Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Metal shards from Boeing 787 taking off over Rome rain down on people below

independent.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 128 posts

Re: Metal shards from Boeing 787 taking off over Rome rain down on people below

#51

Post by Terr_ »

dmitrygr wrote: post #45
jacquesm wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

20:1 from 3000 meters gives you 60 km to line up and land, that's not as bad as a shuttle but not nearly as good as an actual glider. Personally I'd love to be on the ground in that situation. You can't just land a 787 on a bit of farmland. BTW if you have to deadstick a commercial plane then the 787 is probably the best, it has the best glide ratio of all commercial planes in service today. But I'd hate for that to…

That is a nonsensical comparison. Shuttle's glide ratio was 4.5:1 - barely better than a brick

Not quite that bad. I hear a wingsuit can get maybe 2.5:1, and that's clearly better than a brick...

Re: Metal shards from Boeing 787 taking off over Rome rain down on people below

#52

Post by kakwa_ »

mikl wrote: post #38

2019 has been a true _annus horribilis_ for Boeing.

Well, engin failures are not exactly the rarest of occurrences. It's just that given the context, every stories about Boeing will gain quite a bit of traction. It's probably deserved given how bad the company have messed-up, but let not overreact.

Re: Metal shards from Boeing 787 taking off over Rome rain down on people below

#53

Post by ryacko »

kakwa_ wrote: post #52
mikl wrote: post #38

2019 has been a true _annus horribilis_ for Boeing.

Well, engin failures are not exactly the rarest of occurrences. It's just that given the context, every stories about Boeing will gain quite a bit of traction. It's probably deserved given how bad the company have messed-up, but let not overreact.

The people taking the photos didn’t know what type of plane it was from...

Re: Metal shards from Boeing 787 taking off over Rome rain down on people below

#54

Post by mv4 »

paranoidrobot wrote: post #18
mv4 wrote: post #10

Oh, and it's raining again Light on your car light, bullets on tin.

For years I'd thought it was "like bullets on tin". Most lyrics sites seem to have the lyrics you said, but there's still some with the version I thought. I can't find any official source of lyrics either. I've now listened to the video clip[1] a dozen times trying to figure out which it is, and honestly I'm no closer. [1] https://youtu.be/NdZHZZtJacg?t=25

Hold me closer, Tony Danza!

Re: Metal shards from Boeing 787 taking off over Rome rain down on people below

#55

Post by hinkley »

cmurf wrote: post #2

More info and photos. http://avherald.com/h?article=4cb6a09d&opt=0

My first car had a lovely, circular radiator repair job that was exactly the diameter of the bolts on the fan blade. It must have thrown a bolt at some point.

The placement of the dents on all the fins reminds me a bit of that. Looks to me like something broke off, got wedged under one of those stabilizers, smacking the hell out of every single fin on the way before it was finally thrown clear.

Re: Metal shards from Boeing 787 taking off over Rome rain down on people below

#56

Post by kevin_thibedeau »

vinay427 wrote: post #20
Causality1 wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Boeing is a company of truly stunning arrogance and greed. Boeing's case against Bombardier was when I had my personal "oh shit" moment and realized they'd started doing work with paper instead of doing work with wrenches. Any company which starts down that road has little chance of getting off, and it ends with dead people.

The lack of mention of Rolls-Royce here seems more than a little amiss, considering the engine flaw seems to be due to their error as far as I have heard.

You don't know the cause. Could have been a bird ingestion on this or a previous flight.

Re: Metal shards from Boeing 787 taking off over Rome rain down on people below

#57

Post by rjsw »

serf wrote: post #30
rjsw wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I'm reminded of all the jokes Jeremy Clarkson makes at Rolls Royce's expense... Rolls-Royce Holdings only makes aero engines, the cars are made by BMW.

>the cars are made by BMW. as of 1998. Most of Clarksons' jokes are in reference to the 70s and 80s era of Rolls Royce -- which is known among auto enthusiasts as one of the least reliable group of cars to have ever existed.

The aero engine and car companies split in 1971.

Re: Metal shards from Boeing 787 taking off over Rome rain down on people below

#58

Post by lucisferre »

dragonwriter wrote: post #47
dmitrygr wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is a nonsensical comparison. Shuttle's glide ratio was 4.5:1 - barely better than a brick

> Shuttle's glide ratio was 4.5:1 - barely better than a brick A brick has a glide ratio somewhere worse than 1:10; the shuttle (at subsonic speeds) is closer to a sailplane (~40:1, or ~9× better than the shuttle) than a brick (more than 50× worse).

I'd like to see the footage of the brick tests.

Re: Metal shards from Boeing 787 taking off over Rome rain down on people below

#59

Post by cmurf »

SkyMarshal wrote: post #42
vinay427 wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The lack of mention of Rolls-Royce here seems more than a little amiss, considering the engine flaw seems to be due to their error as far as I have heard.

Also it seems the airline chooses the engine type they want on their planes, not Boeing. It's a purchase option.

It might be the purchase time option commits the airworthiness type certificate to a particular engine make/model (or range of them). Typically the airplane lease is separate from the engine lease, which helps the airline deal with the totally separate maintenance requirements between airframe and powerplant.
Post reply on HN