wmartin@brl-tgr.ARPA (Will Martin ) (07/11/85)
> From: Uday Reddy <U-REDDY@UTAH-20.ARPA> > Subject: [kapur@GE-CRD: News Bulletin 06/29]] > >> [Forwarded from iitnet. -- USR] >> >> The New York Times quoted a report in the Montreal Gazette saying that >> the Air-India crash might have occurred because >> of the structural breakdown of the plane caused >> by it carrying a fifth defective engine. >> According to the Air-India office as well as the >> Boeing company spokesman, this was a routine >> practice by all airlines and such an act could >> not have caused a structural breakdown in the >> plane. >> This has been extracted from a 200+ line posting on net.nlang.india. Does anyone have any idea as to what the paragraph above means? Does it indicate that the plane had a fifth engine somewhere on board? (In the cargo hold? Would a 747 engine fit inside the cargo space of a passenger-carrying 747 version?) Or does it mean that one engine had been replaced five times, due to defects, and that the repeated replacements caused weakening? Or what? Thanks for your advice; it might be that this is simply garbled and meaningless, but I'm not sure... Regards, Will Martin USENET: seismo!brl-bmd!wmartin or ARPA/MILNET: wmartin@almsa-1.ARPA
ron@brl-tgr.ARPA (Ron Natalie <ron>) (07/12/85)
> >> > >> The New York Times quoted a report in the Montreal Gazette saying that > >> the Air-India crash might have occurred because > >> of the structural breakdown of the plane caused > >> by it carrying a fifth defective engine. > >> According to the Air-India office as well as the > >> Boeing company spokesman, this was a routine > >> practice by all airlines and such an act could > >> not have caused a structural breakdown in the > >> plane. > >> > Does anyone have any idea as to what the paragraph above means? Does it > indicate that the plane had a fifth engine somewhere on board? (In the > cargo hold? Would a 747 engine fit inside the cargo space of a > passenger-carrying 747 version?) Or does it mean that one engine had been > replaced five times, due to defects, and that the repeated replacements > caused weakening? Or what? I don't know about the Air India situation, but the common way to transport engines on 747 is to strap the extra one below the wing. Looks kind of silly, but I guess it's the most econmical arrangement -Ron
freeman@spar.UUCP (Jay Freeman) (07/13/85)
[] I recall that B747s have an attach point for a fifth (non-functioning) engine under one wing -- it was designed in so that airlines could easily and routinely ferry engines from place to place. -- Jay Reynolds Freeman (Schlumberger Palo Alto Research)(canonical disclaimer)
peterb@pbear.UUCP (07/16/85)
Boeing realized that transportation of spare engines was a high
shipping cost, so they beefed up the midpoint on the left(right)? wing
between each of the engin pylons that allowed the mounting of a fifth engine
that would freewheel. In order to keep down the drag, some of the turbine
stages could be removed(this was back in the earlier years). With yaw trim
adjustments and fuel management, the effect of the fifth engine could be
minimized. I do not know if the Air India plane was carrying a spare, or if
airlines carried spares while carrying passengers.
Peter Barada
{ihnp4!inmet|{harvard|cca}!ima}!pbear!peterbted@bcsaic.UUCP (ted jardine) (07/17/85)
In article <11505@brl-tgr.ARPA> wmartin@brl-bmd.UUCP writes: > ... >>> The New York Times quoted a report in the Montreal Gazette saying that >>> the Air-India crash might have occurred because of the structural breakdown >>> of the plane caused by it carrying a fifth defective engine. According to >>> the Air-India office as well as the Boeing company spokesman, this was a >>> routine practice by all airlines and such an act could not have caused a >>> structural breakdown in the plane. >>> >This has been extracted from a 200+ line posting on net.nlang.india. > >Does anyone have any idea as to what the paragraph above means? Does it >indicate that the plane had a fifth engine somewhere on board? (In the >cargo hold? Would a 747 engine fit inside the cargo space of a >passenger-carrying 747 version?) Or does it mean that one engine had been >replaced five times, due to defects, and that the repeated replacements >caused weakening? Or what? > >Thanks for your advice; it might be that this is simply garbled and >meaningless, but I'm not sure... > >Regards, >Will Martin > >USENET: seismo!brl-bmd!wmartin or ARPA/MILNET: wmartin@almsa-1.ARPA It was not garbled. I don't know about the specific configuration of the Air India 747 in question, but the Boeing 747 has the capability for a fifth engine to be mounted externally, just as the other four are. The purpose is to permit engines, whether servicable or not, to be transported. This is especially important to international air carriers (including U.S. flag carriers). While the fifth engine has some minimal effect on drag and fuel consumption, it is a very routine operation and is perfectly safe. Certainly if the 747 can carry the Space Shuttle on its back, it should have no problem with a fifth engine. Any speculation that a possible fifth engine caused a structural failure is just that -- speculation. Hope this helps. TJ (with Amazing Grace) The Piper (aka Ted Jardine) Boeing Artificial Intelligence Center ...uw-beaver!uw-june!bcsaic!ted
peterb@pbear.UUCP (07/22/85)
>It was not garbled. I don't know about the specific configuration of the >Air India 747 in question, but the Boeing 747 has the capability for a >fifth engine to be mounted externally, just as the other four are. The >purpose is to permit engines, whether servicable or not, to be transported. >This is especially important to international air carriers (including U.S. >flag carriers). While the fifth engine has some minimal effect on drag and >fuel consumption, it is a very routine operation and is perfectly safe. >Certainly if the 747 can carry the Space Shuttle on its back, it should >have no problem with a fifth engine. Any speculation that a possible fifth >engine caused a structural failure is just that -- speculation. Hope this >helps. > >TJ (with Amazing Grace) The Piper I don't want to sound picky, but the statement "...If the 747 can carry the Space Shuttle on its back, it should have no problem with a fifth engine." is logically incorrect. The premise and conclusion are mutually exclusive. By showing that the 747 can carry the Space Shuttle (with extensive modifications) DOES NOT imply that a fifth engine should cause no problem to the airframe. There are too few details about the crash to shed light on the cause. All of this is just what you said: speculation. Now if they could only find the black box that monitored the flight instuments and actuators and engines, then we could do some SERIOUS speculation. Til then... Peter Barada {ihnp4!inmet|{harvard|cca}!ima}!pbear!peterb