Comment by reportgunner
1 year ago
If the RAT could keep the plane flying indefinitely we would just be using RAT instead of fuel I suppose.
1 year ago
If the RAT could keep the plane flying indefinitely we would just be using RAT instead of fuel I suppose.
/s? A generator or alternator powered directly by the engines is more efficient than towing a wind vane (still indirectly powered by the engines and/or the potential energy of the airplane) every single time.
This discussion has nothing to do with engine out failure modes.
> This discussion has nothing to do with engine out failure modes.
The 787's APU is not intended to run during flight. If it's running, you're in an engines-out scenario.
Huh? It’s a generator. It generates minimum power to keep the flight controls and instruments working. It’s not propulsion.