Boeing 777 engine fire.

They have only grounded the 777s with that specific engine
apparently that engine model is only used on 777s so no other model is affected
Japan has banned any of this group flying over, taking off or landing in its airspace
Yes, only a small proportion of the world's 777 fleet is affected (most 777s have General Electric or Rolls-Royce engines, rather than Pratt & Whitney).
 
That the shroud. Made from inconel and incredibly tough, supposed to contain the shrapnel in the event that the turbine blades let go, yet when it was really needed it fell off...
The bits that fell off have nothing to do with turbine containment.

When a turbine blade or disk lets go (which didn't happen here) nothing on earth is going to contain it.
 

ebikeerwidnes

Über Member
The bits that fell off have nothing to do with turbine containment.

When a turbine blade or disk lets go (which didn't happen here) nothing on earth is going to contain it.
Just heard a report on CNN saying that a turbine blade broke and that took out a couple more
I'm not sure where the report originated - best thing is to wait until the experts have had a proper look - even if a blade did break there is then the question of why - did something go into the engine that shouldn't have
I guess it is only a matter of time before some idiot is flying a drone around and it gets too close and causes a problem like this - I know they are designed to cope with bird strikes but a metal drone might cause bigger problems!
 
View attachment 575116
This picture tells a different story.
Is that one of those exploded views of an engine ? :whistle:
 
It just doesn’t seem to get any better for Boeing does it? First it was the 737 Max and now QC issues at the South Carolina plant that makes the 787 Dreamliner.
Airlines have complained of poor quality control and a number of issues with poor and inconsistent workmanship with jets being delivered in a poor state.
Insiders have said it is because of management trying to speed up production. Such a shame as the 787 is a lovely aeroplane to fly. I’d be a bit wary about flying one now.
Im guessing the issue with this 777 is poor or improper maintenance.
I read an article which said that when Boeing took over Mc Donnel Douglas who were in a bad way that a lot of their managers took top jobs in Boeing which led to a decline in their safety standards.
 

MichaelW2

Veteran
The 777 is rated to fly for 330 mins on one engine. If this had happened halfway (180mins) across the Pacific on the way to Hawaii, it could still have landed on a good day.
 

Drago

Flouncing Nobber
Location
Poshshire
When a turbine blade or disk lets go (which didn't happen here) nothing on earth is going to contain it.
The inconel/kevlar/tungsten carbide (combinations thereof, or delete as applicable) cover shroud is designed to do precisely that - blade failure containment. Have a browse on Pratt and Whitney's own website.

A lot of Boeing production was moved from Seattle to North Carolina (or South, I forget which) and concerns about lesser quality from that plant are well documented in the public domain - poorly fitted fasteners, incorrectly routed cabling, lots of little things adding up to a big bucket of creaks and rattles. Not enough to fail certification, but enough that these aircraft are difficult to sell once they're 5 or more years old. Be interesting to see where this one was constructed.
 
Last edited:
The inconel/kevlar/tungsten carbide (combinations thereof, or delete as applicable) cover shroud is designed to do precisely that - blade failure containment. Have a browse on Pratt and Whitney's own website.
That statement is entirely correct.

But the Kevlar ring that you can see in the photo is in the plane of the fan, not the turbine. It appears to have done its job.
 
Top Bottom