Aluminium wire is good, providing you terminate it correctly and do not have it flex too much. So, hopefully the aluminium wire runs from bulkhead connector assembly to bulkhead connector assembly with a rigid sheath and rigid mounting to keep it from flexing during use, and then the ends are done using either short copper or aluminium connector tails that are replaced regularly as they flex, before they reach a fatigue life limit. Of course using digital data buses to move the data long distance instead of multiple individual wires is best, though for redundancy you need to have at least 3 paths for the wiring, one port lower, one starboard lower and one via top of cabin, so that any structural failure does not cause total loss of communications, and of course each link must have a dual redundant interface each end, and then polling and majority vote electronics to aggregate the data and give the best valid data as output either end. Saves a lot of mass, though there is added cost of the 6 controllers you need, but they are at least possible to design as interchangeable devices making them lower cost.
However, Boeing did have a lot of labour issuesh, and it was no secret there was some very poor work done at some of the assembly plants they got parts from. Same for RR, there were some parts that had early failure from poor design, poor assembly and poor QC, like the accessory gearboxes that caused a few engine failures, due to a poorly centred drilling that was not allowing full flow of lubricantm and which also was very prone to cracking and leaking oil into the engine itself.
As to uncontained engine failure, the biggest risk is not cabin penetration, as the cabin is only around 10 degrees of rotation, but rather fragments damaging control surfaces, as there the 180 degree coverage is a lot higher risk, and cabin damage is something that is bad, but containable with rapid descent to breathable altitude. Wing damage runs the risk of tanks losing fuel ( ETOPS does not help if you are 3 hours out and are losing fuel rapidly such that you only have 2 hours of fuel for the remaining engine) and control surface damage, which was the cause of the Dutch accident. However the cowling’s do reduce velocity of the fragments so they are less damaging, there might be damage but at least it is less, and a higher probability of the aircraft still being able to fly, though generally when that occurs most pilots are going to look for the closest landing place possible, not the most convenient.
Remember the original Being 747 was kind or renowned for departing London for New York, or the other way round, with 4 engines, and arriving with 3, one having fallen off from fatigued fuse pins and engine mounts mid Atlantic. Fixed with better fuse pin design, better crack checking cycles and also not using fork lifts to change engines, and overstress the mounts as the hydraulics leak down.
As to me, I used to travel on C130's, and always sat 2 rows back from the red line painted inside and outside the fuselage, over the yellow line painted on the floor that indicated wing root and thus COG of the plane. Same on the C47, though there I also had a party trick of drinking a cool drink during heavy thunderstorms, and keeping the level in the bottle even as the plane pitched and yawed though the storm. Made a few of the others grab the bags I also had as well. From there go to a commercial carrier, and had no issue with the bumpy flight, even had the on board meal as well, though I did have to hold the glass while eating, as it would not stay on the seat back tray. 30000 feet above a major storm is not bumpy in a 737, if you flew in through the same storm at 8000 feet in a Dakota.
Home
Help
Search
Login
Register
