Boeing 777 engine fire.

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.
The American Government cancelled an order for aircraft due to the quality of workmanship , tools and swarf from drilling left inside the wings .
 

irw

Quadricyclist
Location
Liverpool, UK
Not a view you see very often, but a good illustration of how light and well-engineered aircraft components are.

That cowl ring is around 11 feet in diameter (almost as wide as the fuselage of a 737) and yet it's partly supported by that flimsy tree branch:

View attachment 575130
And also still relatively the right shape, given it's recent experience...
 

Tenkaykev

Veteran
Location
Poole
There’s been a few in depth articles about the decline of Boeing, a common theme being the rise of the Bean Counters over the engineers, and the “ capture” of the safety certification processes from the regulators to “ in house “ and the shenanigans that led up to the tragic loss of life in the two 737 Max crashes.
Ryanair had a lot of the 737 Max on order, and of course their version had been adapted to fit extra rows of seats to bring the capacity up to 200 passengers.
“ If it’s Boeing, I ain’t going”
 

BoldonLad

Veteran
Location
South Tyneside
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...

Be interesting to see if its a design issue, a maintenance concern, or because these jets have been sta ding largely idle and unused.
The article I read said the plane was 20+ years old, so, maintenance rather than design, I would have thought. Indeed, the fact that despite the engine failure, the aircraft landed safely would suggest good design, surely?
 
Last edited:

figbat

Slippery scientist
In the aviation industry, those incidents are known as BFOs.




Bits Falling Off.
Aren't some of those BFOs also known as "blue ice"?
 

Yellow Fang

Legendary Member
Location
Reading
I used to work in a team that programmed the engine control systems for Pratt and Whitney executive jet engines. We had one issue whereby an engine sped up, then slowed down too much when coming into land. Turned out the drainage hole was drilled the wrong side of the box. The circuit board had a waterproof coating, but persistent dripping over time had worn a patch of the coating away.
 
Last edited:

ebikeerwidnes

Über Member
The UK has banned all 777s with those engines - the FAA in the USA didn't - but then Boeing said they should all be grounded anyway

The people in Boeing must feel the Gods are upset with them!!!
 
Top Bottom