Swampy442 Posted November 4, 2010 Author Share Posted November 4, 2010 From what Ive read/watched a pice fell off an aircraft before Concorde took off, that metal punctured the tyre which failed, slamming into the lower wing surface, puncturing it and sendig fuel into the intake. Single engine climb out anyone? Good surge action. There was no real danger on that A380 http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&videoid=11056774 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caseys Posted November 4, 2010 Share Posted November 4, 2010 I flew out of Singapore airport last year on an A380 (with singapore airlines ).... it was astounding how much the wings flexed on takeoff (there were only 45 of us on the plane! Kinda makes me worry now I must say! But at least they're showing they're resilient. A fully loaded A380 *needs* 3 engines to fly - only 2 to land and provide sufficient reverse thrust. Though I've only found this from what I've read, but as SimonB works in the aviation industry (iirc) I'd more likely think he's correct. Indeed I did read too about the pylons for the engines after several failures in the 70's and such I think that was changed? In September 2009, a Singapore Airlines A380 was forced to turn around in mid-flight and head back to Paris after one of its four engines failed; however, the super jumbo is designed to be able to carry on flying with only three engines. Trust me you see one of these beasties pull up to the gate and they make a 747-400 look small. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott Posted November 4, 2010 Share Posted November 4, 2010 From what Ive read/watched a pice fell off an aircraft before Concorde took off, that metal punctured the tyre which failed, slamming into the lower wing surface, puncturing it and sendig fuel into the intake. Single engine climb out anyone? Good surge action. There was no real danger on that A380 http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&videoid=11056774 You miss the last couple of posts? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott Posted November 4, 2010 Share Posted November 4, 2010 I flew out of Singapore airport last year on an A380 (with singapore airlines ).... it was astounding how much the wings flexed on takeoff (there were only 45 of us on the plane! Kinda makes me worry now I must say! But at least they're showing they're resilient. A fully loaded A380 *needs* 3 engines to fly - only 2 to land and provide sufficient reverse thrust. Trust me you see one of these beasties pull up to the gate and they make a 747-400 look small. Designed to do that buddy, don't worry in the slightest. It helps to spread the load and take away the shock impacts from turbulence etc Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swampy442 Posted November 4, 2010 Author Share Posted November 4, 2010 You miss the last couple of posts? I cant keep up, its going ape in here tonight lol Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
juanchan Posted November 4, 2010 Share Posted November 4, 2010 What was the outcome of what happened. The investigation was finished wayyyy before the court case. Not sure what the final outcome of the case was. I'll ask him if there's a chance I can have a peak through, I'll be spending most of tomorrow stuck in a meeting with him. I flew out of Singapore airport last year on an A380 (with singapore airlines ).... it was astounding how much the wings flexed on takeoff (there were only 45 of us on the plane! Kinda makes me worry now I must say! But at least they're showing they're resilient. Designed to do that buddy, don't worry in the slightest. It helps to spread the load and take away the shock impacts from turbulence etc The catastrophic failure tests of wings are pretty impressive, I think it was one of the A340 variants that reached 30-odd feet wing-tip movement before finally giving up. 787 wing test is here actually...http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sA9Kato1CxA. IIRC, a 747 experiences ~6ft of flex during normal flight. So long as they don't start falling off it's all good I'd also be surprised if an A380 was unable to land, albeit only just, on a single engine. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott Posted November 4, 2010 Share Posted November 4, 2010 It would land on one engine. I reckon it would be a hairy stop though. The thrust reverser takes a lot of the speed off the plane, only having one..... I wrote "What" instead of "That" in the post you quoted. I know all about the investigation and the outcome of it, just not the outcome of the trial. Does your buddy have the trial notes? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swampy442 Posted November 4, 2010 Author Share Posted November 4, 2010 Dont forget about assymetric thrust and all that lol Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott Posted November 4, 2010 Share Posted November 4, 2010 They come in at crazy angles on one engine. It's something to see Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
juanchan Posted November 4, 2010 Share Posted November 4, 2010 It would land on one engine. I reckon it would be a hairy stop though. The thrust reverser takes a lot of the speed off the plane, only having one..... I wrote "What" instead of "That" in the post you quoted. I know all about the investigation and the outcome of it, just not the outcome of the trial. Does your buddy have the trial notes? Yeah, landings my worst part of flying so I wouldn't be keen personally! I can definitely ask him. He's a bit of a plane spotter and has an aviation 'museum' spread out around his desk and office, so I wouldn't be surprised! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott Posted November 4, 2010 Share Posted November 4, 2010 Coolio, I always wondered what the outcome was Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swampy442 Posted November 4, 2010 Author Share Posted November 4, 2010 Geek lol Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott Posted November 4, 2010 Share Posted November 4, 2010 I just like to know the ending Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
juanchan Posted November 4, 2010 Share Posted November 4, 2010 Geek lol Tragically working in the industry makes you curiously interested in things you're not even involved with! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swampy442 Posted November 4, 2010 Author Share Posted November 4, 2010 Tell me about it, Im in the millitary division Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jagman Posted November 4, 2010 Share Posted November 4, 2010 The Concord crash was a chain of unlucky events , The debris of a DC- 10 was a patch repair on an engine cowl ,common issue with cracks,but this time the repair plate was titanium sheet rather than aluminium , stock problem , The concord was fuelled to max even the crossfeed lines, the concorde has higher than normal take off speeds due wing shape, this loads the tyres more than other aircraft, tyre separated and punctured the tank(uk ones had protective plates) the debris also damaged the wiring ,the engine has reheat , so fuel ignited from the flame benhind the engine,the flight engineer shut the engine down too early -not enough speed to climb or keep the fire behind the engine , any of these and other events could have had a completely different outcome ! The point of a trial is a bit lost really -who/ what is to blame ? it was an accident !!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j_jza80 Posted November 4, 2010 Share Posted November 4, 2010 The Concord crash was a chain of unlucky events , The debris of a DC- 10 was a patch repair on an engine cowl ,common issue with cracks,but this time the repair plate was titanium sheet rather than aluminium , stock problem , The concord was fuelled to max even the crossfeed lines, the concorde has higher than normal take off speeds due wing shape, this loads the tyres more than other aircraft, tyre separated and punctured the tank(uk ones had protective plates) the debris also damaged the wiring ,the engine has reheat , so fuel ignited from the flame benhind the engine,the flight engineer shut the engine down too early -not enough speed to climb or keep the fire behind the engine , any of these and other events could have had a completely different outcome ! The point of a trial is a bit lost really -who/ what is to blame ? it was an accident !!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spiderpigcity Posted November 4, 2010 Share Posted November 4, 2010 http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/singapore/8109377/Qantas-grounds-A380-fleet-after-mid-air-emergency.html Qantas grounds A380 fleet after mid-air emergency - Telegraph Check out picture 2, Rolls Royce will probably be papping themselves right now. Baggsy go round the world inspecting engines They reckon the pilot was sending a text on his mobile and took his eye off the sky Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SimonB Posted November 4, 2010 Share Posted November 4, 2010 Here's the blade off test of the A380 engine from a discovery channel programme. Basically they set an explosive charge that releases one of the compressor fan blades at full power and check the resulting carnage is contained by the cowling. It's pretty cool Technically you should be able to land one with no engines, although definitely not recommended! It's never been done as far as I know with anything big although the 747 that flew through the volcanic ash (I forget where now) had total engine failure and was looking like it was going to have to. In the end they managed to restart some of the engines after gliding for quite a way. Didn't help that the pilot could only see out of an inch gap in the windscreen - the rest had been scored by the ash so you couldn't see out of it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott Posted November 5, 2010 Share Posted November 5, 2010 The Concord crash was a chain of unlucky events , The debris of a DC- 10 was a patch repair on an engine cowl ,common issue with cracks,but this time the repair plate was titanium sheet rather than aluminium , stock problem , The concord was fuelled to max even the crossfeed lines, the concorde has higher than normal take off speeds due wing shape, this loads the tyres more than other aircraft, tyre separated and punctured the tank(uk ones had protective plates) the debris also damaged the wiring ,the engine has reheat , so fuel ignited from the flame benhind the engine,the flight engineer shut the engine down too early -not enough speed to climb or keep the fire behind the engine , any of these and other events could have had a completely different outcome ! The point of a trial is a bit lost really -who/ what is to blame ? it was an accident !!! Not really sure where you got your information from but it isn't entirely accurate. Although the piece of debris might be written to be part of the cowling, it wasn't. It was part of the thrust reverser door, which is on the outer skin of the cowling. The pilot noticed this when landing at Canada a day or so previously. It was then replaced with a non-standard part, as you say, due to stocking issues. Right there is where the blame has to lie. This is without a doubt the cause of all those peoples lives. It isn't just an accidental mistake, it was incompetence and negligence on whoever decided to use that part and compromise the structure of that Aeroplane. Rolls-Royce was a HUGE part of that investigation as we make the engines that powered it. We are taken through all such disasters/events to bring it home just how serious our responsibility is. Anyway, the tank wasn't punctured by the tyre. I can't remember which tank was hit by the tyre but it caused a massive pressure surge and which ruptured one of the other tanks. The tanks above the tyres were re-inforced. The fuel that came out got sparked on the undercarriage, I can't remember how, and that caused the flame to shoot out and the engines to stall, at the time the engines recovered but the fire warning was on one of them so the pilot had that engine shut down. Just as they thought they were going to get away with it, and land at the nearest airport, one of the engines surged again only this time it didn't recover. The plane then spun and enevitably crashed. The entire investigation was ran on simulators to see if there was any pilot error involved. No matter what choice was made, the outcome was always the same... the plane would always crash. The only unknown question is whether it would have been as severe had they just ditched the plane instead of trying to continue. That part of your point is correct, it makes no difference. Fate had already dealt its hand. As per my next link, it was tank 5 that ruptured. I'm not sure which background you have with regards to engineering etc, but I have to sign a disclaimer form before recieving my stamp that authorises me to work on anything aerospace related. If I do anything outwith the guidelines of the manuals, or technical instructions, I would at the very least be disciplined. If my negligence brought about any event that brought an aircraft down I would be in court being prosecuted, and I most definitely wouldn't be the first. I dare say if one of your relatives had been on that flight you wouldn't be saying it was just an "accident" knowing full well that the wrong, unauthorised part, had been put on that aircraft knowingly... and through haste. It's like patching up brakelines with straws and sending someone off for a 200mph run, wouldn't call that an accident either. You can't pull into the hard shoulder when you have an engine failure on a plane. It's a very serious business where the slightest problem can bring about very serious consequences. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott Posted November 5, 2010 Share Posted November 5, 2010 Googled it to see if I could find the proper story and amazingly.. wikipedia has it accurately documented... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_France_Flight_4590 And a little snip Criminal investigation On 10 March 2005 French authorities began a criminal investigation of Continental Airlines.[22] In September 2005, Henri Perrier, the former head of the Concorde division at Aerospatiale, and Jacques Herubel, the Concorde chief engineer, came under investigation for negligence: a report stated that the company had more than 70 incidents involving Concorde tyres between 1979 and 2000, but had failed to take appropriate steps based upon these incidents.[23] On 12 March 2008, Bernard Farret, a deputy prosecutor in Pontoise, outside Paris, asked judges to bring manslaughter charges against Continental Airlines and four individuals:[24] John Taylor, a Continental mechanic Stanley Ford, a Continental maintenance manager Henri Perrier of Aerospatiale Claude Frantzen, a former employee of the French airline regulator. Charges against Jacques Herubel were reported to have been dropped,[24][25] but on 3 July 2008, confirmation of the trial, including Herubel, was published.[26] The trial started on 2 February 2010, and will most likely continue until May, with a verdict expected in late 2010. If convicted, Continental Airlines stands to pay $500,000 and two of its employees will face up to five years in prison. Also facing fines or a custodial sentence will be the designers of the plane, who prosecutors say knew that the plane's fuel tanks could be susceptible to damage from foreign objects, as well as a French official responsible for the regulation of the plane's safety.[27] Continental denies the charges,[28] and will claim in court that the aircraft was already on fire when it passed over the titanium strip.[29] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swampy442 Posted November 5, 2010 Author Share Posted November 5, 2010 IIRC the piece of metal was L shaped. But as Scott says its a serious business Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
merckx Posted November 5, 2010 Share Posted November 5, 2010 The Concord crash was a chain of unlucky events It was. They also took off with a tail wind and had more luggage on board than they intially allowed for in their take off calculations. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott Posted November 5, 2010 Share Posted November 5, 2010 Can you explain how luck has anything to do with the weight of a cargo? It's weighed, going overloaded is a risk... not luck. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnny g Posted November 5, 2010 Share Posted November 5, 2010 It was. They also took off with a tail wind and had more luggage on board than they intially allowed for in their take off calculations. I believe it was a miscalculation with the fuel, and they had a tonne more fuel than usual at take off. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.