Ikramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21043 posts, RR: 60 Reply 3, posted (7 years 6 months 2 weeks 6 days ago) and read 1939 times:
it's why fuselages are reinforced in line with the engines with a missing window, so if a blade flies off uncontained, it hits a strong part of the plane and doesn't fly through a window or something.
Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
Dogfighter2111 From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2004, 1968 posts, RR: 1 Reply 6, posted (7 years 6 months 2 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 1774 times:
DfwRevolution From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 7, posted (7 years 6 months 2 weeks 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 1712 times:
Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 3): it's why fuselages are reinforced in line with the engines with a missing window, so if a blade flies off uncontained, it hits a strong part of the plane and doesn't fly through a window or something.
I believe you are mistaken. Missing windows are usually related to AC ducts, not engine placement. Because aircon packs are usually in the wing root area, the "missing windows" are often close to engine pylons, but not precisely aligned with anything in particular.
It's simply coincidence. If an engine failed, engineers would have no way to know if uncontained debris will strike on window or another:
If the fuselage is punctured, decompression (to varying degree) will occur. Window reinforcements are designed to keep a local failure from weaking the surrounding structure. A "rip stop" if you will.
The "missing windows" however, are not localized reinforcement to protect from an engine failure.
DrDeke From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 830 posts, RR: 1 Reply 8, posted (7 years 6 months 2 weeks 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 1699 times:
Looks to me like it would have had to have been a turbine blade. Probably the low-pressure turbine judging from that picture.
-DrDeke
If you don't want it known, don't say it on a phone.