boestar Posted June 2, 2012 Share Posted June 2, 2012 De Icer. It was 505 not 305. 305 was a 747. I changed the engine after the 505 incident. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deicer Posted June 2, 2012 Share Posted June 2, 2012 We're both correct. I had #2 on 505 light up on pushback off Gt 89 and the flames licked up the tail to the top of the fin. Quite impressive. Maybe the same incident?305 was converted to all economy and used to be flogged overseas in the summer and down south in the winter. Used to do flt 862 departing at 10pm. Just dark enough for the torching to be impressive!Ahhh, the memories...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
conehead Posted June 3, 2012 Share Posted June 3, 2012 Here are some pics of the damage done to the #2 engine on flight 001 that day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 3, 2012 Share Posted June 3, 2012 Here are some pics of the damage done to the #2 engine on flight 001 that day.I have the photos as well, what I found disturbing was the ones where it shows that it was un-contained and exited through the side of the case. Could have been a much larger issue, thank goodness it was not! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boestar Posted June 4, 2012 Share Posted June 4, 2012 De Icer:305 was a Pratt and Whitney JT9D powered 747-100 Not and L-1011http://www.airliners.net/photo/Air-Canada/Boeing-747-133/1428612/&sid=011a9753c76d7e36fa58734d7a707a19 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deicer Posted June 4, 2012 Share Posted June 4, 2012 Good Morning BoI know, and I am not arguing that point with you.I am letting you know that fin 305 used to do the same thing.Can't you accept that?DC8's used to be pretty spectacular with wetstarts as well.Were you around for those too? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don Hudson Posted June 4, 2012 Share Posted June 4, 2012 Robert;Re, "what I found disturbing was the ones where it shows that it was un-contained and exited through the side of the case. Could have been a much larger issue,"Yes, as with the RR Trent 972's explosion of the turbine section on QF32. The cause of this event are likely not the same as the Trent disintegration but shrapnel going through the side means it can also go upwards, through the wing...(Crikey - Ben Sandilands' site has some good graphics).Don Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J.O. Posted June 4, 2012 Share Posted June 4, 2012 My understanding is that the case was compromised but that the cowling prevented any outward migrations. Does the B777 cowling have a Kevlar liner? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 4, 2012 Share Posted June 4, 2012 Robert;Re, "what I found disturbing was the ones where it shows that it was un-contained and exited through the side of the case. Could have been a much larger issue,"Yes, as with the RR Trent 972's explosion of the turbine section on QF32. The cause of this event are likely not the same as the Trent disintegration but shrapnel going through the side means it can also go upwards, through the wing...(Crikey - Ben Sandilands' site has some good graphics).DonDon,exactly my thoughts Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 4, 2012 Share Posted June 4, 2012 My understanding is that the case was compromised but that the cowling prevented any outward migrations. Does the B777 cowling have a Kevlar liner?JOthe kevlar blanket is around the fan section in case of fan separation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boestar Posted June 4, 2012 Share Posted June 4, 2012 De-Icer: I was around for the DC-8s. That is where my Career started. Cant say I miss the old birds much though. Never got to work on the Conway engines but did mess with the Pratts and Cfms though. That was the original Fly By Wire aircraft (7x19 wire that is) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J.O. Posted June 4, 2012 Share Posted June 4, 2012 Quoting an old friend here, "Calling the Conway an engine is an insult to real engines". Guess he didn't like them too much. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don Hudson Posted June 4, 2012 Share Posted June 4, 2012 The Conways must have been the loudest engine this side of a Saturn V. It was a full-throttle engine - the takeoff EPR was usually around 2.4, which gave about 17,500lbs of thrust. On a cold day (-20C) the exhaust noise crackled. The 2-engine (out on one side) go-around minimum control speed was 230kts on a cold day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deicer Posted June 5, 2012 Share Posted June 5, 2012 The RR Conway, confirmed as the most efficient way of converting jet fuel to noise Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
conehead Posted June 5, 2012 Share Posted June 5, 2012 Back on topic; it was un-contained, and there was shrapnel damage to the flaps. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J.O. Posted June 5, 2012 Share Posted June 5, 2012 Back on topic; it was un-contained, and there was shrapnel damage to the flaps.From part migration through the case, or parts that came out the exhaust? There is a difference. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boestar Posted June 5, 2012 Share Posted June 5, 2012 Uncontained would mean that the parts migrated THROUGH the casing and into adjacent structure. Since the flaps are behind the engine for the most part is it possible that the ejected material was through the exhaust and not the case? Was there shrapnel damage to the cowlings? was the duct punctured? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boestar Posted June 5, 2012 Share Posted June 5, 2012 I just got the same series in my inbox at work. It looks like there was some loss of containment but nothing horrifying. The rear end on the other hand is a complete mess. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JL Posted December 13, 2013 Share Posted December 13, 2013 TSB final report: Findings as to causes and contributing factorsDuring shroud production, a change to a higher-intensity laser resulted in a variation in the shape and size of the shroud cooling holes. Over a period of time in service, these cooling holes eroded, which resulted in both degraded shroud cooling and a super-heated zone. This, in turn, increased the rate of erosion until the shroud integrity was reduced to the point of failure. Damage to high-pressure turbine shrouds and hangers, which was likely present during the last borescope inspection, went undetected prior to the occurrence. As a result, the engine was not removed from service. The number 2 engine shut down during the initial climb-out due to a failure of the high-pressure turbine stage 1 shroud.http://www.tsb.gc.ca/eng/rapports-reports/aviation/2012/a12o0074/a12o0074.asp Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.