AF66 CDG-LAX diverts - uncontained engine failure over Atlantic
It does look like a blade, with the spline that engages in the fan hub slot near the top (#176). I'd guess that if the fan did come loose and move forward, getting tangled in the cowling's Kevlar containment band made short work of the integrity of the fan. If they go looking for it, it won't be a fan stuck in the ice of Greenland. More likely a 20 mile trail of blades and pieces of cowling.
Last edited by EEngr; 4th Oct 2017 at 03:06. Reason: Added ref to previous post.
Join Date: Oct 2017
Location: phoenix az
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have a video on my youtube account which has all the details from my perspective as a passenger in row 12 of LAST Class, the unlucky ones who went to ATL on the second flight. I can't post links though as I'm a noob. Does anyone want to DM me and put the link up to share the experience with you guys?
That doesn't look like a fan blade to me, and if the fan blades (even just one) hit the guide vanes behind them, I think you'd see a lot more damage to the guide vanes. They look almost untouched. The debris in the photo could be anything really.
Just guessing here: The fan hub to shaft coupling is designed to withstand quite a bit of thrust (produced by the fan). But the fan hub to LP compressor barrel coupling not nearly so much. It's more for the torque of spinning the compressor. So an initial failure of the shaft to fan (where a jagged piece remains) would allow the fan to pull forward. The 24 (?) bolts holding the compressor stage failed under tension (photo in #194). That may be by design. To let the fan go forwardvwithout trying to pull the compressor rotor through the stator.
My armchair opinion is that the bolts in the flange were not tightened / sized / put in correctly.
A failure of the driveshaft would pull the whole LP compressor forward which would either pull it through the guide vanes and out the front of the engine with the fan. Or the guide vanes (stators) would hold (as they have done) and prevent the LP compressor from moving out of the engine. In this case the deceleration of the LP compressor and the fan would be high, but I doubt high enough to severe the bolts at the LP compressor flange as cleanly as what has occurred.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: FR
Posts: 234
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Still, perhaps it is the latter ... if the core comes to an "instant" stop, the choice might have been to let the fan "snap" off, rather than overstressing the engine attachment to the wing. But what do I know
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Netherlands
Age: 46
Posts: 343
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The total load case is not just thrust, but also torque and centrifugal loads.
I would think that with the lower air density, the rotational speed of the fan will be considerably higher at altitude than at ground level for the same amount of thrust.
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: Norfolk
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Difficult to say with these pictures.
But of course it doesn't need to.
For a large turbofan, N1 in the cruise will typically be in the region of 80%.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Netherlands
Age: 46
Posts: 343
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree. Maximum thrust levels decrease with altitude.
During a step climb N1 will probably get close to 100% (max climb).
One more thing to mention is thermal stress, which could be higher at altitude. And then there are acoustic stresses...
Does the GP7000 have heating in the cone? Could well be that that failed...
During a step climb N1 will probably get close to 100% (max climb).
One more thing to mention is thermal stress, which could be higher at altitude. And then there are acoustic stresses...
Does the GP7000 have heating in the cone? Could well be that that failed...
What is left of the engine should be able to spin without causing much vibration.
However, the passengers felt a lot of vibration for several seconds.
This seems to imply that the fan broke up in sequence... First one blade detached, then the vibration caused all the bolts to fail, and what was left of the fan disk spun off forwards.
.
However, the passengers felt a lot of vibration for several seconds.
This seems to imply that the fan broke up in sequence... First one blade detached, then the vibration caused all the bolts to fail, and what was left of the fan disk spun off forwards.
.
That aside, since maximum thrust on any jet engine is achieved at zero TAS, I think we can safely say that's not available at altitude.
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: Bremen
Posts: 118
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
looks like that's a fan blade
Comparing these details (taken from the big twitter images that tricityb linked in post #175) with the picture of posted by Stumpy Grinder in #185 that shows a worker assembling the fan, I can identify the curved line separating the two types of surface on the blade and the rounded ridge that locks the blade to the hub.
Last edited by Musician; 4th Oct 2017 at 10:12. Reason: gamma enhanced detail uploaded
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: West Sussex
Age: 82
Posts: 58
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think it may well be a fan blade.
The dovetail root length from the very useful GA is about half the span of the fan OGV, and the leading edge of the fan blade is about one OGV span from root to change of curvature in profile. Also , the root is the correct colour.
And a bit of containment on the blade tip.
Fan failures are very chaotic affairs and we cannot possibly predict the sequence of events from the limited material available.
I'm sure East Hartford will have a very good idea by now.
The dovetail root length from the very useful GA is about half the span of the fan OGV, and the leading edge of the fan blade is about one OGV span from root to change of curvature in profile. Also , the root is the correct colour.
And a bit of containment on the blade tip.
Fan failures are very chaotic affairs and we cannot possibly predict the sequence of events from the limited material available.
I'm sure East Hartford will have a very good idea by now.
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: In my head
Posts: 694
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
However, the passengers felt a lot of vibration for several seconds.
This seems to imply that the fan broke up in sequence... First one blade detached, then the vibration caused all the bolts to fail, and what was left of the fan disk spun off forwards.
.
.
I really would love to see that tail fin video - but will we ever? Anyone know if footage is retained informally other than by passengers who happen to be filming the screens on the backs of seats?
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Stump Towers
Posts: 25
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The post fan blade off (FBO) vibration is 2 phased, firstly a High Level Short Duration (HLSD) followed by (normally) Low Level Long Duration as the unbalanced engine windmills. All gas turbine and airframe parts are subjected to either test or analysis to demonstrate that they can remain attached and if necessary functional during and after a FBO event.
It could have been even more exciting if the fan had detached when still on the ground during take off. When they drop to the ground, they zip v v rapidly sideways, bouncing as they go. I've seen a few holes in test bed roofs, and liberated (turbine) discs in distant fields.
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: In my head
Posts: 694
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As I understand it, an aircraft engine these days comprises several modules each and every one of which is mounted in a obligatory fixed sense in relation to each adjacent module and at sundry well chosen points directly to the airframe. Plenty of suitable elasticity is built in, of course.
So the plan is that the collection of major engine bits on landing should still ideally be reasonably complete even after an FBO. That's as opposed to a scenario where the fan and fan containment module are merely expected to self-adhere to their master's heel through the worst of the thick and thin, but having given up their angular antics, are allowed to pop off in some as yet undeciphered direction when the final urging to leave gets overwhelming!
Bearing in mind that the few hundred kilo module delivering 80% of the propulsion is indeed our Elvis in this case, one wonders if the purport of § 33.94 seriously allows for an exit like that ... methinks not.
For the pernickety and legal-minded, the question might be 'What is meant by "mounting attachments" in § 33.94?', but I am sure more serious-minded engineers are somewhat beyond that.