everyone else understands you did not mean the RAT could be employed while towing
Yes! We do!....But the "Boeing Bullcrap"
implies that the RAT will be the saviour IF all other power-sources fail.
This clearly isn't the case.
Main engines each drive 3 gennies (2 starter-generators, 1 alternator)
but, hold on, there are 3 alternators, 1 to each engine
Smell the bull**** yet???
APU drives 2 starter-gennies.
RAT= a glorified windmill-generator..... as such, it's SPEED-DEPENDANT
Basic physics, it turns apparent wind into electrical energy
Irrespective of fuel-levels ,a "dead-engine" scenario is VERY possible
Remember the "over the fence" BA Heathrow flight???
Plenty of fuel, but it didn't turn and burn...that was a "Tin" 'plane, with years of development and Empirical knowledge behind it.
Now we have a Plastic Fantastic and a whole lot of new issues to learn.
SO, We lose both engines in flight.....the batteries are U/s (but that's OK) RAT is deployed, but can't start the APU (making the sweeping assumption that it has enough capacity
to start it)
Heroic aircrew plonk it on the ground into the teeth of a 120mph gale!....all our problems are solved....headwind reduces groundspeed and also powers the RAT so the brakes work.
IN real life, As airspeed drops, so will the RAT's output...that presents a real problem, as the likelihood of both batteries failing is currently , statistically very high....2 holes in the cheese are ALREADY lined-up.