• There seems to be an uptick in Political comments in recent months. Those of us who are long time members of the site know that Political and Religious content has been banned for years. Nothing has changed. Please leave all political and religious comments out of the forums.

    If you recently joined the forums you were not presented with this restriction in the terms of service. This was due to a conversion error when we went from vBulletin to Xenforo. We have updated our terms of service to reflect these corrections.

    Please note any post refering to a politician will be considered political even if it is intended to be humor. Our experience is these topics have a way of dividing the forums and causing deep resentment among members. It is a poison to the community. We appreciate compliance with the rules.

    The Staff of SOH

  • Server side Maintenance is done. We still have an update to the forum software to run but that one will have to wait for a better time.

..............A 380 AIRBUS...........

B

beana51

Members +
<TABLE height="100%" cellSpacing=2 cellPadding=2 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD vAlign=center align=left width="55%"></TD><TD vAlign=bottom align=right width="40%" height=20>[SIZE=-1]javascript:doConfirm('Are you sure ...n=deletepost&thread=10847&post=66964&page=1')[/SIZE]</TD></TR><TR><TD vAlign=top colSpan=3><HR class=hr width="100%" SIZE=1><!-- google_ad_section_start -->Qantas grounded its Airbus A380 fleet after one of the superjumbo jets blew out an engine Thursday, shooting flames and raining large metal chunks before making a safe emergency landing in Singapore with 459 people aboard.


The implications of this caused the whole fleet to be grounded.
It seems to me,and often,a new type of plane does encounter new problems.....I for one would not want to be a "TEST PASSENGER"...and would not board one of these remarkable planes......not for a while of proven safety performance to which is yet to happen ...459 Souls On Board!

Its noted the Captain and crew did their job well...WHEW!! Close call!!......My O PEON only!!
wink.gif
..............Vin


If you note the hard hats here ,it dramatizes the size of this engine!

393132011.jpg
<!-- google_ad_section_end --></TD></TR><TR><TD class=windowbg vAlign=bottom align=left bgColor=#ffffff colSpan=3><TABLE width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD align=left></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
 
Engine mishaps have happened on any type of aircraft.. :mixedsmi:

If handled well by the crew, any modern jetliner with an engine failure can climb, cruise and land safely.
 
I just flew in this plane past sunday from Melbourne to L.A.... Yikes! VH-OQA "Nancy-Bird Walton"
And to think I chose these flights just to ride in an A380, I guess better wait as some of these "incidents" are sorted out.

Jose.
 
Something wacky happened in the high-pressure compressor, probably.

Big image.

<object width="853" height="505"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube-nocookie.com/v/yK5SzV4OBF0?fs=1&hl=en_US&rel=0&hd=1&color1=0x3a3a3a&color2=0x999999"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube-nocookie.com/v/yK5SzV4OBF0?fs=1&hl=en_US&rel=0&hd=1&color1=0x3a3a3a&color2=0x999999" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="853" height="505"></embed></object>
 
Great comments...I think if the engine in any way interferes with the hudrolics...it will not be so lucky...as with any aircraft...loss of hydraulics ,often is loss of control....like" MURPHY'S LAW "dictats...Never the less this plane has revolutionized MASS AIR TRAVEL....as exciting as the debut of the "CONCORDE".....wish all "HAPPY LANDINGS!!"
 
beana51 said:
I think if the engine in any way interferes with the hudrolics...it will not be so lucky...as with any aircraft...loss of hydraulics ,often is loss of control...
Click to expand...

Strongly disagree. Triple redundancy on newer planes, and Manual Reversion rods on older planes...possibly creating a situation of diminished control, but not neccesarily diminished by default. Of course, there's the one time alignment of stars where all the links in the chain create a United Airlines DC-10 incident at Sioux City, Iowa and loss of control occurs.
 
I once shucked an engine on takeoff. The wind blew pieces of the hot metal onto the grass and set it on fire. Firemen were busy that day.

Considering the heat and forces inside those engines, it is triumph of engineering and manufacturing they don't fail more often.
 
jmig said:
I once shucked an engine on takeoff. The wind blew pieces of the hot metal onto the grass and set it on fire. Firemen were busy that day.

Considering the heat and forces inside those engines, it is triumph of engineering and manufacturing they don't fail more often.
Click to expand...

I blew one on take-off due to a compressor stall, and showered the runway with fan blades from the N1 section. The fire shot forward out of the inlet, and the sonic boom from the compressor blow-back cracked a window in the control tower. And you're absolutely right about the seat cushion.
 
Strange to see the A380 in the vid turning over the dead engine's side!
I thought this procedure isn't recommended... Or is it just twins?

@ Bone:
Nive avatar btw!
Giggedy-giggedy-goo!

[YOUTUBE]NrFrQueHh2U[/YOUTUBE]

Cheers,
Markus.
 
It's obviously a very serious failure...but testament to the aircraft's design that it was able to land safely.
The podded engine clearly has safety benefits that outweigh any performance penalty - if this were a Comet-style in-wing engine the effect may have been catastrophic.
Come to think of it, a VC10 (although I still love the look) shedding a blade would've been pretty severe too.
 
Like I said in the other thread about this. Anything mechanical can fail. I'm just glad no one was hurt.
 
beana51, as Bone stated, modern jets run multiple independent hydraulic systems off of different engines. This redundancy means that the pilot(s) rarely will lose all of the important systems, like aircraft controls, because of hydraulic system loss.

If an aircraft loses on engine, the other hydraulic system will handle the major systems. I don't know how it is in today's aircraft but in the F-4 for instance, there would be some lost of minor systems, depending on which engine was loss. Pilots had to know which components would be lost for each engine.

Many fighters also had a Ram Air Turbine (RAT) that provided some hydraulics for emergencies.

I imagine today's modern airliners have redundancy out the ying yang.
 
Once again you can disagree all you want...It happens..lose of hydraulics renders those systems in opperative..you know it happened already,were it not for a Passenger,along with that pilot ,all would have gotten killed!!....That was only a LITTLE jet compared to this Behmoth...You remind me of those who with logic,reason,experience ,for sight,SWORE THE TITANIC was unsinkable.Or Space Travel is Safe!.a Tiny peice of foam!!.....STUFF HAPPENS!..Like the CONCORDE!!.peice of iron,.no back up there!.best to recognize that...Most of all your not factoring in the human factor....We are not all a Bob Hoover....In theses cases can be unknown,outside factors,faulty foundries that forged the blades.Millions of parts!.I trust RR engines....but nothing is 100% ... .For The Want Of A Nail...Can you picture any one trying to horse the elevators on a A 380?? or trying to get the Gear down?? Of Course their is reduncity...But what If???......I appreciate your total trust in Aviation,I too do,Flying a long time now,latly I fly I RV-4 with a friend.. I see and hear better than him,but he is a somtimes, a better pilot,...And if you think my brain is not renactiong ever thing ever done in that simple thing..Think again!!......neverthe less MURPHY'S LAW RULES!!...I know!..Happy landings to Ya!


I'm the old guy On The Right. about a year or so ago! about 160 yrs between us!! Join us Bone,probley have a ball ! wait to ya get a load of my Friend...!100yrs in the FAA,and be built that RV-4~~
icon22.gif
View attachment 22930
 
Yeah, if your number's up, no amount of redundancy will help.
Like, losing an entire wing...or a 3-holer blowing up its rear fan, and chopping up the last link as the triple redundancy came together (think DC-10)
But there's no doubt the aircraft are safer today... much better understanding of failure modes.

The modern jet engine is a miracle of reliability, and is how ETOPS came to be.
And so a big motor like that should not blow up. Ever.
Qantas clearly thinks so too, grounding the fleet is a step not taken lightly... it costs, big time.
 
beana51 said:
...


I'm the old guy On The Right. about a year or so ago! about 160 yrs between us!! Join us Bone,probley have a ball ! wait to ya get a load of my Friend...!100yrs in the FAA,and be built that RV-4~~
icon22.gif
View attachment 22930
Click to expand...

Nice picture! I love the RV-4. However, I thought it was a single seat and the RV-6 a two seater. Do you guys take turns taking her up?
 
Wing_Z said:
...or a 3-holer blowing up its rear fan, and chopping up the last link as the triple redundancy came together (think DC-10)

And so a big motor like that should not blow up. Ever.
Qantas clearly thinks so too, grounding the fleet is a step not taken lightly... it costs, big time.
Click to expand...


Yeah, it was determined to be a design flaw on the DC-10, and it was addressed in an Aviation Airworthiness Directive with a corresponding fix. Explosions send pieces in random directions, with changing vector paths as they accelerate away from the source, and in this instance was a "lucky" unlucky shot. True, anything can happen. If the odds are a one-in-a-gazillion chance of happening, then it can still happen....although not likely. All you can do is stay home if you really want to eradicate the odds completely.


From the video, you can see a hole in the top of the wing near the leading edge, just above the pylon. For those of you that call a Stabilator an Elevator, the pylon is what attaches the engine to the wing. The pylon is jam packed with stuff, bleed air lines among them. I have seen a situation like this before, and it was a bleed air over pressure that blew a hole in the pylon near the wing...but the hole could have easily blown up through the wing, it's all random.

I'm not saying I know didly about the specifics with this A-380 incident, but an over pressure occured somewhere, that is clear.
 
If you look at the holes in the wing it's not impossible that the glowing hot parts of the engines hot section sliced through the wing. Image what would have happened if that would have been where the fuel tanks are......
So much about the fact that uncontained engine failures shouldn't happen.
Concering the turn into the dead engine...that's not even a factor on two engined planes.
As long as you aren't really slow the plane doesn't care at all...
 
bstolle said:
......
So much about the fact that uncontained engine failures shouldn't happen.


Concering the turn into the dead engine...that's not even a factor on two engined planes.
As long as you aren't really slow the plane doesn't care at all...
Click to expand...

Since other planes of older design have a Kevlar wrap around the compressor and hot sections, I would think the A380 has the kevlar protection, too. But, you can't completely safe proof everything and in every direction, so you have a good point.

Once the EP's been ran on an engine failure, you still have to get to the airport...which could be multiple right and left turns, so you're right it doesn't matter.
 
Looking at some more pictures
http://pictures.reuters.com/c/C.aspx?VP3=FlashSlideShow_VPage&R=2C0BF1T20AUW&T=A&H=1
and comments, looks a little more serious than first thought.
Nosewheel doors are hanging = hydraulic failure somewhere in the system
Pilot "unable to shut down #1 engine" on landing = control runs damaged - I think they "put out" a runaway turbine, with a dose of retardant from the fire truck!

Grounding the fleet is such an extreme action, Qantas clearly believes there is a major issue with the power plant, if not the aircraft.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top