Spare engine carriage on a twin
Thread Starter
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 56
Likes: 0
From: canada
Spare engine carriage on a twin
Hi all,
this question was put to me lately, and I confess to not having a definitive answer. That being, can a twin engined a/c ie 777, obtain a ferry permit for external spare engine carriage simmilar to the -400? I presume the answer is no, due to the additional drag on one side compounding the asymetric thrust post engine failure.
thoughts, answers?
dartman
this question was put to me lately, and I confess to not having a definitive answer. That being, can a twin engined a/c ie 777, obtain a ferry permit for external spare engine carriage simmilar to the -400? I presume the answer is no, due to the additional drag on one side compounding the asymetric thrust post engine failure.
thoughts, answers?
dartman
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 719
Likes: 0
From: California USA
I don't know the answer, but I'm glad you asked. Seems to me I recently came upon news which indicated that a 777 engine was carried as cargo (to replace one on an ailing airframe) rather than slung as an external store on another aircraft. At the time I read this I wondered the same thing. Just forgot to ask!
Anxiously awaiting an education...
Dave
Anxiously awaiting an education...
Dave
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 1,914
Likes: 0
From: UK
Not absolutely certain, but I think the engine dismantles the sticky outy bits to make passage through hold doors easier. Due to its large radius, I don't think a spare engine on wing location is desirable for drag reasons or asymmetric drag.
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 51
Likes: 0
From: Linköping, Sweden
I doubt that the 777 would be able to carry an extra engine. To ferry a engine underneath the port wing of the B747, you need to have an engine ferry pod. This engine ferry pod is an option that Boeing offers on the 747. The 747s that dont have this spare engine ferry pod, obviously cant ferry a engine underneath the wing.
The only other aircraft that I currently can think of that has a ferry pod is the L-1011.
The only other aircraft that I currently can think of that has a ferry pod is the L-1011.
Joined: Jul 1999
Posts: 134
Likes: 0
From: Big Sky Country
The 777 can't take an external ferry engine as it has no external hardpoints spare. I was once told by a wise man the the GE90 in it's transport stand can only fit into one of those big Russian cargo thingys but a RR Trent can fit onto the main deck of a 747F.
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 302
Likes: 0
From: Bedfordshire
Try this link for a pic of what looks like a Lufthansa DC-10 with a pod. (You'll need to scroll down a bit)
http://www.aviationpics.de/tech/tech.htm
http://www.aviationpics.de/tech/tech.htm
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 719
Likes: 0
From: California USA
one of those big Russian cargo thingys
In applying, Volga provides notice to US carriers capable of carrying outsized cargo, and for the most part, there is never a issue. (So long as it IS outsized cargo. They did hit some resistance when they moved a lot of smaller items which really didn't require a single, large airframe...) In other words, if a domestic carrier wanted to chime in and say, "we can do that," Volga might have some trouble getting the contract.
So, I'm not quibbling about the accuracy of LME's observation that the Trent is transportable via 74F. Just wondering, if this IS the case, why is AAL using Volga instead of a domestic 74F? (Yes, I'm clear on the fact that there might not be 74F airframes available when needed, and I'm certainly not trying to stir up any crap regarding the use of foreign/domestic carriers. It's just that I can see a couple of 74Fs from where I sit right now that only get occasional use and I wonder what the deal is).
Dave
Joined: Dec 2002
Aviation Qualifications: ATP+Mil
Posts: 3,985
Likes: 568
From: Where the Quaboag River flows, USA
Ironic that we Americans hire a foreign aircraft to carry outsize cargo when we invented the wide-body plane perfectly capable of carrying the Trent, GE-90 and the PW whatever...
The mighty C-5 Galaxy
We Yanks are, however, devoted to free enterprise and prefer to let private industry get the work and the money. But the AN-124 is hardly a private operation, is it??
GF
The mighty C-5 Galaxy
We Yanks are, however, devoted to free enterprise and prefer to let private industry get the work and the money. But the AN-124 is hardly a private operation, is it??
GF
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 116
Likes: 0
From: Sweden
AV8boy,
Sorry, didn't mean to insult all americans, its just that I am getting a bit fed up with the whole "we are the greatest" attitude of some of your countrymen.
To get back to the subject, I dont think that carrying an external pod on a 2 engine a/c would be very safe, especially if they where wing mounted engines, think of the extra yaw moment in an engine failure situation.
Brgds
Doc
Sorry, didn't mean to insult all americans, its just that I am getting a bit fed up with the whole "we are the greatest" attitude of some of your countrymen.
To get back to the subject, I dont think that carrying an external pod on a 2 engine a/c would be very safe, especially if they where wing mounted engines, think of the extra yaw moment in an engine failure situation.
Brgds
Doc
