LiftDivergence
Aerospace
- Jan 15, 2014
- 258
Circling back to the thrust links (an no, I'm not trying to kick Boeing when they are down):
The 777X thrust links are made from Titanium, although I'm not sure which alloy.
Most thrust links I have knowledge of, including those of the 777-200 and 777-300 are made from 15-5PH, so they switched materials.
I'm very curious why they did this, if anyone has insight, other than "minimal weight savings".
OK, but I don't really see this as a quasi-static or limit loads issue. They found a completely severed link which caused them to inspect the rest of the test fleet, and they found several more examples of cracking. This seems like a potential fatigue issue to me.
Reminds me of the issues Airbus had with dwell fatigue on some of the GE engines it was using. Alpha titanium and even alloys like Ti-6Al-4V are not immune to dwell fatigue especially in environments with long periods of mean stress hold in the VA spectrum (kinda like a thrust link...). Those GE components were seeing lives orders or magnitude below predicted.
Again, makes me curious why they would choose to switch from steel to titanium.
If I could hazard a guess based purely on speculation, it seems like they either had a fundamental misunderstanding of their fatigue environment, or there is a major issue with the materials / processing / manufacturing, or both. I have to assume the thrust links would have been extensively fatigue tested before this phase of development.
Something is definitely not passing the smell test here. I don't think we can chalk it up to "damage like this happens all the time, they'll just end up derating the engine".
Keep em' Flying
//Fight Corrosion!
waross said:And these motor mounts were different from all of the motor mounts that Boeing successfully designed in the past how?
The 777X thrust links are made from Titanium, although I'm not sure which alloy.
Most thrust links I have knowledge of, including those of the 777-200 and 777-300 are made from 15-5PH, so they switched materials.
I'm very curious why they did this, if anyone has insight, other than "minimal weight savings".
Alistair_Heaton said:It's quite a common occurrence. The q400 had it's engines derated 3-4 times due to cracking of multiple structural bits.
I never did a Max TakeOff Power in one in 2700 hours, even with the final derated certified version.
OK, but I don't really see this as a quasi-static or limit loads issue. They found a completely severed link which caused them to inspect the rest of the test fleet, and they found several more examples of cracking. This seems like a potential fatigue issue to me.
Reminds me of the issues Airbus had with dwell fatigue on some of the GE engines it was using. Alpha titanium and even alloys like Ti-6Al-4V are not immune to dwell fatigue especially in environments with long periods of mean stress hold in the VA spectrum (kinda like a thrust link...). Those GE components were seeing lives orders or magnitude below predicted.
Again, makes me curious why they would choose to switch from steel to titanium.
If I could hazard a guess based purely on speculation, it seems like they either had a fundamental misunderstanding of their fatigue environment, or there is a major issue with the materials / processing / manufacturing, or both. I have to assume the thrust links would have been extensively fatigue tested before this phase of development.
Something is definitely not passing the smell test here. I don't think we can chalk it up to "damage like this happens all the time, they'll just end up derating the engine".
Keep em' Flying
//Fight Corrosion!