|
Norwegian 787 blows a donk in FCO
https://avherald.com/h?article=4cb6a09d&opt=0 A Norwegian Long Haul Boeing 787-8, registration LN-LND performing flight DY-7115 from Rome Fiumicino (Italy) to Los Angeles,CA (USA), was in the initial climb out of Rome's runway 16R when an engine (Trent 1000) failed emitting debris onto the ground below. The crew stopped the climb at 3000 feet, secured the engine and returned to Rome for a safe landing on runway 16R about 23 minutes after departure. The Mayor of Fiumicino reported 25 vehicles and 12 houses were damaged by debris falling off the aircraft, one man on the ground was hit too. The man was just frightened and remained uninjured however. Local residents reported glowing pieces of metal rained down in the hundreds. The airline reported the aircraft returned to Rome due to a technical problem. Italy's ANSV have dispatched investigators on site. Luckily nobody on the ground got killed. |
The RR engines (Rotating Rubbish...) have several restrictions on them. Many of them are cycle limited, and some versions have been restricted to ETOPS 138 instead of 180. I am sure this will place further restrictions on those junk engines. Rolls Royce and Boeing, not a great combination these days...
|
This was an updated Package B engine... |
Originally Posted by Icejock
(Post 10542671)
This was an updated Package B engine... |
Originally Posted by Icejock
(Post 10542671)
This was an updated Package B engine... |
I guess in the strive for efficiency that reliability has taken a hit. The alternate engine has issues too pushing current technology to the limits, the GE90 on the 777 still has regular BUG failures after 25 years, as for the MAX and now A320NEO with their stab AFCS faults, the A350 computer resets every so many days, it all reminds me of working the L1011 Tristar in the 1990's. I am afraid it looks like we are now in an industry relying on backups rather than designing safety and reliability in to the airframes and engines in the first place. I think they call it safety risk assessment.
|
From the various picture showing up this one seems to have pretty much disintegrated. Lucky that no-one got hurt. |
This is also the same basic engine on the A330-900 modified for bleed air. It’s the only engine option on the 900 so might impact sales on a already slow selling airframe. |
Originally Posted by Sailvi767
(Post 10542738)
This is also the same basic engine on the A330-900 modified for bleed air. It’s the only engine option on the 900 so might impact sales on a already slow selling airframe. RR have said the issues on the 787 engine are specific issues related to the airframe. There seems to be a good reason why the 747-8, 737MAX, A350, A320neo, A330neo, and 777X did not got “bleedless”. The energy needs to be extracted from the engine somehow. |
Originally Posted by swh
(Post 10542886)
RR have said the issues on the 787 engine are specific issues related to the airframe.
|
There seems to be a good reason why the 747-8, 737MAX, A350, A320neo, A330neo, and 777X did not got “bleedless”. The energy needs to be extracted from the engine somehow. #14 (permalink) Dave Therhino's AvatarDave Therhino , 12th Aug 2019 05:00 The air quality seems no better (very dry) since Boeing updated the CAC schedules to minimise surging. Likewise with the electric brakes - they seem bulkier than their hydraulic equivalents and more prone to failure. Pros? Well, I'm a big fan of the dual engine start. |
This is also the same basic engine on the A330-900 modified for bleed air. It’s the only engine option on the 900 so might impact sales on a already slow selling airframe. |
A lot of folk deriding the engine without knowing what actually happened to cause it! Was it caused by FOD or a bird strike or a mechanical failure?
|
Originally Posted by Out Of Trim
(Post 10543162)
A lot of folk deriding the engine without knowing what actually happened to cause it! Was it caused by FOD or a bird strike or a mechanical failure?
|
Originally Posted by Out Of Trim
(Post 10543162)
A lot of folk deriding the engine without knowing what actually happened to cause it! Was it caused by FOD or a bird strike or a mechanical failure?
If this is a modified engine as somebody said, it’s really bad news for operators with these engines. Add the fact that engine pairs have about the same number of hours and I for one would be reluctant to go on an aircraft with these engines. The modifications are about fanblades/turbine blades? |
Originally Posted by ManaAdaSystem
(Post 10543330)
Add the fact that engine pairs have about the same number of hours |
Originally Posted by ManaAdaSystem
(Post 10543330)
I’ve never seen a birdstrike cause anything like this. Damage yes, but a spray of engine parts out the back? 25 houses and 12 cars damaged by falling parts. Norwegian says this is an ongoing investigation and doesn’t want to comment. If this is a modified engine as somebody said, it’s really bad news for operators with these engines. Add the fact that engine pairs have about the same number of hours and I for one would be reluctant to go on an aircraft with these engines. The modifications are about fanblades/turbine blades? |
Originally Posted by Porrohman
(Post 10543345)
The engine pairs don't necessarily have the same hours. There's currently a restriction on fitting two engines (of the type affected by the known problems) with more than a certain number of cycles on the same aircraft. This is for exactly the reason you are concerned about.
|
Originally Posted by ManaAdaSystem
(Post 10543347)
Where do they get old engines from? |
Originally Posted by Fursty Ferret
(Post 10543047)
Exactly. I'm not sure why Boeing went all-electric on the 787. I can see arguments for the cabin air supply, but taking 250kW from the IP turbine, rectifying it, and inverting it once again to drive the CACs surely outweighs the simple benefit of taking bleed air directly from the compressor.
The air quality seems no better (very dry) since Boeing updated the CAC schedules to minimise surging. Likewise with the electric brakes - they seem bulkier than their hydraulic equivalents and more prone to failure. Pros? Well, I'm a big fan of the dual engine start. |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 03:42. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.