|
Originally Posted by WIRunner
(Post 17920062)
There was a hydraulics leak in that one as well. The Sioux City United crash in the early 90s had a similar outcome.
If there was a clean break, well, see above. With AA191, the engine started to fall off the pylon before take-off. The engine flew above the wing and then sliced through it. A few seconds later, the plane hit the ground. Not only was everyone on board killed, most bodies were completely incinerated. In the case of UA232, a fan disk failed and the debris resulted in hydraulic line damage. First the damage was not as extreme as AA191, but also the United a/c was at 37,000. Although the plane was virtually impossible to control, Captain Haynes was able to land at Sioux City. Although 111 people died, 185 survived the accident. In that respect, the UA incident was obviously far less severe than the AA incident. While there are many differences, one of the main ones was that the AA incident occurred at take-off, meaning the plane is much more vulnerable, with very little altitude, flying barely above its stall speed, and heavy with fuel. Those elements certainly contributed to the magnitude of the tragedy at O'Hare. |
Originally Posted by steve64
(Post 17919378)
Engine mounts are actually designed to have a breakaway threshold. If an engine were to shed a few fan blades, yet remain running until the crew reacts, the resulting out-of-balance at 50,000RPM could shake the wing to pieces.
|
Originally Posted by mduell
(Post 17926185)
You're off by an order of magnitude there.
|
Originally Posted by TWA Fan 1
(Post 17922235)
Actually, the two incidents were quite different.
With AA191, the engine started to fall off the pylon before take-off. The engine flew above the wing and then sliced through it. A few seconds later, the plane hit the ground. Not only was everyone on board killed, most bodies were completely incinerated. In the case of UA232, a fan disk failed and the debris resulted in hydraulic line damage. |
Originally Posted by Wx4caster
(Post 17920022)
Slightly OT, but as AA 191 was mentioned, it reminds me of one of my favorite stories about my wife.
... Another eerie coincidence is that the infamous DL crash of an L1011 in DFW due to a thunderstorm downdraft was also flight #191. Perhaps that number should have been retired. |
Originally Posted by aubreyfromwheaton
(Post 17910940)
As a traveler, if I noticed something out of the ordinary like that, I would have told the FA to tell the pilot. And then let the pilot decide how important it is, because I'm not an aeronautical engineer.
Because I'd rather make a normal landing in the middle of the country than an abnormal one. Nice pickup to notice it. |
Originally Posted by Steve M
(Post 17953926)
I agree. Had the flight number been retired at the time of AA #191, the DL flight from DFW that crashed (which then would have had other than #191) would probably not have been affected by the downdraft. :rolleyes:
|
One of my favorite Twilight Zone episodes, Something on the Wing with William Statner.
He did report the creature on the wing but they thought he was nuts. |
Originally Posted by edcho
(Post 17926300)
I think the older (more inefficient engines) turn at a bit more than 20k rpm @ 100% but 50k rpm does seem a bit high :D.
|
| All times are GMT -6. The time now is 8:18 am. |
This site is owned, operated, and maintained by MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Designated trademarks are the property of their respective owners.