Engine falls off 747
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: In da north country
Age: 62
Posts: 452
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
WHBM,
This particular incident was no fault of the airlines or the maintenence practices thereof. It was a bad part from the vendor that failed. It was the rear engine yoke that bolted to the flange of the engine case that failed.
As far as freighters go, they typically are operated at max gross weights whereever they go, unlike pax birds. That takes a toll after many years. Also, freighters often go into rather rough airstrips in remote places around the world on regular basis, that too takes a toll. Do the math, it adds up.
This particular incident was no fault of the airlines or the maintenence practices thereof. It was a bad part from the vendor that failed. It was the rear engine yoke that bolted to the flange of the engine case that failed.
As far as freighters go, they typically are operated at max gross weights whereever they go, unlike pax birds. That takes a toll after many years. Also, freighters often go into rather rough airstrips in remote places around the world on regular basis, that too takes a toll. Do the math, it adds up.
I don't think freighters particularly do gross out more than pax aircraft. Yes they may well do so in one direction, but because freight is by definition a one-way load rather than the two-way flow you get (eventually) with pax, they are left finding backloads which often come in well under gross.
Then you get lightweight loads that cube out (once read of about 15 tons of shaped polystyrene foam that filled a DC-10), and freighters also do a lot more completely empty positioning to get to where the load is coming from. And their utilisation in hours per year is invariably way below their passenger cousins.
Meanwhile look at all the pax 747s operating through Heathrow, especially to/from Asia, they often seem to be up to gross in both directions.
Then you get lightweight loads that cube out (once read of about 15 tons of shaped polystyrene foam that filled a DC-10), and freighters also do a lot more completely empty positioning to get to where the load is coming from. And their utilisation in hours per year is invariably way below their passenger cousins.
Meanwhile look at all the pax 747s operating through Heathrow, especially to/from Asia, they often seem to be up to gross in both directions.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: EGSS
Posts: 943
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by WHBM
There have been a number of engines falling off the 747 over the years. If the inboard, it has tended to take the outboard with it. Some have led to the loss of the aircraft, others (as here) manage to get away with it.
Notable is that if I am not mistaken it always seems to have happened to freighter aircraft. Yet they make up probably only 5% of the 747 fleet movements. Their max gross weight is obviously the same and many pax 747s go out up to gross anyway. I winder why this problem afflicts freighters.
Notable is that if I am not mistaken it always seems to have happened to freighter aircraft. Yet they make up probably only 5% of the 747 fleet movements. Their max gross weight is obviously the same and many pax 747s go out up to gross anyway. I winder why this problem afflicts freighters.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: In da north country
Age: 62
Posts: 452
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
WHBM,
I assure you, freighters do more often, takeoff and land at max gross weight than pax carriers, I have done both. Trust me!
Flight mech, why don't you look at the turbulance penetrating speed for 747's before you shoot your mouth off. I think you'll find it very close to normal operating speed. And; Do you really think we want to shoot ourselves in the foot, rag our planes for no reason, and then have to deal with the ensueing emergemcies?? Me thinks not, ole chap. I personally want the company to stay around for another 15 years.
I assure you, freighters do more often, takeoff and land at max gross weight than pax carriers, I have done both. Trust me!
Flight mech, why don't you look at the turbulance penetrating speed for 747's before you shoot your mouth off. I think you'll find it very close to normal operating speed. And; Do you really think we want to shoot ourselves in the foot, rag our planes for no reason, and then have to deal with the ensueing emergemcies?? Me thinks not, ole chap. I personally want the company to stay around for another 15 years.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: EGSS
Posts: 943
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Willit Run
WHBM,
I assure you, freighters do more often, takeoff and land at max gross weight than pax carriers, I have done both. Trust me!
Flight mech, why don't you look at the turbulance penetrating speed for 747's before you shoot your mouth off. I think you'll find it very close to normal operating speed. And; Do you really think we want to shoot ourselves in the foot, rag our planes for no reason, and then have to deal with the ensueing emergemcies?? Me thinks not, ole chap. I personally want the company to stay around for another 15 years.
I assure you, freighters do more often, takeoff and land at max gross weight than pax carriers, I have done both. Trust me!
Flight mech, why don't you look at the turbulance penetrating speed for 747's before you shoot your mouth off. I think you'll find it very close to normal operating speed. And; Do you really think we want to shoot ourselves in the foot, rag our planes for no reason, and then have to deal with the ensueing emergemcies?? Me thinks not, ole chap. I personally want the company to stay around for another 15 years.
Chill out man. I wasn't exactly "shooting my mouth off". It was only mean't as a bit of light hearted banter and wasn't even directed at your company, just frieght dogs in general. I am fully aware that the freighter guys are just as professional and competent as the ones that carry the SLF. No offence intended but obviously caused.
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Dublin, Ireland
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm sure some of u might remember the tragic incident in the netherlands when the no. 3 engine of a 747 freighter fell off ( rather flew off) at maximum thrust, came back, knocked the no. 4 engine off which completely cripled the right wing, reducing lift capailities. This eventually sent the big bird crashing into an occupied appartment block killing the crew and people on the ground. These accidents are the same, just with different outcomes. I suppose it depends on the curcumstances really.
Originally Posted by Right-Hand-Man
I'm sure some of u might remember the tragic incident in the netherlands when the no. 3 engine of a 747 freighter fell off ( rather flew off) at maximum thrust, came back, knocked the no. 4 engine off which completely cripled the right wing, reducing lift capailities. This eventually sent the big bird crashing into an occupied appartment block killing the crew and people on the ground. These accidents are the same, just with different outcomes. I suppose it depends on the curcumstances really.
THAT GIRL HAS HEART!!! THAT IS A GANGTA AIRCRAFT
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Belfast
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Right-Hand-Man
I'm sure some of u might remember the tragic incident in the netherlands when the no. 3 engine of a 747 freighter fell off ( rather flew off) at maximum thrust, came back, knocked the no. 4 engine off which completely cripled the right wing, reducing lift capailities. This eventually sent the big bird crashing into an occupied appartment block killing the crew and people on the ground. These accidents are the same, just with different outcomes. I suppose it depends on the curcumstances really.
Don't forget that a lot of the freighters have enjoyed a previous life in a self loading cargo environment.
Boeing may have come up with a fix, but the company will still have to implement it!
