Rabenschlag From Germany, joined exactly 14 years ago today! , 1010 posts, RR: 0 Posted (12 years 11 months 1 week 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 904 times:
maybe thats a bit off topic. but the crash of the AA A306 made me ask myself whether there is a relation between engine size and the potential damage the engine does to the plane if theres a failiure.
sometimes, blades of the fan come off and damage the plane. take the UA DC-10, in sioux city. there the no2 engines blade came off and damaged hydraulic linings causing the crash landing. the larger the engine the larger the damage?
take vibrations that might be caused by the moving parts getting out of balance. the lager the engine the more damage?
take the case that an engine fails during take off. the force pushing the plane in one direction (the spin) will be the larger if the failing engine is larger.
and, of course, if the whole engine falls off the plane, might it cause more damage if it is larger?
im not sure. could it be that large engines are unsafer than small ones?
Cfalk From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (12 years 11 months 1 week 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 814 times:
There have been a number of instances of uncontained failures of "small" engines like on DC-9s as well. What HAS changed is engine manufacturers testing the engines to ensure (as much as physically possible) that in case of a complete engine self-destruct, like all the fan blades breaking, that all the pieces remain within the casing. I understand that the 777's engines were designed that way, and that is a huge undertaking, considering the size of the engine.
The A300's engines are of an older generation, so perhaps it wasn't built to contain such failures as well (?)
By the way, the A300 that crashed had CF6-80C2A5 engines. The Sioux City DC-10 that blew the engine had an older version of the same engine, the CF6-6D.
VS744 From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2001, 677 posts, RR: 1
Reply 4, posted (12 years 11 months 1 week 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 800 times:
If a blade breaks, and the turbines move off centre - i.e out of balance, surely the momentum of this could have caused the engine (still intact) to shake violently side to side until it either ripped off the safety bolts, or the section of the wing?
Thats my theory from now on.
This would explain why:
a) the engine came off
b) the wing was damaged
c) there was no explosion....
MxCtrlr From United States of America, joined Nov 2001, 2485 posts, RR: 35
Reply 6, posted (12 years 11 months 1 week 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 790 times:
I don't agree. Take the case of the DL MD80 series aircraft a few years back that suffered an uncontained engine failure and a piece of the compressor section perforated the cabin and killed two pax sitting in their seats. Larger engines do NOT necessarily mean larger problems!
DAMN! This SUCKS! I just had to go to the next higher age bracket in my profile! :-(