"punktilious" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:lv5Yd.1495$T%[email protected]...

    >> And yet the report, the URL to which was posted in this thread,
    >> stated the manufacturers recommended stainless
    >> steel be used which is NOT softer. There are more than a few
    >> inconsistencies here.
    >> Keith
    > Something is consistent and that is: it should not have been made of
    > titanium, one of the hardest substances on earth. It could have been
    > either stainless or aluminum, both of which are softer.

You are incorrect sir

I have worked extensively with titanium and its
certainly NOT one of the hardest substances on earth.

It is roughly as strong as steel, around the same hardness as
carbon steel and LESS hard than most Austenitic stainless
steels and is much lighter but dont take my word for it.

from
http://www.mettec.com/honda.htm

<Quote>

Titanium Honda Components

Titanium axles will decrease your unsuspended weight. Our axles are equal
to strength to steel but the hardness of titanium is less. For this reason
we recommend the application of a protective coating.
</Quote>

Keith

"Calif Bill" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected] ink.net...
    > "Air" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > news:[email protected]...
    >> The message <[email protected]>
    >> from "Keith W" <[email protected]> contains these words:
    >> > Horsefeathers. Titanium is widely used in aircraft construction, indeed
    >> > Comcorde used more than most as it was needed to resist the
    >> > friction heat along the leading edges of wings and stabiliser.
    >> AIUI the part which fell off, should not have been replaced with
    >> titanium, but should have been stainless steel. It was also not made or
    >> fitted correctly, and basically a 'bodge job'.
    >> http://www.bea-fr.org/docs/f-sc00072...c000725ae.html is old bit
    >> has some interesting tit bits under section 16.6
    >> --
    >> Pam
    > Titanium is not easy to work with, so some mechanic would not cludge
    > together a Titanium part. As to Titanium in airplanes, lots on the
    > Concorde, the SR70 was all Titanium skin and the A10 has Titanium armor
    > around the engines and cockpit.

Here's something else more definitive from somebody else's post.

"The prosecutor's office has contended that Continental violated U.S.
Federal Aviation Administration (news - web sites) rules by using
titanium in a part of the plane that normally called for use of
aluminum, which is softer."

The message <[email protected]>
from "Keith W" <[email protected]> contains these words:

    > And yet the report, the URL to which was posted in this thread,
    > stated the manufacturers recommended stainless
    > steel be used which is NOT softer. There are more than a few
    > inconsistencies here.

Exactly. I was just using the article, [it really is a little too out of
date, and only preliminary, to take word for word], to show those who
stated that any claim was nonsense and that France just wanted to point
a finger, that it is not as simple as they think, and that there could
well indeed be some valid claim. Who knows? I certainly don't and nor
does anyone not part of the investigation.

I have seen and read other articles over the years that have also said
the part that fell, should not have done so; it was too long to fit the
'slot' and if it had been fitted correctly, the cowling would have
closed properly & it would not have fallen. But I cannot verify any
detail & will leave it up to the ptb who do know, to decide


--
Pam

"Keith W" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
    > "punktilious" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > news:Cg5Yd.1493$b%[email protected]...
    >> "Calif Bill" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    >> news:[email protected] ink.net...
    >>> "Air" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    >>> news:[email protected]...
    >>>> The message <[email protected]>
    >>>> from "Keith W" <[email protected]> contains these words:
    >>>> > Horsefeathers. Titanium is widely used in aircraft construction,
    >>>> > indeed
    >>>> > Comcorde used more than most as it was needed to resist the
    >>>> > friction heat along the leading edges of wings and stabiliser.
    >>>> AIUI the part which fell off, should not have been replaced with
    >>>> titanium, but should have been stainless steel. It was also not made or
    >>>> fitted correctly, and basically a 'bodge job'.
    >>>> http://www.bea-fr.org/docs/f-sc00072...c000725ae.html is old
    >>>> bit
    >>>> has some interesting tit bits under section 16.6
    >>>> --
    >>>> Pam
    >>> Titanium is not easy to work with, so some mechanic would not cludge
    >>> together a Titanium part. As to Titanium in airplanes, lots on the
    >>> Concorde, the SR70 was all Titanium skin and the A10 has Titanium armor
    >>> around the engines and cockpit.
    >> Here's something else more definitive from somebody else's post.
    >> "The prosecutor's office has contended that Continental violated U.S.
    >> Federal Aviation Administration (news - web sites) rules by using
    >> titanium in a part of the plane that normally called for use of
    >> aluminum, which is softer."
    > And yet the report, the URL to which was posted in this thread,
    > stated the manufacturers recommended stainless
    > steel be used which is NOT softer. There are more than a few
    > inconsistencies here.
    > Keith
Something is consistent and that is: it should not have been made of
titanium, one of the hardest substances on earth. It could have been either
stainless or aluminum, both of which are softer.

"punktilious" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
    > "Calif Bill" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > news:[email protected] ink.net...
    > >
    > > "Air" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > > news:[email protected]...
    > >> The message <[email protected]>
    > >> from "Keith W" <[email protected]> contains these words:
    > >>
    > >>
    > >> > Horsefeathers. Titanium is widely used in aircraft construction,
indeed
    > >> > Comcorde used more than most as it was needed to resist the
    > >> > friction heat along the leading edges of wings and stabiliser.
    > >>
    > >> AIUI the part which fell off, should not have been replaced with
    > >> titanium, but should have been stainless steel. It was also not made or
    > >> fitted correctly, and basically a 'bodge job'.
    > >>
    > >> http://www.bea-fr.org/docs/f-sc00072...c000725ae.html is old
bit
    > >> has some interesting tit bits under section 16.6
    > >>
    > >> --
    > >> Pam
    > >>
    > >>
    > >
    > > Titanium is not easy to work with, so some mechanic would not cludge
    > > together a Titanium part. As to Titanium in airplanes, lots on the
    > > Concorde, the SR70 was all Titanium skin and the A10 has Titanium armor
    > > around the engines and cockpit.
    > >
    > >
    > By the way, the documentary I saw is one in the series called "Seconds
from
    > Disaster" which shows on the National Geographic channel. I believe what
    > that documentary meant to say is that titanium was not approved as a
    > replacement for the part by the manufacturer. You are belaboring the
obvious
    > that a lot of planes have used titanium. On this plane, AF claims the part
    > should *not* have been made of titanium. If it were not made of titanium,
    > perhaps it would not have fallen off and even if it had fallen off, it
would
    > not have caused as much damage.

Someone stated that titanium was not approved for airplanes. They were
wrong. As to the piece being titanium or aluminum, the fact is a blown tire
on an aircraft should not cause the plane to have a ruptured fuel tank and a
flaming crash! This was a bad design by the Concorde engineering crew. And
France is trying to hide from that fact! Tires fail on their own at times.

Calif Bill wrote:
    >
    > Someone stated that titanium was not approved for airplanes. They were
    > wrong. As to the piece being titanium or aluminum, the fact is a blown tire
    > on an aircraft should not cause the plane to have a ruptured fuel tank and a
    > flaming crash! This was a bad design by the Concorde engineering crew. And
    > France is trying to hide from that fact! Tires fail on their own at times.

There is perhaps room for blame allocation to both sides. If something
fell off your car and caused damage to another car, or an accident, you
would be held liable. I suppose they are applying similar culpability
here.

"Sam Whitman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
    > newsair wrote:
    >> Continental Airlines summonsed over Concorde crash
    >> PARIS (AFP) - The US company Continental Airlines was widely expected
    >> to be placed under judicial investigation over its role in the
    >> Concorde crash five years ago which a report found was triggered by a
    >> piece of metal that fell from a Continental DC-10.
    >> Ken Burt, the American vice-president of the company's technical
    >> division, appeared early afternoon before an examining magistrate for
    >> a "first questioning with a view to being place under investigation,"
    >> according to judicial sources.
    >> The company itself was also likely to be placed under investigation
    >> for "involuntary homicide and injuries," they said.
    >> Under French law a judicial investigation is normally a first step
    >> towards eventual criminal charges.
    >> A judicial enquiry into the crash of the supersonic airliner near
    >> Charles de Gaulle airport in July 2000 concluded in December that a
    >> titanium alloy strip fell from the Continental Airlines DC-10 that
    >> took off just before the Concorde.
    >> The piece of metal punctured the Concorde's tyre, sending debris
    >> upwards into the fuel tank which then exploded. All 109 people on
    >> board as well as four people on the ground were killed.
    > What nonsense. Charge Continental for homicide, involuntarily or not?

They are posturing for cash and to shift the blame to another party. Parts
fall off planes all the time. They don't bring down airliners... except for
one.

"Calif Bill" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected] ink.net...
    > "Air" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > news:[email protected]...
    > > The message <[email protected]>
    > > from "Keith W" <[email protected]> contains these words:
    > >
    > >
    > > > Horsefeathers. Titanium is widely used in aircraft construction,
indeed
    > > > Comcorde used more than most as it was needed to resist the
    > > > friction heat along the leading edges of wings and stabiliser.
    > >
    > > AIUI the part which fell off, should not have been replaced with
    > > titanium, but should have been stainless steel. It was also not made or
    > > fitted correctly, and basically a 'bodge job'.
    > >
    > > http://www.bea-fr.org/docs/f-sc00072...c000725ae.html is old bit
    > > has some interesting tit bits under section 16.6
    > >
    > > --
    > > Pam
    > >
    > >
    > Titanium is not easy to work with, so some mechanic would not cludge
    > together a Titanium part. As to Titanium in airplanes, lots on the
    > Concorde, the SR70 was all Titanium skin and the A10 has Titanium armor
    > around the engines and cockpit.
Never heard of a "SR 70", but am very familiar with the SR 71 family of A/C
which have titanium skins.
Ralph Nesbitt
Professional FD/CFR/ARFF Type
Posting From ADA

"James Robinson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
    > Calif Bill wrote:
    > >
    > > Someone stated that titanium was not approved for airplanes. They were
    > > wrong. As to the piece being titanium or aluminum, the fact is a blown
tire
    > > on an aircraft should not cause the plane to have a ruptured fuel tank
and a
    > > flaming crash! This was a bad design by the Concorde engineering crew.
And
    > > France is trying to hide from that fact! Tires fail on their own at
times.
    > There is perhaps room for blame allocation to both sides. If something
    > fell off your car and caused damage to another car, or an accident, you
    > would be held liable. I suppose they are applying similar culpability
    > here.
Does anyone know the dimension of the piece of FOD in question?
Ralph Nesbitt
Professional FD/CFR/ARFF Type
Posting From ADA

Pooh Bear <[email protected]>
sednews:[email protected]:

    >
    >
    > Ralph Nesbitt wrote:
    >
    >> "James Robinson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    >> news:[email protected]...
    >> > Calif Bill wrote:
    >> > >
    >> > > Someone stated that titanium was not approved for airplanes.
    >> > > They were wrong. As to the piece being titanium or aluminum, the
    >> > > fact is a blown
    >> tire
    >> > > on an aircraft should not cause the plane to have a ruptured fuel
    >> > > tank
    >> and a
    >> > > flaming crash! This was a bad design by the Concorde engineering
    >> > > crew.
    >> And
    >> > > France is trying to hide from that fact! Tires fail on their own
    >> > > at
    >> times.
    >> >
    >> > There is perhaps room for blame allocation to both sides. If
    >> > something fell off your car and caused damage to another car, or an
    >> > accident, you would be held liable. I suppose they are applying
    >> > similar culpability here.
    >> Does anyone know the dimension of the piece of FOD in question?
    >> Ralph Nesbitt
    >> Professional FD/CFR/ARFF Type
    >> Posting From ADA
    >
    > 16.6.1 Findings on the Aircraft
    >
    > The following findings were made on engine 3 on the aircraft :
    >
    > a) Rear reverser cowl structure
    >
    > The lower left wear strip, about 44 cm long, was missing. The closed
    > core cowl door normally rests on the front part of the wear strips
    >
    > -----------------------------
    >
    > The wear strip is made of stainless steel 0.055 inches (1.40 mm) thick
    > and 1 inch wide. The notice indicates that the strip can be made from
    > stainless steel in a workshop the dimensions then being 0.055 inches
    > (1.40 mm) thick and 1.395 inches (35.43 mm) wide without extrusion.
    >

Planespotting twit.

Bertie


Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com

Ralph Nesbitt wrote:

    > "James Robinson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > news:[email protected]...
    > > Calif Bill wrote:
    > > >
    > > > Someone stated that titanium was not approved for airplanes. They were
    > > > wrong. As to the piece being titanium or aluminum, the fact is a blown
    > tire
    > > > on an aircraft should not cause the plane to have a ruptured fuel tank
    > and a
    > > > flaming crash! This was a bad design by the Concorde engineering crew.
    > And
    > > > France is trying to hide from that fact! Tires fail on their own at
    > times.
    > >
    > > There is perhaps room for blame allocation to both sides. If something
    > > fell off your car and caused damage to another car, or an accident, you
    > > would be held liable. I suppose they are applying similar culpability
    > > here.
    > Does anyone know the dimension of the piece of FOD in question?
    > Ralph Nesbitt
    > Professional FD/CFR/ARFF Type
    > Posting From ADA

16.6.1 Findings on the Aircraft

The following findings were made on engine 3 on the aircraft :

a) Rear reverser cowl structure

The lower left wear strip, about 44 cm long, was missing. The closed core cowl
door normally rests on the front part of the wear strips

-----------------------------

The wear strip is made of stainless steel 0.055 inches (1.40 mm) thick and 1
inch wide. The notice indicates that the strip can be made from stainless steel
in a workshop the dimensions then being 0.055 inches (1.40 mm) thick and 1.395
inches (35.43 mm) wide without extrusion.


From http://www.bea-fr.org/docs/f-sc00072...c000725ae.html


Graham

"Pooh Bear" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
    > Ralph Nesbitt wrote:
    > > "James Robinson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > > news:[email protected]...
    > > > Calif Bill wrote:
    > > > >
    > > > > Someone stated that titanium was not approved for airplanes. They
were
    > > > > wrong. As to the piece being titanium or aluminum, the fact is a
blown
    > > tire
    > > > > on an aircraft should not cause the plane to have a ruptured fuel
tank
    > > and a
    > > > > flaming crash! This was a bad design by the Concorde engineering
crew.
    > > And
    > > > > France is trying to hide from that fact! Tires fail on their own at
    > > times.
    > > >
    > > > There is perhaps room for blame allocation to both sides. If
something
    > > > fell off your car and caused damage to another car, or an accident,
you
    > > > would be held liable. I suppose they are applying similar culpability
    > > > here.
    > >
    > > Does anyone know the dimension of the piece of FOD in question?
    > > Ralph Nesbitt
    > > Professional FD/CFR/ARFF Type
    > > Posting From ADA
    > 16.6.1 Findings on the Aircraft
    > The following findings were made on engine 3 on the aircraft :
    > a) Rear reverser cowl structure
    > The lower left wear strip, about 44 cm long, was missing. The closed core
cowl
    > door normally rests on the front part of the wear strips
    > -----------------------------
    > The wear strip is made of stainless steel 0.055 inches (1.40 mm) thick and
1
    > inch wide. The notice indicates that the strip can be made from stainless
steel
    > in a workshop the dimensions then being 0.055 inches (1.40 mm) thick and
1.395
    > inches (35.43 mm) wide without extrusion.
    > From http://www.bea-fr.org/docs/f-sc00072...c000725ae.html
    > Graham
Thanks for the info.

I would think this would be a part furnished by the engine manufacturer or
by engine remanufacturers.

Considering the characteristics of Titanium & the many other issues involved
it is highly unlikely someone would just decide to replace the component
with one made of Titanium for Stainless Steel.

Prehaps someone (JK) with a good knowledge of engines would chime in re what
the thrust reveser wear strips on most engines are made of? Is it common
practice for whatever reason to use wear strips of materials other than
originally furnished by the engine manufacturer.
Ralph Nesbitt
Professional FD/CFR/ARFF Type
Posting From ADA

Ralph Nesbitt wrote:

    > "Pooh Bear" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > news:[email protected]...
    > >
    > >
    > > Ralph Nesbitt wrote:
    > >
    > > > "James Robinson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > > > news:[email protected]...
    > > > > Calif Bill wrote:
    > > > > >
    > > > > > Someone stated that titanium was not approved for airplanes. They
    > were
    > > > > > wrong. As to the piece being titanium or aluminum, the fact is a
    > blown
    > > > tire
    > > > > > on an aircraft should not cause the plane to have a ruptured fuel
    > tank
    > > > and a
    > > > > > flaming crash! This was a bad design by the Concorde engineering
    > crew.
    > > > And
    > > > > > France is trying to hide from that fact! Tires fail on their own at
    > > > times.
    > > > >
    > > > > There is perhaps room for blame allocation to both sides. If
    > something
    > > > > fell off your car and caused damage to another car, or an accident,
    > you
    > > > > would be held liable. I suppose they are applying similar culpability
    > > > > here.
    > > >
    > > > Does anyone know the dimension of the piece of FOD in question?
    > > > Ralph Nesbitt
    > > > Professional FD/CFR/ARFF Type
    > > > Posting From ADA
    > >
    > > 16.6.1 Findings on the Aircraft
    > >
    > > The following findings were made on engine 3 on the aircraft :
    > >
    > > a) Rear reverser cowl structure
    > >
    > > The lower left wear strip, about 44 cm long, was missing. The closed core
    > cowl
    > > door normally rests on the front part of the wear strips
    > >
    > > -----------------------------
    > >
    > > The wear strip is made of stainless steel 0.055 inches (1.40 mm) thick and
    > 1
    > > inch wide. The notice indicates that the strip can be made from stainless
    > steel
    > > in a workshop the dimensions then being 0.055 inches (1.40 mm) thick and
    > 1.395
    > > inches (35.43 mm) wide without extrusion.
    > >
    > >
    > > From http://www.bea-fr.org/docs/f-sc00072...c000725ae.html
    > >
    > > Graham
    > Thanks for the info.

You're welcome.


    > I would think this would be a part furnished by the engine manufacturer or
    > by engine remanufacturers.

Normally so pehaps - but the note referring to ' being made in a workshop '
infers that maintenance can 'improvise' their own if they need to.

If so - it's meant to be drilled according to a template taken from the cowl.
Look at those pics on that link and it doesn't look too clever.


    > Considering the characteristics of Titanium & the many other issues involved
    > it is highly unlikely someone would just decide to replace the component
    > with one made of Titanium for Stainless Steel.

Indeed. An odd choice. Was it a case of simply having some suitable stock laying
around and someone thought it 'would do' ?


    > Prehaps someone (JK) with a good knowledge of engines would chime in re what
    > the thrust reveser wear strips on most engines are made of? Is it common
    > practice for whatever reason to use wear strips of materials other than
    > originally furnished by the engine manufacturer.
    > Ralph Nesbitt
    > Professional FD/CFR/ARFF Type
    > Posting From ADA

I think that stainless steel was specified specifically for this part on the
DC-10. Mixing materials doesn't make any sense either.

Graham

"Pooh Bear" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
    > Ralph Nesbitt wrote:
    > > "Pooh Bear" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > > news:[email protected]...
    > > >
    > > >
    > > > Ralph Nesbitt wrote:
    > > >
    > > > > "James Robinson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > > > > news:[email protected]...
    > > > > > Calif Bill wrote:
    > > > > > >
    > > > > > > Someone stated that titanium was not approved for airplanes.
They
    > > were
    > > > > > > wrong. As to the piece being titanium or aluminum, the fact is
a
    > > blown
    > > > > tire
    > > > > > > on an aircraft should not cause the plane to have a ruptured
fuel
    > > tank
    > > > > and a
    > > > > > > flaming crash! This was a bad design by the Concorde
engineering
    > > crew.
    > > > > And
    > > > > > > France is trying to hide from that fact! Tires fail on their
own at
    > > > > times.
    > > > > >
    > > > > > There is perhaps room for blame allocation to both sides. If
    > > something
    > > > > > fell off your car and caused damage to another car, or an
accident,
    > > you
    > > > > > would be held liable. I suppose they are applying similar
culpability
    > > > > > here.
    > > > >
    > > > > Does anyone know the dimension of the piece of FOD in question?
    > > > > Ralph Nesbitt
    > > > > Professional FD/CFR/ARFF Type
    > > > > Posting From ADA
    > > >
    > > > 16.6.1 Findings on the Aircraft
    > > >
    > > > The following findings were made on engine 3 on the aircraft :
    > > >
    > > > a) Rear reverser cowl structure
    > > >
    > > > The lower left wear strip, about 44 cm long, was missing. The closed
core
    > > cowl
    > > > door normally rests on the front part of the wear strips
    > > >
    > > > -----------------------------
    > > >
    > > > The wear strip is made of stainless steel 0.055 inches (1.40 mm) thick
and
    > > 1
    > > > inch wide. The notice indicates that the strip can be made from
stainless
    > > steel
    > > > in a workshop the dimensions then being 0.055 inches (1.40 mm) thick
and
    > > 1.395
    > > > inches (35.43 mm) wide without extrusion.
    > > >
    > > >
    > > > From http://www.bea-fr.org/docs/f-sc00072...c000725ae.html
    > > >
    > > > Graham
    > >
    > > Thanks for the info.
    > You're welcome.
    > > I would think this would be a part furnished by the engine manufacturer
or
    > > by engine remanufacturers.
    > Normally so pehaps - but the note referring to ' being made in a workshop
'
    > infers that maintenance can 'improvise' their own if they need to.
    > If so - it's meant to be drilled according to a template taken from the
cowl.
    > Look at those pics on that link and it doesn't look too clever.
    > > Considering the characteristics of Titanium & the many other issues
involved
    > > it is highly unlikely someone would just decide to replace the component
    > > with one made of Titanium for Stainless Steel.
    > Indeed. An odd choice. Was it a case of simply having some suitable stock
laying
    > around and someone thought it 'would do' ?
    > > Prehaps someone (JK) with a good knowledge of engines would chime in re
what
    > > the thrust reveser wear strips on most engines are made of? Is it common
    > > practice for whatever reason to use wear strips of materials other than
    > > originally furnished by the engine manufacturer.
    > > Ralph Nesbitt
    > > Professional FD/CFR/ARFF Type
    > > Posting From ADA
    > I think that stainless steel was specified specifically for this part on
the
    > DC-10. Mixing materials doesn't make any sense either.
    > Graham
A given make/model engine may be used on several different makes/models of
A/C.

The issue is the material specification for a particular component on a
given make/model engine.
Ralph Nesbitt
Professional FD/CFR/ARFF Type
Posting From ADA

Pooh Bear <[email protected]>
sednews:[email protected]:

    > Ralph Nesbitt wrote:
    >
    >> "Pooh Bear" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    >> news:[email protected]...
    >> >
    >> >
    >> > Ralph Nesbitt wrote:
    >> >
    >> > > "James Robinson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    >> > > news:[email protected]...
    >> > > > Calif Bill wrote:
    >> > > > >
    >> > > > > Someone stated that titanium was not approved for airplanes.
    >> > > > > They
    >> were
    >> > > > > wrong. As to the piece being titanium or aluminum, the fact
    >> > > > > is a
    >> blown
    >> > > tire
    >> > > > > on an aircraft should not cause the plane to have a ruptured
    >> > > > > fuel
    >> tank
    >> > > and a
    >> > > > > flaming crash! This was a bad design by the Concorde
    >> > > > > engineering
    >> crew.
    >> > > And
    >> > > > > France is trying to hide from that fact! Tires fail on their
    >> > > > > own at
    >> > > times.
    >> > > >
    >> > > > There is perhaps room for blame allocation to both sides. If
    >> something
    >> > > > fell off your car and caused damage to another car, or an
    >> > > > accident,
    >> you
    >> > > > would be held liable. I suppose they are applying similar
    >> > > > culpability here.
    >> > >
    >> > > Does anyone know the dimension of the piece of FOD in question?
    >> > > Ralph Nesbitt
    >> > > Professional FD/CFR/ARFF Type
    >> > > Posting From ADA
    >> >
    >> > 16.6.1 Findings on the Aircraft
    >> >
    >> > The following findings were made on engine 3 on the aircraft :
    >> >
    >> > a) Rear reverser cowl structure
    >> >
    >> > The lower left wear strip, about 44 cm long, was missing. The
    >> > closed core
    >> cowl
    >> > door normally rests on the front part of the wear strips
    >> >
    >> > -----------------------------
    >> >
    >> > The wear strip is made of stainless steel 0.055 inches (1.40 mm)
    >> > thick and
    >> 1
    >> > inch wide. The notice indicates that the strip can be made from
    >> > stainless
    >> steel
    >> > in a workshop the dimensions then being 0.055 inches (1.40 mm)
    >> > thick and
    >> 1.395
    >> > inches (35.43 mm) wide without extrusion.
    >> >
    >> >
    >> > From http://www.bea-fr.org/docs/f-sc00072...c000725ae.html
    >> >
    >> > Graham
    >> Thanks for the info.
    >
    > You're welcome.
    >
    >
    >> I would think this would be a part furnished by the engine
    >> manufacturer or by engine remanufacturers.
    >
    > Normally so pehaps - but the note referring to ' being made in a
    > workshop ' infers that maintenance can 'improvise' their own if they
    > need to.
    >
    > If so - it's meant to be drilled according to a template taken from
    > the cowl. Look at those pics on that link and it doesn't look too
    > clever.
    >
    >
    >> Considering the characteristics of Titanium & the many other issues
    >> involved it is highly unlikely someone would just decide to replace
    >> the component with one made of Titanium for Stainless Steel.
    >
    > Indeed. An odd choice. Was it a case of simply having some suitable
    > stock laying around and someone thought it 'would do' ?

Good grief, waht an idiot.


    >
    >
    >> Prehaps someone (JK) with a good knowledge of engines would chime in
    >> re what the thrust reveser wear strips on most engines are made of?
    >> Is it common practice for whatever reason to use wear strips of
    >> materials other than originally furnished by the engine manufacturer.
    >> Ralph Nesbitt
    >> Professional FD/CFR/ARFF Type
    >> Posting From ADA
    >
    > I think that stainless steel was specified specifically for this part
    > on the DC-10. Mixing materials doesn't make any sense either.
    >

Like th eplanespotter would actually have a clue.
Shouldn't you be polishing that nice model of a Vicker Vildebeest you
bought at the planespoting shop yesterday?


Bertie