To: lomapaseo
You are badly misinformed yet again regarding your comment about P&W using an analysis to indicate that the combustor can would never explode
P&W performed a thermal stress analysis, a thermal creep analysis and several other types of analyses concerning deformation and elongation of the combustor can. Based on these analyses it was determined that the combustor can had a reliability of 1 10e9. Obviously from what you have indicated there were several other explosions of the combustor can and therefore the combustor can did not meet the predicted reliability of 1 10e9. My question is what did the FAA do regarding the inability to meet the predicted level since this is what Boeing relied on in the design of the under wing surface.
The in-service data preceeding the accident speaks for itself and several similar cans had exploded and were ejected harmlessly onto the runway.
If this is the case the nacelle had to be torn apart for the combustor can to fall harmlessly onto the runway. Also with an uncontained explosion there had to be a fire. So while the remnants of the combustor can were laying on the runway what was happening to the aircraft?
