Just a quick point that not all no-frills airlines use old aircraft. For instance, the average age of the planes Easyjet use (Airbus A319-100s) is around 3 years, a lot lower than most major carriers.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Engine falls off aircraft during takeoff
- Thread starter Jasonbot
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Your questions reminds me of the crash that happened in Amsterdam. An El-Al 747 cargo plane took off from Amsterdam and a few minutes after take off, with the engines at full thrust, one broke off. Well, the engine did shoot forward for a moment and when it lost momentum it smashed into the wing, knocking the other engine off and a parts of the wing.
The plane was able to keep flying if they maintained a certain speed, but when the pilot pulled the nose up to slow the plane down for an emergency landing, it went into a fatal dive. Too much of the wing was missing, causing a disturbance in the airflow over the wing.
Sorry for being a slight bit off subject, but this incident in South Africa reminds me of the El-Al crash.
Yeah, quite true. JetBlue for example buys new planes. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationwide_Airlines I think when they bought the planes they had the engine overhauled back in 2005. In this case it looks like the engine is 'made' to be fallen off to prevent structural damage to the wing if something had stuck it at a feasible force.
http://edition.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/africa/11/08/emergency.landing/index.html
Another side story: they dumped fuel. I just hope that they didn't do it over the ocean. Well, otherwise it's free petrol for everyone.
I don't recall this accident but from your description it sounds like the damaged wing stalled at a higher airspeed than the undamaged wing. This would probably result in the wing dropping suddenly (a stall break), and an incipient spin, which at low altitude is usually unrecoverable. Whenever an airplane is being flown outside of its normal performance envelope, the pilots are left guessing about what will happen next. They become instant test pilots. Sometimes they guess right, sometimes they guess wrong.
Probably the most amazing story of pilots guessing right is the famous Gimli Glider incident.
It wasn't pleasant. Although there were only 4 people on the plane itself, it crashed into an apartment building, killing 43 of the residents. This is the picture all the newspapers had the following day.
Do any of you watch "Air Crash Investigation"?
One episode was about the Amsterdam crash.
I watch as many of those types of shows as I can
Maybe not that specific one, but at least ones like it...
I'm not sure how true this statement is (I read it too in the article). Smaller narrow-bodies usually don't have the ability to dump fuel and need to fly around to lower their landing weight (remember the jetblue a320 that had it's wheel stuck in LA?). Things might have been different on older models, but i'm pretty sure they circled around for a while to "dump fuel."
I saw that same show about the El-Al crash.
The problem with quads, though, is that if it's an inboard engine that detaches then there's a good possibility of hit hitting the outboard engine and causing more of a problem. It wouldn't be AS big of a deal if it was the outboard engine that fell off.Also, the engines are in fact designed to "fall off" the wing should a catastrophic failure occur. I think they said this in the press release. There are shear pins that attach the engines to the wing and if too much force or moment is detected, that might destroy the wing, the engines will "automatically" fall off the wing.
A big rubber band ought to do it.
Airlines should introduce passenger-assisted emergency engine support. Airplanes should contain a fair number of stationery bicycles that passengers must pedal in case an engine stops working. The pedaling generates additional energy to support a backup engine, or the single remaining engine.
Man, my totally unrealistic daydreams rock!
Airlines should introduce passenger-assisted emergency engine support. Airplanes should contain a fair number of stationery bicycles that passengers must pedal in case an engine stops working. The pedaling generates additional energy to support a backup engine, or the single remaining engine.
Man, my totally unrealistic daydreams rock!
Actually, the engine didn't really fall off, it merely separated from the wing.
"The right engine separated from the wing. The aircraft continued to climb out," the airline said in a statement. "The aircraft returned and landed at Cape Town International Airport without further incident."
Ah! That's better!
"The right engine separated from the wing. The aircraft continued to climb out," the airline said in a statement. "The aircraft returned and landed at Cape Town International Airport without further incident."
Ah! That's better!
you know that statement made me think of a episode of aa cartoon when I was little called bobby's world.
Blown flaps would not work in the absence of an engine, as they use engine bleed air. The flaps would work the same as standard (Fowler or slotted) flaps. The ailerons should behave normally, but the loss of hydraulic power would make them harder to operate. I am not sure whether each engine supplies hydraulic power for its own wing; I assume so because I imagine that it is preferable to have one fully-functional aileron than two half-functional ones.
I mentioned before that the loss of weight on one side of the airplane would cause a roll in the opposite direction to the asymmetric thrust; this would make it more difficult to enter a coordinated turn, making slip more likely. This is more uncomfortable than it is dangerous. The dangerous part, however, would be in the changes to the airfoil. If the engine simply came off of its pylon, I imagine that the affected wing would have higher lift, higher induced drag, and lower parasitic drag. I also think that the engine-less wing would have a lower stall speed, though I cannot back up this particular assertion.
That's what the Ram air turbine is for. Although, your idea would definitely provide some entertainment for those long flights.
Off-topic question for the pilots out there: If one reverse thruster were to deploy mid-flight, would the aircraft go into an immediate tailspin (and crash)?
A lower stall speed... why? I'd have guessed no change, since the lifting part of the wing hasn't been altered. Drag should not alter lift, at least I don't think so. My basic private pilot aeronautics tells me that the counter force of drag is thrust and the counter force of lift is gravity. If the shape of the wing doesn't change...?
I'm not sure I completely understand your question, but I believe that technically such a thing as a "tail-spin" doesn't really exist. This is an old-fashioned catch-all term for all kinds of unrecoverable situations, from back in the days when airplane designers didn't know why some aircraft were more prone to unrecoverable spins than others.
I'm going with Oxford's definition: "an aircraft's diving descent combined with rotation."
Basically, would the aircraft start spinning in the clockwise or counterclockwise direction and loose altitude (just like an airplane-idiot like myself would suspect)?
As I said, my prediction of a lower stall speed was just a hunch and not really backed up. I can find out more when I get to the office for work next week (we do aerodynamics work). However, I certainly think that the stall speed would change because the engine affects the arflow around the wing both by its shape and by the jet wash coming out the back end.
I also dont think that a B737 is able to literally dump fuel. but you never know. If they flew around in circles to burn up fuel, they should've called it burning fuel not dumping. Also, I dont think it's wise to burn fuel with only 1 engine.
I saw that JetBlue plane with the wheel stuck. It's possible for the plane to land even without the front wheel. It'll just be the plane's fuselage instead of a wheel.
Spins where the airplane's nose is lower than the tail are generally recoverable, assuming enough altitude. This are stalled spins. The recovery method is kind of counterintuitive though and requires training. Flat spins are the really nasty buggers. The airplane rotates around a vertical axis with the wings parallel to the ground and little or no airflow over the control surfaces. A well-designed airplane should not be capable of flat-spinning -- the nose will want to fall whenever minimum airspeed is lost.
I can't think of any obvious reason why a deployed thrust-reverser would produce a spin, so long as the pilot was able to compensate and maintain a flying airspeed and wings level. If this airspeed could not be maintained, the wings would stall, and normally the nose would drop. A spin would only be implied if one wing was higher than the other if/when that happened. The lower wing stalls while the upper wing is still producing lift, rotating the airplane into a spin.
I get it.
I know that an aircraft has crashed due to a deployed thrust reverser during cruise, but I don't remember the flight number.
I didn't think it was possible, but maybe the reverser gives as much drag as an unfeathered prop does.. Which actually happened here in Sweden for some months ago. It was a.. close call.
http://www.stockhouse.com/bullboards/viewmessage.asp?no=16698581&t=0&all=0&TableID=0
I didn't think it was possible, but maybe the reverser gives as much drag as an unfeathered prop does.. Which actually happened here in Sweden for some months ago. It was a.. close call.
http://www.stockhouse.com/bullboards/viewmessage.asp?no=16698581&t=0&all=0&TableID=0
Mind explaining what this method is?
In an incipient stall, the yoke remains neutral, use opposite rudder to level the wings and then push the yoke forward and recover the stall. The reason this is counterintuitive is that the impulse is for the pilot to try to steer out of the wing-high attitude with opposite aileron, which has the effect of raising the high wing instead of lower it, causing a full spin. For a full spin I think the recovery procedure is the same, but I've never had any actual spin training so I'm not completely certain.