| I apologize... My original comment was poorly thought out and naive, which misled potato and you. You and potato followed that wrong path and unfortunately didn't correct me or yourselves. I tried to correct myself later (see my sibling comment), but I wouldn't be surprised if I've made another huge cockup with the facts. > Yes, that bearing only moves a few degrees It certainly does not move a few degrees (except maybe after a crash). Thinking back to my one undergrad mechanics paper, I think the design purpose was to make torsions equal zero, so that the mechanical analysis would be tractable. The torsions should still be extremely low because nothing can rotate (except maybe a tiny amount due to deformations). If we can't get the engineering facts straight, then our opinions on engineering management are likely to be even more pointless and flawed. You seem to have gone off the rails as much as potato. The report seems to be implying that the broken bearing is the cause of the accident. The bearing was still in place after the accident so presumably the bolt didn't shear. If the engine has full acceleration then the engine is pitching upwards against the wing and the force on that bearing is upwards? I think the report implied the fire occurred at the same time as the structural failure. What might be the chain of events from a broken bearing to a fire? |