5 ms·

It's most likely accounted for. What happens is the plane takes on additional drag with decreased fuel efficiency. In the industry there is always a high safet

by Axsuul 8y ago

It's most likely accounted for. What happens is the plane takes on additional drag with decreased fuel efficiency. In the industry there is always a high safety factor when it comes to designing systems with human lives at risk. The same applies to something like elevators. Multiple suspension cables can snap and the power can go out and the elevator can still run.

John_KZ 8y ago
>What happens is the plane takes on additional drag with decreased fuel efficiency. Did you just assume that? Because I'm pretty sure that a folded wingtip in flight would result in a nearly unstoppable spiral of death.
- mpweiher 8y ago
  Why are you so sure? I am not sure, but my educated guess would be towards the "additional drag, possibly asymmetric" scenario. Here's the story of the F-15 that was landed with an entire wing missing: https://theaviationist.com/2014/09/15/f-15-lands-with-one-wing/ https://theaviationist.com/2014/09/15/f-15-lands-with-one-wi... Parts of wings missing, engines falling off etc. happen. What wasn't survivable was the thrust reversers deploying in-flight: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lauda_Air_Flight_004 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lauda_Air_Flight_004 Oh, I stand corrected: "As evidence started to point towards the thrust reversers as the cause of the accident, simulator flights were made at Gatwick Airport which appeared to show that deployment of a thrust reverser was a survivable incident. Lauda said that the thrust reverser could not be the sole cause of the crash"
  - John_KZ 8y ago
    The aerodynamics of fighter jets are massively different from commercial airliners. The Lauda incident was "survivable" in the sense that they had a 3-second window to realize that the reverse thruster was deployed and take action. Without having any indication of what was happening, and with no training on what to do. So as you understand the statement was made purely to try and defend the manufacturer and airliner. Blaming pilots is a very economical way out. >Parts of wings missing, engines falling off etc. happen. There's only a handful of recorded engine losses (as in "ripped off the plane") of which not all were survivable. Also losing the engine is much better than damaging the wingtip. It's much closer to the body. And please substantiate on the "Part of wings missing all time" statement, like it's a casual thing that happens all the time. Do you have any cases where a large part of the wing was ripped off? Near the end? Because I'm not aware of a single one. Wing damage happens, but aerodynamically significant wing damage is rare and lethal.
    - mpweiher 8y ago
      > [fighter jets different from commercial] Yes, and an entire wing going missing is not the same as 10% of your wingspan (less in terms of area) coming unhinged. > please substantiate on the "Part of wings missing all time" You made up the "all the time" part and then put it in quotes as if it were a direct quote. Please don't do that. Here's an incident with a commercial plane: "Plane grounded after part of wing falls off mid-flight More than 60 passengers had to be flown back to London City Airport after part of the plane's wing fell off shortly after it took off" https://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/transport/10832817/Plane-grounded-after-part-of-wing-falls-off-mid-flight.html https://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/transport/1... Anyway, I am not saying it's a slam-dunk, or that it is a trivial occurrence. I am saying that these things have happened and therefore it is not an obviously and categorically non-survivable event, as you claim without any supporting evidence other than that it's obvious to you. UPDATE: Here's another one "Delta Plane Loses Part of Its Wing" https://abcnews.go.com/US/delta-plane-loses-part-of-wing-midflight/story?id=22935874 https://abcnews.go.com/US/delta-plane-loses-part-of-wing-mid... And then there's this quora answer (it's about 50% the wing, not <10%): https://www.quora.com/Can-a-passenger-plane-fly-if-it-loses-half-a-wing https://www.quora.com/Can-a-passenger-plane-fly-if-it-loses-... Includes a reference to a 707 that lost 25 feet of wing and landed safely: http://www.airplanemart.com/Aircraft-Accident-and-Incident-Reports/1965-Reports/1965-06-28-N761PA-Boeing-707-321B-Pan-American-World-Airways.pdf http://www.airplanemart.com/Aircraft-Accident-and-Incident-R... And another of an Airbus surviving a missile strike on its wing over Bagdad: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_Baghdad_DHL_attempted_shootdown_incident https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_Baghdad_DHL_attempted_sho...
      - John_KZ 8y ago
        Ok, I'm done using up my energy and time, since you obviously don't know shit about aviation, and don't care to learn, just to pretend-win an argument. Did you even read your articles? A small portion of aluminum skin on the upper part of the wing does not constitute aerodynamic failure, neither does a small portion of ripped-off aileron gliding parallel to wind flow. The only significant accident was the 707, which was on a 4-engine plane, in the 60s, and was dubbed a miracle. If this happened on a 2-engine plane they'd all be dead. So please stop wasting my time and go play-pretend to be a presudoacademic specialist on reddit. You'll fit right in.
- Axsuul 8y ago
  Folded wingtips look awfully similar to the winglets you see on modern jets and they fly fine! "Winglets, as the name applies, are miniature wings, and as such they generate their own tip vortices that degrade their performance. Winglets reduce drag, but they also generate lift at the tip, increasing the bending moment at the wing root and requiring the structure to be beefed up, adding weight." Folded wingtips don't produce a smooth surface so my intuition would be that it would increase drag.

by Axsuul 8y ago

John_KZ 8y ago

>What happens is the plane takes on additional drag with decreased fuel efficiency. Did you just assume that? Because I'm pretty sure that a folded wingtip in flight would result in a nearly unstoppable spiral of death.

mpweiher 8y ago
Why are you so sure? I am not sure, but my educated guess would be towards the "additional drag, possibly asymmetric" scenario. Here's the story of the F-15 that was landed with an entire wing missing: https://theaviationist.com/2014/09/15/f-15-lands-with-one-wing/ https://theaviationist.com/2014/09/15/f-15-lands-with-one-wi... Parts of wings missing, engines falling off etc. happen. What wasn't survivable was the thrust reversers deploying in-flight: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lauda_Air_Flight_004 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lauda_Air_Flight_004 Oh, I stand corrected: "As evidence started to point towards the thrust reversers as the cause of the accident, simulator flights were made at Gatwick Airport which appeared to show that deployment of a thrust reverser was a survivable incident. Lauda said that the thrust reverser could not be the sole cause of the crash"
- John_KZ 8y ago
  The aerodynamics of fighter jets are massively different from commercial airliners. The Lauda incident was "survivable" in the sense that they had a 3-second window to realize that the reverse thruster was deployed and take action. Without having any indication of what was happening, and with no training on what to do. So as you understand the statement was made purely to try and defend the manufacturer and airliner. Blaming pilots is a very economical way out. >Parts of wings missing, engines falling off etc. happen. There's only a handful of recorded engine losses (as in "ripped off the plane") of which not all were survivable. Also losing the engine is much better than damaging the wingtip. It's much closer to the body. And please substantiate on the "Part of wings missing all time" statement, like it's a casual thing that happens all the time. Do you have any cases where a large part of the wing was ripped off? Near the end? Because I'm not aware of a single one. Wing damage happens, but aerodynamically significant wing damage is rare and lethal.
  - mpweiher 8y ago
    > [fighter jets different from commercial] Yes, and an entire wing going missing is not the same as 10% of your wingspan (less in terms of area) coming unhinged. > please substantiate on the "Part of wings missing all time" You made up the "all the time" part and then put it in quotes as if it were a direct quote. Please don't do that. Here's an incident with a commercial plane: "Plane grounded after part of wing falls off mid-flight More than 60 passengers had to be flown back to London City Airport after part of the plane's wing fell off shortly after it took off" https://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/transport/10832817/Plane-grounded-after-part-of-wing-falls-off-mid-flight.html https://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/transport/1... Anyway, I am not saying it's a slam-dunk, or that it is a trivial occurrence. I am saying that these things have happened and therefore it is not an obviously and categorically non-survivable event, as you claim without any supporting evidence other than that it's obvious to you. UPDATE: Here's another one "Delta Plane Loses Part of Its Wing" https://abcnews.go.com/US/delta-plane-loses-part-of-wing-midflight/story?id=22935874 https://abcnews.go.com/US/delta-plane-loses-part-of-wing-mid... And then there's this quora answer (it's about 50% the wing, not <10%): https://www.quora.com/Can-a-passenger-plane-fly-if-it-loses-half-a-wing https://www.quora.com/Can-a-passenger-plane-fly-if-it-loses-... Includes a reference to a 707 that lost 25 feet of wing and landed safely: http://www.airplanemart.com/Aircraft-Accident-and-Incident-Reports/1965-Reports/1965-06-28-N761PA-Boeing-707-321B-Pan-American-World-Airways.pdf http://www.airplanemart.com/Aircraft-Accident-and-Incident-R... And another of an Airbus surviving a missile strike on its wing over Bagdad: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_Baghdad_DHL_attempted_shootdown_incident https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_Baghdad_DHL_attempted_sho...
    - John_KZ 8y ago
      Ok, I'm done using up my energy and time, since you obviously don't know shit about aviation, and don't care to learn, just to pretend-win an argument. Did you even read your articles? A small portion of aluminum skin on the upper part of the wing does not constitute aerodynamic failure, neither does a small portion of ripped-off aileron gliding parallel to wind flow. The only significant accident was the 707, which was on a 4-engine plane, in the 60s, and was dubbed a miracle. If this happened on a 2-engine plane they'd all be dead. So please stop wasting my time and go play-pretend to be a presudoacademic specialist on reddit. You'll fit right in.
Axsuul 8y ago
Folded wingtips look awfully similar to the winglets you see on modern jets and they fly fine! "Winglets, as the name applies, are miniature wings, and as such they generate their own tip vortices that degrade their performance. Winglets reduce drag, but they also generate lift at the tip, increasing the bending moment at the wing root and requiring the structure to be beefed up, adding weight." Folded wingtips don't produce a smooth surface so my intuition would be that it would increase drag.