will a 747 fly on 1 engine?

well, yes and no,
it is totally weight dependant. using the 747-2 if it is empty or close to, yes, it can make it around the pattern, in a case where you lose the other three prior to an established final,
it will not maintain level flight with the gear down on one, so you have to be on or above the glide, loc established and on your way down, it will not go around, so gear down is a commitment.
Two engine work in the SIM is done at weights of approx 195 T, usually with the loss of the first one at or just beyond V1, and the second in the pattern prior to intercept of the Final app crs. To be honest not much is gained by trying single engine work in the sim.
The loss of multiple engines at ALT if heavy will require fuel dumping asap.

driftdown as mentioned is generally computed on an enroute card, usually at 10 ton intervals, or on the hour, based on the loss of one, it is a three engine drift down ALT, the speed to best accomplish this, and the power setting (EPR/N1) required, max con for the weight and altitude.
essentially the procedure on the loss of one is the balance to max cont, allow the speed to decay to the computed drift down speed, and start down on that speed to the computed DD ALT, which is “should” maintain.

Keep in mind that as weight decreases, it is quite possible that you can not only maintain the chosen cruise ALT on 3, but actually still climb, if the “driftdown” ALT computed for the weight shows you can maintain a higher alt that your existing cruise.

regards all engine out glide, at idle thrust the engines still produce about 55% thrust, so the 3 to one rule is pretty accurate, 3 times your alt is the distance you will go, 33000 ft – 100 miles, but remove all that residual thrust, this no longer applies, and you will decrease this, again weight dependant, heavy the airplane will glide further, light, it will glide less, but a rough figure, at normal landing weights, (under 285.7) I would not expect to get any better than 85 DME.

well, to be honest,
I think AC has one of the most unimaginative color schemes in the airline environment.
Baby sleep suit blue,
their name,
and our maple leaf.
Wow. That must have taken a marketing genious!

These days, the airlines realise their aircraft are an advertising tool, and are used accordingly, unfortunately, AC, like much of their operation is about 30 years behind!
hence the “lets get back to our roots scheme”

motto of AC,
“were not happy unless your not happy”

ya, I know, spoken like a true Canadian!

well, I for 1 completely understand the initial remarks made by Moggy.
Pilots as a group tend to downplay incidents, it is our nature,
upon finding they are indeed worse than we may have thought, the next reaction is to justify,
“there but for the grace”
that is the natural tendancy, because lets face it, we all think it couldnt be us, it wouldnt be us, we could have done differently
thats called defense mechanism
As one who has been involved in a very close experience where a pilot, a friend has died, and witnessed a fair few others, it is completely natural.
So this is not a time to make a point, cause I guarantee that Mr Moggy feels bad about this, not for what he said, as that was normal comments, but the end result.
As one who flew the beaver for many years I am profoundly sad for the pilot, its a shame, but to condemn a guy for commenting on what he thought was just a bad day at work, thats not fair.

“I must say, I have to take issue on one point made regarding “Test pilots” and their experience. They can have all the experience in the world, but if its not on type, they’re no better than the rest of us,”

Sorry to get off topic a bit, but regards that statement, thats exactly WHY a “test pilot” is asked to fly an aircraft.
all of that “experience” is exactly what you need when flying a new or unproven aircraft.

if I apply your logic, are you suggesting that a private pilot with 100 hours total time, of which perhaps 10 is on a Staggerwing ( for example), is the more suitable choice to conduct a potential proving flight on type over another who has never flown a staggerwing, yet may have 2000 + hours in everything from a Pitts to Fast Jets.

and I am not reffering to this particular example as I have no idea what happened, if anything.

sorry but experience does count.

would anyone happen to have more accurate location information on this stunning replica? perhaps the airport they operate from, etc?
or even contact information on Mr Bronner.
I think it may be near Koln? and I would really enjoy trying to find it one weekend.
It would be great to get a set of detail photos of it.
Thanks,

Agcat,
Interesting discussion.
I think the bottom line is we can both support our and refute each others points with statistics, which of course implies statistics will get us nowhere!
You cite the Chipmunk as an example, highly proven, and I would imagine you are correct, no structural failures.
But lets look at an equally successful, if not more so training aircraft, the harvard, T-6, Texan, highly proven, benefiting from operation in dozens of Air Force, yet two years ago it proved to have a major fatigue factor resulting in an inflight failure and loss of life.
Apparently no one saw that coming.
The fact is that if homebuilts were falling from the skies with major components following behind I could endorse your argument, but in reality most homebuilts and for that matter certificated aircraft, tend to hit the earth with all components intact, and more times than not, perfectly flyable.
You see, what neither the PFA, DOT, FAA or any other can effectively regulate is personal ability, or lack thereof, and as long as people are licensed to fly an aircraft, aircraft will crash, unfortunately many times with other people on board.
I agree there must be a check and balance, to a degree, but you cannot control each and every facet. When we choose to fly, we accept an inherent risk, it is our individual choice to minimise that risk to an acceptable level, as we do in most other areas of life.
I have no figures to back it up, but I would imagine on a comparison basis, UK built Homebuilts are no more or less a guarantee of a safe trip than their North American cousins.
I also agree that it is tragic when a passenger is involved, but people enjoy flying, and more times than not will accept the offer of a ride, and the acceptable risk factor is for each to decide, but it probably has a great deal more to do with the specific type and more so even, the person behind the stick.

100,000 pounds + !
5 + years?

It`s already been done!
for lots less money, less time, and it was on the cover of Sport Aviation magazine.

In fact he had a website; www. super-chipmunk.com
but it is now down.
He was even offering kits.
From what I remember he used existing wings, but built the rest, used a continental engine, and a bubble canopy, as per most “super Chipmunks”
However I imagine this type of project was much easier in North America, the fellow was in Quebec.
Once the PFA has to be involved that tends to stifle creativity.

Its a fifty plus year old design with many flying, exactly WHY would they require stress testing, and newly engineered drawings??
To be honest, this attitude of regulating down to the last nut and bolt has always made me wonder, in North America you are pretty much free to build as you like, as the attitude of DOT and the FAA is basic practice applies.
Beyond that, build what you like.
I cannot hep but think the PFA exposes themselves to potential liability by imposing such severe limitations.