PPRuNe Forums - View Single Post - Can a 2 engines plane takeoff at MTOW when 1 engine quits,or only at lower weight?
Old 11th Mar 2017, 23:56
  #11 (permalink)  
Chris Scott
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Blighty (Nth. Downs)
Age: 77
Posts: 2,107
Received 4 Likes on 4 Posts
Hi MaverickSu35S:

You forgot to mention altitude, and I forgot to mention temperature!

Quote:
"for a near sea level altitude and for an air of no more than 35 Celsius (cooler air gives more engine thrust), if the plane is way past V1 (as I initially said) and V2 is reached (so the aircraft can safely keep climbing with just one engine), can an MD-82 continue to takeoff when it weighs 149500lbs?"

As john tullamarine has said, and others imply, every take-off has to be looked at as a separate case, using the performance criteria for the MD-82. But as I said, it would be completely pointless to certificate an aeroplane with a given MTOW based on sound structural factors which nevertheless was higher than the maximum weight ever attainable when considering the performance regulations. The latter, by the way, is referred to as the RTOW (regulated take-off weight).

I don't have access to any take-off performance figures for the MD-82, but any aircraft that could not legally take-off at MTOW on a very long, dry, horizontal runway at sea-level in still air with a temperature of +15C (ISA) with no significant obstacles would be a lemon, to say the least. But now that you have stipulated +35C (ISA+20), that is a very different case.

As your MD-82 is already at V2, the only remaining performance factor will, as john says, be WAT (weight/altitude/temperature). A twin-engine aeroplane, if I remember correctly, must be capable of maintaining a climb gradient of 2.6% ** in still air in the second-segment climb (after gear retraction) on one engine. But don't trust my memory, and you'll need the MD-82 performance charts or tables, and someone who can show you how to interpret them.

** [EDIT] That should have read 2.4%

Last edited by Chris Scott; 20th Mar 2017 at 13:57. Reason: See **
Chris Scott is offline