RE: Rolls Royce fixes Airbus problem!

Hi Rich,I remember also,at 78 Yrs now, rather well....Yer correct ,was not an engine problem with the COMET,but rather ,some design flaw.....When ever a new concept of design,manufacturing,is brought fort,often its plagued with problems not planned for or conceived....My comment was using the COMET as an example,which then, was new,highly touted ,and sold to the flying public, but had hidden problems ,frankly that no one could imagine,.So to with the any new design , and to include the A-380. This do not exclude any other new plane....I still fly,and before I get in to my Plane,I'm all over it, It has paid off for me a few times......we cannot do that with a Commercial flight..Its Beyond our control...However ,I know that if something can go wrong ,it probably will,Especially on new design,and so too old design,for different reasons however.....Stay well my friend,Enjoy the upcoming holidays!...Vin


"FOR THE WANT OF A NAIL......Well ya know the rest"
 
beana51 said:
....Why does the COMET come to mind???
Click to expand...

Gotta be honest, what came into my mind was the DC-10! The A380 got certificated, and went into service with a number of major airlines who have experienced no significant problems to date (some inevitable teething issues, granted). And along comes a single airline who manage to blow up a number of engines - let us just hope that the Qantas guys weren't trained by the Continental engineers!!
 
Yes and..the DC-10..who can forget.... Whats the popular expression?..well it HAPPENS!..we as consumers need to be protected,Al tho considering the Volume of fights today its amazing the Safty record are not worse.....I guess its the drama,promise,excitement,and the *** Passenger count which makes a potential A-380 disaster most concerning...not to say in my Piper ,if I killed my self,family, or passengers that is not as tragic....However,like an Ocean Liner going down...Its fearful,and on a different scale!!......Like I started saying I choose not to be a "TEST" passenger on any new technology!!

The beautiful CONCORD...it took one event,not even caused by that plane,to end its presence in the sky's..

Cheers Happy Holidays!
 
arl said:
Back on topic, apart from the Comet 1, has any other company ever produced the whole commercial airliner including engines?
Click to expand...

Hi,

Junkers comes to my mind: the company was producing both aircraft and aero engines. However, many of their aircraft were fitted with other manufacturer's engines, like BMW-made Hornets for the Ju-52.

But I believe that by the end of WWII, both engine and aircraft technology had developed so far that it was too much for any company to manufacture both on a competitive level.

Best regards,
Volker
 
Willy said:
It was the Comet 1 that had the problems and that wasn't with the DH Ghost engines. It was airframe failures due to catastrophic metal fatigue that weren't even considered in the original design because no one had ever designed a jet airliner before that were the cause of the crashes.
Click to expand...

Hi,

it might be worth noting that prio to the end of WWII, hardly any aircraft lasted long enough to make fatigue a substantial problem. 1920's aircraft lastet like 3'000 hours at most. And pressurized cabins, which were the cause of the Comet's fatigue problem, were hardly available before 1948. On top of that, the propliners before the Comet were not able to complete pressurization cycles at such a rate as teh Comet did, and might have built up less of a pressure differential on top of that.

Best regards,
Volker
 
beana51 said:
..Whenever a new concept of design, manufacturing, is brought forth, often its plagued with problems not planned for or conceived...
Click to expand...

Which is exactly why you won't catch me on Boeing's plastic airplane before it has completed at least two years of 24/7 commercial service!!!

- H52
 
Volker, Boeing's Model 307 Stratoliner had a pressurized cabin back in the late 30s. Unfortunately WWII intervened and production was ceased after 10 in favor of building more B-17s. (which the 307 shared wings, and tail surfaces with) Most of the Stratoliners that were built went on to long careers though.
 
The Secretary General of ICAO has recently commented "If accident rates remain stable, the growth in traffic expected throughout this decade and beyond could lead to one major accident every two weeks. This is clearly unacceptable."

Perhaps plastic planes will bounce better than metal tubeliners.

Having seen pictures of the damage to the wing, the skill of the pilot in bringing it back safely is all the more to be commended.
 
AndyG43 said:
...let us just hope that the Qantas guys weren't trained by the Continental engineers!!
Click to expand...
Erm, the engines belong to Rolls Royce, and are leased by the hour.
Probably best to read up a bit, Andy, before making that kind of crack...

arl said:
Having seen pictures of the damage to the wing, the skill of the pilot in bringing it back safely is all the more to be commended.
Click to expand...
The piloting skills were in the systems management decisions they made - the fact that it kept flying is a testament to the structural integrity of the design.
Best decision the pilots made was not to deploy the slides; and to coax the fire services into approaching an aircraft before engine shutdown, to get foam on those 900 deg C brakes before the fuel splashing around found its correct combustion mixture.

A good read is this interview with Captain David Evans, Senior Qantas Check Captain on board that flight.
http://www.aerosocietychannel.com/a...xclusive-qantas-qf32-flight-from-the-cockpit/
 
Concorde was a design flaw that allowed a blown tire to puncture a fuel tank. Probably all certified transport aircraft have blown a tire or two on takeoff, which does cause some damage. The Concord is unique in the design allowing puncture of a fuel tank with fatal results.

Qantas was above all lucky. The uncontained failure would have caused loss of the aircraft due to loss of lateral control if the flight had been at all far from an airport. Their luck in this matter of having the failure occur shortly after takeoff allowed them to make a quick return before the fuel imballance overpowered the available aerodynamic control forces. Certainly an experienced crew made the best of a bad situation.

At least the old Boeings were designed by some of the same engineers that developed the B-17, a sturdy and redundant aircraft. I am glad we are not searching desperatly for a set of "Orange Boxes" somewhere on the seafloor to solve a fatal riddle.

I do like my four hyd systems as opposed to two....

Cheers: T
 
Five minutes before the takeoff of Flight 4590, a Continental Airlines McDonnell Douglas DC-10 destined to Newark (US), lost a titanium alloy strip, 435 millimetres (17.1 in) long and about 29 millimetres (1.1 in) to 34 millimetres (1.3 in) wide, during takeoff from the same runway of Charles de Gaulle Airport.
During the Concorde's subsequent take-off run, this piece of debris, still lying on the runway, cut a tyre causing rupture and tyre debris being accelerated. A large chunk of this debris (4.5 kilograms or 9.9 lb) struck the underside of the aircraft's wing structure at an estimated speed of 500 kilometres per hour (310 mph). Although it did not directly puncture any of the fuel tanks, it sent out a pressure shockwave that eventually ruptured the number five fuel tank at the weakest point, just above the landing gear. Leaking fuel rushing over the top of the wing was ignited by an electric arc in the landing gear bay or through contact with severed electrical cables. At the point of ignition, engines one and two both surged and lost all power, but slowly recovered over the next few seconds. A large plume of flame developed; the Flight Engineer then shut down engine two, in response to a fire warning and the Captain's command

it seems a series of factors caused this tragic crash...the debris even at 310 mph did not puncture the fuel tanks....and it seems a piece of titanium alloy strip,was the basic cause...Human error??....It begs the question why did they permently ground the fleet....it may be ,the CONCORD may have outlived its usefulness,and this was a good a time as any...after all those years of safe flying! However theFrench court says US airline to blame for Concorde crash......CHEERS!!
 
Because of it's high take off and landing speeds with the resultant higher centrifugal forces on the tires, the Concorde was known for blowing tires. The FAA had sent the French warnings about it after several blowouts in the US. Apparently the French didn't pay attention.
 
Willy said:
Volker, Boeing's Model 307 Stratoliner had a pressurized cabin back in the late 30s. Unfortunately WWII intervened and production was ceased after 10 in favor of building more B-17s. (which the 307 shared wings, and tail surfaces with) Most of the Stratoliners that were built went on to long careers though.
Click to expand...

Hi,

yes, I am aware of that.

The B-307 was introduced in 1940, I think, and in service for maybe a year, before it was drafted by the USAAF. In military service, it had the pressurization removed and it was never instaleld back again. The L-49/C-69 prototype, but the 20-odd production planes built as C-69 were pressurized, but weren't used much, either.

Pressurization for airline passengers only came to stay in with the indroduction of the L-49 on Beb. 3rd, 1946 and the DC-6 on April 27th, 1947.

Best regards,
Volker
 
Wing_Z said:
Erm, the engines belong to Rolls Royce, and are leased by the hour.
Probably best to read up a bit, Andy, before making that kind of crack...
Click to expand...

Erm, let's assume I have "read up a bit" maybe?

It wasn't a crack, it was an observation! My point was that I felt the Comet comparison was not so valid - De Havilland were in uncharted territory with the Comet and, unfortunately, got things wrong with tragic consequences.

I don't want to get into a flame war on this. I was under the impression that this forum, unlike others that I no longer frequent, was open to healthy debate. Hopefully I am not wrong in that respect.
 
Hi,

Five minutes before the takeoff of Flight 4590, a Continental Airlines McDonnell Douglas DC-10 destined to Newark (US), lost a titanium alloy strip, 435 millimetres (17.1 in) long and about 29 millimetres (1.1 in) to 34 millimetres (1.3 in) wide, during takeoff from the same runway of Charles de Gaulle Airport.
Click to expand...
Many many more here for answer your wonders ... :)
http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/435870-french-concorde-crash.html
http://www.abnormaldistribution.org/2010/12/06/concorde-ten-years-on/
http://www.abnormaldistribution.org/2010/12/09/concorde-ten-years-on-part-2/
 
Brian_Gladden said:
Aircraft mechanic I know told me this, "If you want a nice car, Get Rolls Royce. If you want a Toaster, get General Electric. But... If you want a real aircraft engine, Get a Pratt and Whitney!!!!"

That said, he did work for good ole' P&W
Click to expand...

Hmmm! Do I recall from the depths of my memory Pratt&Whitneys being called "Manchester Barbecues" following a tragic engine fire at Manchester Airport a few years back? Say no more..............
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top