Gerard M Foley wrote: >From: "Michael C. Berch" <mcb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > >Sent: Tuesday, July 20, 2004 6:42 PM > > > > >>On Jul 20, 2004, at 3:28 PM, Gerard M Foley wrote: >> >> >>>From: <lafrance@xxxxxxxxxxx> >>>Sent: Tuesday, July 20, 2004 5:43 PM >>> >>> >>>>I guess CO is now not to blame as they claimed............. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>Sorry, I did not catch on to the fact that the story really said that >>>the >>>titanium sheet did not come from the DC-10. >>> >>>It asserts that if the sheet had not been titanium it would not have >>>caused >>>the rupture of the fuel tank. I assumed story implied that titanium >>>had >>>been substituted for an original material on the DC-10, which is of >>>course >>>extremely unlikely. >>> >>> >>No, you got it right the first time. The material DID come from the CO >>DC-10, but the gist of the story was that it was titanium instead of >>the "original alloy", and the original alloy would not have been strong >>enough to puncture the tires, but titanium indeed was. >> >> >> >Thanks for defending my translation, and maybe it was near right. > >But why in the world would anyone substitute titanium, expensive and >difficult to work, for duralumin in a part that can fall off an airplane >without affecting its flying? Apparently if the CO DC-10 really lost >anything it didn't matter much to it. Was it made of titanium so it would >really tear up tires when it fell off? > >Gerry > > "On Saturday September 2nd, in Houston, representatives of Continental, the BEA, the US Federal Aviation Administration and the National Transportation Safety Board inspected the aircraft. They determined a piece of a metal wear strip, similar in shape to the piece of metal found on the runway in Paris, was missing from the space between the fan reverser and the core door on the right-wing engine of the Continental DC 10. It has not been determined definitively that the metal piece found on the runway is the piece of wear strip missing from the Continental aircraft. Visual inspection suggests that it could have come from Continental's aircraft. The absence of a piece of wear strip does not affect the safe operation of an aircraft. After their inspection, the authorities released the aircraft for return to normal operations." The Ti replacement part would have been lighter, tougher and more heat resistant, perhaps a superior application in a hot-wear environment like a reverser, but it apparently wasn't sufficiently well fastened... on the other hand, reports suggest the original part was found missing, too, and the Ti part was substituted during routine MX. - Bob Mann -- R.W. Mann & Company, Inc. >> Airline Industry Analysis Port Washington, NY 11050 >> tel 516-944-0900, fax -7280 mailto:info@xxxxxxxxxx >> URL http://www.RWMann.com/ This e-mail is for the designated recipient only and may contain privileged or confidential information. If you have received it in error, please notify the above sender immediately then delete the original e-mail. Any other use of this e-mail is prohibited.