Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!ncar!dinl!holroyd
From: holroyd@dinl.uucp (kevin w. holroyd)
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle
Subject: Re: 104% on shuttle launch
Message-ID: <1009@dinl.mmc.UUCP>
Date: 27 Apr 89 16:28:19 GMT
References: <883@sactoh0.UUCP> <9130002@hpwrce.HP.COM> <2516@mentor.cc.purdue.edu>
Reply-To: holroyd@dinl.UUCP (kevin w. holroyd)
Organization: Martin Marietta I&CS, Denver CO.
Lines: 25

>In article <9130002@hpwrce.HP.COM>, howeird@hpwrce.HP.COM (Howard Stateman) writes:
> So to carry this over to your engine running at 104%, it is running 
> harder than at 100%, but it is past its point of peak efficientcy, and
> may do something non-user-friendly, like blow everyone all to Hell.  
>
  I suspect that rocket engines work similar to some airplane reciprocating
engines. (Specifically turbo-charged engines.)
  On certain models of planes there is a maximum continuous power setting
of usually ~30" of manifold pressure.  During certain power critical events
(like takeoff) it is permissible to power up past this point for periods
under 5 minutes.
  BTW the B737 that crashed on the 14th street bridge in Washington D.C. was
not at full power.  In their attempt to get off the ground (and stay off the
ground) the pilots only used maximum take-off power, not FULL power.  There
was some speculation that if they had gone to full power it might have made
a difference.  In their attempt to save wear and tear on the engines, they 
totally destroyed the engines (and the rest of the airplane.)


-- 
*******************************************************************************
Kevin W. Holroyd			* 
CFI Aspen Flying Club			* Got tired of last .signature file
Denver CO.				* 
*******************************************************************************