Toulouse reported working on 'Drive-by-Wire' technology.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v2...46FAE03040.jpg

And just HOW are they gonna turn the corner with that thing?!

...maybe C Sully said something similar?:)

ok I'll bite

Where is it and where's it going?

The new A320 undercarraige is going to require an interesting landing technique:}:E

My sources say: When they took the plane out of the Hudson they ended up having to detour through East Rutherford NJ.

It's at a warehouse somewhere near there now.

How 'bout the gear doors and hydraulic system to handle that gear!

The crew never selected TOGA! One engine may have been OK to be able to allow the aircraft to actually land on a regular hard surface airport.

Some posters here seem to think that if a jet engine is running at some low power (not flamed out) then increasing the fuel supply by opening the throttle will necessarily give you more thrust.

Sadly that is not how engine fuel systems work. Whether they be earlier generation hydro-mechanical engine fuel systems or modern FADEC (full authority digital engine control) fuel systems their job is to meter the increase in fuel flow asked for by throttle positions (NB whether the throttles are operated by the pilot or the autopilot makes no difference).

This careful metering has to take into account the pressures at the different stages of the fan and compressor combination, especially the compressor.

The probes and ports for measuring these pressures can easily become contaminated by bird remains so sending incorrect information to the fuel scheduling systems.

Therefore a bird strike can cause an engine run down to a low RPM (not a flameout) without any mechanical damage being present to the compressor blades themselves.

The esteemed Mr. Farley makes an excellent point, although I think the only sensor actually in the CFM56 flowpath is the T25 temperature (between the low & high compressors), and the FADEC is undoubtedly programmed with a fail-safe schedule to permit partial power recovery if T25 is lost.

The significant damage in this case is likely in the HP compressor airfoils - bent, twisted, broken, "corncobbed" in airline slang. They were simply unable to pump any significant airflow through the burner and turbines - and it's airflow that makes it go.

A modern high-bypass engine's core is smaller than older donks, and it's coupled to a bigger fan. This means two things:

1) the inlet area of the core is smaller, so it's a smaller target for a bird to attack :)

2) if a bird successfully attacks the core, it does proportionately more damage! :eek:

Thanks, Mr Barit 1 and Mr Farley :ok:

You will make my safety briefing a bit better!

GF

Barit1

I agree with much but not all subject to some more data.

Again I suspect that the only mechanical damage is in the Low pressure compressor. However I'm afraid that we may have to wait for the public hearing to release the powerplant report unless somebody has some inside knowledge.

At any rate since little fan damage was seen, I'm beginning to wonder how they got through the certification test if they indeed ingested a bird into the core.

I'm equally keen to hear what happened to the same engines in the Rome starling encounter.

I have no inside information re 1549. However, my contacts with former colleagues have a unanimous agreement re the likely state of the core compressors.

And I don't know the details of a certification test for birds. BUT-- I seem to recall for a single large bird, it is aimed at a point deemed most critical re: fan blade breakage. That point is probably NOT the fan blade root, where a large amount of debris might enter the core. The objective of that test is more likely to determine if multiple fan blades will break, which could be REALLY bad.

But again, no inside knowledge.

barit1

agree about the large bird but it was the run-on medium bird test I was interested in.

rcallahan I don't fly Airbus but I do know that until you enter a "detent" the throttles work like any jet. Push them forward and they give you more thrust.

So how do you know the crew didn't slowly move the thrust levers forward to see what happened? They don't need to go all the way to TOGA, in fact that sudden burst of fuel as TOGA was selected could have made the stall worse.

I know that in my 777 I'm not going to push TOGA to try and get the engines running again after an event like this. Easy does it until the engine stabilizes. ( if it ever will )

Turning corners
 

DC-ATE
You'd be amazed. Usually done at three on a Monday morning*, a big tractor in front and one guy with two fistfuls of levers on a console clipped onto the last bogie, walking behind, steering the beast, all the steering on the double sets of tyres synchronised. The route's measured out beforehand in 3D but, of course, occasional mistakes do happen as do hydraulic leaks. Usually at seven-thirty in the morning.

*the preference for Monday morning is simply due to the fact that the guy on the levers is not as likely to be obliterated by a Jersey (or Staten Island) driver as he might be on a Saturday night. But that's just hearsay:)

Edit: in fact, looking at that pic,and having an approximate idea of the several hundred tonnes that assemblage of bogies could handle, I do suspect there might have been a bit of overkill.

Well, it's quite a rig no matter what time they move it. Just doesn't look like there's much room for the boggies to move. Guess I don't have to worry about tho, ay?!

My Bulldozer
 

Weighs twice as much as that TP tube, gents.

Is your bulldozer one of those with sidesticks and computers?

Dysag
 

D8-K, very old-fashioned, just like me. Very little wire, and it would most certainly not float. Actually, it does have a side stick, but only one. I have had six people in the cab, and I have dug more than one goose pond with it.