Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Flight Deck Forums > Tech Log
Reload this Page >

747 Less thrust = Loss of Lift???

Wikiposts
Search

Notices
Tech Log The very best in practical technical discussion on the web

747 Less thrust = Loss of Lift???

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 28th August 2015 | 00:29
  #1 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 621
Likes: 0
From: KGRB, but on the road about 1/2 the time.
747 Less thrust = Loss of Lift???

FCTM says when u lose thrust in a engine, u will also lose lift...I think it says stall speed increases 4 kts?

I don't understand...

Any and all answers and commentary welcome!!!

Thanx!
atpcliff is offline  
Reply
Old 28th August 2015 | 03:13
  #2 (permalink)  
 
Joined: Sep 2014
Posts: 1,256
Likes: 0
From: Canada
I think this is actually loss of maneuvering margin when an engine fails during a flap retraction?

The way I understand it: after takeoff when you retract flaps, some lift is lost. But because the airplane is also accelerating (higher speed == more lift) you also gain lift and can maintain maneuvering margin.

However, if while retracting the flaps you lose an engine, now you're not accelerating as fast (or at all). You're not generating as much lift and therefore you've effectively decreased your maneuvering margin compared to a normal climb.

So the 4 kts is the equivalent loss of the maneuvering margin, not an increase of stall speed.

(I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm off base here).
peekay4 is offline  
Reply
Old 28th August 2015 | 04:36
  #3 (permalink)  
Fleet Manager
25 Anniversary
 
Joined: Apr 2001
Aviation Qualifications: ATPL
Posts: 7,448
Likes: 310
From: various places .....
Suggest we are looking at the vertical component of thrust's providing some defacto lift. Stall speed with lots of thrust will be less than nil thrust. Hence stall speeds for certification relate to low thrust.
john_tullamarine is offline  
Reply
Old 28th August 2015 | 06:09
  #4 (permalink)  
25 Anniversary
 
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 609
Likes: 1
From: Around the world.
Assuming a seized N1 (or perhaps even just windmilling), will the turbulent air spilling off the engine affect lift, especially at high AoA?
tom775257 is offline  
Reply
Old 28th August 2015 | 06:27
  #5 (permalink)  
25 Anniversary
 
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 6,729
Likes: 105
From: The Winchester
atpcliff

It's not "my" equipment any more but I don't remember being told/warned about a 4 knots difference if engine out and I can't find any mention of it in the current version of the 747 FCTM I have access to. Can you provide a reference?
wiggy is offline  
Reply
Old 28th August 2015 | 08:23
  #6 (permalink)  
15 Anniversary
 
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 729
Likes: 1
From: Zulu Time Zone
What JT said plus loss of thrust>pitch down moment>more elevator back pressure required= net loss of lift. Maybe.
oggers is offline  
Reply
Old 28th August 2015 | 23:35
  #7 (permalink)  
 
Joined: Sep 2014
Posts: 1,256
Likes: 0
From: Canada
I found the FCTM wording in Chapter 1 General:

Conditions Affecting Maneuver Margins

For a fixed weight and altitude, maneuver margin to stick shaker increases when airspeed increases. Other factors may or may not affect maneuver margin:
  • Gross weight: generally maneuver margin decreases as gross weight increases
  • Altitude: generally maneuver margin decreases with increasing altitude for a fixed airspeed
  • Temperature: the effect of a temperature change on maneuver margin is negligible
  • Landing gear: a small decrease in maneuver margin may occur when the landing gear is extended. This loss is equivalent to 2 knots of airspeed or less
  • Speedbrakes: generally maneuver margin decreases when speedbrakes are extended
  • Engine failure during flap rectraction: a small decrease in maneuver margin occurs due to the reduced lift experienced with the loss of thrust. The loss is equivalent to 4 knots of airspeed or less
Notice the 4 knot loss of maneuver margin is only for engine failure during flap retraction.
peekay4 is offline  
Reply
Old 29th August 2015 | 02:45
  #8 (permalink)  
 
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 1
Likes: 2
From: nowhere
Originally Posted by peekay4
I found the FCTM wording in Chapter 1 General:

Conditions Affecting Maneuver Margins

For a fixed weight and altitude, maneuver margin to stick shaker increases when airspeed increases. Other factors may or may not affect maneuver margin:
•Gross weight: generally maneuver margin decreases as gross weight increases
•Altitude: generally maneuver margin decreases with increasing altitude for a fixed airspeed
•Temperature: the effect of a temperature change on maneuver margin is negligible
•Landing gear: a small decrease in maneuver margin may occur when the landing gear is extended. This loss is equivalent to 2 knots of airspeed or less
•Speedbrakes: generally maneuver margin decreases when speedbrakes are extended
•Engine failure during flap rectraction: a small decrease in maneuver margin occurs due to the reduced lift experienced with the loss of thrust. The loss is equivalent to 4 knots of airspeed or less


Notice the 4 knot loss of maneuver margin is only for engine failure during flap retraction.
These items are listed for the 747-8. For some reason, only the first one is listed for the 747-400.
JammedStab is offline  
Reply
Old 29th August 2015 | 03:01
  #9 (permalink)  
 
Joined: Sep 2014
Posts: 1,256
Likes: 0
From: Canada
This is not type specific I think... you will find the same or similar wording even for the 777, 787, etc.
peekay4 is offline  
Reply
Old 29th August 2015 | 03:02
  #10 (permalink)  
Community Builder
Community Influencer
10 Anniversary
 
Joined: Jul 2013
Aviation Qualifications: Non-Aircrew
Posts: 5,682
Likes: 3,347
From: Everett, WA
Assuming a seized N1 (or perhaps even just windmilling), will the turbulent air spilling off the engine affect lift, especially at high AoA?
That particular aspect is designed for. If you look at the inboard side of most high-bypass engine inlets, you'll see a large strake (we sometimes call that the 'engine ear' ) I don't recall off hand if said strake is used on the 747-400, but its on the same engines on the 767 (and is definitely on the 747-8). It's purpose is to energize the spillage airflow from a shutdown engine during low speed/high angle of attack conditions so that there isn't airflow separation over that area of the wing during approach/landing conditions.
tdracer is offline  
Reply
Old 29th August 2015 | 05:45
  #11 (permalink)  
25 Anniversary
 
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 6,729
Likes: 105
From: The Winchester
peekay

Found it thanks, (must read the book again....).

As you say..

This is not type specific I think... you will find the same or similar wording even for the 777, 787, etc.
(actually it's not on our 777 sub-para of the joint FCTM, but given it's seems to almost apply across the board that might be an editorial issue).

As for a reason: If pushed my gut feeling is that JT has it (thrust against weight) - at/just after take-off you've got a combination of highish AOA/body angle, and changing configuration towards clean all with high power. Maybe once you're clean and the AOA's and/or body angle has reduced or at times of lower power (e.g on approach) the effect is less pronounced and the margin is less critical so Boeing don't think the effect is worthy of further mention....perhaps.........

Last edited by wiggy; 29th August 2015 at 07:25.
wiggy is offline  
Reply
Old 29th August 2015 | 07:50
  #12 (permalink)  
 
Joined: Sep 2014
Posts: 1,256
Likes: 0
From: Canada
Hmm, possibly, but the FCTM wording specifically calls out "during flap retraction".

If the effect is just about the thrust vector component then it should apply at any time during high-power, high-angle climb, not only during flap retraction?
peekay4 is offline  
Reply
Old 29th August 2015 | 10:30
  #13 (permalink)  
25 Anniversary
 
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 6,729
Likes: 105
From: The Winchester
Don't disagree with you, there must be some logic somewhere.......

Last edited by wiggy; 29th August 2015 at 10:55.
wiggy is offline  
Reply
Old 29th August 2015 | 13:00
  #14 (permalink)  
 
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 265
Likes: 0
From: Brisbane
Perhaps the logic is that the only time you intentionally fly below min manouever speed with an engine out is during flap retraction.
Derfred is offline  
Reply
Old 30th August 2015 | 00:20
  #15 (permalink)  
 
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 1
Likes: 2
From: nowhere
Originally Posted by Derfred
Perhaps the logic is that the only time you intentionally fly below min manouever speed with an engine out is during flap retraction.
Not on the 747-400.
JammedStab is offline  
Reply
Old 30th August 2015 | 09:34
  #16 (permalink)  
 
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 193
Likes: 0
From: In thin air
Of course JT and wiggy have it right. The thrust contribution to lift is greatest at high AoA. Flap retraction has nothing to do with the lost of thrust component, but does of course affect the lift. Even Boeing can be wrong sometimes.
Gysbreght is offline  
Reply
Old 30th August 2015 | 10:43
  #17 (permalink)  
 
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 265
Likes: 0
From: Brisbane
Not on the 747-400.
Ahh, ok sorry. It's a while since I flew that beast. It certainly is true on the 737.
Derfred is offline  
Reply
Old 30th August 2015 | 10:51
  #18 (permalink)  
 
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 1
Likes: 2
From: nowhere
Originally Posted by Derfred
Ahh, ok sorry. It's a while since I flew that beast. It certainly is true on the 737.
Might be considered if two engines out and lots of drag and trouble accelerating.
JammedStab is offline  
Reply
Old 30th August 2015 | 13:23
  #19 (permalink)  
Fleet Manager
25 Anniversary
 
Joined: Apr 2001
Aviation Qualifications: ATPL
Posts: 7,448
Likes: 310
From: various places .....
Couple of comments, if I may ...


If you look at the inboard side of most high-bypass engine inlets ..

I had thought that these were for a more general high alpha stall margin concern with larger engines ? Chines - another example of VGs in action - are associated with reduced nacelle-wing clearance and resultant shed vortex flow over the wing (rather than under as with the smaller diameter low bypass and straight jet engines of a bygone era).

See, for instance, -

(a) http://www.smartcockpit.com/aircraft...enerators.html

(b) http://www.icas.org/ICAS_ARCHIVE/ICA...PAPERS/542.PDF

(c) (having trouble linking to this paper - google Thierry Sibilli PhD thesis and Cranfield ) ... pp 155-177.

The theory can get a tad heavy but the pictures are great ... even slower chaps such as I can get the gist of what's going on ...

I recall, years ago during the early 733 days in Australia, a CASA airworthiness engineer asking me over coffee whether I would be concerned taking a 733 minus a chine without any engineering consideration. I think my ashen face gave him my answer ... it transpired that a local operator (the other one - not mine) had done just this a few days prior ... CASA had, quite appropriately, taken a dim view of the matter ...


the FCTM wording specifically calls out "during flap retraction"

Perhaps the OEM emphasises flap retraction as that is when the margins routinely are likely to be reduced. I recall, during a period working for an operator with 744s, that the problem was a routine crew concern for high weight departures.
john_tullamarine is offline  
Reply
Old 30th August 2015 | 15:40
  #20 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 621
Likes: 0
From: KGRB, but on the road about 1/2 the time.
Thanx for all the replies!

namaste
atpcliff is offline  
Reply


Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.