Quote:
"the parts [pieces of tyre] found at Slab 152 level (a piece measuring 100 x 33 cm and weighing about 4.5 kg) and that found at Slab 180 level fitted together. Visual inspection revealed a transverse cut about 32 centimetres long."
This is the maddening thing about BEA. The two pieces 'fitted' together means they were lined up manually. It does not mean that they 'fit together'. Nor does it mean the seam was such that these were two adjoining pieces of a larger section. The deficit that separates these two pieces of tyre is the length overall of the Titanium?
But then there is this:
"The spectra of these marks and deposits are similar to the Concorde tyre.".....BEA
Does that mean that the elastomeric deposits were similar also to the Goodyear tyres on the DC-10? Also similar to other Goodyear fod on the runway from neither DC-10 or Concorde? The strip is remarkably clean of deep scratches one would expect from a scraping on concrete beneath a 200 ton aircraft.....
Did the Titanium contact the Concorde's tyres only? Or both the Concorde and the Continental DC-10? Or ONLY the Douglas?
To slash the sidewall of tyre number two is counterintuitive, since it presupposes that the Titanium strip was airborne before hitting the lead tyre. More likely would be that the strip, if airborne, would have contacted a following tyre, having been launched by passage of the lead.
AZR: (thanks)
Quote:
The wheels were manufactured by Dunlop, and the tyres used by Air France were manufactured by Goodyear in the United States. No retread tyres have been used since 1996.
That's nice, but rather optimistic. Looking at the photo of Tyre 2, one notices the complete lack of siping on the tire's carcass. The other tyres have siping. Also, the failed tyre has all the tread scrubbed off to the fabric. This is notable, since it is indicative of a patent failure in a Recapped carcass, where the additive layer of elastomer is vulcanized to the remaining elastomer of the carcass. This precludes an embed in the fabric of the carcass, meaning there is no DualPhase adhesion of the additional material, something that of course makes the re-cycled tyre substandard, and a hazard.
Similarly, there is evidence in the photo of a classic separation of a recap bond on the sidewall. The tyre may indeed be an original manufacture, but the evidence is at least suspicious. Did the spectral analysis eliminate the presence of recap material, which is indeed different from OEM? Did it confirm that the material in the Titanium rivet void matches the sidewall (original) of tyre #2?
A shop that wil leave a critical component of a truck on the shop floor may well refit a retread, in a "pinch".
And a shop that will replace an ablative Aluminum strip with a haphazard Titanium lashup, the same. Neither aircraft was airworthy, by definition.
IMHO....
Last edited by Lyman; 10th Dec 2012 at 00:25.