Jump to content
DOSBODS
  • Welcome to DOSBODS

     

    DOSBODS is free of any advertising.

    Ads are annoying, and - increasingly - advertising companies limit free speech online. DOSBODS Forums are completely free to use. Please create a free account to be able to access all the features of the DOSBODS community. It only takes 20 seconds!

     

Burning Jet Engine


Recommended Posts

I've often thought the mounts on them things must be sturdy. Cos if that goes off kilter (as that one has!) you don't want it breaking free and smashing into the fuselage. Must be massive forces in play once it's no longer spinning on-axis.

 

3 minutes ago, Chewing Grass said:

Fark-me, I'd want explosive bolts fitted to the engine nacelle to dump the b'stard.

That makes sense. Just jettison the thing. Never thought of that.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Bandit Banzai said:

I've often thought the mounts on them things must be sturdy. Cos if that goes off kilter (as that one has!) you don't want it breaking free and smashing into the fuselage. Must be massive forces in play once it's no longer spinning on-axis.

 

That makes sense. Just jettison the thing. Never thought of that.

There's some nerdy little materials scientist/metallurgist gimp somewhere who deserves a gong for that.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, MrPin said:

Donnie Darko.

But seriously - the bolts that held that thing on while it was exerting biblical G, was someone's job.  Maybe just a small part, even a tick-box, maybe months or years of study, but at some point, someone said "We need bolts that are this strong, mounted thusly.  Make it so.".  Guy(s), (and it will be) deserves a medal.

Edited by Whowhywhen?
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Whowhywhen? said:

But seriously - the bolts that held that thing on while it was exerting biblical G, was someone's job.  Maybe just a small part, even a tick-box, maybe months or years of study, but at some point, someone said "We need bolts that are this strong, mounted thusly.  Make it so.".  Guy(s), (and it will be) deserves a medal.

the real engineering is in containing the fan blades and stop them from flying out sideways, guess one broke and shredded the engine

Link to post
Share on other sites

Nacelle/pylon... whatever.

Judging from the vibration in that engine, it had already lost some blades/fans.

At that point, it ceases to be the responsibility of the engine manufacturers - they have already failed*.  

Someone, somewhere, was tasked with keeping that wobbling, chunk of asymmetrical balance from falling off the plane in those circumstances.   Probably something they were assured would never happen.   Someone, at some point, said "the only way that engine is coming off that plane is when it hits the ground". 

Top marks to Boeing from me.

*I'll wager it wasn't a RR engine - It'll be a GE!!!!  

Edited by Whowhywhen?
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Bandit Banzai said:

I've often thought the mounts on them things must be sturdy. Cos if that goes off kilter (as that one has!) you don't want it breaking free and smashing into the fuselage. Must be massive forces in play once it's no longer spinning on-axis.

 

That makes sense. Just jettison the thing. Never thought of that.

And the fuel lines? Fuel to the engine can be cut off, but doing that can help surpress an engine fire anyway, making jettisoning the engine unnecessary.

Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, Happy Renting said:

The deficient bolts that held the engines on DC-10s caused one engine to fall off. 

People would be surprised how few bolts are used to hold such things in place.

Boeing 707s did the same, replacing an engine was supposed to involve a heavy frame to hold it in place while the bolts were torqued up. It was a lot quicker to just lift the engine with a forklift and use the bolts to pull it into place. This could damage the bolts so every so often an engine would fall off. Weak link sealing couplings prevent the fuel leaking out when the engine parts company with the airframe.

They also had dummy mountings on the wings where engines could be carried to other locations for repairs etc.

747s had the same facility.

Edited by Option5
Added 747 info
Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Option5 said:

Boeing 707s did the same, replacing an engine was supposed to involve a heavy frame to hold it in place while the bolts were torqued up. It was a lot quicker to just lift the engine with a forklift and use the bolts to pull it into place. This could damage the bolts so every so often an engine would fall off. Weak link sealing couplings prevent the fuel leaking out when the engine parts company with the airframe.

They also had dummy mountings on the wings where engines could be carried to other locations for repairs etc.

747s had the same facility.

OK as long as they didn't use dummy engines.

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, ashestoashes said:

think that's the pylon, the nacelle said I'm out of here

the plane that ditched in the Hudson lost an engine when it hit the water so they do come off with enough force

I think they are designed to shear off when landing on water.

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Happy Renting said:

The deficient bolts that held the engines on DC-10s caused one engine to fall off. 

People would be surprised how few bolts are used to hold such things in place.

Engine dropped off on take off rotation. Everyone was dead 20s later. Impossible to recover. Barrel rolled into maintenance hangar. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, Chewing Grass said:

Fark-me, I'd want explosive bolts fitted to the engine nacelle to dump the b'stard.

The trouble with explosive bolts (well, explosive anything) on a plane is that it makes maintenance about 1,000x more difficult (well, 1,000x more rules to ensure safety)

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Whowhywhen? said:

Nacelle/pylon... whatever.

Judging from the vibration in that engine, it had already lost some blades/fans.

At that point, it ceases to be the responsibility of the engine manufacturers - they have already failed*.  

Someone, somewhere, was tasked with keeping that wobbling, chunk of asymmetrical balance from falling off the plane in those circumstances.   Probably something they were assured would never happen.   Someone, at some point, said "the only way that engine is coming off that plane is when it hits the ground". 

Top marks to Boeing from me.

*I'll wager it wasn't a RR engine - It'll be a GE!!!!  

PW engine

it's not wobbling that much, the fan has lost a blade, but it is free wheeling in the airflow and that's enough to produce the wobble, the burning could be lubricant or fuel

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...