hate these ads?, log in or register to hide them
Page 722 of 743 FirstFirst ... 222622672712719720721722723724725732 ... LastLast
Results 14,421 to 14,440 of 14850

Thread: [PLANES] OKB Sukhoi appreciation fred

  1. #14421
    Joe Appleby's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Location
    in front of the class
    Posts
    13,762
    Quote Originally Posted by Don Rumata View Post
    The results for the Russian An-148 crash investigation are in:

    http://avherald.com/h?article=4b4cb236

    TL;DR

    Step 1. Put plane in autopilot, do not turn on pitot heating in the middle of Russian winter.
    Step 2. Pitot tube promptly freezes over, indicated airspeed starts to decrease.
    Step 3. Turn off autopilot, put plane into 30 degree dive to "correct".
    Interesting question in the comments: with pitot tube heating off being a little bit more common cause for aircraft losses, why not have heating on on every flight automatically?

    Tapapapatalk
    nevar forget

  2. #14422
    Liare's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Location
    Denmark
    Posts
    11,934
    Quote Originally Posted by Joe Appleby View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Don Rumata View Post
    The results for the Russian An-148 crash investigation are in:

    http://avherald.com/h?article=4b4cb236

    TL;DR

    Step 1. Put plane in autopilot, do not turn on pitot heating in the middle of Russian winter.
    Step 2. Pitot tube promptly freezes over, indicated airspeed starts to decrease.
    Step 3. Turn off autopilot, put plane into 30 degree dive to "correct".
    Interesting question in the comments: with pitot tube heating off being a little bit more common cause for aircraft losses, why not have heating on on every flight automatically?

    Tapapapatalk
    there is a stack-exchange for everything apparently
    Viking, n.:
    1. Daring Scandinavian seafarers, explorers, adventurers, entrepreneurs world-famous for their aggressive, nautical import business, highly leveraged takeovers and blue eyes.
    2. Bloodthirsty sea pirates who ravaged northern Europe beginning in the 9th century.

    Hagar's note: The first definition is much preferred; the second is used only by malcontents, the envious, and disgruntled owners of waterfront property.

  3. #14423
    Joe Appleby's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Location
    in front of the class
    Posts
    13,762
    Quote Originally Posted by Liare View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Joe Appleby View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Don Rumata View Post
    The results for the Russian An-148 crash investigation are in:

    http://avherald.com/h?article=4b4cb236

    TL;DR

    Step 1. Put plane in autopilot, do not turn on pitot heating in the middle of Russian winter.
    Step 2. Pitot tube promptly freezes over, indicated airspeed starts to decrease.
    Step 3. Turn off autopilot, put plane into 30 degree dive to "correct".
    Interesting question in the comments: with pitot tube heating off being a little bit more common cause for aircraft losses, why not have heating on on every flight automatically?

    Tapapapatalk
    there is a stack-exchange for everything apparently
    I asked a friend who does systems design for airplanes, the company he works for mostly does airplane toilets and water management.

    He said that Airbus will automatically turn them on, a Boeing 737NG doesn't. Generally it isn't so simple though. They could get too hot on the ground and then overheat. Even his systems, which I remind you are pumps and fans in toilets, have overheating as their main issue.
    nevar forget

  4. #14424
    Mallet Head Donor 56k Lagman's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 5, 2011
    Location
    Vancouver, BC
    Posts
    4,644
    over shitting haha got em

    Quote Originally Posted by Duckslayer View Post
    I should be home.now but I keep stopping to post. I'm in need of a mega poo. so much so that I'm tempted to leave slurry across one of these gardens and deal with the wiping later. gonna toss a coin

    phoneposting

  5. #14425

    Join Date
    April 10, 2011
    Posts
    9,565
    Quote Originally Posted by Joe Appleby View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Don Rumata View Post
    The results for the Russian An-148 crash investigation are in:

    http://avherald.com/h?article=4b4cb236

    TL;DR

    Step 1. Put plane in autopilot, do not turn on pitot heating in the middle of Russian winter.
    Step 2. Pitot tube promptly freezes over, indicated airspeed starts to decrease.
    Step 3. Turn off autopilot, put plane into 30 degree dive to "correct".
    Interesting question in the comments: with pitot tube heating off being a little bit more common cause for aircraft losses, why not have heating on on every flight automatically?

    Tapapapatalk
    A more elegant engineering solution would be not allowing Russians to pilot planes and replacing them with trained monkeys.

    At least monkeys would not make bets with copilots that they can land a plane blindfolded.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aeroflot_Flight_6502

  6. #14426

  7. #14427

    Join Date
    April 10, 2011
    Posts
    9,565
    FFS, the engine did not "disintegrate" or "fell apart". The cowl got separated, probably due to a) an improperly secured latch or b) blade breaking and piercing the cowl, initiating the separation.

    Working as intended. Here's a similar one from A380:



    Edit: looks like one blade broke off, but was contained.

      Spoiler:


    Could still be initiated by the cowl separating first, with debris hitting the blade, causing the breakage.
    Last edited by Don Rumata; February 14 2018 at 02:47:19 PM.

  8. #14428

    Join Date
    April 13, 2011
    Posts
    6,181
    My favourite part of the story was that the guy sitting over that wing was an aerospace nerd Google employee. Rather than panic and pray for his soul, as I'm sure many on board did, he treated twitter to gems such as this:


  9. #14429
    SAI Peregrinus's Avatar
    Join Date
    December 13, 2011
    Posts
    1,697
    Quote Originally Posted by Don Rumata View Post
    FFS, the engine did not "disintegrate" or "fell apart". The cowl got separated, probably due to a) an improperly secured latch or b) blade breaking and piercing the cowl, initiating the separation.

    Working as intended. Here's a similar one from A380:



    Edit: looks like one blade broke off, but was contained.

      Spoiler:


    Could still be initiated by the cowl separating first, with debris hitting the blade, causing the breakage.
    If the cowling is gone, that's (by definition) an uncontained engine failure. That's NOT how it's intended to fail. The cowling is supposed to stay intact & attached to the engine.

  10. #14430
    Lowa [NSN]'s Avatar
    Join Date
    April 14, 2011
    Posts
    2,848
    Iirc that 380 incident was concluded to have been very lucky? The way the engine failed and "exploded" was very bad and incorrect and could have done enough damage for a much worse outcome.
    Quote Originally Posted by Tarminic View Post
    I would create a dragon made out of vaginas. Then I would create a dragon made out of dicks. Then I would have them fight to the death.

  11. #14431

    Join Date
    July 3, 2014
    Posts
    3,594

  12. #14432

    Join Date
    April 10, 2011
    Posts
    9,565
    Quote Originally Posted by Lowa [NSN] View Post
    Iirc that 380 incident was concluded to have been very lucky? The way the engine failed and "exploded" was very bad and incorrect and could have done enough damage for a much worse outcome.
    The AF66 incident was an uncontained engine failure due to a hub breaking. So, yes, it was more serious than UA1175, still, "luck" had nothing to do with it. Proper design safeguards ensured that fan fragments did not damage the wing and/or fuel tanks.

  13. #14433
    SAI Peregrinus's Avatar
    Join Date
    December 13, 2011
    Posts
    1,697
    Quote Originally Posted by Don Rumata View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Lowa [NSN] View Post
    Iirc that 380 incident was concluded to have been very lucky? The way the engine failed and "exploded" was very bad and incorrect and could have done enough damage for a much worse outcome.
    The AF66 incident was an uncontained engine failure due to a hub breaking. So, yes, it was more serious than UA1175, still, "luck" had nothing to do with it. Proper design safeguards ensured that fan fragments did not damage the wing and/or fuel tanks.
    Luck (rather, probability) had a lot to do with it. Design safeguards are always designed with the most probable failure modes and times in mind. There's always a risk model, and there are always cases where the risk is deemed low enough and the difficulty of mitigation high enough that mitigation is not applied. Containment failure is a low risk, but when it fails it can throw debris into important parts of the aircraft. One of the mitigations for this is that there is never a seat row directly in line with the most probable path of a thrown blade fragment on airliners: if the blade fragment punctures the cabin and causes a loss of pressure at least it won't be passing through a passenger. You can see that location clearly as it's where such debris hit Southwest flight 3472:



    That was a case where a mitigation worked as designed.

    AF66 didn't really employ any of the mitigations (beyond initial fire suppression and engine shutdown), as the only debris striking the plane caused minor damage to the leading edge slats of the wing and a hydraulic leak. It didn't come anywhere near the fuel tanks. The placement of the fuel tanks helps with that, but it's a probabilistic mitigation and not a mechanistic one. IE luck, but engineered luck.

  14. #14434

  15. #14435
    Malcanis's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 12, 2011
    Posts
    14,052
    REMOVE BEFORE FLIGHT
    Quote Originally Posted by Keieueue View Post
    I love Malcanis!

  16. #14436
    Super Ponerator Global Moderator Evelgrivion's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Posts
    12,031
    Quote Originally Posted by Don Rumata View Post
    FFS, the engine did not "disintegrate" or "fell apart". The cowl got separated, probably due to a) an improperly secured latch or b) blade breaking and piercing the cowl, initiating the separation.

    Working as intended. Here's a similar one from A380:
    The A-380 incident was a bit different and more severe. The shaft that connects the bypass fan to the engine core failed, and the entire fan disk came off of the aircraft.
    Last edited by Evelgrivion; February 17 2018 at 08:52:30 PM.

  17. #14437

    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Location
    Chichester, UK
    Posts
    1,646
    Quote Originally Posted by SAI Peregrinus View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Don Rumata View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Lowa [NSN] View Post
    Iirc that 380 incident was concluded to have been very lucky? The way the engine failed and "exploded" was very bad and incorrect and could have done enough damage for a much worse outcome.
    The AF66 incident was an uncontained engine failure due to a hub breaking. So, yes, it was more serious than UA1175, still, "luck" had nothing to do with it. Proper design safeguards ensured that fan fragments did not damage the wing and/or fuel tanks.
    Luck (rather, probability) had a lot to do with it. Design safeguards are always designed with the most probable failure modes and times in mind. There's always a risk model, and there are always cases where the risk is deemed low enough and the difficulty of mitigation high enough that mitigation is not applied. Containment failure is a low risk, but when it fails it can throw debris into important parts of the aircraft. One of the mitigations for this is that there is never a seat row directly in line with the most probable path of a thrown blade fragment on airliners: if the blade fragment punctures the cabin and causes a loss of pressure at least it won't be passing through a passenger. You can see that location clearly as it's where such debris hit Southwest flight 3472:
    Well thats not true on all aircraft. On a bopmbardier FlyBe or Aerlingus style aircraft the turbo prop is directly inline with a passenger row. I know as I have sat in it. It's very unsettling.

  18. #14438
    Liare's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Location
    Denmark
    Posts
    11,934
    Quote Originally Posted by Equium Duo View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by SAI Peregrinus View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Don Rumata View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Lowa [NSN] View Post
    Iirc that 380 incident was concluded to have been very lucky? The way the engine failed and "exploded" was very bad and incorrect and could have done enough damage for a much worse outcome.
    The AF66 incident was an uncontained engine failure due to a hub breaking. So, yes, it was more serious than UA1175, still, "luck" had nothing to do with it. Proper design safeguards ensured that fan fragments did not damage the wing and/or fuel tanks.
    Luck (rather, probability) had a lot to do with it. Design safeguards are always designed with the most probable failure modes and times in mind. There's always a risk model, and there are always cases where the risk is deemed low enough and the difficulty of mitigation high enough that mitigation is not applied. Containment failure is a low risk, but when it fails it can throw debris into important parts of the aircraft. One of the mitigations for this is that there is never a seat row directly in line with the most probable path of a thrown blade fragment on airliners: if the blade fragment punctures the cabin and causes a loss of pressure at least it won't be passing through a passenger. You can see that location clearly as it's where such debris hit Southwest flight 3472:
    Well thats not true on all aircraft. On a bopmbardier FlyBe or Aerlingus style aircraft the turbo prop is directly inline with a passenger row. I know as I have sat in it. It's very unsettling.
    the actual impact point, assuming the blade disintegrates rather than bend, will be a bit further back.

    somebody's probably going to get their head shaved off regardless though.
    Viking, n.:
    1. Daring Scandinavian seafarers, explorers, adventurers, entrepreneurs world-famous for their aggressive, nautical import business, highly leveraged takeovers and blue eyes.
    2. Bloodthirsty sea pirates who ravaged northern Europe beginning in the 9th century.

    Hagar's note: The first definition is much preferred; the second is used only by malcontents, the envious, and disgruntled owners of waterfront property.

  19. #14439
    Smarnca's Avatar
    Join Date
    January 30, 2013
    Location
    SVN
    Posts
    8,585


    Last edited by Smarnca; February 18 2018 at 10:00:34 PM.


  20. #14440
    Movember 2011 RazoR's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 10, 2011
    Location
    The Motherland
    Posts
    29,130

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •