Originally Posted by
lynnx
To assist Birmingham,
The entire weight of the L1/L2/225 is supported on those 3 struts and their associated hardware whilst airborne.
The rear of the engines are effectively supported by the same struts, as they are bolted to the gearbox which is held in position between the top of the struts and the BBQ plate.
The rear of the engines is not a lift path.
The BBQ plate only allows for torque and is not a lift path.
I cannot imagine any scenario where a failure of a lift strut, for any reason, would allow the aircraft to continue flying.
You only have to look at the Norn Incident to see the effect of strut failure (for an identified reason)
I WAS going to say "unconnected" reason but, in fact, there is nothing in the public domain to base that on.
I think that we simply cannot imagine the forces acting on the conical housing and airframe once it all goes wrong - torque, gyroscopic, mechanical, aerodynamic, 1500 shp and 6/7 tonnes, 140 knts.
Ugh.