[Americanwolf]

Yeah, most multi engine aircraft like that are designed to be able to remain airborne at 50% of availble engines... once again as long as they are not on the same side of the aircraft.... (if the were all on the same side it was cause incredible torque that would try to rip the plane apart.

[DustyMoment]

Yeah, most multi engine aircraft like that are designed to be able to remain airborne at 50% of availble engines... once again as long as they are not on the same side of the aircraft.... (if the were all on the same side it was cause incredible torque that would try to rip the plane apart.

Not necessarily true. I flew on P-3s (the old Lockheed Electra) with four turbo-props and the plane was designed to be able to fly on one engine.

Of course, the P-3 has the glide capabilities of a brick, so it doesn't fly well on one engine, but it can maintain sufficient airspeed and altitude to avoid flying into a hot dog stand. Many other aircraft have the same capability.

[jettester]

That was the real test for the 777 when going for ETOPs - two engines, one on each wing, shut one down and fly for 90 minutes. Having been part of flight crews on other "adventures" such as that, an extra pair of skivvies are required in your flight bag. The "pucker factor" for that flight would have pegged the meter...

BTW, the old saying at MDC was that the "F4 was living proof that engineers could make rocks fly with enough thrust."