PPRuNe Forums - View Single Post - CONCORDE ACCIDENT - PART 2
View Single Post
Old 6th September 2001 | 20:03
  #90 (permalink)  
ORAC
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Community Influencer
 
Joined: Jul 2000
: Spotter
Posts: 24,627
Likes: 7,333
From: Peripatetic
Post

Beagle, Jacko.

Correct me if I am wrong. As I understand it, Concorde crashed because it lost 2 engines with the undercarriage stuck down just after take-off in the low-speed regime. Once the second engine was lost, the remaining available thrust could not have saved the aircraft, even if there was no structural failure.

The circumstances of the FOD, tank rupture, fire etc just happened to be the failure mode that - on this occasion - caused the failure. That failure mode has now been addressed.

My question is - are there any other failure modes which could result in the same configuration again? How well, for example, is the tandem engine configuration protected against an uncontained engine failure and collateral damage to the undercarriage (even with armoured pipes)? How well is the wheel area protected against a major bird strike on the two engines. ( Remember the E3A at Elmendorf?)

Igonorance on my part. Maybe there are no other failure modes leading to the same result as they were all considered and eliminated during design (like this one - not)- but it would be nice to know.
ORAC is offline