BA777ER236 From United Kingdom, joined Sep 2006, 278 posts, RR: 8 Posted (7 years 10 months 4 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 3993 times:
'Emirates A330 Fan Blade - DXB 18 Oct
An EK A330-200 inbound to DXB from BHX last Tuesday 17th initiated a go-around when the #2 RR Trent engine threw a fan blade thru the inlet cowling.'
I thought I would restart this thread in the light of todays FI article which gives further information.
The above quote was from BOE773, and at the time, the photos that were posted appeared to show intake/nacelle damage forward of the front fan area. This is well nigh impossible for a released fan blade both dynamically and practically. A liberated blade would exit adjacent to/slightly behind the rotational plane of the fan, and should be contained by the containment shield around the fan casing.
In FI today:
'Airbus and Emirates are investigating why the right nacelle inlet cowl of an A330-200 suffered a stuctural failure on approach to Dubai in October'
Apparently, the cause of the failure is unclear, but the Bombardier produced inlet cowl clearly suffered a dramatic structural failure from the photo in FI.
Again quoting FI: 'R-R says it was not caused by any engine malfunction and that the Trent continued to function normally after the incident'
That's twice in 2 months that a Trent has suffered a dramatic inlet/nacelle/duct malfunction (2nd - MAS 777) and in both cases continued to run 'normally'. I would say that that was pretty impressive - sorry BOE773!
Jamie757 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (7 years 10 months 4 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 3951 times:
Quoting LMP737 (Reply 1): To bad BOE773 can't respond. He's been banned for a couple weeks now.
Isn't it just, I'm sure we all miss his narrow minded garbage!
Anyhow, I've just realised that my post is rubbish, so I'll ask a question, if the aircraft was in flight, how could the area forward of the fan blade become damaged? Could it possibly be due to a failure of a component forward of the fan blade, but within the cowling on the EK A330?
I don't think there is any need to be sorry BA777ER236 . The member in question gleefully posted information without credit from another website and typically, without waiting for or knowing the facts; he posted completely false and detrimental information about RR with respect to a fan blade failure that never occurred. He is the only one responsible for the thick layer of egg on his face .
JetMech split the back of his pants. He can feel the wind in his hair.
Molykote From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 1341 posts, RR: 15
Reply 4, posted (7 years 10 months 4 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 3892 times:
Quoting Jamie757 (Reply 2): Anyhow, I've just realised that my post is rubbish, so I'll ask a question, if the aircraft was in flight, how could the area forward of the fan blade become damaged? Could it possibly be due to a failure of a component forward of the fan blade, but within the cowling on the EK A330?
I've personally seen such damage (on a RR engine) caused by liberation of the inlet cowl inner face panel. This is a composite structural panel covered by acoustic supression material. The panel starts aft of the metal (curved) "lip skin" and continues aft to the inlet cowl aft bulkhead.
The engine was changed due to massive fan blade damage and core ingestion.
Both thrust reversers were changed due to FOD.
The inlet cowl was removed and probably scrapped.
After the inner face panel liberated, fragments were thrown through the inlet cowl structure forward of the fan blades. This seems consistent with your post.
Fuselage damage resulted from matter thrown through the inlet cowl forward of the fan blades. This damage included dents and punctures in the fuselage skin.
I wouldn't call your first post "rubbish" as this can potentially be a serious problem as evidenced by the fuselage damage I note above. Clearly this is less of a problem than an uncontained fan blade, but a problem nevertheless.
Given that this area serves no containment purpose, I'd have to imagine that the "structural failure" mentioned in post #1 applies to the failure of the inlet cowl inner face panel rather than the (non)-ability of the inlet cowl to contain any dynamic failures.
The root cause in the instance I observed above ended up being a manufacturing defect in the production of the inlet cowl. Unlike this EK failure, the inlet was not manufactured by Bombardier (but it was made by a third party). As you may know, much of the hardware on a nacelle installation (and airplane) is contracted out to third party vendors.
In both cases I am surprised that the British hardware didn't fail first!