|
Originally Posted by Bertie Bonkers
(Post 9176990)
I take your point re this. As I'm seeing it up to now, the HS goes down, the lower edge of the HS pivot attaching lug striking the connecting pin/bolt/casting which connects the two halves of the 'sandwich'. This causes the pivot mounting to twist around the HS pivot, with aerodrag on the HS causing the lower pinion to push backward onto the APU cone, twisting the lower supporting frame with it. What you then have is the length of the pivot mount sandwich prising away the APU cone at the lower end below the slot, the two halves of the sandwich exerting equal force on the inner and out edges of the APU cone surround frame on both sides.
The key to why the surround doesn't distort could be in the alignment of the cone attachment lugs at the top - they are vertical - so as the pivot mounts force out the lugs at the bottom, the top end opens up like a hinge. Having said all that though... The resultant force ripped the mountings out of the framework and twice the force did not distort the framework - no! The whole 'loss of HS control' theory is a non starter without tail cone damage in this area. |
Aircraft having a alarm system like a shop set by crew on leaving, can only be reset from flight deck which is locked, so access not prevented but is known. Perhaps an extra ad hoc cabin crew member who does not leave until cleaning, refuelling, cleaning, baggage unloading is complete is complete, same person would have to be there prior to main crew to give access to catering and refuelling (if not done earlier), sort of like a junior crewchief. |
One possibility is the group who originally claimed to have destroyed the AC was clear they would not be announcing how it was accomplished for some time, if ever. This is the 'terror' part of 'terrorism'.
And please stop posting ideas -- don't let your egos answer instead of your wisdom. :sad::eek::ugh: |
RE apu cone v HS pivot frame
#2106 (permalink)- looks like that drawing following re lever action has been deleted --- but I'l' leave the following comment anyway
Yo -- The apu tail cone is NOT a primary structure and is held on to the HS pivot framework by essentially 4 lugs. The plane would fly without the tail cone in place as it is maijnly an aero fairing designed to reduce drag and provide an exit for APU exhaust. Look closely at the HS wingbox and pivot loactions and the surrounding fairly bulky frame- possibly a forging. The JS reaction is at the top " plate " between the pivot frame and the rear PB. Note that we have yet to see the pivot points, the surrounding HS 'frame"( forging ) and the attached jack screw mechanisms. While the leverage principle is basically valid, the identification of the cone " frame" as part of the pivot frame is incorrect. :oh: I've yet to find a good- reasonable pic of the apu tailcone - or any of the HS reaction frame other than factory pics |
An unedifying period which has led to competitive speculation and polite bickering amongst the technocats. (Spelling intentional) Numeracy is of no use when someone is baffled by IAS at altitude versus groundspeed and makes the content laughable to the intended audience for this forum.
Until there's some actual information the thread takes a rest. SOP in previous disasters and effective with those simply determined to type because there's no fresh data. Rehashing and circular arguments serve no purpose at all. Please don't even try starting spinoff threads. If you are twitching at the keyboard with news hit the 'Contact Us' caption at the bottom right of the page. Rob |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 12:03. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.