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