Comments on: Flight BOAC 781 (Comet Air Crash) – 4/4

By: AndyMcArren1356

AndyMcArren1356 — Sat, 20 Mar 2010 12:05:02 +0000

The 737′s had design flaws with the rudder servo valve which could cause it to do rudder movements on it’s own and cause a strange reversal

By: Epica124

Epica124 — Sat, 20 Mar 2010 12:05:02 +0000

That’s also true. THough that was not at the top of my head at the time.

By: agent004b

agent004b — Sat, 20 Mar 2010 12:05:02 +0000

@Epica124
Aloha 243 also had a lot of short flights in a very humid and salty aired environment. Plus, maintenance done to improve strength/rigidity was not done according to Boeing’s manuals…

By: Epica124

Epica124 — Sat, 20 Mar 2010 12:05:02 +0000

I don’t disgree with that. I was just point out that with Aloha Airlines Flight 243 there was more then just the metal fatigue.

By: BlackBeastofAaaaagh

BlackBeastofAaaaagh — Sat, 20 Mar 2010 12:05:02 +0000

Perhaps my wording came off as too harsh concerning the -200 series. The point I was making was that by “today’s” technology standards the metal fatigue issue in the 737 would be considered to be bad design.

Also the 737-200 was also mired in controversy surrounding its rudder.

This is not at all surprising. Many aircraft have had handling/maintenance issues that were only considered to be quirks in their own time (the Tupolev 154 comes to mind) that would be considered unacceptable today.

By: Epica124

Epica124 — Sat, 20 Mar 2010 12:05:02 +0000

Comet Air was metal fatigue do to a really bid design flaw that they did not know about back then. The older the plane the more it has to be worked on and when a plane is hitting 19 years old it’s getting up there.

By: Epica124

Epica124 — Sat, 20 Mar 2010 12:05:02 +0000

Aloha Airlines Flight 243 there was a lot more that lead into that metal fatigue. It was 19 years old and had a takeoff-landing cycle of 89,090. Yes I understand that it was metal fatigue. But it was metal fatigue do to age and number of take offs.

By: BlackBeastofAaaaagh

BlackBeastofAaaaagh — Sat, 20 Mar 2010 12:05:02 +0000

It was a metal patch kit that would be applied to key points on the exterior skin. If you look at 737-200 series in museums you can clearly see the patches riveted onto the exterior skin in front of the wings.

By: BlackBeastofAaaaagh

BlackBeastofAaaaagh — Sat, 20 Mar 2010 12:05:02 +0000

Actually the 737-200 series also had the fatal flaw of metal fatigue in several high stress areas, much like the Comet. This was made apparent when the whole roof of a 737 peeled off. Amazingly the pilot was able to land the plane and the only loss of life was an air hostess who was standing and did not have her seat belt on like everyone else.

This was a potential catastrophy for the entire industry, as so many of these aircraft were deployed. Fortunately Boeing came up with a solution….

By: Epica124

Epica124 — Sat, 20 Mar 2010 12:05:02 +0000

Most of the Boeing 737′s accidents were do to pilot error. In fact most accidents these days are more do to pilot error then flaws in the plane. That’s not to say they don’t happen though. But you also have to look at the airlines to. Exmaple look up Adam Air.