4 ms·
The article addresses debris-related engine failure mitigation.
by usefulcat 12y ago
The article addresses debris-related engine failure mitigation.
- scrumper 12y agoOnly in as far as a novel 'core canting' approach to protecting one engine from an unconfined failure of the adjacent unit. It didn't discuss protecting the tail or fuselage (unless I'm forgetting something; read it a couple hours ago so maybe I did.)
- frik 12y agoYes the second engine may be saved (not mechanically linked). But the debris could destroy parts of the tail/wing/fuselage.
- nether 12y agoThis is a tradeoff due to mission priorities. Embedded nacelles (as in fighters) reduce drag (the point of this project is to increase efficiency), but complicate matters of structural support and increase engine vulnerability in case of fire. These have superior shielding to runway debris and birdstrikes, but such incidents are extremely rare.
- Shivetya 12y agoI would still think that intake at the top of the fuselage should be less likely to ingest debris, the military would be an ideal means to test it in transport configurations.
- Sanddancer 12y agoThere's been a decent amount of research that the upper portions of the fuselage are more durable locations for engines. The A-10 for example, has its engines located up and to the rear for that reason, and the experimental YC-14 [1] also had the engines placed up high, albeit for different reasons, but avoidance of ingestion was definitely a nice side effect. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_YC-14 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_YC-14