There wasnt a hole in the wing, the back of the #2 engine blew out.
Wings are fairly strong, this is one of my fav videos.
While I am not a fan of the 380 (I think its one of the ugliest planes out there) there is no reason at the moment to bash it for its safety record.
__________________
MYK - Supports Arizona to democtratically pass laws for the state of Arizona
Rudy was the only hope in 08
2011 Election: Cons 40% - Nanos 38% Ekos 34%
Had a talk with my friend who worked heavy maintenance @ air canada and he agrees. Probably a second or third stage compressor blade failure or some other loose component in that area either due to a maintenance or manufacturing screw up. He's also saying the RR engines seem to be having a lot more of these than the GE / P&W engines as of late.
Rolls Royce definitely has the most to lose in this situation, I believe one of their testbed engines for the 787 also had a catastrophic failure during a run on its test stand.
Its not a hole, its a tear in the outer wing body. Its not like that has never happened before. Its funny how some think a "hole" in the wing is that big of deal considering the wings are full of JetA fuel and if there was a "hole" JetA would be spewing out and the whole engine likely on fire and the plane wouldnt have landed.
Perspective is always needed with these things. There is a reason there are 4 engines and that the plane can fly without issue on 3 engines.
__________________
MYK - Supports Arizona to democtratically pass laws for the state of Arizona
Rudy was the only hope in 08
2011 Election: Cons 40% - Nanos 38% Ekos 34%
Some reports are indicating that there may have been a hole in the fuel tank, and it was indeed losing fuel while airborne. Obviously not an issue of running out of fuel as the crew elected not to land right away, but instead dump even more fuel to attain a safe landing weight.
Same thing goes with the potential of one of the hydraulic lines being damaged, the crew still elected to remain airborne and land after dumping fuel.
It will be a very interesting report when it all comes out, I look forward to reading it.
Not sure. I would think if fuel was escaping through that hole it would look different. I cant say I know how the wing is constructed, but I would assume there would be some sort of buffer between the tank and the exterior of the wing. If it was leaking from their in particular I dont know what a pilot would do, how do you shut off fuel to that wing while maintaining thrust with engine 4?
To me it looks alot like what you see in wind tunnels where air is being displaced by and object. And that is assuming that picure hasnt been shopped by anyone.
For Airbus sake I hope it wasnt a them issue, given the pictures of the engine it looks alot more likely this was an RR issue but we will have to wait an see.
__________________
MYK - Supports Arizona to democtratically pass laws for the state of Arizona
Rudy was the only hope in 08
2011 Election: Cons 40% - Nanos 38% Ekos 34%
There could be a buffer between the tank and wing surface, but the low pressure that forms above the wing would suck that fuel out anyways. Trust me, there have been Cessna pilots that left the fuel caps off after refuelling, the low pressure once the wing is generating lift will suck the tank dry.
I think in this case there was so much fuel onboard that the crew didn't have to rush to get on the ground, even if they were aware of the fuel leak they probably had more than enough fuel to continue dumping more of it with no concern.
Second Qantas flight forced to land... This time a 747 though with a single engine failure. I wonder if this is one with the RR RB211, those are developed into the Trent that's used on the A380s no? RR is screwed if it is. Otherwise Qantas has huge maintenance issues.
I highly doubt its fuel you see in those pics. The A380 takes off with all fuel located in the inboard tanks to minimize wing flex. The wing tanks then take on fuel in flight to optimize CG and reduce drag.
The incident took place 15 minutes into the flight, so they were likely still in the climb phase, and I doubt any fuel would be pumped to the wings that early on, or if there was, it would have been very early in the transfer process, since you can't pump the fluid around too quickly.
There is no buffer between the fuel and the wing skin. The wing skin is the tank. Thus the term wet-wing. The forward hole in the picture would possibly have damaged the slats, (basically forward facing flaps) and this area of the wing does not contain fuel. The second rearward hole is right in the area which would contain fuel on a wet wing aircraft. If the tank was empty it would still have air pressure and some residual fuel in it, which would vent. If it had fuel in it that would most likely vent causing some discoloration on the surface.
Once a tank is comprimised it can be isolated from the cockpit. This is done throughout a flight for balance. The wing itself would contain several sections, each which can be isolated. I a not that familiar with only having the fuselage fueled and transfering to the wings after take off, most airliners are designed to take off with all tanks full if required for longer flights, but most only carry the fuel necessary to get to another fuel stop, as it is very expensive to lug around unecessary weight.
Also, it was probably a turbine blade, they are under extreme stress and when they break, which RR have had problems with, they tend to wnt to go outward. Compressor blades are not under the same types of stresses and usually don't go break/detach unless acted on by an outside force. (ie. bird)
Definitely was a hole in the wing as the catastrphic engine failure allowed some blades to go right through the wing.
Looks to me like a turbine blade failure as opposed to compressor blade---the engine came apart well aft, after the hot section (where the fire is). For those that don't know, the fire turns the turbine blades which turn the compressor blades which compress air into the engine.
P.S. This thread is really hard to read with that huge picture. Could you maybe make it a little smaller?
The Following User Says Thank You to Ryan Coke For This Useful Post:
