Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
B-747-400, B747-8(?), B777-???
I thought a carrier would pretty much contract the same manufacturer for engines to simplify logistics.
I actually would read this stuff on board their flights from their literature. Long flight.
777-300ER has GE90-115BL enginesI actually would read this stuff on board their flights from their literature. Long flight.
I think I can write off the freighter version.
Thanks bro'! We'll be eventually flying to Thailand on Korean. We got flyer miles mahk mahk with them.777-300ER has GE90-115BL engines
In the crazy world of finance and insurance, it may be scrapped, it may be repaired and put back into service, my money is on it being repaired because it is insured and never flying again because it isn't needed.That will be determined once they know how much damage is discovered and will only be determined by a thorough inspection, not by glancing at a few photos.
In the crazy world of finance and insurance, it may be scrapped, it may be repaired and put back into service, my money is on it being repaired because it is insured and never flying again because it isn't needed.
Well, it is a good thing that the airframe damage was not worse but even if the pressure cabin had just been breached it would just mean that the cabin outflow valve would have to close off more to maintain the cabin pressure.
I understand that on the 787 they have gone to using electrically driven pumps to pressurize the cabin rather than using engine bleed air. Aside from making the cooling task easier, this also reduces the need for ram air, improves engine efficiency, reduces weight by eliminating the bleed air ducts running from the engines to the fuselage, and improves safety by not having to worry about a bleed air duct failure cooking something. But I am sure there is something wrong with the idea!
There's no way you can make that determination from looking at those photos. Yes the jet took a beating and also had an overweight landing on top of this, but until a through inspection is completed there's no way you can even come close calling this a "write-off." I've seen a lot worse fixed...
I still say it could have been much worse, and that everyone was lucky that engine debris didn't enter the pressure cabin.
Well, it is a good thing that the airframe damage was not worse but even if the pressure cabin had just been breached it would just mean that the cabin outflow valve would have to close off more to maintain the cabin pressure.
I understand that on the 787 they have gone to using electrically driven pumps to pressurize the cabin rather than using engine bleed air. Aside from making the cooling task easier, this also reduces the need for ram air, improves engine efficiency, reduces weight by eliminating the bleed air ducts running from the engines to the fuselage, and improves safety by not having to worry about a bleed air duct failure cooking something. But I am sure there is something wrong with the idea!
Like skippy's 747 at Bangkok, #3 pylon into the wing etc but skippy rebuilt it, reportedly for far more than replacement cost, so that they could pretend they have never lost an aircraft. Too bad records and photos exist of their many hull losses and total loss (aircraft and pob) crashes. In many ways that accident mirrored their first jet crash in 66? - the 707 at Singapore and the first root cause was the same - thou shalt not waste fuel by doing a go-around when you screw up your approach.
As for the 777 being a write-off - even in this climate that is most unlikely.
As an important aside if you want to see the extent of the 777s operating safety margins look for photos and video from its certification "worst case scenario takeoff with engine failure at rotation while at max takeoff weight" from Lhasa in Tibet in mid summer.
Even with the high power loss due to the density altitude it still climbed out at close to the normal angle of attack.