One Engine

[Hagar]

I wouldnt worry mate, most topics go off topic here very quickly.

LOL Probably my fault. It usually is. In fact I found it very interesting & make no apology for it.

The answer to your question is in there somewhere

I thought that OTTOL made a pretty good job of it. He is a professional commercial pilot.

[Craig.]

LOL it was informative no arguments there.
As for the other comment, more a generalised one for future referance, although topics may quickly go off in another direction, fear not as the original one will have more than likely been answered:)

[forfun]

In fact I found it very interesting & make no apology for it

lol, fair enugh

[JerryO]

KEEP THEM ENGINES RUNNING. ALL OF THEM!

Well, now, if you

[Nexus]

Nicely put JerryO!...though losing an enginein  a 747 does not require an emergency procedure/checklist
Heck some ferryflights are done with just 3 engines operating

[forfun]

I found this out on Airliners.net forum of the same topic.
They said that generally taxiing on one engine is not economical for BOEING aircraft.

BUT, they also said, that the power of Airbus engines at idle is sufficient enough to taxi on one engine if need be. Now, for all who are argueing one engine taxiing, it is happenning in the real airliners, Delta for example.

So i don't think taxiing on one engine is as bad for the aircraft as some people are saying. (jets only)

cheers
forfun

[Nexus]

Ahh..Airliners.net..the place where every poster knows everything about anything.  ::)

My Boeing 737 manual says that
"Single engine taxi may be used unless gross weight, temperature, or other conditions make it impractical or unsafe. Generally, single engine taxi will result in less overall fuel consumption and is appropiate in most taxi situations"

HOWEVER, the 777 manual claims that taxiing with an engine shut down is not allowed, because of "additional operational procedural requirements and crew work load"  So different techniques applies to different aircrafts.
Though it's okay to taxi with one engine inoperative  :)

But you gotta keep in mind though when taxiing with one engine: It's flat out stupid to ignite the other one as you are entering the runway. Especially high by-pass engines needs several minutes to "warm up" before it's safe to apply take off thrust.

[C]

[quote]YOU CAN

[JerryO]

... you really got me now! ... I

[forfun]

LMAO

[Rocket_Bird]

Heres my two cents on the topic.  The purpose of having two engines (or more) in the first place is that if one failed, the other one you can still use to get you home.  At 35000 feet, and if your only running 1 of the 2 engines, and that engine flames out, first of all you are going to have a lot of screeming passengers when your generator, lights, and electronics go out.  Second, firing up the engines again when this happens is time consuming and dangerous, and very often your aviation authorities will most certainly consider that to be unsafe.  

From the mechanical approach to this, the aircraft wouldnt be designed to take such an uneven load in the first place (for your usual flights), but once again, in an emergency, the other engine will take you home.

[Mr. Bones]

i didn't read all the replies above, but this is what i know about this...

I heart they do it on the CRJ (i guess any version) because it's a little 'overpowered'. even with one engine on idle, this plane keeps running. on the ground it's easy, but in the air at FL350 it's a whole different story! first of all the asymetric flying. pilots are trained to be able to fly a jet on one engine, but it's not very handy. second it's dangerous. what if the #2 fails? you can start up the other one again, but i think that's not worth the risk and time...