Sell your RR shares.
Trent 900 - an inflight failure. (may be bird strike but its possible wear causing spinning bits to hit static bits, either way the bits came out and damaged the wing)
Trent 1000 - delayed new 787 due to uncontained engine failures.
|
|
Lets hope the media don't make this into a disaster for Rolls Royce.
|
's an odd failure on that Trent 900.
AFAIR from the "how to build a jet engine" featuring the same beast, they blew one up to be sure it would contain the bits, and captured the incident on high speed camera.
The "demo/compliance" or whatever the words are, went bang in the front portion of the engine, whereas the Quantas failure is at the back.
I don't think it's meant to happen there.
|
It appears there is damage to the leading edge of the wing of the plane, indicating some bits came out there.
Uncontained engine failure is a big no no.
|
|
Sounds suspiciously bad though...
|
Its appears the debris caused some system failures as well. Some of the moveable elements of the wing were not deployed on landing.
This could have been very bad indeed.
|
Some good photos here and speculation on the nature of damage to CANBUS - apparently the no 1 engine refused to shut down. It is programmed to continue running in the event of bus failure! Probably very lucky it was not a full thrust for takeoff.
www.pprune.org/rumours-news/432704-qantas-emergency-landing-singapore.html
|
Not from this incident, but there are some wonderful pictures of an uncontained failure here .....
tinyurl.com/enginefailure
|
>> Squirrel I'll bet...
No doubt flying south for the winter.
|
If the back end exploded it could have been a high pressure turbine blade shearing off and through the engine casing. They are tough beasts, much more so than the low pressure compressor blades at the front. If I am not mistaken the wings are one big fuel tank, so a turbine blade going through a wing is very bad news.
Wait for the shares to drop, then buy.
|
Not the first issue on the aircraft type with this engine type - the third.
|
I too saw the BBC programme on jet engines and RR destroyed one in a test with an explosive charge detonating and removing a fan blade. The test had to contain that. But that's the big blade at the front of the engine and not the back. I assume there's tests for the rest of the engine.
A bird strike would do this would it.... with all the terrorist threats though I hope it's not laser printer related so to speak.
This does look like it could have been a lot lot worse... lets hope for the UK etc that this does not impact RR and therefore lots of jobs!
|
i saw that programme too
sad headline taker though sell RR
its lines like that that can do for good companies
|
|
If I am right, the problem happened near Indonesia... hasn't there been a volcano erupting around there recently? Was the shutdown of airspace in Europe warranted after all earlier this year?
|
>> If I am right, the problem happened near Indonesia... hasn't there been a volcano erupting
>> around there recently? Was the shutdown of airspace in Europe warranted after all earlier this
>> year?
>>
Sorry, to put it as politely as I can, that theory is complete nonsense; not worthy of a person of your intelligence.
While we wait for some real evidence of the cause to emerge, I think it is wise to at least limit speculation to credible theories. The known facts are:
The failure happened on take-off from Singapore. Engines were at maximum load. The bits that fell off landed on an island belonging to "Indonesia", which is a collection of over 17,000 islands, spread over a vast distance.
Here is the RR engine test video:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=j973645y5AA&NR=1
Last edited by: John H on Thu 4 Nov 10 at 23:32
|
>> Sorry, to put it as politely as I can, that theory is complete nonsense;>>
>>
What theory? rtj has not linked the engine failure to volcanic ash. He wondered if the shutdown of European airspace was justified as flights were operating near Indonesia's erupting volcano.
|
I was lodging it as a question that were we right to ground flights in Europe but did also wonder if there was a remote chance of there being an impact on flights out of Singapore. As surely if it was so bad in Europe then it must be bad there now?
And someone I know who used to work for RR told me when airspace was closed down in Europe that he would not fly knowing what effect it could have. He worked for RR and led teams working on advanced jet engine design - so maybe he was wrong?
Last edited by: rtj70 on Thu 4 Nov 10 at 23:48
|
>> The failure happened on take-off from Singapore. Engines were at maximum load.>>
It was at least 10 mins after take off, the engine would not have been producing maximum thrust when it failed, though of course that does not rule out a mechanical failure.
|
>> Here is the RR engine test video:
>> www.youtube.com/watch?v=j973645y5AA&NR=1
I watched the BBC programme too and the test was to ensure the loss of a fan blade from the front of the engine was contained. The failure of the A380 engine was at the rear of the engine and therefore more likely to be from the high pressure side of the engine and not the fan blade.
|
Initial reports indicate that
1/ there was an internal engine oil leak that caught fire
2/ lack of subsequent lubrication caused the intermediate pressure turbine disk to shatter
3/ the engine casing failed to contain the shrapnel.
the shrapnel entered the wing,
1/ puncturing 2 of the 11 planes fuel tanks
2/ Electrical and hydraulic services in the wing were disrupted
3/ Slats were stuck shut.,
4/ Large portions of the planes electrical distribution and command bus failed or tripped out.
5/ The autopilot remained engaged until the pilots disengaged it for a manual landing.
6/ the crew were hit with over 50 separate alarms and critical alerts.
Fortunately there were two experienced extra pilots on board, there to perform standard flight crew evaluation, who were able to assist in crisis management.
The plane used All the runway and emergency braking (due to no slats) and the brakes reached critical temperature
All in all, a tale of a plane nearly lost.
|
|
Combination of good airframe build and good flying - can we say that ?
Last edited by: Pugugly on Mon 29 Nov 10 at 11:49
|
...can we say that ?...
Provided it's not offensive you can say what you like - I hope.
|
|
Apparently the autopilot coped well, and the crew were exemplary.
|
>> Initial reports indicate that
>> ...
>> All in all, a tale of a plane nearly lost.
Good Lord. How did the plane survive metal fragments, presumably white hot, going through two fuel tanks? I am surprised there was no oil monitoring to cut out the engine as and when oil pressure fell below safe levels.
|
|
Allowing a computer to shut down an engine when it thinks there is/may be a fault is not a very good idea. When I flew I was not using vast thrust, multi spool engines but the received wisdom for dealing with an oil presuure failure in, say, a RR Avon was to leave the throttle and rpm where they were and the engine would usually run on very happily. Any throttle movement could cause the engine to seize PDQ! One thus left the throttle alone until committed to landing and then close it and land as it stopped! I should add that this was for an aircraft with only one engine, not four. If you you only have one engine the best thing is to keep it running thru fair means or foul because when it stops you are going DOWN, unless it has flamed out and can be re-lit!
|
>>The plane used All the runway and emergency braking (due to no slats) and the brakes reached critical temperature
www.flightglobal.com/blogs/learmount/2010/11/what-the-qantas-crew-had-left.html
"Normal braking was available on both body landing gears with antiskid, and alternate braking without antiskid on both wing landing gears. The crew modulated braking in order to stop close to emergency services."
|
Sunday Times Quote
"the plan came into land more quickly than normal. The aircraft used nearly all the runway to stop, and some aviation sources say the brakes reached extremely high temperatures"
|
Zero - a slat jam scenario requires a significant increment on normal approach speeds. If I was flying in a similar case (which I have in the simulator), I would already be aware that brake temperatures are likely to be an issue.
More likely they modulated the braking to use the full runway length as opposed to leaving maximum brakes applied until they shuddered to a halt halfway down with the wheels on fire.
Extremely high temperatures can mean anything on an Airbus - it's not uncommon to see 400C after a normal landing, and maintenance action isn't due until past 650C. Fusible plugs melt above about 800C, which I don't believe happened here.
|
Accept your professional view, I also accept this is an A380, flying heavy, that don't have a lot of spare runway at the best of times, and the fact that A380 did have brake heat soak issues during testing.
I know they flew round for about 90 mins to use fuel, I assume you don't dump fuel when you have an engine issue like that? Specially one they couldn't shut down.
|
I always thought they did actually dump fuel (great for the environment). Flying for 90 minutes would not use much fuel for a plane flying that distance.
Could the dumping of fuel helped avoid a catastrophe with pierced fuel tanks.
I agree with Zero above that a catastrophe was just avoided through some good design and the pilots' actions. Sadly planes do crash every now and then.
The BBC programme on jet engines (I have a copy if someone has not seen it) showed a test for fan blade failure and the need to contain it. But these were the fan blades at the front of the engine. I suspect there is no test for the stages further back. But those are nowhere near as big.
|
|
According to someone much more knowledgeable on the subject than me, the turbine casing is only designed to tolerate a single impact from a part released from the engine core. In this case there were three such impacts, with the external damage caused by parts 2 + 3.
|
|
Next time I meet up with someone we meet on holiday a fair bit.... I'll ask him. He worked in special projects at Rolls Royce. But he's also the one I quoted saying he'd not fly in a jet through a volcanic cloud. He worked all his working life at RR so maybe he does know something!?!
|
There is a casing around the turbines and it could hold a few turbine blades at best, but if a disk had cracked and come off the shaft no engine in the world could be designed to hold it, the weight penalties would be too great.
The frozen chicken test is for the compressor blades rather than the turbine blades, the turbine blades are pretty much unaffected by most bird strikes. By the time it gets to the back end it looks like dried grass with the odd feather.
|
|
Hot brakes are not really an issue - they are carbon so they become more effective when hot, and as another poster has pointed out the issue is the wheels going bang if they get to hot, so they has fuse plugs that release the pressure. There was a spectacular fail during flight testing in athe A340-600 during a rejected take off test. The fuse plaugs didnt release as expected and the result was that the wheels exploded (not the tyres) sending fragments of metal everywhere. I was luck enough to see the internal video of it and it is quite amusing the hear the pilot asking what the hell is going on and see the fire brigade trucks arriving, and deciding its to dangerous so driving off
|
>I was luck enough to see the internal video
Its on Youtube for all to see.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=hRzWp67PIMw
|
|
Z. Thanks for sorting the link
|
Thanks Zero - had no idea that all these years later it had made it into the public domain.
At the time it happened it was like trying to get hold of the holy grail and anyone who had seen it was sworn to secrecy. The supplier of the equipment also started a campaign of miss-information telling the operators that it was their competitors equipment fitted and not there's.....
|
Flipping 'eck!!
Paraphrased:
"Yeah, we were about to fall out the sky, there were alarms going off everywhere, hardly anything was working. We managed to ignore the chaos and blind panic to work through all the alarms and scenarios, told the computer to ignore some of the issues we thought were not too important so it could work out a landing strategy. Put the plane down nicely, and brought it to a halt. Breathed a sign of relief, but then fire service wouldn't come near or let us off because No1 was still running. Got a bit narked at that point, but it worked out OK in the end. Not too bad a day at the office. G&T now I think"
They certainly earned their money that day!
I was particularly amused by the line:
"So our concerns were obviously fires and we ‘encouraged’ the fire service to come closer, which they did"
I bet they did - I'd like to hear the transcript for that!
Failure seems to be linked to a manufacturing fault in an oil line that leaks oil into the engine, causing a fire and failure of engine internals. At least if they can ID the faulty bit then it can be fixed, but can the reputation of the Trent 900 recover???
|
>> Failure seems to be linked to a manufacturing fault in an oil line that leaks
>> oil into the engine, causing a fire and failure of engine internals. At least if
>> they can ID the faulty bit then it can be fixed, but can the reputation
>> of the Trent 900 recover???
Probably, given time.
There are only two makers of big really powerful fuel efficient engines, RR and GE/P&W. Orders are booked years in advance, so its unlikely anyone will switch and possibly loose delivery slot.
RR had an issue many years ago (with early RB211's?) with flaws and cracking in turbine blades and recovered. P&W had issues years ago with cracking welds. It goes with the territory and engine failures, while rare, are planned for.
What's not acceptable is the engine internals making a bid for freedom and chewing up the airframe. Bits of engine should always exit from the rear in an orderly manner.
|
|
By the left, quick march - turbine blade, bolt, screw, compressor blade, nut, washer.........
|
|
If anyone took Zero's advice they would be looking at a loss. Bid price for Rolls Royce is 650.5pence this morning.
|
|
Still below the peak they were before the crash, despite a rise in the FTSE.
|
>> If anyone took Zero's advice they would be looking at a loss. Bid price for
>> Rolls Royce is 650.5pence this morning.
>>
They should have taken Zero's advice to sell, then bought the shares back a few days later.
|
>> If anyone took Zero's advice they would be looking at a loss. Bid price for
>> Rolls Royce is 650.5pence this morning.
RR were 654.76 prior to the engine fire, and 623.84 when you posted to sell. They subsequently dropped to a low of 585.57 on 12th November but have since rallied.
|
They would have been a good buy at the bottom of the market - knowing when to sell is the black art though !
Despite the ups and downs of the market in the last few weeks and wobbles over the Irish - it seems to be on a roll, cross fingers for the next three years for me....
Last edited by: Pugugly on Thu 9 Dec 10 at 12:13
|
>> when to sell is the black art though !
>>
Avoid black art. Blindly investing using "pound cost averaging" is a proven successful method.
|
report in the Telegraph:
Rolls-Royce reported better-than-expected profits on Thursday, despite the £56m cost of the Trent 900 engine failure which blighted the engine maker in the latter part of 2010.
one year prices chart - to date
charts-cache.moneyam.com/Chart.aspx?Provider=EODIntra&Span=YEAR1&Code=RR.
Last edited by: John H on Thu 10 Feb 11 at 14:26
|
>> Sell your RR shares.
Those of you of you who did follow Zero's advice and sold your shares at 623p, will be happy to see that you can now buy them back for 890p. However, you will have missed out on about 40p of dividends in the meantime.
Only meant to be a gentle ribbing Zero (some of my recent trades have not been anything to shout about).
Still, it's a good example of contrarian investing. "Buy when others are fearful", and all that...
|
|
Oh did I not post the BUY RR earlier this year? Sorry.
|
|
Ha Ha - one of my investment funds actually did buy them at that low point Helped a nice 32% performance over four years so far !
|
Sell RR - RattleandSmoke
