Need a book? Engineering books recommendations...

Return to index: [Subject] [Thread] [Date] [Author]

Re: UBC97-- Redundancy Factor

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
> people flying twins are really not prepared to
>fly it on one engine
Good example of Gilligan's comment about the presence of redundancy being 
negated by faulty details. But I think I'll stick to my guns on the 
issue. When 100% of your engines fail down you go; if you're over water 
or a big city or mountains you're in trouble. But if only 50% of your 
engines fail, you've at least got a shot at putting it down 
conventionally. 

The redundancy thing may be getting mixed up with ductility. The 
difference is that ductility without redundancy can delay ultimate 
collapse although maybe not prevent it. Redundancy without ductility 
means no plastic reserve; sudden failures and dynamic load transfer. 
Probably comes from a background in pressure vessels, but I've found 
redundancy without ductility to be far scarier than ductility without 
redundancy. 

Christopher Wright P.E.    |"They couldn't hit an elephant from
chrisw(--nospam--at)skypoint.com        | this distance"   (last words of Gen.
___________________________| John Sedgwick, Spotsylvania 1864)
http://www.skypoint.com/~chrisw