PPRuNe Forums - View Single Post - AF66 CDG-LAX diverts - uncontained engine failure over Atlantic
Old 16th Oct 2017, 20:08
  #435 (permalink)  
msbbarratt
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 380
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by BluSdUp
By the way, a new engine on a ship would have been there by now.!
Probably yes! But one suspects that there's a ton of work to ensure that everything else (flaps, wing, you name it) is fine and that no more damaged bits will fall off anywhere else. Only then will it be fit to fly with either 3 or 4 engines.

The shipping of the engine is, I suspect, the least of their problems to solve at the moment.

A bit of topic creep, apologies, but my interest is piqued. Whilst not relevant to this particular incident, it is interesting that the Trent 900 fits in a 747 freighter. I don't know if RR have managed to keep their other large Trent derivatives under that size limit, but doing so is a big economic enabler for fancy deals on engine purchasing, ownership, maintenance, etc. Anyone out there know? The XWB has a slightly larger fan, but I don't know if that is reflected in overall diameter. The 7000 fan is slightly narrower, as is the 1000. And if RR has exploited this fit-in-a-jumbo characteristic to enable fancy deals with airlines buying the engine, what happens when (a long time in the future) the 747 freighter stop flying?
msbbarratt is offline