting the replacement cost being staggering. NFI as to the root cause of that incident one way or the other. That plane looks pretty banged up to me anyhow. Reaper
