Sooo … Apparently, the only thing wrong in my post was the word “automatically” 
And even that is not wrong when coupled with the word “apparently” had I added “can be.”
"In normal conditions the RAT is retracted into the fuselage (or wing), and is deployed manually or automatically following complete loss of power.
Nah that is not why you are wrong
, you could dual engine failure and still not automatic rat deployment.
Say
The rat is deployed up complete lost of AC power. Yes jet engine provide electrical power but that is due to IDG (integrated drive generator) being attached on the accessory gear box That is an important distinction that will make sense in a bit.
APU primary uses isn’t for power, nor are they normal gas powered. It’s basically a tiny jet engine.they use the same aircraft jet A fuel that the engine use. APU are also primarly used to generate pneumatic pressure used for engine start and onboard ECS. This means it’s used to spin the blades inside the jet to start it ( before adding fuel and spark)
The APU can then be left on to help with ECS on T/0 during high density altitude/short runways so there is no bleed pressure taken away frohm engines and this maximizing thrust.
So you see if the engines are running but both IDG fails, the rat will deploy automatically (not on 737) but if the Apu is runing and both off fails there won’t be automatic deployment
The rat does not provide 100% of needed power like the APU can and thus most aircraft will load shed to the basic primary and emergency busses. The rat also needs a certain airspeed to generate the power , at too low an airspeed say…v2…it will spin and make noise but not do much else
See answered even without being asked nicely
Power as in electrical power…not thrust.
Ah that makes sense. So the modern APU starts the engines in a similar fashion to how the old two cylinder engine housed in the turbine housing of the ME 262. Except it shares the same fuel as the primary engines whereas those old ME 262s APUs used two stroke gasoline to engage and spin the turbines.
That’s fricken neat. I love stuff like this.
Being an auto nerd, I think my favorite jet engine start system ever developed was used at alternate bases for the SR-71 Blackbirds. It was a start cart with two Buick 455 big blocks connected to a drive shaft that was attached to a port under each engine. Rotational energy from the Big Blocks spun the drive shaft which turned the SR71’s engines for start.
What is the alternate system for the 737? Is it engaged manually?
In a very real way, the Apu replace the poor sod who had to spin the prop on the old camel Sopwith “contact!”
The APU will also be used by 737 in class 2 airspace depending on certain atmospheric conditions.
Airbus doesn need that but no way will you ever see an airbus in class 2 airspace with an MEL Apu
737 has an Apu but no RAT
Of the two which plane do you think is better designed? I’ve only ever flown on a 737 ironically enough. And that was way back in 2005. So I have no idea what the newer stuff is like. Although I do really like the looks of the A320 line. That’s a good looking plane.
Even the newer versions don’t have it? I know it’s an old design but I figured they would have added that to the newer ones for safety reasons.
No for two main reason
That’s a loaded question. We talking from pilot standpoint, airline standpoint, mechanic standpoint, passenger standpoint? Lol
Google “max 10 retracting gear” to see the giant engineering effort they put into changing the wheel base asto change as little of the overall footprint of the 737 to keep the same 737 type raring .
But he did crack and say everything anyway. You never even said please. 
What would have been nice is if you had posted that instead of simply saying “wrong” and then subsequently playing your arrogant “You are stupid and I am right” game.
We know that.
Egotists are like that. They have to be heard. 
This was not the plane. Human error…gear down flaps not extended. No lift…crash…
You forgot “no thrust.”
This is most likely not the case. You can’t take off without flaps extended without getting every warning imaginable. They would have had to retract flaps after takeoff. I think there is enough evidence that that didn’t happen. Including video evidence.
Gear down. When the landing gear is down the back wheels sit lower than the front. When they are retracted, they lean forward before retracting. Video evidence shows the wheels leaning forward or level. Indicating someone tried to retract the gear, but didn’t have enough power to go 100%.
This looks like a complete power and hydrolics failure. Nothing the pilots did.
