Qantas 747 ferries engine

pclancy

The 747 lovers out there will enjoy this post from Qantas:

http://mashable.com/2016/01/06/qantas-extra-engine/#kz1ouoF9JmqL

Tenger

You've probably never thought too much about how to quickly transport a 10-tonne plane engine, but Qantas has the answer.

Actualy it was Boeing that came up with that answer.

Nice to see the airline making a bit of fuss over an uncommon occurrence. Positive PR is hard to get in the airline business.

pclancy

I thought it was pretty interesting from an engineering and aviation perspective. You not a fan of Qantas then no?

Comhrá

IIRC, the ill-fated Air India B747 that was destroyed off the SW coast in 1985 enroute YYZ -LHR was also carrying a spare engine.

It was cruising at the relatively low altitude of fl 310 for the Atlantic crossing that morning.

Dardania

tippman1 wrote: »

IIRC, the ill-fated Air India B747 that was destroyed off the SW coast in 1985 enroute YYZ -LHR was also carrying a spare engine.

It was cruising at the relatively low altitude of fl 310 for the Atlantic crossing that morning.

did that have any bearing on the fate (the low altitude?) does seem quite low...guess the extra weight + drag...

roundymac

Dardania wrote: »

did that have any bearing on the fate (the low altitude?) does seem quite low...guess the extra weight + drag...

How would that affect it, it was a bomb that brought it down.

Don't know why Quantas are making such a fuss about it, it was quite common back in the seventies and eighties for an engine to be shipped back to base for repair.

Tenger

pclancy wrote: »

I thought it was pretty interesting from an engineering and aviation perspective. You not a fan of Qantas then no?

Not at all. No issues with Qantas. Its the online journalism I have an issue with. I like the QF are showing off on social media, good marketing.
From a design point of view I think it is a great feature of the B747.

Cookiemunster

Dardania wrote: »

did that have any bearing on the fate (the low altitude?) does seem quite low...guess the extra weight + drag...

That flight was brought down by a bomb, so no it didn't have any relevance.

J.pilkington

Nice photo from the inside here

https://www.instagram.com/p/BAMTNCUmQyL/

dzilla

I remember aer lingus doing this back when they had a 747

arubex

Tenger wrote: »

From a design point of view I think it is a great feature of the B747.

Also the 707, DC-10, TriStar and VC-10 at a minimum.

Alaskan also shipped CFM56s around inside their 737 Combis, there's a photo that I can't find right now looking forward from the passenger cabin at a big fan staring right back

Car99

I'd doubt it weighs 10 tonne .

PinOnTheRight

Car99 wrote: »

I'd doubt it weighs 10 tonne .

Yea, closer to 4000-4500kg for any of the engine options.

Kenny2012

A couple of shots you might be interested in

Aer Lingus Boeing 747 EI-BED departing Dublin on lease to LAN Chile on 13/12/1988 carries a spare engine https://flic.kr/p/8rPntd

Laker Airways DC-10-30 G-BGXF carring a spare Gatwick 10/5/1982 https://flic.kr/p/nBkaQN

billie1b

Just under 5 tonne I believe

LXFlyer

The QANTAS site has more info:
http://www.qantasnewsroom.com.au/roo-tales/that-time-when-we-strapped-an-extra-engine-on-to-a-jumbo/

Danbo!

Here's a shot of the EI 747

kub

Can someone please send that picture of the EI 747 with the extra engine onto Quantus and tell them welcome to the 1980's

pclancy

From a Qantas pilot asked about the procedure form his perspective:

It's quite a neat arrangement, and both loading and unloading happen in only an hour or two. There's an internal shroud which will stop the engine from being rotated in the breeze.

There's no particular training for it. Just a single page in the ops manual, and about three in the performance manual.

The ops manual basically says that there is a switch in the electronics bay that the engineers will need to move to tell the FMCs and air data computers about the pod. The ADCs will use new (reduced) limits for speeds, and the FMC will switch to a program that reflects the additional drag and performance penalties. The performance manual gives a heap of limitations, but speed is reduced to .78 mach. All maximum weights are reduced, and there's discussion of trim settings to offset the yaw.

I only carried a pod once, way back around 1990. It was an engine for a DC10 which had been overhauled in Sydney. It was noticeable, but not dramatically so.

billy few mates

'Fifth Podding' as they call it was quite a common occurrence on 747s back in the day when engines weren't as reliable as they are now, we used to do it two or three times a year at one place I worked, very straightforward and easy to do.

donkey balls

The costs of getting in a freighter for a trip like that would be around 100k plus.

weisses

Taking off with 3 engines is no option ?

Tenger

weisses wrote: »

Taking off with 3 engines is no option ?

Not need to ever take off with less than standard. Why take the risk of losing 1/3 of your power on take-off roll or climb out?

gctest50

Originally Posted by n905 & n911

OMG!!1!!!! carried an extra whole engine omg

.

smurfjed

Taking off with 3 engines is no option ?

actually it is an option, 3 engine ferry. Remember that the 747 is from the 60's, so Mr Boeing got approval for the additional engine pod and 3 engine ferries!

B747-400 AFM Appendix 14 One Engine Inoperative Ferry CF6-80C2B5F Engines

arubex

Also the DC-8.



It seems that the last ( new ) aircraft designed to carry a spare was the TriStar. Boeing dropped the capability with the 747-400 and Airbus didn't include the capability on their quads.

Also the MD-11 lost the capability though it was routine on the DC-10.

I don't think a twin has ever been certificated to carry a pod, I assume it would mess-up the engine-out qualification. But the quads could carry engines for the twin compatriots if the airline paid for qualification flights ( QANTAS used to ferry 767 engines like that ).

dogmatix

arubex wrote: »

Also the 707, DC-10, TriStar and VC-10 at a minimum.

Alaskan also shipped CFM56s around inside their 737 Combis, there's a photo that I can't find right now looking forward from the passenger cabin at a big fan staring right back

I was wondering how a VC10 would ship the extra engine, surely it would not fit under the wing so maybe it was attached to the egines at the tail - but no it was under the wing in a streamlined pod. Looks rather good.

https://www.pinterest.com/pin/488781365781872252/

Tenger

arubex wrote: »

......
It seems that the last ( new ) aircraft designed to carry a spare was the TriStar. Boeing dropped the capability with the 747-400 and Airbus didn't include the capability on their quads........

That QF B747 looked like a 400 to me,just going by the winglets....am I wrong?

LXFlyer

Tenger wrote: »

That QF B747 looked like a 400 to me,just going by the winglets....am I wrong?

It is indeed a B747-400 - VH-OJS

bkehoe

smurfjed wrote: »

actually it is an option, 3 engine ferry. Remember that the 747 is from the 60's, so Mr Boeing got approval for the additional engine pod and 3 engine ferries!

B747-400 AFM Appendix 14 One Engine Inoperative Ferry CF6-80C2B5F Engines

A BA 747 recently (in the last month) did a 3 engine ferry from Canada to Prestwick. https://flic.kr/p/Bjev8D
Looks strange with the fan blades removed!

smurfjed

The 3 engine ferry appendix is available for the 100/200/300/400 and -8.

The 5th engine POD appendix was something that an airline could purchase or negotiate for during the purchasing discussions.

Lovely picture above of the BA ferry, thanks for sharing.

PinOnTheRight

bkehoe wrote: »

A BA 747 recently (in the last month) did a 3 engine ferry from Canada to Prestwick. https://flic.kr/p/Bjev8D
Looks strange with the fan blades removed!

I believe it had an engine problem on the way into Vancouver or after landing. Positioned back YVR-YYZ-PIK-LHR on three engines.

arubex

lxflyer wrote: »

It is indeed a B747-400 - VH-OJS

Doh! What was I thinking...

Oh well, here's the 737 Combi photo as compensation for my silliness.

Davidth88

I have a nice photo from the 70's taken at Hatton Cross of an Air India 747 landing with a 5th engine , Ill have to hunt it out, it's black and white because I was going through a stage of printing my own photo's at the time.

Not uncommon back in the 70's/80's TBH you used to see it every now and then at LHR

arubex

OK I don't feel quite so silly now, but I was still wrong!

There are only two airlines that operate(d) 747-400s certificated for fifth-engine carriage: South African and QANTAS. Only the RB211 has been qualified.

On the 100 to 300 series only the JT9 and RB211 were qualified for carriage.

I can't find any definitive information about the -8. Some sources state that the hardpoint was omitted when the wing was redesigned.

LiamaDelta

Qantas have even made an official video about it! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HWfA3I_cALs

Seems like they're just looking to generate some spin for themselves.

Car99

arubex wrote: »

Doh! What was I thinking...

Oh well, here's the 737 Combi photo as compensation for my silliness.

That doesn't look right, there hardly a door in any 737 configuration to get an engine that big on board , is there? , that engine about 7 to 8ft tall by the looks of it . Would weigh at least 4 tonne to 5 tonne including engine stand and it's positioned at the front of the a/c . Any story link with the pic?

Growler!!!

arubex wrote: »

OK I don't feel quite so silly now, but I was still wrong!

There are only two airlines that operate(d) 747-400s certificated for fifth-engine carriage: South African and QANTAS. Only the RB211 has been qualified.

On the 100 to 300 series only the JT9 and RB211 were qualified for carriage.

I can't find any definitive information about the -8. Some sources state that the hardpoint was omitted when the wing was redesigned.

The airliners.net thread has a lot of info including the above. Offers a good explaination as to why qantas and South African airways fitted the option on the newer models.

Growler!!!

Car99 wrote: »

That doesn't look right, there hardly a door in any 737 configuration to get an engine that big on board , is there? , that engine about 7 to 8ft tall by the looks of it . Would weigh at least 4 tonne to 5 tonne including engine stand and it's positioned at the front of the a/c . Any story link with the pic?

http://gadling.com/2011/03/01/cockpit-chronicles-alaska-flying-then-and-now/

Pic half way down taken from inside the forward hold of the 737 combi.

billy few mates

Lose an engine down route and your options were either to '5th pod' one in on another A/C, freight charter, road delivery, or three engine ferry. Three engine ferry was actually the least favoured option as it was always easier to send a team and an engine than it was to arrange a three engine ferry.
There were difficulties in crewing them because only certain senior grades were authorised to do them and depending on the airfield there were often performance limitations that prevented you from doing this unless you wanted to strip out the interior and remove all the seats (and carpets) and a whole heap of other problems. You'd only be looking to ferry if it were somewhere you couldn't send a team or spare engine for reasons of safety, poor support, limited facilities, bad weather etc. The common option was to send a team with all their tooling on the A/C with the fifth pod on the next (or rescue) flight. In most cases you'd change an enigine on one of those A/C in under twelve hours....

bmay529

It is interesting that the Laker plane had a cover over the spare engine, presumably to reduce drag, whereas the engine was exposed in all other pics