Tri-jets. Any list for No.2 engine failures?

[Fordiesel69]

I always daydream of this. If I were to have been a pilot in the era of tri jets, I would proabably have an irrational fear of the no 2 tail mounted engine having an uncontained failure. How often did this actually occur in all brands and models of aircraft?

Also I know very little about aviation other than what I read online, could a tri-jet operate with very low engine thrust on no 2 during cruise as to preserve the engine, or would this not be ideal?

 

[Gyro Gearloose]

See "United Airlines Flight 232" on Wikipedia.

 

[jeepman3071]

Tri-jets are neat but it was back when fuel efficiency was not as high of a priority. Oddly enough I was watching a video last night on a DC-10 engine failure, but it was from the wing mounted engine falling off during takeoff. As a kid I always remember the planes with the engines mounted close to the tail, the MD-88s, etc. They always had a thunderous roar from the Pratt and Whitney engines as they took off, and seemed to climb almost vertical like a rocket.

 

[Bottom_Feeder]

United Airlines Flight 232 - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The Crash of United Flight 232

On July 19, 1989, one of the most dramatic events in aviation unfolded in the skies over Iowa as heroic pilots battled to land a crippled DC-10.

www.popularmechanics.com

Terrifying and fascinating.

 

[FowVay]

Other than the occasional mechanic leaving his brass hammer in the S-duct, I don't recall too many problems out of the engines on these gorgeous birds. Long live the L-1011. It was an incredible aircraft.

 

[y_p_w]

Obviously United 232 is the one that was most notorious. That ended up taking out much of the hydraulics. They had a pilot come in and they attempted to steer the plane using differing engine thrust with the remaining engines. However, that engine was exposed and not ducted like an L-1011 or 727.

Of course if a modern tri-jet were produced, it would probably have some sort of fly by wire and redundant control path.

However, I'd think tri-jets wouldn't necessarily be the bulk of tail mounted jet engine applications. Think of the tail-mounted twin-jets like the DC-8, MD-80, MD-90, 717, several from Bombardier, and who knows how many corporate jets. Is the concern what might happen to the control surfaces should there be an uncontained engine failure?

 

[Astro14]

Obviously United 232 is the one that was most notorious. That ended up taking out much of the hydraulics. They had a pilot come in and they attempted to steer the plane using differing engine thrust with the remaining engines. However, that engine was exposed and not ducted like an L-1011 or 727.

Of course if a modern tri-jet were produced, it would probably have some sort of fly by wire and redundant control path.

However, I'd think tri-jets wouldn't necessarily be the bulk of tail mounted jet engine applications. Think of the tail-mounted twin-jets like the DC-8, MD-80, MD-90, 717, several from Bombardier, and who knows how many corporate jets. Is the concern what might happen to the control surfaces should there be an uncontained engine failure?

It took out ALL of the hydraulics.

Al Haynes and his crew flew an unflyable airplane. There were NO flight controls.

His mastery of the situation, his leadership, and crisis management remain a studied example of the absolute best in the profession.

 

[mk378]

The L-1011 added a fourth hydraulic system with a design specifically to survive the case where the center engine blows up and breaks the main three systems. The DC-10 did not.

 

[FowVay]

1996 was the bad year for me in aviation. Not to dig up old ghosts but we lost the ValuJet DC9 to the Florida everglades, Delta lost two passengers in a uncontained engine failure on a MD88, also a Florida departure,,, and lastly, the Braves lost the World Series to the Yankees.

And I'm no expert on anything in this world but I've worked on quite a few big airplanes and the DC-10 sucked. It just did. I did like the MD-11 quite a bit better but it never lived up to the promises that they made.

 

[y_p_w]

1996 was the bad year for me in aviation. Not to dig up old ghosts but we lost the ValuJet DC9 to the Florida everglades, Delta lost two passengers in a uncontained engine failure on a MD88, also a Florida departure,,, and lastly, the Braves lost the World Series to the Yankees.

And I'm no expert on anything in this world but I've worked on quite a few big airplanes and the DC-10 sucked. It just did. I did like the MD-11 quite a bit better but it never lived up to the promises that they made.

The KC-10 did OK.

 

[y_p_w]

I always daydream of this. If I were to have been a pilot in the era of tri jets, I would proabably have an irrational fear of the no 2 tail mounted engine having an uncontained failure. How often did this actually occur in all brands and models of aircraft?

Also I know very little about aviation other than what I read online, could a tri-jet operate with very low engine thrust on no 2 during cruise as to preserve the engine, or would this not be ideal?

There was an idea to scrap the third engine in a DC-10 for shorter routes. It still had plenty of thrust with two. But the DC-10 had three engines, which was required for long routes before ETOPS.

Aircraft – McDonnell Douglas DC-10 Twin - Northwest Airlines History Center

While Douglas had intentionally designed its DC-10 with abundant take-off power from its triple-engine configuration, for most U.S. domestic route segments and intra-European runs, really only the thrust of two turbofans was necessary. The newly-formed Airbus Industrie had reached this...

northwestairlineshistory.org

I’m not sure about having all three engines and cutting or reducing the third just to save on wear. I would think there’s still the aerodynamic penalty and the weight.

 

[mk378]

The article has a conceptual picture of a plane with two wing engines and a conventional back end with no vestige of a center engine. It would likely be regulated as a new type even if they wanted to call it a "DC-10." The wing engines would need be a more powerful model, so it would not be possible to swap engines between a Twin and the regular DC-10s in the fleet-- completely different parts and maintenance support would be needed. And as noted, since ETOPS did not exist at the time, airlines would still need to keep some three-engine planes for flights over oceans. This plan was adding a lot of complexity-- which translates to expense-- for only a little fuel savings.

 

[WobblyElvis]

I worked on DC-10s for a few years and like them. Reversible motor pumps between the 3 hydraulic system made it easy to power up all the hydraulics with one simple electric pump on system number 1. Working on engine number 2 was a little different. The tail cone has a patio that opens up under the engine when you are not in the hangar. When inside, we had the luxury or a large work stand pushed into position with a baggage tractor.

 

[y_p_w]

The article has a conceptual picture of a plane with two wing engines and a conventional back end with no vestige of a center engine. It would likely be regulated as a new type even if they wanted to call it a "DC-10." The wing engines would need be a more powerful model, so it would not be possible to swap engines between a Twin and the regular DC-10s in the fleet-- completely different parts and maintenance support would be needed. And as noted, since ETOPS did not exist at the time, airlines would still need to keep some three-engine planes for flights over oceans. This plan was adding a lot of complexity-- which translates to expense-- for only a little fuel savings.

I thought that it would have been adequate for the purpose of shorter haul flights. I heard it was more or less overpowered with 3 engines, but that was required for longer flights over water.

 

[fdcg27]

Other than the occasional mechanic leaving his brass hammer in the S-duct, I don't recall too many problems out of the engines on these gorgeous birds. Long live the L-1011. It was an incredible aircraft.

View attachment 204836

From everything I've read over the years, this aircraft was a shining example of what a strong engineering culture could create. A superbly engineered aircraft that was really next-level as compared to the DC-10 or the 747 it was also expensive to build. Even if it were not for the delays from RR in developing a suitable engine and even were Lockheed to have gone with the CF-6 instead the L-1011 would have struggled to compete with the DC-10 in gaining orders since the DC-10 could be built at considerably lower cost and so could also be offered at a lower cost to potential operators.
Fair to say that Lockheed left the airliner business on a high note.

 

[FowVay]

I think the L-1011 nearly bankrupted Lockheed. It was the most advanced commercial airliner second only to the Concorde at the time. It brought advances to the industry never before seen with advanced electronics and navigation. It was big, fat, comfortable, and lost money on every sale.

I liked the plane. It was a nasty, oil leaking, cold weather crybaby that smoked like a tire fire on start-up and would fill the cabin with water vapor every time the ACM packs were started. But man, was it a sweet ride with a huge 19' fuselage and 8' tall ceilings. It was literally like walking around in your living room. But, time passes on.

Here's a glance at the inlet of the S-duct where many a lunch was eaten. If you ever wondered why the cabin air smelled like bologna then now you know

 

[y_p_w]

I think the L-1011 nearly bankrupted Lockheed. It was the most advanced commercial airliner second only to the Concorde at the time. It brought advances to the industry never before seen with advanced electronics and navigation. It was big, fat, comfortable, and lost money on every sale.

I liked the plane. It was a nasty, oil leaking, cold weather crybaby that smoked like a tire fire on start-up and would fill the cabin with water vapor every time the ACM packs were started. But man, was it a sweet ride with a huge 19' fuselage and 8' tall ceilings. It was literally like walking around in your living room. But, time passes on.

Here's a glance at the inlet of the S-duct where many a lunch was eaten. If you ever wondered why the cabin air smelled like bologna then now you know

View attachment 205117

Pacific Southwest Airlines inexplicably bought a few of them and mostly put them in service flying the San Francisco-Los Angeles route.

 

[FowVay]

That looks like one happy airplane.

 

[ammolab]

Think of the tail-mounted twin-jets like the DC-8, MD-80, MD-90, 717, several from Bombardier, and who knows how many corporate jets. Is the concern what might happen to the control surfaces should there be an uncontained engine failure?

Wasn’t the DC 8 a sleak 4 engine jet?..wing mounted?

 

[y_p_w]

Wasn’t the DC 8 a sleak 4 engine jet?..wing mounted?

I was going for the DC-9.