Well put Adam.
I feel that the containment ring on C20 series is another rip off cost, I am not saying it is not a good idea but the cost is crazy, because they can.
Engineering-wise, there is nothing today that suggests they would be that hard to make. The tolerances are far lower than in many other industries where none such price hiking appears. Let's not forget they were certified and approved when they were still hand made on lathe's and manual mills. Today we have robotic CNC vertical mill stations that have more productivity and much higher tolerances. Neither are the materials used very exciting or expensive. I don't believe for a second these aren't downright cash cows for RR, GE and P&W. Nobody can with a straight face tell me a 250 or a PT6 costs $600.000 to make. The R&D and the certification costs were recouped decades ago. What we're left with is corporate bullying. "
OEI-Dave
I have some pics of a failure (pre ring) SCARY.
Has anyone had an uncontained failure of these turbines yet? I know an AD was issued for a containment ring, AD 2005-10-13. This only applies to the series 2 engines (ie, C20,B17,C20R ect). Which in theory, should have "contained" a failure of the hot section. Somehow I doubt this after inspecting a containment ring and doing some maths on the rotating inertia of the turbine section.
Anyone had anything with the series 3 and 4?
"But isn't this all a bit of inflating one's importance with turbines? Let's be honest here - they can charge these kind of money because they're on the type certificate as the only engine that particular aircraft can use. It's what is called a 'captive market'.