PPRuNe Forums - View Single Post - All electrical vs all engine failure B747, A320
Old 28th October 2006 | 08:17
  #2 (permalink)  
A-FLOOR
20 Anniversary
 
Joined: Apr 2004
Posts: 228
Likes: 0
From: The Attic
When you say "all electrical" do you mean including the ESS buses?

In any case, I think I'd rather have an all electrical failure... you will still have control of the aircraft as long as the engines are running and hydraulics are pressurized. Interestingly an all-engine failure in the 747 would mean you have to descend to an altitude that permits the APU to be started since the 747-400 does not have a RAT. Not having engine power would of course mean you'd be resigned to doing that, but it does limit your options as I believe there is nothing to power the pneumatic and electrical backup pumps when the engines are not running until you can get the APU online... then again I'm not sure if the 747 has static inverters to generate AC from the DC batteries.
The A320 does have a RAT to generate electrical power and hydraulic pressure in case of a dual engine failure, and contrary to popular belief the A320 does not plummet to earth when all electrics are out: the lowest flight control mode (mechanical law) does not require any electronics but permits control of the aicraft through the elevator trim and rudder.
A-FLOOR is offline  
Reply