6 ms·
How's that possible it managed to fly with only one engine ?
by m00dy 6y ago
How's that possible it managed to fly with only one engine ?
- minxomat 6y agoThat is not a problem.
- xnx 6y agoAmazingly, I believe planes are designed/certified to do everything (e.g. take off fully loaded) with only a single working engine.
- pintxo 6y agoAnd if they loose the remaining one, all goes south: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zn1a2lSk_UI&feature=emb_logo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zn1a2lSk_UI&feature=emb_logo
- shiny 6y agoNot if you have Sully in the cockpit [1]. They can still glide. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chesley_Sullenberger https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chesley_Sullenberger
- saagarjha 6y agoNot very well, though.
- ceejayoz 6y agoWell enough. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gimli_Glider https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gimli_Glider > In 10 nautical miles (19 km; 12 mi) the aircraft lost 5,000 feet (1,500 m), giving a glide ratio of approximately 12:1 (dedicated glider planes reach ratios of 50:1 to 70:1). > Air Canada Flight 143 came to a final stop on the ground 17 minutes after running out of fuel.
- NikolaeVarius 6y agoNo, planes glide just fine. That plane simply did not have enough altitude, or lift considering the bank angle to recover
- pintxo 6y agoTheir problem really was a lack of situational awareness / crew resource management. As they did shut down their perfectly well working engine instead of the broken one. Obviously that’s not improving your situation in any way.
- londons_explore 6y agoNot true - most planes must abort the takeoff if any engine fails below a certain speed.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- S_A_P 6y agoPlanes must be able to do this to be certified.
- ceejayoz 6y agoWell, assuming they have two+. A C-172 isn’t gonna fly too far with an engine out.
- tialaramex 6y agoBut, the pilot should be assuming that its single engine will fail, and prepared for that eventuality when it's most likely, which is during take off. Every flight the person sat at the controls ought to already know, before they're accelerating down the runway, what they're going to do when (not if, if you keep flying these little prop planes you've got to assume it'll happen eventually) the engine quits. What's beyond that airfield fence? A carpark? A pond? A school? The "impossible turn" (landing where you took off) might legitimately be a valid strategy for your failure in some circumstances if you've thought it through, but if you're doing it because you had no plan you're very likely to find out why they call it that.
- JCM9 6y agoIt’s designed to fly with only one engine. Not with great performance, but it will stay in the air. Routine procedure for twin engine aircraft.
- xvf22 6y agoNot only fly but climb. Commercial aircraft are required to fly safely should one of the two engines fail at any point of the flight, including takeoff at speeds beyond v1.
- snuxoll 6y agoFor the uninformed: V1: Speed at which the take off attempt should no longer be aborted Vr: Speed at which the plane should be pitched up (rotated) V2: Speed at which the plane can safely climb with one engine If an engine fails after V1 the runway is supposed to have sufficient length that you can hit Vr, rotate, and be 35 feet off the ground and traveling at V2 before you run out of tarmac even with a single engine.
- xvf22 6y agoFair enough and my memory may be fuzzy but I see quite a few references to V1 as being the minimum single engine takeoff speed. https://skybrary.aero/bookshelf/books/493.pdf https://skybrary.aero/bookshelf/books/493.pdf (page 2)
- snuxoll 6y agoIt's kind of poorly worded. Hitting V1 means you are committed to taking off, single engine failure or not - but you HAVE to reach V2 to safely climb on one engine. This should happen within moments of hitting Vr, but being single-engine after V1 means you went from hitting Vr halfway down the runway to potentially doing so at the ass-end of your minimum runway length. This means you have basically no room for any pilot error or other failures, and why engine failure on take-off is routinely rehearsed.
- mhh__ 6y agoLesson's learned in the aviation industry are worth their weight in blood, so the engineers have learnt the hard way to plan for every reasonable eventuality.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- chrisseaton 6y agoWhy do you think it has two engines in the first place?
- Sn0wCoder 6y agoCome on, we all know so they can go faster.
- chrisseaton 6y agoThey could go faster with a single larger engine. Why do you think they went with two engines instead of a single larger engine? Redundancy.
- ghaff 6y agoNot clear to me that you'd design a commercial turbofan aircraft with one engine if you eliminated reliability requirements. You need to feed air to the engine and, to the degree you have wings, might as well have 2 engines.
- chrisseaton 6y agoThe idea that the engines need to sit on the wings like they do is something seems important, because it's so often done, but is actually not necessary. You can put a single engine in the tail, or on top of the cabin, or on the top of the cockpit, or underneath. They go on the wings because when you need two (for redundancy) it's a good place to put them for balance, and because it makes them nicely accessible for maintenance.
- ghaff 6y agoOf course military aircraft have different requirements (and many have just one engine in the tail). Certainly I'm not enough of an aero/astro engineer to know if, positing a perfectly reliable engine, you'd mount just one somewhere on the fuselage.
- 6y ago
- btgeekboy 6y agoThe other engine provides enough thrust to keep the plane airborne. The pilots (and likely other onboard systems) compensate for the asymmetric thrust with the rudder. As scary as it looks, this is one type of event that pilots routinely train for, both to get their initial multi-engine certification, and on their airlines’ simulators.
- londons_explore 6y agoThey happen pretty frequently... Just normally they don't look as visually spectacular as this.
- gshubert17 6y ago> The other engine provides enough thrust to keep the plane airborne. We could hear the remaining (loud) engine as the plane flew over. Our house is less than 2 miles from where the parts landed and right under its flight path. The boom just before that sounded like a sonic boom and shook our house perceptibly. There's been some property damage (a smashed truck top and a big hole in a roof) but no reports of injuries to this time (18:45 Mountain time).
- philjohn 6y agoRead up about ETOPS, which is what allows twin engined aircraft to fly long stretches over water.
- danaliv 6y agoTo a first approximation, if it takes X thrust to stay aloft, the engines produce a combined total of more than 2X, and there is a speed above which the rudder produces enough aerodynamic force to maintain directional control. If you want to get into the nitty gritty, look up multiengine airplane type certification requirements.