Quote:
DevX posted about possible parallels with this
uncontained Trent 1000 failure
Correct, but the report has the test facility number wrong. Only a minor detail perhaps, but it was in fact 54 test facility, not 58. The failure did indeed damage the cell, but not significantly. I have witnessed a lot worse (many years ago) with the uncontained failure of a development RB.168 Mk 202 military Spey. The disc literally bounced around the test cell and cut through fuel, pneumatic and electrical lines like a hot knife through butter, and put the facility out of action for weeks.
As I reported in my previous post, this current failure (and the ANA T1000) is not purely a material issue as most metals are liable to failure when heated to a condition above and beyond their design requirements. Unfortunately I can't spell it out as the specific details pertaining to both incidents are confidential at the moment, but hopefully the full story will emerge via 'official' sources in the not too distant future.