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

81–90 of 128 posts

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

#81

Post by briandear »

jacquesm wrote: post #44
dmitrygr wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> And they don't glide particularly well either Nonsense! Modern airlines glide exceptionally well. For example a 787 has a glide ratio of over 20:1 ! http://www.lissys.demon.co.uk/samp1/ https://seekingalpha.com/article/2494925-boeing-the-airbus-a...

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…

My Cessna T206 has a 9:1 glide ratio, though I plan around 7:1 as I am not a factory rest pilot under ideal conditions. And nothing glides as good as a glider. A 20:1 ratio is exceptional for any airplane, let alone a heavy airliner.

To be fair though, I can safely land a Stationair on 700ft of dirt so my options are a bit better than a 787..

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

#83

Post by danjayh »

andy_ppp wrote: post #79

And this is what a culture of management bonuses causes. I don’t want to ever fly Boeing again at this rate...

It was a problem with the engine, not the airframe. The 787 ships with Rolls-Royce and GE engines - the GE equipped ones are fine. Boeing manufactures the planes, and then works with engine manufacturers to offer various options for powering them. The airlines choose which engines they'd like to install on their aircraft.

GE, for all of its faults as a corporation (the stock price is what, $9-something now?), makes very good jet engines.

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

#84

Post by benj111 »

rjsw wrote: post #57
serf wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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.

Why the downvotes for this???

If you know it to be factually wrong then fine, but at least comment to say why it's wrong to save everyone else the bother of searching wikipedia for various incarnations of Rolls Royce to find that is does seem to have split in 1971.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rolls-Royce_Limited

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

#85

Post by mrunkel »

andy_ppp wrote: post #79

And this is what a culture of management bonuses causes. I don’t want to ever fly Boeing again at this rate...

What does this have to do with Boeing? Engine was from Rolls-Royce. The customer decides what engines they want to install on the plane.

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

#86

Post by mrunkel »

ShorsHammer wrote: post #63
alkonaut wrote: post #29

Is this the same issue that has plagued the Trent 1000 since the beginning or is it something different? It says the plane is 5.5 years but I guess that doesn’t say whether the engine had been modernized. On the bright side, Rolls seem to have sorted out most issues from the 1000 in their newer engine the XWB. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rolls-Royce_Trent_1000

> Boeing dispatched 737 MAX head VP Keith Leverkuhn to help Rolls-Royce overcome the problems Well that really inspires confidence. The new engines are still suffering these same problems, very good chance Norwegian has the newer variant as the older ones are mostly grounded and I'm quite sure Boeing agreed to replace them all years ago. https://simpleflying.com/singapore-airlines-787-10-engine-is...

Boeing has nothing to do with the engines. They are purchased by the end user/airline.

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

#87

Post by avar »

inferiorhuman wrote: post #70
hammock wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a nice solution now that we know the engines need fixing. What about when they were first released? Are planes required to have one old-reliable engine?

What about when they were first released? If memory serves Rolls placed the blame on the initial problems with the Trent 1000 on air quality in SE Asia (high sulfur content specifically). Which is to say, I don't get the impression that certification was done sloppily. Are planes required to have one old-reliable engine? Reliability is (theoretically) improved. From following threads on a.net and pprune it seems like…

> If memory serves Rolls placed the blame on the initial problems with the Trent 1000 on air quality in SE Asia (high sulfur content specifically).

As a related factoid BMW doesn't sell some of its engines in North American, Australian and Malaysian markets due to high sulphur content in the fuel (e.g. [1]). It would be interesting if the same thing happened for aircraft engines and South-East Asian air.

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BMW_N53

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

#88

Post by RowanH »

dmitrygr wrote: post #43
jacquesm wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This ended well, fortunately. But that must have been pretty scary. A 787 that is out one engine will put extra load on the remaining engine, if that one has gone through a similar life as the one that just dropped bits all over the place I'd not wager on the remaining one being as safe as when it was last inspected. That's a lot of eggs in one basket. And they don't glide particularly well either, though there are s…

> And they don't glide particularly well either Nonsense! Modern airlines glide exceptionally well. For example a 787 has a glide ratio of over 20:1 ! http://www.lissys.demon.co.uk/samp1/ https://seekingalpha.com/article/2494925-boeing-the-airbus-a...

All a moot point when you're over the ocean :)

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

#89

Post by MertsA »

lucisferre wrote: post #58
dragonwriter wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C-9fEoeNc3I

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

#90

Post by aasasd »

braythwayt wrote: post #69
serf wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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.

Driving a 1977 Rolls established your wealth without question. Not only could you afford a Rools, you could afford three: One you’re driving. One in the shop. One in the garage in case the one you’re driving goes to the shop before the other one is repaired.

I guess owners graduate from Range Rovers, which drive either to a service shop or just out of one.
Post reply on HN