Very disappointing. Lots of utter rubbish now being talked here by people who haven't done their homework.
Re the 748, a serious fire does not present the commander with the problems that a straightforward loss of thrust does. (He was lucky to get away with it, by the way, though I also agree that they did a sterling job of preserving life. I simply wouldn't travel on a Budgie, nor would my employer ask me to).
WCollins, your method of setting zero thrust is as far off the mark as your thoughts on retracting the gear late. Statistically, the loss of engine versus loss of hydraulic pump case is at about 10powerminus11 and thus irrelevant.
The most power and height and the least drag will save your bacon. You'll achieve that by taking the gear up on positive rate being achieved.
John Tullamarine,
Thanks for injecting some logic - you're spot on, as usual, with the caveat that you need to plot the values graphically, assess for atmosphere, and extrapolate. I expect you knew that and left it our with regard to the 'target audience'.
Broad-brush arguments about 'landing back' in 'a Perf A aircraft' are balderdash too. How do you think I would get by, landing back in my Boeing? An only-just-perf-A-when-they-built-it-turboprop and a 60ton plus jet are two very different aircraft.
Sad, really, as there had been some (not a lot, but some) good discussion until the last crop.
And now I'll have to ask Senora de Pista for my tablets and scotch...