3 ms·
I have wondered in the past if the benefits of a 'jettison damaged engine' feature would outweigh the risks.
by ortusdux 6y ago
I have wondered in the past if the benefits of a 'jettison damaged engine' feature would outweigh the risks.
- londons_explore 6y agoI suspect most airframes dont have sufficient spare strength to handle the imbalanced forces of an engine on one wing but not the other during flight.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- just_steve_h 6y agoIt's unclear what benefit there would be. On the other hand, instantly changing the balance of the aircraft by jettisoning a large mass from one wing would almost certainly make the aircraft uncontrollable. An American Airlines DC-10 crashed after takeoff from Chicago in 1979 (?), after one engine separated from the wing. At the time, it was the deadliest crash in the US.
- danaliv 6y agoThe loss of control in that accident was caused by slat asymmetry. Removing an engine, by itself, wouldn’t be enough to induce loss of control.
- danaliv 6y agoI’m trying to imagine a scenario where that would be beneficial. Maybe uncommanded thrust reverser deployment. Although I think in that case it’s likely to “self-jettison” anyway!
- geff82 6y agoPilot here. You always want to keep the engine for the reason of weight and balance and aerodynamical integrity.
- yread 6y agoThey are mounted using shear pins - so if they somehow malfunction so much that they would break the wing, they fall off instead. Self-jettisoning if you want. Here are some examples https://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/24935/have-jet-engines-ever-sheared-off https://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/24935/have-jet-...
- eeZah7Ux 6y agoThe dangerous bit is the fuel - and that can be cut off from the engine and/or jettisoned.