• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

777 crash at san Francisco airport

Page 19 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Number1 said:
Well I guess something got lost in the translation and people were not able to grasp what I was talking about. Ill explain it again, Ill write slowlier.

ONE of the reasons today's airliners have the engines located below and slightly ahead of the wing is that it is safer in case of an uncontained engine failure. Having the engines away from the fuselage reduces the risk of flying parts impacting critical parts of the fuselage. As others have mentioned, safety it is not the only reason. Wing bending is reduced, maintenance tasks are easier and I am sure there are many other reasons.

As for the one individual who needs an explanation as to why they don't build the engines into the wings like they did on the Comet anymore, consider that a disintegrating engine embedded in a wing could easily destroy it. For this reason and others factors mentioned in the above paragraph, they no longer build jet airplanes like this.

Some exemples of uncontained engine failures

Quantas A380 flight 32, no casualty

Delta Air Lines Flight 1288, 2 fatalities

United Airlines Flight 232, 111 fatalities

Cameroon Airlines Flight 786, 2 fatalities

[URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LOT_Flight_7"]LOT Flight 7, all, 87 fatalities

[URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LOT_Flight_5055"]LOT Flight 5055, all 183 fatalities

[/URL]
[/URL]
National Airlines Flight 27, 2 fatalities


If you take the time to read those accident reports, you will see that the most catastrophic events occurred on planes that had the engines located close to the fuselage, the DC-10 and Ilyushin Il-62.

Uncontained engine failures are a rare occurrence these days and modern jet airliner are engineered to minimize the risk.
Click to expand...

From the Wiki about the cause of the engine failure on flight LT5055, "The bearings concerned were roller bearings; each was designed to have 26 rollers inside, but because the supply of the rollers to the factory was delayed — while the bearings had to be finished on time due to expiring contracts — each bearing had only 13 rollers"...😳

W T F..they actually installed only HALF of the bearings in the race and sent it into service like that!. ATC asked them to climb to 15K ft. "quickly" so they used 100% power to comply, after 6 minutes of that the bearing failed and the engine flew apart so violently that some parts went through the fuselage and were ingested by the remaining engine, causing it to fail and setting the entire rear of the plane ablaze. Hey, it's only going on a jet engine, who needs all those dang bearings anyway, 13 is plenty.. :awe:
 
coxmaster said:
Yeah.. Its just too bad it was the absolute wrong decision.. If it wasn't for the media attention Sully would have probably gotten reprimanded more than he did.

Choosing the Hudson over a functional airport that was well within coasting distance was a quick decision he made that turned out to be incorrect. He just got lucky that the landing worked out
Click to expand...

From the NTSB investigation following the accident,

"The NTSB ran a series of tests using Airbus simulators in France, to see if Flight 1549 could have returned safely to their choice of LGA, either runway 13 or 22, or TEB runway 19. The test pilots were fully briefed on the series of events and maneuvers. The test pilots were only able to return successfully to either airport in eight of 15 attempts. The NTSB report noted that these test conditions were unrealistic: "The immediate turn made by the pilots during the simulations did not reflect or account for real-world considerations..." A single follow-up simulation was conducted where the pilot was delayed by 35 seconds: He crashed trying to return to LGA runway 22."
Also keep in mind he knew that these were large birds and did not know if his flaps/slats/leading edge surfaces were hit by any of the birds, this had to play into his decision as well, imagine if he tried for LGA only to find out the flaps would not deploy or only one side would deploy, now he has to try and land full of passengers almost full of fuel at 200knots, if the tires somehow hold out he probably overruns the runway by a long margin with a crappy outcome.
 
iamwiz82 said:
See Aloha Flight 243 - A frame that was stressed a large number of times because of the necessity of short flights in Hawaii.
Click to expand...

Another great example of a high cycle aircraft. Also, I believe the high salinity of the operating environment contributed to the Aloha incident.

I met a pilot once who was flying for Aloha at the time and landed directly after the incapacitated Aloha 243. It took some incredible airmanship to land 243, and it is amazing there was such little loss of life. I do know one flight attendant who was not buckled in was sucked out of the aircraft. I am not aware of any other fatalities.

I believe Bombardier Q400's are used in Hawaii now for high cycle operations, which is an aircraft designed for high cycle ops.
 
If anyone is interested, I used to do a lot of photography for Boeing, Aviation magazines, and other organizations. I posted just a few below of the hundreds I have up on airliners.net. Since this thread has a lot of aviation interested people in it, feel free to check mine out by clicking this link:

http://www.airliners.net/search/pho...e18049d33875&sort_order=views+desc&thumbnails=

777-200LR: The longest range airliner in the world, note the size of those GE90's!
0791888.jpg


777-300ER, using the most powerful turbofan, the GE90-115B. Such a graceful bird:
0456337.jpg


Boeing 737 WedgeTail for the Australian AirForce. Not your typical 737!
0717109.jpg
 
Last edited:
Nice pics, the 1st one (full screen) you can see the distorted view from the heat output of the right engine and that's probably at 5% power!.
 
TangoJuliet said:
Since we are talking about some prior accidents - UAL232. Mr. "Denny" Finch came to my job a couple years back and spoke. It was really interesting, scary, insightful, and sad to say the least. I found this on youtube which is very similar to the speech

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2M9TQs-fQR0
Click to expand...

Awesome, I had to watch all 5 parts, excellent documentary, how horrifying it must have been when the engineers at MD came back to them with, "there are no procedures for flying a DC-10 without any hydraulics"..If only they could have stopped that right wing from dipping at the last second but what they accomplished is arguably the greatest feat of flying in the history of commercial aviation IMO..
 
Number1 said:
Video reconstruction of the crash.

YouTube
Click to expand...

Very accurate animation, 100X better than the one CNN threw up a few days back. Still a head-scratcher as to why the SO didn't realize how far out of the envelope they were and not take a corrective action right then instead of waiting until it's too late.
 
from that animation, if they had continued on without lifting up the front of the plane and lowering the tail, would they have landed ok? or would they have landed in the water?
 
davmat787 said:
If anyone is interested, I used to do a lot of photography for Boeing, Aviation magazines, and other organizations. I posted just a few below of the hundreds I have up on airliners.net. Since this thread has a lot of aviation interested people in it, feel free to check mine out by clicking this link:
Click to expand...
really nice photos!!!! thanks for sharing
 
maddogchen said:
from that animation, if they had continued on without lifting up the front of the plane and lowering the tail, would they have landed ok? or would they have landed in the water?
Click to expand...

I think they would have been too low and hit head on. Pulling up was probably the only reason they survived.
 
davmat787 said:
If anyone is interested, I used to do a lot of photography for Boeing, Aviation magazines, and other organizations. I posted just a few below of the hundreds I have up on airliners.net. Since this thread has a lot of aviation interested people in it, feel free to check mine out by clicking this link:

http://www.airliners.net/search/pho...City Aviation Photography&distinct_entry=true

777-200LR: The longest range airliner in the world, note the size of those GE90's!
0791888.jpg


777-300ER, using the most powerful turbofan, the GE90-115B. Such a graceful bird:
0456337.jpg


Boeing 737 WedgeTail for the Australian AirForce. Not your typical 737!
0717109.jpg
Click to expand...
Why did I get goosebumps looking at all these pictures 😵
 
davmat787 said:
If anyone is interested, I used to do a lot of photography for Boeing, Aviation magazines, and other organizations. I posted just a few below of the hundreds I have up on airliners.net. Since this thread has a lot of aviation interested people in it, feel free to check mine out by clicking this link:
Click to expand...

whoa dc-8!
 
davmat787 said:
If anyone is interested, I used to do a lot of photography for Boeing, Aviation magazines, and other organizations. I posted just a few below of the hundreds I have up on airliners.net. Since this thread has a lot of aviation interested people in it, feel free to check mine out by clicking this link:

http://www.airliners.net/search/photo.search?photographersearch=Jet%20City%20Aviation%20Photography&distinct_entry=true

777-200LR: The longest range airliner in the world, note the size of those GE90's!
0791888.jpg


777-300ER, using the most powerful turbofan, the GE90-115B. Such a graceful bird:
0456337.jpg


Boeing 737 WedgeTail for the Australian AirForce. Not your typical 737!
0717109.jpg
Click to expand...

Holy crap, I have linked to your photos before. Specifically this one:


0326662.jpg
 
So it turns out a rescue vehicle ran over one of the girls? That sucks.

They found her in the tire tracks?
 
iamwiz82 said:
They were testing the engine using a 747. That engine is a GE90-115 for the 777.
Click to expand...

those 747 engines look pitifully small in comparison.


i had no idea the 777 engines were that fucking huge - no wonder it's so fucking loud.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top