Fuselage skin failure UAL B752
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Boston, US
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fuselage skin failure UAL B752
Hi All,
Was a pax on UAL861 (B752) from BOS to IAD on 9/10/10. Flight was cancelled due to what was found to be a 6-8"x1/4" structural failure of fuselage skin just aft of the forward door. The story (from UAL non-crew employee, so totally unverified), was that a whistling noise was noted sometime during descent on the prior leg, landed uneventfully, was inspected, and daylight shone in a place where it shouldn't have.
Anyone know anything more about this? I couldn't catch the N-number.
Thanks- Brad.
Was a pax on UAL861 (B752) from BOS to IAD on 9/10/10. Flight was cancelled due to what was found to be a 6-8"x1/4" structural failure of fuselage skin just aft of the forward door. The story (from UAL non-crew employee, so totally unverified), was that a whistling noise was noted sometime during descent on the prior leg, landed uneventfully, was inspected, and daylight shone in a place where it shouldn't have.
Anyone know anything more about this? I couldn't catch the N-number.
Thanks- Brad.
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Location
Posts: 259
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oh dear
I think the industry (if not Boeing) had hoped that this type of skin problem (associated with the manufacturing process) was just limited to aircraft of 737 classic vintage.
Following recent recent crown skin damage on Southwest 737s (and others), the airframe life has been decreased.
If this now starts to occur on the 757, there really isn't much out there to fill the hole - not yet at least
I think the industry (if not Boeing) had hoped that this type of skin problem (associated with the manufacturing process) was just limited to aircraft of 737 classic vintage.
Following recent recent crown skin damage on Southwest 737s (and others), the airframe life has been decreased.
If this now starts to occur on the 757, there really isn't much out there to fill the hole - not yet at least
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: EGSS
Posts: 943
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Without knowing the full facts could it be be a "ding" from the previous station (jetbridge?) that went un-noticed/unreported and was made worse by subsequent pressurisation, rather than a structural failure? Around the door, a normally beefed up area, seems suspicious.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Arizona USA
Posts: 8,571
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If a skin failure, one wonders if Boeing used, on the suspect aircraft, cold bonding of skin laps....as they have done in the past, with earlier designs.
IF so, not a good sign.
IF so, not a good sign.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Sonoma, CA, USA
Age: 79
Posts: 143
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
757
I just wrote to Boeing and told them to re-start the 757 line. Makes sense. Taller gear, better performance than the 73. Especially with some new engines.
I'm sure they'll get right back to me.
I'm sure they'll get right back to me.
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: My
Posts: 84
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There is nothing to replace the 757, I can't believe Boeing let this section of the market just dwindle away.
Brilliant Aircraft, versatile, powerful and with modern engines might even be efficient!
Brilliant Aircraft, versatile, powerful and with modern engines might even be efficient!
As far as Boeing was concerned the 757 program was a failure. They "only" sold about 1200 of the aircraft. And the -300 was even more of a failure with only about 50 being sold. It filled a specific niche in the market, but that niche was quite small. Fantastic aircraft though, shame its days have been cut short.
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: alameda
Posts: 1,053
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
yes, the 757 was a fine plane. Proof that it is better to overbuild than underbuild a plane. a failure? how many airlines would have bought the 767 without that dual type rating feature with the 757?
always looked like a DC8 with two engines to me....that 757 would have made a nice tanker plane for the USAF...maybe the wake would have been too tough?
always looked like a DC8 with two engines to me....that 757 would have made a nice tanker plane for the USAF...maybe the wake would have been too tough?
"airplane". 
As far as Boeing was concerned the 757 program was a failure. They "only" sold about 1200 of the aircraft. And the -300 was even more of a failure with only about 50 being sold. It filled a specific niche in the market, but that niche was quite small. Fantastic aircraft though, shame its days have been cut short.
The 757s (both versions) have never been seen on the Trans-Atlantic in such numbers as last 2 summers.
As for culling the 757 program, I always felt that was in a way to try to promote the B737-900ER which appears to be a pretty dismal performer.
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: France
Age: 55
Posts: 250
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
let's call it a Kite.
Or even an "ornithoptere" (Da Vinci and Icarus' concept). Depends whether the holes are close enough to the wing root or not...
Bung a couple of Rollers on and things could improve.
But this is off topic. Anyone with further info on the UAL a/c?
Last edited by oceancrosser; 17th Sep 2010 at 19:05.
