Flying On One Engine?

So it can be done im sure if the bbmf tried it now it “may” be easier due to less weight no bombs guns armour plating etc.

But as said not recommended i doubt they would try it anyway!

Halifax’s did it….just not for very long !

http://www.bbc.co.uk/ww2peopleswar/stories/57/a6081257.shtml

So did B-17’s;

http://www.flensted.eu.com/1944002.shtml

as did B-24’s ;

http://www.b24.net/missions/MM030644.htmnac

and we have Video evidence that the Lanc could do it !

But not to be recommended !

A ton of variables to consider, including, but not limited to:

Why?/Necessity?!
Ambient Pressure, Temp etc
Airframe design and damage
Airframe configuration (Mass/CG)
Flight condition (the airshow shots of the 40s and 50s used good old trading PE for KE and vice versa (if necessary)
Power available/required
What side good engines are on? (i.e. critical engines or not and availability of sufficient control power)
blah blah!

Often one reads of bombers returning with one or two out, invariably they end up losing altitude (always good to have sufficient height/PE to start with).

We then have the fun of VMCA (min control speed in the air) and all the added ‘fun’ that brings.

Anon makes good points with ETOPS aircraft.

For my B-17 and B-24 checkrides the last procedure was a simulated 2 engine out approach. The examiner “failed” the first engine #1 (left side critical engine) not long after takeoff. The next engine #2 (left side) was failed during the crosswind turn still climbing for pattern altitude. Standard multiengine emergency procedures used…maintain blue line or Vmc …about 120mph for the B-17 and 140mph for the B-24. Although they don’t climb well pattern altitude was met and maintained in both A/C. If I remember right we had around 900 gallons aboard on both checkrides. Both aircraft handled admirably, especially the 17. The 24 was manageable and only felt slightly loose. Granted the engines were still running, albeit at zero thrust they were of no help. Normal pattern and approach speeds were used in both cases.
B-17
130mph downwind
120mph base and final
flaps as necessary ending with full deflection

B-24
140mph downwind
130mph base carried a bit of extra speed normally around 120
flaps as required
120 for finals

As for single engine operations…you better have alot of altitude cause you are looking for a place to land. Other than combat a three engine out scenario is extremely unlikely.

Jim Harley

As mentioned, it all depends on weights and altitude you started at.

BTW: my father confided in me that once he and a friend took off a very lightly loaded B-17 on two engines just to see if it could be done.
IIRC, the only other person on board was the flight engineer.

There was this thread a while back, with a piccy on page 2.

http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/showthread.php?t=35104&highlight=lanc+engine

Not much to tell, really.

We had excess speed for safety & we had several menbers of the crew up front, looking at the ‘audience’, so several pairs of hands went for the No1 unfeather button & we caried on as normal.

All good training?

Great Stuff if a little scary.:)

It perhaps would be theoretically possible if the aeroplane was very light.

However I suspect the remaining engine would merely give a wider choice of accident location. :dev2:

“…shut down three and feather the props …”

So you guessed?

Flying on one engine

For an aircraft designed to fly on four engines it would be unlikely, in most cases, that it could continue to fly on one.

The aircraft would have to be at minimum weight and low drag i.e. no gear or flaps down to have any chance. In older aircraft, where engines were not so powerful, the task would have been much harder, if not impossible, under normal circumstances. Gravity would win though the power of the one engine full-out would extend the glide somewhat and maybe, in the case of a Lancaster or B17, have got you clear of enemy territory.

Modern aircraft have bags of excess power and in the case of an A340, for example, it would be possible to continue on to ones destination on two engines after dumping fuel. It would return in the (highly unlikely) failure of three. The Nimrod, it was said, could fly on one and actually climb slightly, this aircraft being quite able to shut down two of its four engines to flight idle condition for long over-water patrols.

Flying on one wasn’t recommended though and would usually only be done in an emergency or for testing purposes – or for showing off. There’s a great pic of a Lincoln flying on one, heading towards the cameraman, twenty feet above the deck in the frontispiece of the book Lincoln at War. The trick was to approach in a shallow dive to build up speed, shut down three and feather the props, crank the running fourth engine to full power and show off. The mags and fuel on the three dead engines would be already selected on and the throttles open so that, when the buttons were pressed to unfeather the props, at least one engine would fire, closely followed by the other two and climb away. The Lincoln couldn’t maintain height on one in any condition though, as far as I’m aware.

Remember also that flying on one engine, especially in older piston types, would put a huge strain on that engine, usually because it was “through the gate” and for more than the recommended time (usually 5 mins) and would likely result in the failure or overheating of that engine.

In a nutshell; in emergencies only.

Anon.

Those old bombers probably not, but there is a video on youtube where a Super Constellation does it.

Flying on one engine?

Can the likes of a B-17 or a lancaster fly on one engine for a period of time say to get home from a bombing mission?

It’s shown in films with a battered B-17 shot to bits on one engine limping home.

I think for extended periods gravity begins to exert its much vaunted reputation. 😀

However any long distance flying on one engine would depend very much on what engine was still functioning for aerodynamic reasons including the condition of the airframe, and even then I suspect the trajectory would be in a steadily increasing earthward direction.

Not much to tell, really.

We had excess speed for safety & we had several menbers of the crew up front, looking at the ‘audience’, so several pairs of hands went for the No1 unfeather button & we caried on as normal.

All good training?

Please tell us more about this incident Sir.
We are all glad you are here to tell the tale.

Ben

I was showing off a Shackleton & feathered Nos 1&2 nearest the crowd.

Look – no engines!

No 3 then failed. Ooops!!