Return-Path: <nfox4473@pacbell.net>
Received: from rly-za05.mx.aol.com (rly-za05.mail.aol.com
[172.31.36.101]) by air-za03.mail.aol.com (v82.22) with ESMTP id
MAILINZA39-1125172058; Sun, 25 Nov 2001 17:20:58 -0500
Received: from snfc21.pbi.net (mta6.snfc21.pbi.net [206.13.28.240]) by
rly-za05.mx.aol.com (v82.22) with ESMTP id MAILRELAYINZA54-1125172040;
Sun, 25 Nov 2001 17:20:40 1900
Received: from pacbell.net ([63.200.50.51]) by mta6.snfc21.pbi.net
(iPlanet Messaging Server 5.1 (built May 7 2001)) with ESMTP id
<0GND00F9YNEEQ0@mta6.snfc21.pbi.net>; Sun, 25 Nov 2001 14:20:38 -0800
(PST)
Date: Sun, 25 Nov 2001 14:30:48 -0800
From: Carol & Don Schwartz <nfox4473@pacbell.net>
Subject: (no subject)
To: Art Stetler <StetlerA@aol.com>
Message-id: <3C017117.476D578C@pacbell.net>
MIME-version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.74 [en] (Win98; U)
X-Accept-Language: en
Subject: A300 crash
>>
> A friend sent this. Gary has dedicated his life to aerodynamics. He
>invented the Wheeler Vortex generator, and the "Gurney" wing on race
cars.>These are his views on>the crashed Airbus.)
>
> Howdy,
>
> Re: the New York 11-12-2001 Airbus crash.
>
> I found this photo of the vertical stabilizer's failed composite
> attachment blades, or webs. The bolts that attached the composite
vertical>stabilizer to the fuselage, remain properly attached. Clearly,
the failure>is a>delamination of the composite vertical tail, above the
points of attachment>to the fuselage.
>
> There are reasons (despite the weight savings) why Douglas Aircraft
and>Boeing have never used composites this way -- and you're looking at
one.>
> As the delamination of the composite progressed, the entire 37-ft.
tall
>vertical tail would have fluttered briefly & violently. That would
explain>why both engines were literally shaken off the airplane. (This
is
>particularly remarkable, because unlike Douglas and Boeing, Airbus
has>bragged of purposely designing their engine mounting pylons to keep
the>engines in place no matter what!) One wing tip was found several
blocks>away from the main wreckage.
>
> BTW, you'll be hearing a lot about an encounter with wake
turbulence.>
> That is a red herring. Wake turbulence can make it difficult --
maybe>even impossible to control the airplane -- but no amount of wake
turbulence>can remove the vertical tail at such low flight speeds unless
there is a>preexisting>structural fault.
>
> What is flutter? This morning, I got an email from a friend who is
the>Director of Structural Engineering of a major American aircraft
maker.
>
> He described a chilling picture: "Flutter modes often have an
> explosively quick onset, rising from nothing to catastrophic in the
> blink of>an>eye.
>
> Furthermore, the shaking can happen so fast that, despite the large
>(huge) deflections involved, an observer on the ground might not see
it. It's> just a blur.
>
> "The people in the back of the airplane would have been shaken
>senseless worse as the seats tore loose and everything was homogenized
back>there; but it was all over a few seconds later."
>
> The design weakness can and will be fixed on other Airbuses. If
not,> there are plenty of nice Boeing jetliners mothballed in the
Mojave Desert,>that can trade places with the Airbuses. In the
meantime, I'm not riding>Airbus.
///
/// land-speed@autox.team.net mailing list
/// To unsubscribe send a plain text message to majordomo@autox.team.net
/// with nothing in it but
///
/// unsubscribe land-speed
///
/// or go to http://www.team.net/cgi-bin/majorcool
///
///
|