Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Akila

Is the RAT moduled in the NGX?

Recommended Posts

Is the RAT (Ram Air Turbine) moduled in the NGX?i.e. if I cut off both Engines in Mid-Air would the RAT be deployed and supplythe vital Energy (Electricity) that RAT does in real life ?----- Joel STR


Joel Strikovsky
Banner_FS2Crew_NGX_Driver.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the APU is your only option for Hydralic and electrical power in the very unlikely even of duel engine outs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On ETOPS flights, it's actually required to keep the APU running to serve as a backup for the electrics and that will also run the electric hydraulic pumps. As far as bleed backup, the APU is limited to 17000 for bleed supply. Electrics can be operated up to FL410.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ETOPS flights, it's actually required to keep the APU running to serve as a backup for the electrics and that will also run the electric hydraulic pumps. As far as bleed backup, the APU is limited to 17000 for bleed supply. Electrics can be operated up to FL410.
Really? That sounds like it costs a lot of extra fuel for just saving these 2 minutes it takes to start the apu up. Is this required for all two engined aircraft like the 777 as well? I honestly have no clue so please enlighten me as I am eager to learn.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Really? That sounds like it costs a lot of extra fuel for just saving these 2 minutes it takes to start the apu up. Is this required for all two engined aircraft like the 777 as well? I honestly have no clue so please enlighten me as I am eager to learn.
I'm sure alot could go wrong in 2 minutes if an aircraft that is airborne lost power.

Gavin Price

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If i understand, if the airplane has no more fuel to give to the apu, the airplane become like a rock, no possibilities to control the airplane ? I can't understand then Boeing could remove a feature like the rat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Starting the APU in the air is not very reliable. If something goes wrong at cruise, and that tertiary electrical source is required it is just safer to have it already available instead of starting it on demand and then deal with the likely failed APU start.


Scott Kalin VATSIM #1125397 - KPSP Palm Springs International Airport
Space Shuttle (SSMS2007) http://www.space-shu....com/index.html
Orbiter 2010P1 http://orbit.medphys.ucl.ac.uk/
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest SMITI07

The plane won't be like a rock, it will still be contollable. And you have battries that will give you limited instrumentation. The idea is not to run out of fuel.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That sounds like it costs a lot of extra fuel for just saving these 2 minutes it takes to start the apu up. Is this required for all two engined aircraft like the 777 as well?
I'm sure alot could go wrong in 2 minutes if an aircraft that is airborne lost power.
Yes. A lot could go wrong in two minutes, but the bigger issue is that the air is too thin to start the APU at altitude. In the end, the time taken to descend and then light the APU would be a lot longer, and in the process, you wasted a lot of altitude that you may not be getting back.

Kyle Rodgers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As far as I know the 737 is one of the only aircrafts this size, that is able to fly without any hydraulic systems (The MD80's too, I think).That is the reason why the 737 has only 2 hydraulicsystems and no RAT.For electronic power you've got the batteries.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But i think there is a problem with the RAT to, when you are about to land (let's say a 767) with only RAT powering the airplane, you start flying slower, and the RAT will stop producing power due to the speed, and you lose all hydraulics, and that can be a problem when you are 200-100 ft above the runway, am i right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Edit: Sorry my comment was for another thread that I thought I was still viewing. Late night


Mike Keigley

 

Boeing777_Banner_Pilot.jpg

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At a 150-200pounds per hour, its not such a big deal to have the apu running. Besides what if you go to start the apu and find out it jst dont work period? Over the ocean and a couple hours away from any airport is not really a time I would like to find that out. And, like some have mentioned, the apu is not guaranteed to start up at high altitudes. JackColwill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Tom Allensworth,
    Founder of AVSIM Online


  • Flight Simulation's Premier Resource!

    AVSIM is a free service to the flight simulation community. AVSIM is staffed completely by volunteers and all funds donated to AVSIM go directly back to supporting the community. Your donation here helps to pay our bandwidth costs, emergency funding, and other general costs that crop up from time to time. Thank you for your support!

    Click here for more information and to see all donations year to date.
×
×
  • Create New...