PDA

View Full Version : Merged: Qantas 747 Engine failure. Returns to SFO


listentome
31st Aug 2010, 21:20
I've either missed something, or this has been kept very quiet?

747 makes it back to SFO after engine fails (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=%2Fc%2Fa%2F2010%2F08%2F31%2FBA021F67JO.DTL)

crow17
31st Aug 2010, 21:30
I see on the news that a Qantas 747-400 has s*at a turbine blade on #4 eng out of San Fran overnight. Anyone with some details.
I also hear that Qantas doesn't do their engins in house anymore.
Crow

Red Jet
31st Aug 2010, 21:45
Seriously - we really need a thread about a 4-engine aircraft having lost the use of one??

It is reminiscent of the F16 pilot who was told by approach control to hold, in order to give priority to a B52 coming in with an engine failure, whereupon he replied " Oh dear - the dreaded 7-engine approach".

Chimbu chuckles
31st Aug 2010, 22:18
Yup - non event - he still had 50% more engines than MOST of the aircraft crossing the Pacific. Had it not been a 'severe damage' (I am assuming 'sh*t a turbine blade' is accurate) he would have been within his rights to continue on to Hawaii (No need to dump fuel/call company and have engineers standing by with new engine and, most importantly, MUCH better place to be stuck:ok: ) or even Australia (fuel permitting).

Or have the ar$e coverers put 'land at nearest suitable' for a single system failure in the QRH/ECL on 4 engine aeroplanes now too?

cone zone
31st Aug 2010, 22:50
Once you see the images I sure you will agree that it is news worthy, Besides it is more interesting than most of the dribble on here.:)

compressor stall
31st Aug 2010, 23:00
I agree chuck, but I do recall the FAA getting rather shirty to say the least when a ba 747 lost one out of JFK I think and continued to Europe.

Mach2point7
31st Aug 2010, 23:02
I beg to differ. An uncontained engine failure at 30,000 ft is not a "non event". See the thread under Rumours and News for photos and more details. The entire design and certification process is meant to ensure that this does not happen. Interesting that it did not let go at take off power setting. Very lucky that the debris trajectory was outboard from the #4.

Weapons_Hot
1st Sep 2010, 00:09
Did QF74 use de-rated thrust for TKOF, and what was CLTHR (CLTHR1 or CLTHR2)?

On occasion, de-rated TKOF and CLTHR can be the same.

BigGun
1st Sep 2010, 00:15
Qantas jet turns back after large hole appears in shell around engine (http://www.smh.com.au/travel/travel-news/qantas-jet-turns-back-after-large-hole-appears-in-shell-around-engine-20100901-14fvw.html?autostart=1)

I have a large dislike for aussie media, honestly watch the video and ask where the quality is in it?

I think its border line slanderous mentioned the "just reasont" issue of the cargo blowing out.

Also an engine is not part of the fuselage is only punched a hole in the back of the thrust reverser.

Keg
1st Sep 2010, 00:32
Weapons hot. If they could have they probably would have. I never flew SFO-SYD on the 744 but LAX-SYD was often close to MTOW and therefore no derate available.

jet_mechanic
1st Sep 2010, 00:46
That looks like a lot of damage for a turbine blade failure. The turbine blades are quite small in mass, so for one to penatrate the turbine case there must have been a big failure somewhere else aswell.

LetsGoRated
1st Sep 2010, 00:52
Seriously - we really need a thread about a 4-engine aircraft having lost the use of one??

Red Jet, you are my hero!! We don't need to hear about these things. Lets just sweep them under the rug cause that way nobody learns. We spend years and tears training for these events, however Red Jet is such a guru it all comes naturally to him. He requires no such experiences, for he is the oracle. Red Jet, a professional, you are not!

crow17
1st Sep 2010, 01:17
"The turbine blades are quite small in mass, so for one to penatrate the turbine case there must have been a big failure somewhere else aswell."


Jet Mech.

When one turbine blade goes it usually takes a lot with it. One of the photos in Sydneys Daily Telegraph clearly shows what remains of the turbine disc minus a few blades( lots of empty fur tress on the disc). Disc failure or blade failure still end up with similar nasty result.

Crow

blueloo
1st Sep 2010, 02:18
From online SMH:

Mr Rushton said engine failures were "very rare events" and there was no fire.

But an engine surge can often cause what appear to be flames.

So flames that appear to be flames are not actually flames?

There was no fire? So none of the engines were running? Last time I checked the engines need some form of ignition and fuel to keep them running.

Where do they get these PR twits from.

Ex FSO GRIFFO
1st Sep 2010, 03:07
Smile.......

On Commercial Radio a little while ago, a QANTAS Spokesperson said that
"All the passengers took it in their stride'......

Or, was that 'did it in their strides'.......

Could be my hearing these days....

Sorry guys & Gals.....normal 'viewing' resumes.....:}

:ok:

p.s. Stallie, that was LAX to LHR I think....and it had to land en route (Manchester?) 'cause of the fuel it didn't then have to make LHR...if I remember correctly.:ok:

N1 Vibes
1st Sep 2010, 03:24
Turbine blades or turbine disc....

Looking at the photos on Flight Global it looks more like a large bit of turbine has exited the engine, in the 3rd photo you can see the core engine turbine casing flange, it should normally have a fairing on it. If only a turbine blade had exited there would normally just be a small blade sized puncture

Pictures: Qantas 747 uncontained engine failure-31/08/2010-Washington DC-Flightglobal.com (http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2010/08/31/346831/pictures-qantas-747-uncontained-engine-failure.html)

4 Engine A/C, big deal or not....

The same engine type (RB211-524) is fitted to the B767, ETOPS a/c, and the turbine architecture is the same. And most of the Trent family is similar too.

Similar events....

Edelweiss A330 (Trent 700, shares the HP/IP turbine of the 524) ex Miami October 2003. Engine lost substantial piece of the IPT disc due to overheating in the HP/IP turbine bearing area, due to oil vent tube coking. Overheating caused the IPT disc rotor arm to crack and fail see:

An Incident With A Edelweiss A330 Departing MIA — Civil Aviation Forum | Airliners.net (http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/general_aviation/read.main/1231748/#menu27)

deadhead
1st Sep 2010, 03:49
Momentum = mass x velocity. As long as the thrown blade (if that is what it was) has high enough velocity, it won't matter how small it is. It'll still do damage. I'm surprised that the engine stayed on. An uncontained failure like that should have brought the turbine down from thousands of RPM to zero in a second or two. The torque developed from that should have tried to twist the engine right off its mounts. The torque shear bolts should have broken (as designed) and dropped the engine. But thank God it stayed on. Can you imagine the journos having a field day with that one? :rolleyes: Convincing them that the engine is designed to drop off before a massive torsional overload can damage the wing would be quite futile. :ugh: One thing's for sure: it won't just be an engine replacement job, that whole wing spar will need a hard core inspection. :ouch:

Offchocks
1st Sep 2010, 03:53
N1 Vibes

Are you sure it is a RB211, the photos are not that great but it looks like a CF6 to me.

N1 Vibes
1st Sep 2010, 03:57
Deadhead,

you forget that even if the IPT disc had parted company - either part or whole - the LP Turbine continues to rotate because the fan is windmilling like billyo, and the debris from the IPT failing will pass throught the still rotating LPT, causing sparks etc...

SMOC
1st Sep 2010, 04:02
The torque developed from that should have tried to twist the engine right off its mounts. The torque shear bolts should have broken (as designed) and dropped the engine.

Not any more, after El Al a 5th attachment was added between the two front spar attachments and all of the old 'fuse' pins were replaced with a non fuse type.

Also definitely a Roller.

Lucky it wasn't a fan blade.

YouTube - Wide Body, Blade-Out Jet Engine Test (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5-8_Gnbp2JA&feature=youtube_gdata_player)

N1 Vibes
1st Sep 2010, 04:03
Offchocks,

certain, have crawled in and out and around them often enough....check my location we also operate the same donk on our 744's.

Brgd's

N1 Vibes

deadhead
1st Sep 2010, 04:08
Yes, in the case of an LP turbine failure, it would take a lot to gum up the works enough to stop the fan in its tracks. I had assumed for the purpose it was a failure in the gas turbine HP core...but interesting that it wasn't contained nevertheless. Yes, I did forget about El Al, too. Was that non-shear bolt added to just the 747 or did it go across 76 etc as well...

Jabawocky
1st Sep 2010, 04:46
Indeed :D

I wonder if that is his usual line for sim sessions too!

Offchocks
1st Sep 2010, 04:57
N1 Vibes

Yep you are correct, I made the misstake by looking at the colour of the cowl......the RB211's are grey not like CF's white.
Lousy colour in the photo, I guess I should have looked further back at the exhaust! :O

skol
1st Sep 2010, 05:41
Yep, 4 holer, no sweat.
You wouldn't want one of those in a 2 holer somewhere around Christmas Island. (The Pacific one).

another superlame
1st Sep 2010, 06:14
I think more importantly some boys from Sydney Base will get a few days in SFO to repair this aircraft.
Nice to do something different to keep the job interesting. Just hope the boss gives them a day or 2 RnR before returning home.
But make sure the @sshole managers in Sydney don't make you sign a contract for the away from home conditions.

Is it just me or since QF shut down their engine overhaul shop these type of dramas seem to be a bit more common.

BigGun
1st Sep 2010, 07:27
Yes is a RR engine

All OJ_ aircraft have RB's on them

All OE_ aircraft have CF6's

It was OJP in the video I saw

teresa green
1st Sep 2010, 07:30
Just caught the news on channel 9. It would appear that the engine blew a large hole in the casing, was on fire for at least half a hour,???? and the PAX thought they were all going to die. QFs safety record is now in tatters (please note dear folk, I am repeating it word for word) and it has never happened to any other aircraft or any other airline (Dear God) so there you go, learn something every day. It finished off with how wonderful the pilot was and the cabin crew, so I suppose there is some praise there, the rest is pure crap. Yes it happened, the turbine obviously shat itself, shame about the cowling, still three donks. NEXT!:rolleyes:

bsieker
1st Sep 2010, 08:11
Lucky it wasn't a fan blade.

On the contrary. Fan blades are contained. That is a certification criterion.

Fan-blade-off looks spectacular, but is less dangerous than a failure of IP of HP parts, which rotate at much higher rpm. Energy rises with the square of rpm, but only linearly with radius.


Bernd

N1 Vibes
1st Sep 2010, 08:33
And of course fan blade weight = 10kg, turbine disc weight = 100 kg

skol
1st Sep 2010, 08:40
bsieker,

You obviously didn't graduate in physics.

Capt Claret
1st Sep 2010, 10:15
So flames that appear to be flames are not actually flames?

The footage I saw on ABC TV News looked more like the sparks from an angle grinder (a bluddy big one though), rather than a fire with flames.

Ngineer
1st Sep 2010, 11:28
Totally agree that uncontained engine failures are definately not a "non event". Anyone who saw the damage caused by the American Airlines 767 that let go of it's HPT, or the N1 failure of BAW in Sydney a few years back would agree (both uncontained).

As with OJK recently, luck has played an incredible part again in this incident.

FlexibleResponse
1st Sep 2010, 13:39
skol
bsieker,

You obviously didn't graduate in physics.

Fan blade-off containment is a design requirement that needs to be demonstrated before certification of any engine.

However, I understand that turbine disc failure is impossible to contain due to the extremely high energy involved without crippling weight penalties, so the disc is designed so it can't fail.

A turbine disc failure is a monumental event in airline operations.

So I rather think that bsieker is spot on with his comment...

VH-Cheer Up
1st Sep 2010, 13:56
Interesting recording from KSFO ATC courtesy LIVE ATC here (http://redirectingat.com/?id=42X487496&xs=1&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.liveatc.net%2Fforums%2Findex.php%3Facti on%3Ddlattach%3Btopic%3D8019.0%3Battach%3D4267&sref=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.pprune.org%2Frumours-news%2F425863-qantas-emergency-return-ksfo-explosion-engine.html). Everybody seems to handle the whole affair very calmly. Love the dangerous goods discussion - "Fuhgeddaboudit!"

AnQrKa
1st Sep 2010, 16:39
If the cockpit was as calm and professional as it sounded on the radio then job well done. I suspect it was.

Interesting to listen to an event such as this from somewhere other than the hot seat. Several transmissions were interpereted incorrectly including the mix up over pan/emergency.

Gunger
2nd Sep 2010, 01:14
If the cockpit was as calm and professional as it sounded on the radio then job well done. I suspect it was.

Interesting to listen to an event such as this from somewhere other than the hot seat. Several transmissions were interpereted incorrectly including the mix up over pan/emergency.

I beg to differ. My first thought's after listening to the ATC thread was that it sounded quite the opposite. Certainly some parts of it sounded quite in order but for the most part I disagree.

You might want to look into the FAA procedure in regards to PAN/EMERGENCY! Maybe take a look at the FAR/AIM document as to what their procedures are.

Groaner
2nd Sep 2010, 02:00
skol is right.

Assuming the rpm is constant (maybe a big assumption), blade velocity increases linearly with radius. Energy is proportional to velocity-squared, so longer blades (fans) have energy increasing more than linearly with radius increasing.

Of course, this is oversimplified, longer blades (fans) often have much lower rpm than shorter ones (turbine blades)....

blueloo
2nd Sep 2010, 02:14
Gunger - the atc recording i heard (the link to live ATC) had several transmissions "stuck" together (so there is some obvious repetition where they overlap). Also some transmissions clearly havent been recorded.


Sounded very calm/professional to me from the bits I heard.

As for this bit You might want to look into the FAA procedure in regards to PAN/EMERGENCY!...is largely irrelevant - as Australian registered aircraft are approved to use their Flight Admin manual and procedures. The Jepp WWT (world wide text) outlines a summary of the main changes which are relevant (in addition to company Route Manual).

From what we have seen over the years the USA /FAA /ATC dont have a particularly good track record with Radio Voice Procedure. Its all a bit care free really.

rmcdonal
2nd Sep 2010, 02:14
Video - Cockpit audio as QF74 handles engine failure - The Sydney Morning Herald (http://media.smh.com.au/travel/traveller/cockpit-audio-as-qf74-handles-engine-failure-1897737.html?from=newsbox)
Audio again.
This link doesn't require a login. :ok:

Capt Kremin
2nd Sep 2010, 02:26
I am guessing that one of the reasons why these guys initially appeared a bit tense is the subconscious knowledge that their every action is going to be reviewed by a small audience of partially informed spectators (us), and large audience of completely uniformed spectators; the media and their customers.
It didn't happen like that in the old days and I feel airline managements have not addressed the issue of the intense scrutiny placed on any crew in this situation and the subtle pressure it places on them.
Watching the A330 last year that had a hydraulic system failure and landing live on the 6.00 news, I realised that any incident is sensationalist fodder. The captain on that flight was a close friend and although I knew a safe landing was a formality, he would have been aware of the TV choppers following him and there must have been a lot of pressure on him that wasn't there in the past. Food for thought.

Critical Reynolds No
2nd Sep 2010, 03:29
Love it! From the SMH:
Kirk Willcox, from Randwick, was seated in a row near the aircraft's wing when he "suddenly heard a loud pop and a swish" as the jumbo's fourth engine caught fire.

"We knew we had not hit turbulence and then we made a bit of a skid to the left and got the wobbles and then dropped in altitude," he said.:ok:

and

"The ironic thing is that it was probably one of the most gentlest and softest landings I have ever experienced and that was on three engines," Mr Roberts said.
:ugh:

Gunger
2nd Sep 2010, 04:52
...is largely irrelevant - as Australian registered aircraft are approved to use their Flight Admin manual and procedures. The Jepp WWT (world wide text) outlines a summary of the main changes which are relevant (in addition to company Route Manual).


I agree blueloo, however that being the case don't you think that this situation warranted a PAN CALL a lot sooner? Whether we picked up only bits and pieces of the transcript through the above links or not, it just sounded quite disjointed. Hardly textbook coming from the boys/girls with perfect radio calls everywhere else!! :rolleyes:

From what we have seen over the years the USA /FAA /ATC dont have a particularly good track record with Radio Voice Procedure. Its all a bit care free really.

Having worked over there before I agree. In a way they were fortunate the controller was 'care free' (as you put it) and able to provide them with exactly what they required. I'm still a big fan of using standard phraseology regadless of where you are in the world. Who knows why calls that involve a matter of urgency/emergency cannot be the same for all regulators? It can't be that hard to agree (ICAO, FAA, JAA) on this standard as a bare minimum can it?? :ugh:

On a side note. Have you got a link or reference for that 'Jepp WWT' for me? I can't seem to find it in my set. Cheers

Ken Borough
2nd Sep 2010, 05:16
Video of this incident shown on commercial television was reportedly captured on a mobile phone. I wonder if Qantas, CASA or the FAA will be trying to establish whether

1. the report is correct
2. if it is correct, was the phone being used in 'flight mode'
3. if the answer to question 2 is 'no', will the person who took the video (who no doubt was paid handsomely for his video) be prosecuted?

That said, the captain's PA was extraordinarily professional and must have engendered a great deal of confidence in the passengers whose lives were in his very capable hands. Well done Sir! :D:D:D:D

Capt Claret
2nd Sep 2010, 05:21
I can't see that the use of a mobile phone will raise the ire of the authorities, unless they can some how prove that the device wasn't in flight mode, which allows it's use on QF once the seatbelt sign has been extinguished after take off. :8

flighterpilot
2nd Sep 2010, 06:04
I found it interesting that (based on my interpretation of the LiveATC.net recording) the crew had to taxi to the ramp to get the engine inspected after landing (where the emergency vehicles were apparently waiting), apparently crossing at least one other runway in the process.

There did seem to be a vehicle or two following the aircraft however I would have thought it best to land , taxi clear, then stop. Then get fireys to have a look and then get them to follow to the terminal.

As for PAN vs. emergency - I think the crew conveyed the message to the ATC (except the bit about dangerous goods) well enough - as some kind of emergency response was waiting when the aircraft touched down.

I agree though I would have thought QF would have announced the PAN earlier. This recording makes it sounds like they are returning for anything but an engine-out scenario.

Keg
2nd Sep 2010, 06:07
Gunger, an engine failure wouldn't necessarily warrant a PAN in the first instance. I suspect (but don't know for sure) that they upgraded to PAN once the information got through to them that they were shooting sparks out the rear of the engine.

It all sounded pretty good to me.

hotnhigh
2nd Sep 2010, 06:49
Speaking of communications, wondering where Qantas CEO Alan Joyce or General manager Lyell Strambi have been during this entire episode? You'd think an event like this might prompt an appearance in the media to show the 'managers' of the airline are concerned, not spokesperson Epstein to say "sorry".

Capt Claret
2nd Sep 2010, 07:04
I've only listened to the ATC feed once. As I recall, QF 74 asked to taxi clear of the runway, to the apron for inspection before continuing to the bay.

I thought it OTT that a message would be passed from the company, seemingly early in the sequence of events, asking for details. ('Hey Skip, want me to do a wing walk to see what the problem is?') I'd have though that the tech crew would pass on relevant information at their earliest convenience.

blueloo
2nd Sep 2010, 07:39
I suspect the WWT is a document produced for airlines by Jepps on request. Not sure of the availability outside these channels...possibly try Jeppesen direct?

Bumpfoh
2nd Sep 2010, 11:03
Speaking of communications, wondering where Qantas CEO Alan Joyce or General manager Lyell Strambi have been during this entire episode? You'd think an event like this might prompt an appearance in the media to show the 'managers' of the airline are concerned, not spokesperson Epstein to say "sorry".

Nope, they only come out to self promote, launch some horsesh1t new strategy that will never work, tell us how good Jetstar is going or beat up on the unions for disclosing their dodgey dealings.:ugh:

Mach2point7
2nd Sep 2010, 23:41
In the aviation section of today's The Australian a Qantas spokesman is quoted as stating:

"The last borescope inspection was July 8. We do it every 750 flight hours, or roughly every six weeks..."

Could somebody with QF RB211 knowledge please advise if this interval is normal for the engine maintenance program, or as a result of an airworthiness directive.

peuce
3rd Sep 2010, 00:40
I'm with Capt Claret ... the most prominent issue for me was why the Company was asking such a wankish ( I'm sure it's a word) question of the crew at such an innapropriate time :ugh:

From my one listening of the tape, I think ATC were advised a lot earlier about the problem than is obvious. You can tell by some of their questions that they know the story. I think a fair bit was not included. In fact, I don't think the phrase engine failure is ever mentioned ... so obviously it was discussed earlier.

P.S. I just listened to the 2nd recording ( the video) and they advise ATC straight off that there's been an engine failure. That was not in the first audio recording.

WangFunk
3rd Sep 2010, 02:19
Where does the 747 dump fuel from? Would it be a bit risky dumping fuel with sparks coming out from an Engine ?

Capt Claret
3rd Sep 2010, 02:27
Wang,

YouTube is your friend. I'm not 747 rated, so take the video at face value. I am confident that fuel dump systems would be designed not to dump fuel in the trail of the engines.

HL1x33iebtg

Keg
3rd Sep 2010, 05:01
The shots of the bulk of sparks looks like it was before the engine was actually shut down. There is another shot (it appears to be a bit out of sequence) where the sparking has decreased significantly to almost nothing.

Given that we weren't there and don't know what state the engine was in when the fuel dumping actually occurred it's a bit premature to suggest that the decision to dump fuel may have been incorrect or not have considered the sparks and other things.

From what I recall of the engine/ dump geometery I don't think it'd be much of an issue.

Mach2point7
3rd Sep 2010, 05:03
Wang

I think that Capt Claret knows what he is talking about here. "Pretty close" (as you put it) is about 36 ft or 11m, and with the airspeed taken into account it is difficult to see a problem. Now take a look at the A340-600 (see link below), but it must also have met the stringent certification requirements. Are there any 744 guys able to tell us of any restrictions on the dump procedure ?


http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/cf/FuelDumpA340-600.JPG

Capt Claret
3rd Sep 2010, 05:33
WangFunk,

Lucky as pilots then, that we can't see what comes out of the back of the engines. :}

Jet fuel is pretty difficult to light with a match, I don't know how easily the vaporising fuel being jettisoned would ignite in flames/sparks coming from an engine. However, at the sort of speed required to remain airborne, I can't see fuel being dumped from a wing tip, getting close enough to an engine to ignite.

Further, none of the manufacturers would stay in business too long, if the fuel dump system caused the aircraft to catch fire or blow up.

An alternative dump, from a 747-200.

0LTWSl32LnA

Capt Claret
3rd Sep 2010, 06:32
I don't see any rudeness.

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. I'd opt for fuel dump and not landing overweight, as I don't perceive the ignition threat that you do.

If the fuel jettison was between engines 1&2 and 3&4, I might agree with you but from close to the wing tip, I'd be quite comfortable.

Mind you, I've not flown a jet that can dump fuel. :\

Ohh and by the way, a match doesnt even nearly resemble the temperatures from a turbine section!!

I understand that.

It would be interesting to know whether fuel vapour would ignite at high altitudes. I'd imagine that it would be too rich a mixture, with too little oxygen, and how quickly would the sparks cool in sub zero airflow of a > 200 kias?

rmcdonal
3rd Sep 2010, 07:00
I'm going to side with Claret on this one, even if the fuel had ignited the forward speed of the aircraft and the pressure of the fuel being dumped would prevent the flames from climbing back up to the wing tip, and even if they did all the crew would need to do is turn the dump off and out goes the flame.
Also Ohh and by the way, a match doesnt even nearly resemble the temperatures from a turbine section!! As the fuel is not being sent into the inner sections of the turbine, and even if it was that engine was no longer running, I don't perceive their to be any ignition risk from the turbine.

another superlame
3rd Sep 2010, 07:03
The jettison nozzle on the 744 is outboard of the engines , and I believe that they also have a flame arrestor in them so that a flame is unable to travel into the fuel system.

FYI, fuel tank vents also have flame arrestors in the wing tips and the hori stab. And the centre tank scavenge pick ups were also modded a few years back and arrestors installed. I think they were a band aid fix after the TWA 747 blew up of the U.S coast.

noip
3rd Sep 2010, 07:14
You've been watching too many "Die Hard" movies.

N

Jack Ranga
3rd Sep 2010, 07:49
Jet fuel is pretty difficult to light with a match,


So what ya do is put about 6 litres in a plastic garbo, then sit the garbo in the middle of the campfire. Goes off with a big whoooosh :ok:

Caution: move all the timber furniture and have a story ready on why all the leaves are burnt off the tree overhead (lowest leaves about 30ft)

Heavy Cargo
3rd Sep 2010, 08:38
Next time when the EGT rises "SHUT THE ENGINE DOWN" straight away.

Leave it running and the blades come out.:sad:

Tidbinbilla
3rd Sep 2010, 08:57
So what ya do is put about 6 litres in a plastic garbo, then sit the garbo in the middle of the campfire. Goes off with a big whoooosh http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/thumbs.gif

Caution: move all the timber furniture and have a story ready on why all the leaves are burnt off the tree overhead (lowest leaves about 30ft)

That's nothing. Ask anyone from the motorcycling fraternity what a "Stones Bomb" (tm) is :} You only need 250ml of "real" fuel (petrol or avgas) for a better effect ;)

forget
3rd Sep 2010, 09:10
I'd imagine that it would be too rich a mixture, with too little oxygen, and how quickly would the sparks cool in sub zero airflow of a > 200 kias?

I agreee 100% with that imagination. Called common sense here.

Anyway, don't your F-111's do exactly what Wang Funk is worried about - for a party trick.

Keg
3rd Sep 2010, 10:18
Not for much longer! :{

Capt Fathom
3rd Sep 2010, 12:12
Fuel dumping and a possible source of ignition doesnt read well with me!
Glad you bought this up WangFung, because after all these years of non-events, I'm sure it's something Boeing has not considered! :rolleyes: :zzz:

crow17
3rd Sep 2010, 21:50
Here is a link that explains a lot


Flickr: sb_sfo's Photostream (http://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected])


Looks like the guys in Sydney got a trip after all....good to see!

Crow

peuce
3rd Sep 2010, 23:24
Not for much longer!

Maybe Qantas will donate a 747 to take over the airshow circuit :hmm:

plainmaker
4th Sep 2010, 07:00
A 74 with afterburners - I'd like to see that. Closest was an empty -SP on a short field at 85% (and that was fun):ok:

Sorry for the thread drift

Jet-A-One
4th Sep 2010, 09:16
You wouldn't want to get caught posting those photos on the net. Good way to get the sack!

The eng s/n is even visible in one pic. Wonder if it was one overhauled in EOC or an outsourced donk...

ps. you guys cranking off about the jettison catching fire and the aircraft blowing up have been smoking too much hooch

FlexibleResponse
29th Nov 2010, 13:06
Qantas 747 with a Rolls un-contained engine failure...some sort of pattern starting to emerge here...or just bad luck?

Pictures: Qantas 747 uncontained engine failure-31/08/2010-Washington DC-Flightglobal.com (http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2010/08/31/346831/pictures-qantas-747-uncontained-engine-failure.html)

Redstone
29th Nov 2010, 21:15
The eng s/n is even visible in one pic. Wonder if it was one overhauled in EOC or an outsourced donk...

For several years now the vast majority of RR engine "modules" have been sent o/s for overhaul, so probably a Qantas "assembled" engine but I doubt it was a fully Qantas "overhauled" engine.