|
|
 Up |
|
|
  |
|
Author: Sylvia ElseSylvia Else Date: Jan 8, 2008 14:28
|
| |
|
| | 34 Comments |
|
|
Author: RMKRMK Date: Jan 8, 2008 16:02
No RAT on 747's
RAT's don't necessarily provide electrical power.
The RAT on the 767 provides Hydraulic power in the event of
the loss of both engines, but not electrics.
|
| |
|
| | no comments |
|
|
Author: AndyAndy Date: Jan 8, 2008 18:09
I heard the limit on the battery power is 1 hour.
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: Sylvia ElseSylvia Else Date: Jan 8, 2008 18:27
Andy wrote:
>
> I heard the limit on the battery power is 1 hour.
>
>
Which is more than adequate, generous indeed, if the design assumption
is that battery power is required because all four engines have failed.
The aircraft would no longer be in the air after an hour.
Sylvia.
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
Date: Jan 9, 2008 01:40
No mention about the APU. Surely its generator would be switched to the
Essential Services bus.
John
|
| |
| 1 Comment |
|
|
|
|
|
Author: KwyjiboKwyjibo Date: Jan 9, 2008 03:44
"Stealth Pilot" aeroplanes.com.au> wrote in message
news:0k89o3t4o3k0fg4fern9su4c00g5b3qk7c@4ax.com...> On Wed, 09 Jan 2008 13:27:39 +1100, Sylvia Else
> wrote:
>
>>Andy wrote:
>>>
>>> I heard the limit on the battery power is 1 hour.
>>>
>>>
>> ...
|
| Show full article (1.22Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: Sylvia ElseSylvia Else Date: Jan 9, 2008 03:57
Stealth Pilot wrote:
> On Wed, 09 Jan 2008 13:27:39 +1100, Sylvia Else
> wrote:
>
>> Andy wrote:
>>> I heard the limit on the battery power is 1 hour.
>>>
>>>
>> Which is more than adequate, generous indeed, if the design assumption
>> is that battery power is required because all four engines have failed.
>> The aircraft would no longer be in the air after an hour. ...
|
| Show full article (1.20Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: NedNed Date: Jan 9, 2008 04:17
John Ewing wrote:
> "Sylvia Else" wrote in message
>>
>>
>> "Obviously there's a limit to the battery power that's available," Mr Walsh
said.
>>
>> "Obviously, if they were a long way from an airport then clearly there would
have been potential for some sort of accident."
>>
>> No RAT?
>>
The only RAT on a QF 744 is on the tail.
The design theory being that you don't need one - with 4 generators the
redundancy factor is astronomical. And it is too.
Where Boeing has totally screwed up here is in placing all of their redundancy
eggs in the same basket.
|
| Show full article (1.31Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
|
|
|
Date: Jan 9, 2008 06:14
"Ned" aioe.org> wrote in message news:fm2e0k$6kr$1@aioe.org...> John Ewing wrote:
>> "Sylvia Else" wrote in message
>>>
>>>
>>> "Obviously there's a limit to the battery power that's available," Mr
>>> Walsh
> said.
>>>
>>> "Obviously, if they were a long way from an airport then clearly there
>>> would
> have been potential for some sort of accident."
>>>
>>> No RAT?
>>>
> The only RAT on a QF 744 is on the tail.
>
> The design theory being that you don't need one - with 4 generators the ...
|
| Show full article (1.91Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
|
|
