Engine 1 doesn't have reverse.

That page was first posted in 2013, if not before. I'm sure it was true then.

https://web.archive.org/web/20130126.../GP7200_Engine

I think you will find that's why the OP added the smiley that you omitted from your quote. :O

Thanks for the archive link. It is, however, still a current page on their website, and I think they're being slightly disingenuous in not updating it in nearly five years.

Ok, if we are all speculating I’ll pitch in with what I would do.

Fly out an engineering Tiger team from Airbus (and AF of course) along with a replacement engine, complete pylon, electrical connections, hydraulics, fuel piping, miscellaneous connectors, and a test pilot. Test fly the repaired aircraft in situ, and then ferry it back to the AF depot hub for a more thorough overhaul.

I don’t see the 3 engine return as either safe or even feasible with the asymmetrics and load balance/trim that would be required.

I’m prepared to put the entire $27 value of my 401k on my bet - any takers ?

As does the BR710/715

In that nice VASAviation audio/video about the incident, we hear the (obviously french) pilot calling as "AF066 super mayday" and the ATC using "AF066 heavy mayday". Is there a standard meaning for these "super" and "heavy" ?

Once apilot.

I am sure the Pylons /engin e mounts alone are a very serious piece of engineering but as the pictures show there are bits (not of the pylon I know) hanging off the thing and I am not sure I would want to take any risk about loads on the pylon if it was my decision.

I agree that the cruising speed on 3 would be much lower would it really be as much as 200Kts less? but the engine is now just a big lump of metal with little airflow through it and no residual thrust whatsoever it must surely add substantial drag to the airframe and be subject to some degree of buffet.

I agree Gander could probably handle several aircraft but the point I was trying to make is that for the AF Operations people trying to extract 400 pax and send them on there way would be pretty challenging as it doesn't have that much scheduled service nor any significant operator based there. though it was nice to see the Canadian military fed them all

On a different note i clearly the 380 held up well, one of the more recent pics on here shows a lot of surface damage to the leading edge flap outboard of the dud engine so the potential for damage is clearly there. I was wondering what would happen to 777 -300 with those Monster GE-s , a similar accident on one of those would be pretty scary indeed given the huge size of those beasts and of course then theres only one left.

It’s a joke in as much as I’m well aware that it won’t be a simple engine change. Nevertheless, I’d expect it to fly out with four...in a number of months time, after Airbus have repaired it in situ.

What's a "super mayday"?

For some reason Rolls hasn't used the 'clashing blades' to slow the turbine in the event of a shaft separation. I always figured it had something to do with the 3 spool architecture on the RB211 and Trent, but that wouldn't explain the Spey...
The Trent series uses an electronic Turbine OverSpeed protection system on both the LP and IP shafts that instantly shuts off fuel if a shaft separation is sensed.

Hi Banana :)

Its not a "Super Mayday",,,its a Super that stands for the 380's Wake Turbulence, a Mayday that stands for the specific situation of losing #4.

BTW, two serious incidents these last few days involving the Moby Dick, thankfully without any serious injures (Moscow EK and Canada AF) at the end.
However here in my region, we have an old saying/expression that literally translated to english:

"There is no two without a three...and the three its for good"...:rolleyes:
Hope it remains just like an "old saying", my 2 cents.

As have all the BR700 series engines, and it works.

Of course nothing is instantaneous. It has to do with a fuel fed pressurized system and its blow-down rate through the various turbines and their inertia to speed up when their driven load is suddenly released. Match this against their ability or inability to move into stationary vanes when released from the load and then solve the problem.

That's because an electronic system is too slow on a small fan engine and red-line/rotor burst would be exceeded in the event of a shaft break, on RR BR series fuel flow is reduced to flameout via a centrifugally activated "bog chain" system connected to a dedicated mechanical Overspeed Unit in <17ms.

Reverse
 

As the 380 only has 2 engines with reverse thrust, if the engine that had the problem was one of these with reverse, would they have been able to land where they did due to runway length, or would they have been able to do this regardless?. Remembering QF 32 in Singapore - it took the whole length to land with not much runway left, but then they had a few other issues as well. Just wondering :-)

PB
Your reference at #112 to "drag, stress, at 500 knots" etc is misleading because the TAS of about 500 knots is actually an IAS of around 300 knots at cruise altitude due to the pressure altitude. In effect, objects feel the air loads of a much lower speed due to the thinner air. 3 engine cruise speed will be slower than 4 engine cruise due to the changes in thrust, drag, max altitude and operating engine sfc etc.
Gander? AF66 went to Goose Bay.

Some other good pictures here:

https://twitter.com/cypheristikal/st...77017622089728

You mean like this? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ca4PgyBJAzM

Material science tech here.

I would bet you lots of money that this is due to material failure. Most likely manufacturing issue, like the Sioux event.

Pictures tells me the fracture edges are sharp and clean which suggests rapid phase change in the material, to the point of breaking.

The initiating event might have been a smaller fracture in f.ex. a fan blade (or what else floats your boat) and the accompanying force redistribution was enough that the flawed crystal structures said bye bye and left the building with the entire front attached.

The resemblance to footage of the Tacoma Narrows Bridge (also near Seattle!) is uncanny.

OAP

Thank you for your interesting and courteous correction of my comment about airloads and speeds. Why I sat where I did and you sat where you did LoL. Me being wrong about the loading and the diversion field.

All the same not a scenario many people are ever going to face

True, the failure rates are extremely low. Modern aircraft and engines are designed to very high standards. :D

Isn't this the second incident on the A380 where there was an engine blow out? Qantas flight 32. Can't be due to a specific engine supplier as the former uses GP7000 and the latter uses the Trent 900. Could this be a fault in engine design or just poor maintenance?

@foxdeux pls read up on what exactly happened

on AF66 the FAN including the fandisk detached from the shaft and departed the aircraft
on QF32 the TURBINE disk FRACTURED

and the engines are very different not just a different supplier. so it can be a fault in engine design but it can't be the same one because a fracturing oil tube (what happened on QF32) would not make the fan depart the aircraft.

btw the QF32 manufacturing fault grounded a significant part of the A380 fleet and was rectified.
did you even read this thread? :/

I don't think a fan blade failure would cause this. I also don't think a fan disk failure would cause it either as the fan disk is too far forward of the separation point. More likely is the failure emanated right at the point of separation of the fan module. Located at or very close to that that separation point is a shaft coupling (fan to LPT shaft) and a bearing structure. I think the conical fractured piece in the Ave Herald photo is part of the bearing support or seal system. More likely, there was a bearing problem that caused the shaft to fracture at that point. See the engine cross-section below:

https://www.tumblr.com/search/gp7200

Also, I don't think the remaining portion of the engine was about to fall off. The engine to pylon mounting system and attachment points are well engineered as are the pylon to wing mounting and attachment points. Think about something, during a turbulent air event, the plane could drop 500 feet or more and abruptly bottom out, the full weight of the engine (14,000 lbs + the weight of the nacelle) pulling against the pylon and pylon to wing. Vertical, side and rotational load factors are taken into account during the design processes with significant safety margins applied. Everything survives thanks to the robust designs employed...

I guess this is one case where we can accurately say 'The front fell off'.;)

There's 8 pages of comments, I don't have time to sift through all of them. But thank you for taking the time to explain to me the different causes of the AF and QF flights. I just thought they were somewhat similar because engines 'breaking apart' like that is a very rare occurrence in commercial aviation and AF and QF are by no means budget airlines so if it's a maintenance issue I would be concerned with the airlines. So by deductive reasoning I assumed it would most likely be caused by a flaw in design, I'm not an aviation technical expert, just an enthusiast.

Peter Garrison wrote the definitive article on flutter a few years ago for Air&Space magazine, beginning with the L-188 and the Tacoma Narrows Bridge.
https://www.airspacemag.com/military...r-1873980/?all

Agree.

Without specific knowledge or a GP7000 IPC to view we are guessing at best.

Engine Alliance Service: 24/7 Parts & Support for GP7200
Not quite the advantage advertised.

Not much money to bet but do see a grounding coming.
......

...meanwhile - confusion reigns getting the ducks in order...

Agencies dither over who leads A380 engine explosion probe | Reuters

I had a look at a GP7200 cutaway. Interestingly it seems the first 5 or 6 compressor stages turn with the fan.

The failure seems to be where the fan attaches to its end of the LP shaft.

Let's just be grateful that the fan didn't contact the airframe after departing the engine.

Not sure if anyone has already made this point but given AF066's route right up the middle of the UK it's a relief this didn't happen earlier in the flight, with large chunks of metal potentially falling into populated areas

That's common design practice for both Pratt and GE. GE refers to the compressor stages on the LP shaft as the "booster" or "booster stages", Pratt simply calls that the LP Compressor.
The only big turbofan engines I'm familiar with that don't have that feature are the three spool Rolls engines.

Though on the other hand, if it had departed over anywhere in the UK, it would almost certainly have been recovered by now.

If the enquiry hasn't officially started, nobody will be searching for the missing pieces.

Actually, from a better cutaway view of the GP7200 engine, the partial conical fractured piece in the photo appears to be part of the fan short shaft that stayed with the engine when it fractured...

number0009,
Here you go, thanks to pax2908! You can enlarge it, just click on the art work.
http://www.pw.utc.com/Content/GP7200...taway_high.jpg