Now for something completely different:
A "blade off test" of a Rolls Royce Trent 900 engine, which power the A380.
With a service contract, those engines cost almost $50 million apiece. I'd guess the cost to RR for the engine was probably less than $20 million.
Those puppies put out around 80,000 pounds of thrust. Only the engines on a 777 are more powerful.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Didn't work too well on the Quantas flight a couple of years ago.
Yep, and required testing anymore... NOT a lot of fun if you happen to BE in a plane when one of those puppies lets go, or any turbine decides to come apart. Had a T-56 come apart on us one night, and I still have nightmares about that one.
Aircraft Engines are a bit like razors and razor-blades. The companies don't make too much on the sale of the engine, but clean up on the sale of the parts. The FAA EAA et al insist that routine maintenance take place on a very strict schedule. Every 1000 hours you do X, every 5000 hours you do Y, etc.
Including every so often you have to have the engine torn-down and inspected from the inside out. That can be VERY expensive.
Don't know speiciffically about RR... But I would guess they make money on the engines. Just not as much as you are saying. (Most planes are designed to take engines from either of the 3 big suppliers, so the competition can be an issue. At least most commercial planes)
And the FOD damage tests are always interesting.
These things are incredible machines. The exhaust gas is typically at a temperature that would melt the engine, so everywhere after the combustor the parts of the engine are hollow and contain pin holes so that pressurized air can form a buffer between the back half of the turbine and the hot gasses.
Even so there is a ball bearing in the front (to lock the geometry in place) and roller bearings in the back to account for the fact that engines stretch a little when they get up to temp.
Post a Comment