I did. Almost 30 years ago. In the military. Still scared remembering it. Energies released during the crash are tremendous. Have kept a piece of metal of the plane, to not forget the buddy lost there.
A fan blade failure is nothing like a fan *disk* failure. Quantas airlines had such an event on an A380 and it *took off* the back half of the Rolls Royce engine, punctured the wing and fuselage and cut electrical control cables, hydraulic lines, and punctured a fuel tank. That damage almost brought down an airplane with 469 people. Perhaps Rolls Royce (all manufacturers, actually) should also test for containing disk failures?
I know that it can be challenging, more so as the mass of the object increases. But I see no reason for it to be impossible, in either a physics viewpoint or an economic one.
Stephen Ball Not sure if you remember or gave heard of United Flight 232 that had a failure over rural Iowa in 1989. The plane was a DC-10 and the explosion wiped out all hydraulic systems forcing the pilot, Cpt. Al Haynes to use one wing engine to do a U-turn and fly 70 miles to SUX where the plane ultimately crashed. Somehow, 184 of 296 passengers survived the cartwheeling fireball.
About 20 years ago, a UPS 757 box hauler ate a bird out of PDX (Portland OR.) the bird trashed the P&W 2040. A piece of the fan blade got out the side of the nacelle and hit the fuselage. That had P&W, UPS, and the FAA all looking stink eyed at each other, and resulted in a titanium retention shroud being installed in the fan track. UPS eventually gave up on the PRATTS and converted all their 757's to ROLLS RB-211's.
They do this after the other, normal tests are complete. Like they say in the video, it's to ensure that the blade is contained, and that the engine won't violently self-destruct or detach from the plane if this happens. I'm currently working on the test-stand equipment for a FBO test.
I guess they never told the #2 engine on Qantas flight 32 that unconstrained failures were not allowed. Because it did, and took out every system in some way, shape or form. Check out the pictures. It is impressive. And the fact that there were no injuries on the plane or ground is a blind miracle, not designed safety. The worst part about that whole thing was the way Rolls stuck up their middle fingers to everyone, including Qantas.
Yes, unfortunately this type of test isn't the hardest one to pass or the most dangerous way the blade can fail. As was seen with southwest a few days ago, if parts fall off in a non-explosive way, like through fatigue, they can fly forward and out of the engine then go back and damage the aircraft and passengers. But the test is so expensive they can't do it again. So the real testing is done by airlines 🙂
Qantas 32 was a slightly different problem, oil spilled into the engine causing it to overheat which in the end made it spin with more force than in this test. The force caused the blades to fail so the force the containment ring would have been trying to contain would likely have been more than the engine on full throttle. In the end, the Qantas 32 engine failure was a production error of the oil pipe, not a design error.
Yes it did go out of balance. I work at Roll-Royce and any engineer (at any firm) will tell you that if a component comes off a balanced assembly it is bound to go out of balance!! It didn't "shred and fly apart" but was of course damaged when the tips collide with the fan case. Thats perfectly acceptable for the test as the Airworthiness authorities just need to establish that all bits stay inside the engine.
I remember watching the test part only video in the VERY early youtube, maybe 14 years ago. wow. Maybe it wasnt from discovery, but it was insanely wow
...And probably the efforts to lignten the fan blades as much as possible (injecting high pressure gas inside the blade while orange hot to "inflate" it) highly contributes to the success of the blade-of test.
Wow.....That's what goes behind a safe take off and landing of an aircraft with those huge engines that put these massive body into the flight. Indeed astonishing of what tests an aero engine is put to.
03:00 The blades are made from superplastic formed diffusion bonded titanium alloy. The same process is used to manufacture the Eurofighter Typhoon's foreplanes.
Just partly true. You are right, the Qantas A380 incident was a turbine disk failure. But high-pressure disks are spinning at maximum speeds far below 20,000 rpm. The disk which has failed was, according to the ATSB report, part of the IP system so spining at even lower speeds. However, when a disk bursts nothing can stop it. And concerning the lower speed of the fan: All RR Trent engines are of 3-shaft type, so the fan is part of the LP (low pressure) system. So there is NO gearbox!
no, they occur due to microscopic fractures that may occur and grow over time. these are usually found during maintenance checks and the blades are subsequently replaced. but occasionaly they can be missed even through several checks which is why it occurs but very very infrequently. birds are unlikely to cause a problem and certainly not water but trees just might!
an engine such as this one is either a General electric GP7000 or a Rollls-Royce Trent 900. That one fan blade would have been under 10,000 G's of centripetal loading at max thrust which means that it now weighs roughly 240,000 lbs which is about 120,000 kgs. It also has been blasted out with a detonation charge. this blade weights about 24lbs and is about 2 feet long. Oh and if you lose 10 blades, they would probably tear the engine, cabin and fuselage into chunks.
Qantas Engine was not a blade off event, it was an uncontained turbine failure. The Turbines are further back than the air intake blades. There was an oil leak, which caught fire, and caused the pressure turbine disk to fail, and at 12,500 rpm, it kind of went BOOM.
@HeadDrauma The engine's core might spin significantly faster, but the fan won't surpass 3,000rpm very often. Its size is what allows it to spin much more slowly than the core's interior.
i work for bodycote and we HIP the blades for aircraft removing porosity from the casting making it stronger so it should never fail from metal fatigue
Wouldn't it be nice to come home and have your spouse asked you what you did that day? To be able to say "I got to blow up a giant jet engine then watch the video in slow motion for the rest of the day."
@Juaakili No irony. The Quantas incident was caused by a turbine disc, not a fan blade. They're totally different components. There's no containment system required for the failure of a turbine disc or turbine blades by EASA or the FAA. No engine manufacturer in the world has an HP or IP turbine containment system for an aerospace engine - it's too heavy. These parts are critically controlled at manufacture. The Quantas engine had a defect from manufacture. GE and Pratt have had incidents too.
I remember this video that came out a while before the A380 flew. A PR event for sure but did not take into account a different type of failure whereby engine pieces did eject thru the body of the engine. Fortunately the location of the fuel-tanks seems to be somewhat away from the engine pods & not subject to puncture by "exploding pieces" of an engine.
Still would not want to be the pilot in a blade-off. "Ladies and Gentleman, that loud bang, shutter and fireball off the right side of the aircraft, was just one of our engines disintegrating to pieces, but we still have 3 more, so please enjoy the rest of your flight"
usual british understatement 02:02 "i mean the whole engin will get a huge big shake" boieng enginers would have put it this way "pound for pound its more expensive than gold and after this test we will have the worlds biggest paperweight"
Multi-engine aircraft can fly with the remaining engines when an engine fails. There are ways to compensate for the balance issue (including reducing throttle on the live engine(s)). The aircraft can actually continue to fly for a long time this way, just much slower than normally.
The A380 uses nearly the same runway distance as the 747. And plus, that wouldn't be a downside. All airports it goes to have more than enough runway, that is why they are 10,000-12,000 feet long. And the A380 is actually quite fuel efficient. It doesn't guzzle as much gas as it is said to.
@1D0N 3000 rpm is very fast for a 10 foot diameter fan. That's means the tips of the blades are traveling well over the speed of sound (about 900 mph). The smaller compressors and turbines in the engine spin at around 12,000 rpm. The smaller the diameter of a jet engine, the faster it spins. Jets spin extremely fast for their size, much faster than piston engines due to their non-reciprocating nature. Some mini jet engines can reach 250,000 rpm! Even Formula 1 engines spin slow compared to jets.
this video is a powerful reminder about the aviation biz, you cant get away with fancy talk and showmanship. you gotta produce results and be perfect no matter what.
@seajist I'm pretty sure the engines are powerful enough that if you loose one, you can still fly. Thus, keeping the rest of the plane intact in case of an engine failure has a benefit.
@panther105 The standards on the fan shroud are VERY rigid. In actuality the fan shroud has to contain the blades under all circumstances, even blade failure from hail ingestion.
The A380 won't be cruising at anywhere near 900 km/h. Don't expect Vmo to be much beyond 320 knots (590 kph). At those sort of speeds the aircraft will tend to be above anything damaging the engine might suck in and the engines will be at climb or cruise power. So the probability of a blade-out event is a lot less likely, would actually involve less energy :-) Ground speed will be in the region of 900 kph however.
They are by no means completely superfluous in context but taken out of context, in terms of an ordinary jet engine, sticking a whacking great fan on the front is just something you can do for kicks if you feel like it!
Its a Rolls Royce Trent 900 engine. You are right about the 10 blade loss scenario but that is highly unlikely. Single blade failure is rare and when it happens they drop back into the engine and don't hit the others. When you see the film the others are only damaged due to the out of balance fan assembly.
People are always saying, we don`t make anything in this country anymore, well it`s true we don`t manufacture much but what we do make sets the benchmark for others. I hvae spent most of my life in engineering, we still make the best engines in the world.
Actually, the 787 is also made of plastic...but don't worry, the plastic material they use for aircraft these days is actually stronger than aluminum, yet lighter in weight.
I was doing a low approach and go around in a piper and we gotta see the a380 engine. Couldn't see it clearly but it was bloody big. If you ever get sucked up in one of those, you ain't having a very good day, especially when you become mince.
Rolls-Royce haven't made cars for a long time now. The aerospace and automotive business was split up in the late 70s, the aerospace became a plc and the motorcars ended up being owned by Vickers, who eventually sold it to Volkswagen. Rights to the name remained with the aerospace firm who lease the rights to BMW, not Volkswagen, part of the deal surrounding the BR700 engine series.
@cimbomlovr1 Its just the frame rate of the camera. The blade is spinning slightly slower than the camera's framerate. ie. If the cameras frame rate is 60fps, it might only be doing 55-58 rotations per second,
Yes, the law of physics does make that possible. Yes, turbines do spin that fast. The turbo in your riced civic hatchback can spin up about that high. 3000-5000 is probably not possible for a turbine. Like the poster above me said, the bypass fan is probably slower, but still not that slow. An engine with that much power that spun at 3000 RPM would have to have a gargantuan amount of torque.
@SakoTGrimes yeah for real. specially when one of the blades cost the same as a nice car. and theres 24 flippin blades. wow. let alone how much the engine cost.
It really doesn't matter if they give them in metric or not. Who knows, if this was run made for the United States, the actual measurement may have been 200 yards. Whoever did the subtitles may have been the one who messed up. Either way, it isn't too hard to figure out either one from the other. If the original measurement was yards, it was 200 yards, or 182.9 meters. If the original was metric, it was 218.7 yards, or 200 meters. It's not a significant difference.
@00bean00 No, that's just how it looks relative to the camera's shutter speed. Like you know in car ads how it sometimes looks like the wheels are spinning backwards. If you don't understand what i mean, google it, it's pretty cool.
@hasenpfote272 A modern plane fly with just one of it's engines running. As long as the blade doesn't escape the engine they pilots should be able to land the plane safely.
These engineers are my kind of heros, along with the photographers who set up the cameras and video. Show me an engineer who can explain this work like a TV personality and I'll show you an engineer who can't do this kind of work.This woman must be a genius at what she does. I'll bet she commands a very good salary, and I doubt Rolls Royce is just throwing monet around. TomB you are a fool.
I still find this footage absoloutely amazing.
Its unbelievable how much force is involved.
I love the "Well, that was an expensive five minutes" quip from one of the engineers.
I love the sound starting at 4.04! That engine spooling up is just massive! Full volume on my headset, max thrust , and pure enjoyment!
Would have been nice to see the blade-off test in real time...instead of looking at the faces of engineers.
/watch?v=WAhjSviYVr8
I remember watching this on TV. I love the sound of the engine when it spools up to full power!
Just a 2019 time traveler passing by
I'm from 2020.
@jimW133 Me to
@@randombird390 same hear
To test the casing containment of the shrapnel... and oh man 4:04 gives me chills. Love that engine
4:05 DAT SOUND
It beats the stock sound effects that came afterward.
Oi
Ooooooo
Sounds like a race car
V
that is brilliant! imagine four of those all throttling up on the a380. must be a terrific sight watching one of those take off!
I did. Almost 30 years ago. In the military. Still scared remembering it. Energies released during the crash are tremendous. Have kept a piece of metal of the plane, to not forget the buddy lost there.
A fan blade failure is nothing like a fan *disk* failure. Quantas airlines had such an event on an A380 and it *took off* the back half of the Rolls Royce engine, punctured the wing and fuselage and cut electrical control cables, hydraulic lines, and punctured a fuel tank. That damage almost brought down an airplane with 469 people.
Perhaps Rolls Royce (all manufacturers, actually) should also test for containing disk failures?
you know how much weights that disk?
I do not offhand know how much the disk weighs, but it am confident it is much more than a single blade.
Stephen Ball you know how difficult is to stop a heavy fragment, traveling with enormous speed?
I know that it can be challenging, more so as the mass of the object increases. But I see no reason for it to be impossible, in either a physics viewpoint or an economic one.
Stephen Ball Not sure if you remember or gave heard of United Flight 232 that had a failure over rural Iowa in 1989. The plane was a DC-10 and the explosion wiped out all hydraulic systems forcing the pilot, Cpt. Al Haynes to use one wing engine to do a U-turn and fly 70 miles to SUX where the plane ultimately crashed. Somehow, 184 of 296 passengers survived the cartwheeling fireball.
Thats incredible!! That is a lot of force for that casing to contain! Goes to show exactly how much money must go into Research and Development!
Impressive visual, and engine spool-up... sweet music to my ears!
so thats what happens when the rest of the blades kick the gay blade out of the engine
Amen
Oh fucking hell, I wasn't expecting to laugh looking at these comments.
yeah but he gonna wreak shit on his way out
That's me when I explode with happiness.
They never leave without a fuss.
Came to watch a blade test and ended up watching a room full of suits looking at a monitor!! smh
"well that was an expensive 5 minutes"
About 20 years ago, a UPS 757 box hauler ate a bird out of PDX (Portland OR.) the bird trashed the P&W 2040. A piece of the fan blade got out the side of the nacelle and hit the fuselage. That had P&W, UPS, and the FAA all looking stink eyed at each other, and resulted in a titanium retention shroud being installed in the fan track. UPS eventually gave up on the PRATTS and converted all their 757's to ROLLS RB-211's.
They do this after the other, normal tests are complete. Like they say in the video, it's to ensure that the blade is contained, and that the engine won't violently self-destruct or detach from the plane if this happens. I'm currently working on the test-stand equipment for a FBO test.
4:05 i love the sound
I actually loved the sound. Played on full through my headphones!
I guess they never told the #2 engine on Qantas flight 32 that unconstrained failures were not allowed. Because it did, and took out every system in some way, shape or form. Check out the pictures. It is impressive. And the fact that there were no injuries on the plane or ground is a blind miracle, not designed safety. The worst part about that whole thing was the way Rolls stuck up their middle fingers to everyone, including Qantas.
+Brütal Löve Well you see they only test for fan disk failure all other spinning parts have no test.
Yes, unfortunately this type of test isn't the hardest one to pass or the most dangerous way the blade can fail. As was seen with southwest a few days ago, if parts fall off in a non-explosive way, like through fatigue, they can fly forward and out of the engine then go back and damage the aircraft and passengers. But the test is so expensive they can't do it again. So the real testing is done by airlines 🙂
Qantas 32 was a slightly different problem, oil spilled into the engine causing it to overheat which in the end made it spin with more force than in this test. The force caused the blades to fail so the force the containment ring would have been trying to contain would likely have been more than the engine on full throttle.
In the end, the Qantas 32 engine failure was a production error of the oil pipe, not a design error.
Blows up 24 luxury cars worth of blades
*Claps* 👏
wow
it sounds like pure hell at full throttle
:o
Yes it did go out of balance. I work at Roll-Royce and any engineer (at any firm) will tell you that if a component comes off a balanced assembly it is bound to go out of balance!! It didn't "shred and fly apart" but was of course damaged when the tips collide with the fan case. Thats perfectly acceptable for the test as the Airworthiness authorities just need to establish that all bits stay inside the engine.
I remember watching the test part only video in the VERY early youtube, maybe 14 years ago. wow. Maybe it wasnt from discovery, but it was insanely wow
Just perfect, an amazing video indeed. An xclnt example of how great and safe today's aviation is. Congratz to the whole team.
...And probably the efforts to lignten the fan blades as much as possible (injecting high pressure gas inside the blade while orange hot to "inflate" it) highly contributes to the success of the blade-of test.
you're right....greatest music i've ever heared! sounds so beautifull!
YES!!! THE BIMMERS A MANUAL!!!!
SilverJKWrangler07 their in the UK its normal
I make those fan blades, these actually ended up back at our factory and were in shreds like wood splinters
Wow.....That's what goes behind a safe take off and landing of an aircraft with those huge engines that put these massive body into the flight.
Indeed astonishing of what tests an aero engine is put to.
03:00 The blades are made from superplastic formed diffusion bonded titanium alloy. The same process is used to manufacture the Eurofighter Typhoon's foreplanes.
Just partly true. You are right, the Qantas A380 incident was a turbine disk failure. But high-pressure disks are spinning at maximum speeds far below 20,000 rpm. The disk which has failed was, according to the ATSB report, part of the IP system so spining at even lower speeds. However, when a disk bursts nothing can stop it. And concerning the lower speed of the fan: All RR Trent engines are of 3-shaft type, so the fan is part of the LP (low pressure) system. So there is NO gearbox!
The funniest thing is those giant fans are actually completely superfluous! They just increase efficiency!!!
no, they occur due to microscopic fractures that may occur and grow over time. these are usually found during maintenance checks and the blades are subsequently replaced. but occasionaly they can be missed even through several checks which is why it occurs but very very infrequently. birds are unlikely to cause a problem and certainly not water but trees just might!
Its amazing how they grow the blades as a single crystal and can get them so big and hollow. It blows my mind.
Holy shit...When the throttles opened it sounded so damn awesome!!
an engine such as this one is either a General electric GP7000 or a Rollls-Royce Trent 900. That one fan blade would have been under 10,000 G's of centripetal loading at max thrust which means that it now weighs roughly 240,000 lbs which is about 120,000 kgs. It also has been blasted out with a detonation charge. this blade weights about 24lbs and is about 2 feet long. Oh and if you lose 10 blades, they would probably tear the engine, cabin and fuselage into chunks.
Yeah. I agree. I'm from the Caribbean, where most islands use Manual (Standard) Transmission quite commonly.
I love the Roar that the engine reaches at full power.
Correct. It was the I.P turbine which is a single stage turbine. All 3 shafts spin independently and are not linked through a gearbox.
That was increadible! Glad to see we Brits can still do somethings right!
Qantas Engine was not a blade off event, it was an uncontained turbine failure.
The Turbines are further back than the air intake blades.
There was an oil leak, which caught fire, and caused the pressure turbine disk to fail, and at 12,500 rpm, it kind of went BOOM.
I find it pretty funny that there are Swedish subtitles, given how they generally speak better English than some of us do.
@HeadDrauma The engine's core might spin significantly faster, but the fan won't surpass 3,000rpm very often. Its size is what allows it to spin much more slowly than the core's interior.
i work for bodycote and we HIP the blades for aircraft removing porosity from the casting making it stronger so it should never fail from metal fatigue
Wouldn't it be nice to come home and have your spouse asked you what you did that day?
To be able to say "I got to blow up a giant jet engine then watch the video in slow motion for the rest of the day."
@Juaakili No irony. The Quantas incident was caused by a turbine disc, not a fan blade. They're totally different components. There's no containment system required for the failure of a turbine disc or turbine blades by EASA or the FAA. No engine manufacturer in the world has an HP or IP turbine containment system for an aerospace engine - it's too heavy. These parts are critically controlled at manufacture. The Quantas engine had a defect from manufacture. GE and Pratt have had incidents too.
Brutal those fan blades are incredible.
youtube: lets recommend this 18 years later
I remember this video that came out a while before the A380 flew. A PR event for sure but did not take into account a different type of failure whereby engine pieces did eject thru the body of the engine. Fortunately the location of the fuel-tanks seems to be somewhat away from the engine pods & not subject to puncture by "exploding pieces" of an engine.
Still would not want to be the pilot in a blade-off. "Ladies and Gentleman, that loud bang, shutter and fireball off the right side of the aircraft, was just one of our engines disintegrating to pieces, but we still have 3 more, so please enjoy the rest of your flight"
usual british understatement 02:02 "i mean the whole engin will get a huge big shake" boieng enginers would have put it this way
"pound for pound its more expensive than gold and after this test we will have the worlds biggest paperweight"
the guy who said "That was an expensive five minutes" should replace it with "Right who wants a cup of tea"
Multi-engine aircraft can fly with the remaining engines when an engine fails. There are ways to compensate for the balance issue (including reducing throttle on the live engine(s)). The aircraft can actually continue to fly for a long time this way, just much slower than normally.
Incredible a380 test videos
would love to see a car go by with that sound
ahhh, Swedish Discovery Channel
the Trent is a 3 spool engine and can deliver 80000lbs of thrust so with that spec thats why it spools up so quickly!
The A380 uses nearly the same runway distance as the 747. And plus, that wouldn't be a downside. All airports it goes to have more than enough runway, that is why they are 10,000-12,000 feet long. And the A380 is actually quite fuel efficient. It doesn't guzzle as much gas as it is said to.
@1D0N 3000 rpm is very fast for a 10 foot diameter fan. That's means the tips of the blades are traveling well over the speed of sound (about 900 mph). The smaller compressors and turbines in the engine spin at around 12,000 rpm. The smaller the diameter of a jet engine, the faster it spins. Jets spin extremely fast for their size, much faster than piston engines due to their non-reciprocating nature. Some mini jet engines can reach 250,000 rpm! Even Formula 1 engines spin slow compared to jets.
this video is a powerful reminder about the aviation biz, you cant get away with fancy talk and showmanship. you gotta produce results and be perfect no matter what.
@seajist I'm pretty sure the engines are powerful enough that if you loose one, you can still fly. Thus, keeping the rest of the plane intact in case of an engine failure has a benefit.
At 4:32 the guy cracks a priceless smile. I bet he's thinking "Muhahaha... $30 million dollars... POOF!!!!"
@panther105 The standards on the fan shroud are VERY rigid. In actuality the fan shroud has to contain the blades under all circumstances, even blade failure from hail ingestion.
I like how they translated 9 million pounds to 900 million pounds in the subtitles. Anyway, great video
That characteristic spool up sound
The A380 won't be cruising at anywhere near 900 km/h. Don't expect Vmo to be much beyond 320 knots (590 kph). At those sort of speeds the aircraft will tend to be above anything damaging the engine might suck in and the engines will be at climb or cruise power. So the probability of a blade-out event is a lot less likely, would actually involve less energy :-)
Ground speed will be in the region of 900 kph however.
They are by no means completely superfluous in context but taken out of context, in terms of an ordinary jet engine, sticking a whacking great fan on the front is just something you can do for kicks if you feel like it!
Its a Rolls Royce Trent 900 engine. You are right about the 10 blade loss scenario but that is highly unlikely. Single blade failure is rare and when it happens they drop back into the engine and don't hit the others. When you see the film the others are only damaged due to the out of balance fan assembly.
People are always saying, we don`t make anything in this country anymore, well it`s true we don`t manufacture much but what we do make sets the benchmark for others. I hvae spent most of my life in engineering, we still make the best engines in the world.
WOOOOOO 2006?! I WAS 3 YEARS OLD WHEN THIS WAS POSTED!!!
Actually, the 787 is also made of plastic...but don't worry, the plastic material they use for aircraft these days is actually stronger than aluminum, yet lighter in weight.
love it when he ses and at last the throttle is opened bring the engine to its full awsum power, it turns me on in some wierd way lol
Ah, ok. I know that it is a bypass fan but I figured it was directly linked to the turbine itself rather than being geared down. Thanks for the info!
Even though this is just a test, its funny how they have that scary music
I was doing a low approach and go around in a piper and we gotta see the a380 engine. Couldn't see it clearly but it was bloody big. If you ever get sucked up in one of those, you ain't having a very good day, especially when you become mince.
Very good a380 engine test! Keep up the good results
Rolls-Royce haven't made cars for a long time now. The aerospace and automotive business was split up in the late 70s, the aerospace became a plc and the motorcars ended up being owned by Vickers, who eventually sold it to Volkswagen. Rights to the name remained with the aerospace firm who lease the rights to BMW, not Volkswagen, part of the deal surrounding the BR700 engine series.
WOW those blades are huge! Ive forgotten how big the engine of 380 is.
They do, this is to test a balde failure, when a blade comes off due to a fan blade failure caused by design or material faults
@cimbomlovr1 Its just the frame rate of the camera. The blade is spinning slightly slower than the camera's framerate. ie. If the cameras frame rate is 60fps, it might only be doing 55-58 rotations per second,
A month ago I was in Hamburg (Germany) and visited the Airbus factory. That was incredible.
dont you just love the sound when they full the throttle
It was stated in the video that the price of one engine is 8 million pounds or roughly $16 million US dollars.
Yes, the law of physics does make that possible. Yes, turbines do spin that fast. The turbo in your riced civic hatchback can spin up about that high. 3000-5000 is probably not possible for a turbine. Like the poster above me said, the bypass fan is probably slower, but still not that slow. An engine with that much power that spun at 3000 RPM would have to have a gargantuan amount of torque.
4:03-4:11 The sound is respectable.
4:04
god I love that sound !
Very impressive! I remember seeing some footage of the button being pressed to detonate the blade, and the look on their faces was just as scarey.
1 blade = 1 luxury car. That is some serious money...
@SakoTGrimes yeah for real. specially when one of the blades cost the same as a nice car. and theres 24 flippin blades. wow. let alone how much the engine cost.
It really doesn't matter if they give them in metric or not. Who knows, if this was run made for the United States, the actual measurement may have been 200 yards. Whoever did the subtitles may have been the one who messed up. Either way, it isn't too hard to figure out either one from the other. If the original measurement was yards, it was 200 yards, or 182.9 meters. If the original was metric, it was 218.7 yards, or 200 meters. It's not a significant difference.
Yeah worked real good on a QANTAS flight I was on even took a chunk out of the left wing and yet I wasn't 200m away you think that made you jump
This was a fan blade that was ejected from the engine. That happened on QF32 was an entire turbine disk the exploded.
Good thing the frames that were holding the engine didn't flew off with the engine^_^ weee!!! Super Cool!
@00bean00 No, that's just how it looks relative to the camera's shutter speed. Like you know in car ads how it sometimes looks like the wheels are spinning backwards. If you don't understand what i mean, google it, it's pretty cool.
Damn, imagine how it would be to sit in the A380 aircraft with 4 of those engines. Must hurt the ears and the whole plane shaking :S
@hasenpfote272 A modern plane fly with just one of it's engines running. As long as the blade doesn't escape the engine they pilots should be able to land the plane safely.
Wow, when the engine was brought to full throttle, was anyone else reminded of the GE-90 on the 777?
Interesting thought: maybe the reason it was top secret was because it kept failing and this was the first time it went right? One to think about
These engineers are my kind of heros, along with the photographers who set up the cameras and video. Show me an engineer who can explain this work like a TV personality and I'll show you an engineer who can't do this kind of work.This woman must be a genius at what she does. I'll bet she commands a very good salary, and I doubt Rolls Royce is just throwing monet around. TomB you are a fool.