Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Piffer Thread on Political Rantings and Ravings -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Ilaine who wrote (4076)	11/12/2001 2:26:29 PM
From: jcky	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 14610

Hi CB, I'm not proposing a failed turbine engine was the cause of the crash (though, it is still plausible). There are many possibilities. I was merely answering the question of how a mechanical failure can result in the combustion of an airplane in mid-air. There's really no reliable information our there right now. And with regards to the eye witness accounts, they are notoriously inaccurate unless observed by an aviation expert. Forensic evidence and the black box recordings are far more trustworthy.

To: Ilaine who wrote (4076)	11/12/2001 2:40:31 PM
From: Logain Ablar	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 14610

At one point Pratt engine blades were known to crack. A turbine blade flying into the fuselage could cause an explosion. The Pratt problem was fixed prior to a crash but the FAA had a major maintainence check in a short time frame after one of the incidents. I think the cause of the crack had something to do with a supplier of the titanium blades (this was from a pratt engineer who would be biased). Don't know if these were Pratt, GE or Rolls Royce engines.