Please don't make this more complicated than it is. This failure was common in the early part of the 20th century. This is VERY basic mechanical engineering. A 20 yr old second year Mech Eng student can tackle this easily. RR are not noted for sharing information and that is the ONLY problem that second year Eng student would have.
BEAR your post of 5th Dec 2010 15:41 fits my theory. OK the metallurgy is complex but please remember they are seeking to make this engine's mass as LOW as possible.
Also remember that disc thingy?
(senior moment) that exploded out goes round in the opposite direction to the rest of the internals.
CAAD it is fun to theorise and we, well, I anyway, can do this cause 466 lives were not lost. All Trents? No..not all..but this T972 variant in this situation YES. Specific too.
TURBINE D "so I can't figure out why or how it got to the shape depicted in the photo" Are you serious? It was shoddy work.
What else can it be?
I trust the NTSB. I do not trust RR or Airbus in being open about events.
Please remember that product testing involved 466 people and Qantas was somewaht ignorant of the events going on elsewhere regarding this engine. You will note how the Germans have kept silent through all this apart from a very definite eary statement: "We see no reason to stop flying our 380." That was the day after the accident.
And again: this is a VERY basic engineering failure. OK we have a fancy oil bearing and some high end metallurgy and high energy transfers for total mass of engine..but that is all. We have all the tools to find out what happened.
The biggest problem are the PEOPLE involved. The politics. The cost. And the disgrace.