A380 "engine problems"

The turbo-impellers are huge, and they have to keep the spindle speed down below a rate where the blade tip perimeter never breaks the sound barrier, and the force on the blades is huge. They are hollow and vented as well.

THEN one gets to the hot internal compressor blades, etc. They too are ported and vented to keep them cool.

It was an interesting show on the History Channel, IIRC.

I sure hope you guys are smart enough to watch modern TV offerings.

TV is far better than it was when some folks simply gave up on it. Those idiots don't know what they are missing. Both on the screen and whet never ends up in their head.

If ignorance is bliss, the knowledge must be folly.

They'll do fine. Pratt and Witney had engine that had exploding combustors in them, which exploded on the runway, and they survived that. Likely to the point that you do not even remember it.

RR has a nice little presentation here:

You ain't real bright, are ya boy?

When an impeller/fan/etc blade breaks free from its root, and finds its way further back into a spooling engine, the catastrophic failure mode that occurs is very much akin to an explosion, idiot.

Come back when you are not an idiot. Perhaps in your next life, IF that one does not get brain SABOTAGED like your current stinking hulk has been.

They can handle a hundred large birds and the pilot (or co-pilot) would likely have seen that anyway. They should have sensors on the inlet shrouds too that would have noted such an incursion.

Not for the people that actually fly in them.

John

Even the much smaller engine from the plane that STOPPED after entering the Pentagon kept going through several sets of walls (each ring) and ended up out in the inner courtyard. That was inertial kinetic energy alone.

When they are spooled up and explode catastrophically, it is like a stick of TNT going off... For the smaller engines. These big dudes would be like a few sticks.

It will probably be attributed to a failed compressor blade or turbine blade that either broke mid-blade, or broke at the root attachment, and then tore up the rest of the engine.

Since they are hollow and very hard to make, I suppose one could miss a faulty blade in MFG, but one would think that it would have failed sooner, were that the case. Like in engine build up and test before it ever made it into an airframe.

You are like the cops that sit on the stand and say "It is a summary report..." when there is no "detailed report". They are too damned dumb to make a detailed report.

"something about turbine blades." Damn, dude. You should have just kept that one to yourself. Not many moving parts in a jet engine. That would make it likely that it would be about 'something about turbine blades'.

Cast? Try hot forged, machined, drilled, polished, THEN TESTED. "If a worker drops one on the floor..."? Do you know anything about modern robotic manufacturing processes? They rarely,if ever, even get touched by 'a worker'.

Billions and billions? You must be drunk, and just forgot to use the other nym. Take away a few zeros there, fellah. We ain't there yet.

No new blade will be called a blade carrying a flaw. Inspection is the last event before tha=ey are considered proofed.

One would think that ALLof the currently operating A380s all have their original engines in them. If they are already swapping them out, something is seriously wrong with the design itself.

I therefore conclude that you must be nuts to think that they are already performing major servicings on them.

Either that or the Airbus folks and RR have seriously slipped.

I was pretty sure, however, that these engines got serious tests done on them (at the proto stage then all the way through production), so whatever happened, it was not a design issue. I'll wait till we see what we see.

Drink much?

Now... I KNOW that you ARE a TRUE IDIOT.

There have been uncontained failures in non Rolls Royce engines. One brought down a DC-10 at Sioux City.

Unlike the DC-10, the A380 can survive even a total hydraulic failure. It wouldn't be so easy for an uncontained engine failure to bring one down.

Sylvia.

You're a goddamned retard, Thompson.

Bet my nuts work better than yours do, you old fucktard! Bwuahahahahaha!

Bet the rest of the gear I got here and the gear I make does too!

Your pathetic designs are the ones that could not stand up to the rugged test, and would be a Tempest nightmare. Aside from the fact that you do not make anything the modern world wants or needs.

You'll have to go look that one up though, I'm sure.

You doing 10Gbe yet?

Current project Encrypted Hard Drives. Hard key AND keypad security. Remember "Under Siege"?

I hereby ZEROIZE you, ThompsonTard! Not that your gurgling ever registered much else anyway.

Sorry, but asswipes like you and ThompsonTard require that a dumpster be dropped off. You definitely will not fit into the commode.

Test passed. Total s******ds get rejected.

Bandwagon idiocy.

You also attend those idiotic riots too, doncha, boy?

Unless it took off the wing. This event blew a hole in the wing. French "engineering" ?:-) ...Jim Thompson

The wing is not a solid block of metal. Most of it is space occupied by tankage, or just empty, with just enough material to hold it together. Boeing wings are no different, because of the need to minimise weight. The wing spar is what counts, and it's altogether sturdier. I'm not saying that it's invulnerable, but little conclusion can be drawn from the fact that something punched through a couple of thin plates.

What brought down the DC-10 was not the damage to the flight surfaces in the tail, though they certainly suffered some damage, but that bits of metal managed to score direct hits on all three hydraulic systems, thus disabling the controls.

Sylvia.

Actually, the thing to note was that an engine expoded, and the plane turned around and returned to the airport! Never a bad advertisement...

Charlie

Well, except that only around 60% of the passengers survived the "landing".

If a bird can cause an uncontained failure, there's something wrong with the engine. For a jet engine, eating birds is just a fact of life. Anything less than several large birds (e.g. geese) shouldn't cause any kind of failure, let alone an uncontained one.

Here's a full NTSB report on a P&W uncontained engine failure back in the 90s that killed a couple of passengers while rolling to a takeoff:-

Best regards, Spehro Pefhany

He's talking about the A380, not the DC-10.

Sylvia.