Ethiopian plane crash
Discussion
George Smiley said:
At the time we were years ahead in jet and passenger craft technology.
Boeing capitalised on the comets failure (squared off windows) and effectively killed our lead.
Everyone knows corners lead to stress points, the 737 is so far beyond its use by date they are introducing issues and fudges rather than killing it dead.
But how it supposed to have killed off BOAC? And why would it want to, given airlines are its customers?Boeing capitalised on the comets failure (squared off windows) and effectively killed our lead.
Everyone knows corners lead to stress points, the 737 is so far beyond its use by date they are introducing issues and fudges rather than killing it dead.
George Smiley said:
At the time we were years ahead in jet and passenger craft technology.
Boeing capitalised on the comets failure (squared off windows) and effectively killed our lead.
Everyone knows corners lead to stress points, the 737 is so far beyond its use by date they are introducing issues and fudges rather than killing it dead.
What’s that got to do with the end of BOAC? Boeing capitalised on the comets failure (squared off windows) and effectively killed our lead.
Everyone knows corners lead to stress points, the 737 is so far beyond its use by date they are introducing issues and fudges rather than killing it dead.
The 737ng problem was caused by the engine blades leaving the engine pod not the shape of the windows.
Europa1 said:
George Smiley said:
At the time we were years ahead in jet and passenger craft technology.
Boeing capitalised on the comets failure (squared off windows) and effectively killed our lead.
Everyone knows corners lead to stress points, the 737 is so far beyond its use by date they are introducing issues and fudges rather than killing it dead.
But how it supposed to have killed off BOAC? And why would it want to, given airlines are its customers?Boeing capitalised on the comets failure (squared off windows) and effectively killed our lead.
Everyone knows corners lead to stress points, the 737 is so far beyond its use by date they are introducing issues and fudges rather than killing it dead.
George Smiley said:
Europa1 said:
George Smiley said:
At the time we were years ahead in jet and passenger craft technology.
Boeing capitalised on the comets failure (squared off windows) and effectively killed our lead.
Everyone knows corners lead to stress points, the 737 is so far beyond its use by date they are introducing issues and fudges rather than killing it dead.
But how it supposed to have killed off BOAC? And why would it want to, given airlines are its customers?Boeing capitalised on the comets failure (squared off windows) and effectively killed our lead.
Everyone knows corners lead to stress points, the 737 is so far beyond its use by date they are introducing issues and fudges rather than killing it dead.
El stovey said:
What’s that got to do with the end of BOAC?
The 737ng problem was caused by the engine blades leaving the engine pod not the shape of the windows.
It sounds more like the issue is that while contained by the engine, it hit and dislodged a cowling, which then "left the engine pod". So while blades shouldn't fail, if we're accepting they are a risk, the cowling needs to be designed to cope with the scenario, as well as the engine.The 737ng problem was caused by the engine blades leaving the engine pod not the shape of the windows.
This being the reason Boeing is redesigning a part, not the engine manufacturer.
Munter said:
El stovey said:
What’s that got to do with the end of BOAC?
The 737ng problem was caused by the engine blades leaving the engine pod not the shape of the windows.
It sounds more like the issue is that while contained by the engine, it hit and dislodged a cowling, which then "left the engine pod". So while blades shouldn't fail, if we're accepting they are a risk, the cowling needs to be designed to cope with the scenario, as well as the engine.The 737ng problem was caused by the engine blades leaving the engine pod not the shape of the windows.
This being the reason Boeing is redesigning a part, not the engine manufacturer.
eccles said:
The fan blade shouldn't get to the cowling, it's the compressor case which is meant to contain and blades and any debris that arises from a fan blade failure. The cowling is the outside part you can see and generally isn't part of the system to keep wayward fan blades from hitting the rest of the aircraft.
That is consistent with what I said, which is based on the article posted.The fan blade was contained by the engine. The cowling around the engine was damaged, and came off. The failure therefore is with the cowling, not the engine. The blade was contained as expected by the engine.
This is assuming we anticipate blades will unexpectedly fail on rare occasions. Which seems to be the case. Hence the engine being designed to contain the blade (which it did).
Munter said:
eccles said:
The fan blade shouldn't get to the cowling, it's the compressor case which is meant to contain and blades and any debris that arises from a fan blade failure. The cowling is the outside part you can see and generally isn't part of the system to keep wayward fan blades from hitting the rest of the aircraft.
That is consistent with what I said, which is based on the article posted.The fan blade was contained by the engine. The cowling around the engine was damaged, and came off. The failure therefore is with the cowling, not the engine. The blade was contained as expected by the engine.
This is assuming we anticipate blades will unexpectedly fail on rare occasions. Which seems to be the case. Hence the engine being designed to contain the blade (which it did).
eccles said:
Munter said:
eccles said:
The fan blade shouldn't get to the cowling, it's the compressor case which is meant to contain and blades and any debris that arises from a fan blade failure. The cowling is the outside part you can see and generally isn't part of the system to keep wayward fan blades from hitting the rest of the aircraft.
That is consistent with what I said, which is based on the article posted.The fan blade was contained by the engine. The cowling around the engine was damaged, and came off. The failure therefore is with the cowling, not the engine. The blade was contained as expected by the engine.
This is assuming we anticipate blades will unexpectedly fail on rare occasions. Which seems to be the case. Hence the engine being designed to contain the blade (which it did).
MartG said:
Read the NTSB article linked above - the blade didn't get as far as the cowling, but the impact of it inside the engine transferred enough energy via the engine casing and engine mountings to damage the cowling
So the engine casing didn't contain the damage as it was supposed to.NoddyonNitrous said:
MartG said:
Read the NTSB article linked above - the blade didn't get as far as the cowling, but the impact of it inside the engine transferred enough energy via the engine casing and engine mountings to damage the cowling
So the engine casing didn't contain the damage as it was supposed to.MartG said:
NoddyonNitrous said:
MartG said:
Read the NTSB article linked above - the blade didn't get as far as the cowling, but the impact of it inside the engine transferred enough energy via the engine casing and engine mountings to damage the cowling
So the engine casing didn't contain the damage as it was supposed to.El stovey said:
MartG said:
NoddyonNitrous said:
MartG said:
Read the NTSB article linked above - the blade didn't get as far as the cowling, but the impact of it inside the engine transferred enough energy via the engine casing and engine mountings to damage the cowling
So the engine casing didn't contain the damage as it was supposed to.George Smiley said:
El stovey said:
MartG said:
NoddyonNitrous said:
MartG said:
Read the NTSB article linked above - the blade didn't get as far as the cowling, but the impact of it inside the engine transferred enough energy via the engine casing and engine mountings to damage the cowling
So the engine casing didn't contain the damage as it was supposed to.The reports says.
“The separated fan blade impacted the engine fan case and fractured into multiple fragments.
fan blade’s impact with the fan case caused the fan case to deform locally over a short period of
Some of the fan blade fragments traveled forward of the engine and into the inlet.
. . .
This deformation traveled both around and forward/aft of the fan case. After reaching the airplane structure (the inlet attach ring, which was secured to the engine fan case A1 flange), the deformation generated large loads that resulted in local damage to the inlet. The forward-traveling fan blade fragments and the deformation compromised the structural integrity of the inlet, causing portions of the inlet to depart the airplane.”
We’re discussing whether the engine contained all the parts of the fan blade which it didn’t. Some of them hit the inlet and nacelle. The damage wasn’t just caused by vibration and energy being transferred as stated, it was caused by “forward travelling fan blade fragments”
El stovey said:
That’s not the point being made.
The reports says.
“The separated fan blade impacted the engine fan case and fractured into multiple fragments.
fan blade’s impact with the fan case caused the fan case to deform locally over a short period of
Some of the fan blade fragments traveled forward of the engine and into the inlet.
. . .
This deformation traveled both around and forward/aft of the fan case. After reaching the airplane structure (the inlet attach ring, which was secured to the engine fan case A1 flange), the deformation generated large loads that resulted in local damage to the inlet. The forward-traveling fan blade fragments and the deformation compromised the structural integrity of the inlet, causing portions of the inlet to depart the airplane.”
We’re discussing whether the engine contained all the parts of the fan blade which it didn’t. Some of them hit the inlet and nacelle. The damage wasn’t just caused by vibration and energy being transferred as stated, it was caused by “forward travelling fan blade fragments”
By "contain" I don't believe it means "retain". In terms of the design I'd suggest it's ok for broken parts to go forwards and backwards. But it should contain parts such that they don't go sideways into the body of the plane with their rotational energy. Which is what the engine did, and presumably why the NTSC are looking at boeing to fix their cowling, not the engine manufacturer to solve the issue.The reports says.
“The separated fan blade impacted the engine fan case and fractured into multiple fragments.
fan blade’s impact with the fan case caused the fan case to deform locally over a short period of
Some of the fan blade fragments traveled forward of the engine and into the inlet.
. . .
This deformation traveled both around and forward/aft of the fan case. After reaching the airplane structure (the inlet attach ring, which was secured to the engine fan case A1 flange), the deformation generated large loads that resulted in local damage to the inlet. The forward-traveling fan blade fragments and the deformation compromised the structural integrity of the inlet, causing portions of the inlet to depart the airplane.”
We’re discussing whether the engine contained all the parts of the fan blade which it didn’t. Some of them hit the inlet and nacelle. The damage wasn’t just caused by vibration and energy being transferred as stated, it was caused by “forward travelling fan blade fragments”
Munter said:
By "contain" I don't believe it means "retain". In terms of the design I'd suggest it's ok for broken parts to go forwards and backwards. But it should contain parts such that they don't go sideways into the body of the plane with their rotational energy. Which is what the engine did, and presumably why the NTSC are looking at boeing to fix their cowling, not the engine manufacturer to solve the issue.
Yup I see your point and agree. eldar said:
George Smiley said:
Just ground the 737
Just banning jet engines altogether would be safer....
Every recent 737 family fatality is as a result of trying to keep a plane designed 70 years ago flying!
Short landing gear? Design casing with weaknesses to house new engines
Need latest engines? Build mcas to overcome issue of engines being too big for the landing gear.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff