3 ms·

>(Also, it's odd to blame Rolls-Royce for the failures, when the engines are both owned and maintained by Qantas in Singapore.) I'd say it's much more likely t

by tsiki 16y ago

>(Also, it's odd to blame Rolls-Royce for the failures, when the engines are both owned and maintained by Qantas in Singapore.) I'd say it's much more likely that there's some bug in the A380 RR engine than Qantas doing a maintenance job crappy enough to cause a 2 year old engine suffer such a catastrophic failure. You should be able to do the shoddiest maintenance job in the world and not have an engine fail in a way that causes the wing to be pierced.

evgen 16y ago
and not have an engine fail in a way that causes the wing to be pierced I think this is the bit that is more worrisome than any possible maintenance issues. Jet engines have lots of turbine blades spinning at hellacious rpms. The one catastrophic failure that modern engines are supposed to be designed to prevent is having the blades leave the cowling; this is the sort of failure mode that can result in the failure of a single engine taking an entire plane down (c.f. UAL 232). This is not supposed to happen on modern engines. Ever
- yellowbkpk 16y ago
  I don't think the larger fan blades did leave the cowling. Based on the couple images I saw of the failed engines (e.g. [0]), the smaller, hotter blades farther aft [1] were the ones that punctured the cowling. These have less protection because the wing protects the passengers from flying debris whereas the compression and intake fans stick out far enough to require separate cowling for passenger protection. [0] http://www.newstalkzb.co.nz/img_up/QantasEngine250.jpg http://www.newstalkzb.co.nz/img_up/QantasEngine250.jpg [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Jet_engine.svg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Jet_engine.svg
brc 16y ago
Indeed. I remember seeing pictures of engine testing for the 777 where they explosively detonated a turbine blade to test that no pieces would leave the cowling. Engines are literally designed to explode but keep all the pieces inside. With engines this young, you would have to look at design factors to at least check there is no problem. That's why Qantas has grounded the fleet. Remember, Qantas is the oldest airline to have never suffered a fatality. It's part of their brand equity, and I don't think they want to change that anytime soon.
- werrett 16y ago
  ... have never suffered a fatality since becoming a jet airline. It had quite a few fatalities during the pre-jet era. [1] One Qantas flight was even shot down by the Japanese in 1942! (Apologies for the pedantry) [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Qantas_fatal_accidents http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Qantas_fatal_accidents
- deleted 16y ago
  [deleted]
- yread 16y ago
  the engines are designed to contain a fan blade[1], not a turbine disk [2]. Fan blade is a thin piece of light alloy where turbine disk is solid piece of steel. [1] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j973645y5AA http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j973645y5AA [2] http://i337.photobucket.com/albums/n385/motidog/A380T900-06.jpg http://i337.photobucket.com/albums/n385/motidog/A380T900-06....

by tsiki 16y ago

evgen 16y ago

and not have an engine fail in a way that causes the wing to be pierced I think this is the bit that is more worrisome than any possible maintenance issues. Jet engines have lots of turbine blades spinning at hellacious rpms. The one catastrophic failure that modern engines are supposed to be designed to prevent is having the blades leave the cowling; this is the sort of failure mode that can result in the failure of a single engine taking an entire plane down (c.f. UAL 232). This is not supposed to happen on modern engines. Ever

yellowbkpk 16y ago
I don't think the larger fan blades did leave the cowling. Based on the couple images I saw of the failed engines (e.g. [0]), the smaller, hotter blades farther aft [1] were the ones that punctured the cowling. These have less protection because the wing protects the passengers from flying debris whereas the compression and intake fans stick out far enough to require separate cowling for passenger protection. [0] http://www.newstalkzb.co.nz/img_up/QantasEngine250.jpg http://www.newstalkzb.co.nz/img_up/QantasEngine250.jpg [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Jet_engine.svg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Jet_engine.svg

brc 16y ago

Indeed. I remember seeing pictures of engine testing for the 777 where they explosively detonated a turbine blade to test that no pieces would leave the cowling. Engines are literally designed to explode but keep all the pieces inside. With engines this young, you would have to look at design factors to at least check there is no problem. That's why Qantas has grounded the fleet. Remember, Qantas is the oldest airline to have never suffered a fatality. It's part of their brand equity, and I don't think they want to change that anytime soon.

werrett 16y ago
... have never suffered a fatality since becoming a jet airline. It had quite a few fatalities during the pre-jet era. [1] One Qantas flight was even shot down by the Japanese in 1942! (Apologies for the pedantry) [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Qantas_fatal_accidents http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Qantas_fatal_accidents
deleted 16y ago
[deleted]
yread 16y ago
the engines are designed to contain a fan blade[1], not a turbine disk [2]. Fan blade is a thin piece of light alloy where turbine disk is solid piece of steel. [1] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j973645y5AA http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j973645y5AA [2] http://i337.photobucket.com/albums/n385/motidog/A380T900-06.jpg http://i337.photobucket.com/albums/n385/motidog/A380T900-06....