704 was Q powered, 700 is the R powered bird

I highly doubt that aircraft age had anything to do with this accident. Wait for the report.

704 is (was at least when it came to Kalitta) R powered.

The last CD I have has the relevant differences in Vol I, FOB 5-21

Flew it 35 times

Normy
 

Hi Normy....can you email me at [email protected] know each other from a previous 72 outfit.

I just check the AOM II in differences and they listed 704 as a Q powered aircraft.

My guess is that the only seat you have occupied in a 74 had a letter after it.

Well they must have swapped them from the Rs it came with. That's too bad it was nice with the Rs.

Anyone remember how fun it was doing those "mandatory" max power takeoffs out of Newark and trying to level at 2500' with that thing empty?

That was a treat

Rto???
 

After looking at all the pictures, it does not appear that the thrust reversers were deployed, was this an RTO?

R's are nice, I left LAX with an empty AC going to ANC with R's and it was fun.

704 was -R powered until the summer of 2006, when we had a debacle in Bahrain where an engine was compressor stalling when run up for takeoff. Due to a lack of spares and the difficulty of supporting only one aircraft with those engines, it was converted back to -Q engines that summer. Thus, the difference in AOMs.

She WAS the queen of the fleet - but oh, well.

FD

And once at band camp, I stuck my flute up my .... :eek:

Concur, flew an R powered ship DFW-ANC a while back, left DFW empty, got to FL400 in about 16 minutes :cool: I do miss the Whale...

What took you so long ? :confused:

I guess we should parallel that to our "outdated" military fleet too. They've retired all the "new" aircraft like the F-117, F-18, F-14, etc., and yet the "old" B-52 continues to shine and scare the dickens out of anyone who sees it headed their way. Old isn't ALWAYS antiquated. :rolleyes:

Just pure speculation on my part, and I'm not a heavy/4 engine expert by any means.

But if I'm not mistaken, the spread between V1 and VR can be rather large on a 74 compared to smaller aircraft?

Anyway, just pure speculation, but if you were close to or right at V1 but still below VR and had a failure of BOTH motors on one side, would you not want to pop them?

I know, HIGHLY unlikely. Just using an example along the lines of a flock of birds coming from one side and getting both engines.

Please gve some input as I am ignorant of airplanes with greater than two engines - V1 is the speed with which you lose an engine and still take off, I get that...but on an airplane with three or four engines...what happens if you lose 2 or more even over V1? Sorry for what is probably a stupid question, but I have always wondered. Would seem to be a remote possibility, but I am sure they cover this with heavy drivers. Thanks in advance.

Not a stupid question at all...Basically, takeoff speeds for 3+ engine aircraft are based on the loss of one outboard engine.

In the 4-engine aircraft I flew...if you lost two engines after V1 (it was not uncommon to have a 40 knot split between V1 and Vr), you just became a test pilot.

Luckily, it's pretty rare, but it has happened (flock of birds on climbout took out both engines on one side). In that situation, I do not believe they survived. :(

B52 scares the dickens out of only those that are still flyin the antiquated stuff(e.g.North Korea or now demolished EYERAQEE air force).Countries that are flyin modern flighters are more than capable to take on B52s

Most of third world countries in Asia dont even fly a/cs like 747 200s or 300s or the so called SUPER MD 80s:p.I know you come from an era when there were no glass cockpits or fly by wire and you wre expected to build an entire airplane your self,but its time to move on and embrace the modern technology.

Really? Do you think the AF would send in a B-52 by itself? The whole idea is that all of our assets work together to stomp the bad guys. When utilized as a part of the whole, I can guarantee you there are few, if any, countries out there, including the Ruskies, who aren't very intimidated by them. And those that aren't, should be.

Get back to your X-box, youngster. Grown-ups are talking here.

I was offered a position on 747-400 for the best rated airline in the world but I picked A320(flying for the same airline)and I am not going to specify the reasons as I dont want to start Airbus vs Boeing contest over here and take this thread in a whole different direction.

deleted by user

Enemy would be a better term instead of bad guys,my point is there are a few countries out there that have the capability,try askin if you have some friends in the Air Force about how they performed against some of these airforces when they conducted joint air exercises and you will be surprised.Russians also have a lot of intimidating stuff like Akulas,SUs,Bears,Smerch and Topols.

I am sure you have heard of Singapore Airlines,I guess not as you have never travelled anywhere but Midwest

Great, an armchair airpower expert.

I am in the Air Force.

Bears? Aren't they older than the B-52s you just badmouthed a few posts ago? oops. :cool:

Yawn and I fly JSF

LOL....thanks for the laughs.

I guess you need to take English lessons all over again GENERAL:D,I never badmouthed B52s,I said that airlines need to overhaul their fleets and I dont think that any airline is operating B52s unless you are aware of one General:p

Your Avatar says it all:D:DGeneral, anyways lets stick to the topic.

I've suspected that you weren't a real pilot but this posting proves it. It depends which customer service survey you pick as to which airline is "the best rated airline in the world" but the likely candidates are Emirates, Cathay, and Singapore. All of those airlines fly the 747-400. None of those airlines fly the A320. I suspect you're some aviation enthusiast that wishes he was a pilot. Maybe you can find the cause of the Kalitta 747-200 crash in your spare time. I'm sure the "professional" accident investigators would appreciate your help.

Also, I was wondering if you are available to tutor me for my next check ride? Thanks in advance

Thank you very much for the response. I would have figured there would be something other than "be sure to let us know how it turns out" if you lost more than one :)

Do they ever let you do something like this in a sim? My guess (and keep my ignorance in mind) is that if you lost two (of four) on the same side, you would simply pull the remaining two back and go straight ahead due to lack of directional control. Thanks for the answer...and thanks for defending the B-52 - still a fearsome beast.

:cool:I do understand your enthusiasm for the modern aircraft, yet at the same time I'd suggest there's more "classic" aircraft out in the commercial sector there than you'd believe. To wit, look around in current fleets listed on this and other websites:

Alitalia MD-80 78
Cathay Pacific 747-200F 7
Quantas 747-300 4
JAL 747-300 8
747-200 3

The classic 747 is alive although not necessarily well. For that matter, look for DC8's and 707s. I found this with about a 15 minute search.

Yes, the new technology is wonderful, but in many cases, either a fleet cannot afford to update, or the older aircraft can still make money - so why change if nobody's forcing them? Why park aircraft that are still profitable while you're waiting for the new stuff?

The check airmen do a 3-engine take off and lose another on the same side at about gear-up during recurrent sim. It keeps them current for 3-engine ferry flights. I was flying support and it sure looked like a lot of work though he got it down fine in the end. The weight was pretty low though not like a heavy take-off.

O.K.REAL PILOT do a search on Singapore Airlines Group and you will find an airline known as SILK AIR which is part of SIA group and operates A320s.I just tutored you on Singapore Airlines Group atleast.:p

Yes, I think in most cases, especially a heavyweight takeoff, I'd abort after losing two engines, before or after V1. Depending on which side's engines were lost, you could have some very uncontrolable asymmetric conditions indeed.

Yes, we did try it in the simulator, but it's not a part of the curriculum, and is really just an exercise in how long you can avoid drilling a hole. Even when you know it's coming, it's difficult...when you're not ready for it, I don't think many pilots could survive. Again, I can only speak for my particular aircraft (KC-135 with CFM56 engines) and I'm sure any other 135 guys on here will correct me if I'm wrong.

An approach with two engines out on the same side is a different matter. After dumping fuel to reduce weight, it's completely survivable, and it was a demonstration in the aircraft during instructor school.

Does that mean, if you played for the Charleston River Dogs (a single-A team), you'd tell us you played for the New York Yankees? :rolleyes:

Congrats on getting hired as a flight attendant in the Singapore Air Group! :o

Now that is funny.

Maybe he should change his name to A320FA :D:D

You must be a C17 guy!

Just to add my two cents here, V1 is the speed upon which you make the decision to abort the takeoff or continue the takeoff. Not to be less than Vcef or Vmcg and never greater than Vmbe. I think this rule applies to all acft. Having flown the classic at two different companies, if you happen to loose two engines at or over V1, I'd say you would be damned lucky if all that happens is you roll off the end of the runway like what has happened to the professionals at Kallitta.

Just speculating here but based on everything I have read so far, this may have been exactly what happened to our friends at Kallitta.

One more thing, the only stupid question is the one not asked.

What a lame reply,any ways to enhance your knowledge,I will tell you this SIA group consists of Singapore Airlines,Singapore Airlines Cargo and Silk Air,at times when you join SIA group you are given an option to pick anyone of the three and you can also hop from one to the other.
I can understand your frustration as you are probably coming from either a bankrupt carrier or one that has already gone down under:(