Ceptic Posted June 5, 2012 Share Posted June 5, 2012 I've not seen anything, recently, posted here, but this has cropped up :- A report in a local daily, a few days ago http://www.bournemou...ines_destroyed/ According to the paper's printed issue, on 1/6/2012 the Vulcan Trust have two spare engines, but not a lot of spare cash. It also states that there is video footage of the incident, but, it seems this is being held back, pending an enquiry I've had a look at the May 2012, Doncaster's Robin Hood Airport footage on Youtube,.. but all seems well ?http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AwcBcp10dRs Regards. PS. Edit. The B'm'th Echo website is now including a short video of incident Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold PhilH Posted June 5, 2012 RMweb Gold Share Posted June 5, 2012 From another forum: Todays update: The technical team spent yesterday (Tuesday) investigating the engine damage on XH558, to determine its cause and to start assessing the timescale and cost of rectification. We have already established that both engines No.1 and No.2 on the port side are sadly beyond repair, both having suffered blade damage and the effect of excessive heat. The primary cause of the damage has been determined to be ingestion of silica gel desiccant bags. The most likely sequence of events was that material was ingested by No.1 engine, which surged and suffered LP compressor blade failure. Debris was then sucked into No. 2 which then also failed. All relevant agencies and technical authorities have been informed. “We have been greatly reassured by the support from industry colleagues, and would like to thank all those who have offered help,†said engineering director Andrew Edmondson. We would also like to place on record our thanks to all at Robin Hood Airport Doncaster Sheffield for their swift and professional reaction on Monday, whilst also apologising to those affected by delays or diversions. In accordance with normal procedures, a formal investigation into the incident has been opened, chaired by the Chairman of the Trust’s Safety Review Committee. The technical inspection has so far showed that no airframe damage was sustained, with damage being limited to the engines. The next step is to replace the damaged engines with two from the Trust’s remaining stock. Timescales for a return to flight are not yet clear – we will of course update the web site with progress and give details in the e-newsletters each week. “We are deeply sorry that this incident has happened, and at this time in 2012. The additional unplanned costs are clearly very worrying as resources are, as ever very tight†said the charity’s chief executive, Dr. Robert Pleming. “We are actively working on a plan to recover our Jubilee season schedule and we will share this with you as soon as practical via the newsletter, Facebook page, Twitter feed and the web site.†With many thanks to all for continuing to support Vulcan XH558. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ceptic Posted June 5, 2012 Author Share Posted June 5, 2012 Thanks for the update, PhilH. Bags of silica jel ,...Beats me... This stuff is usually included in packages, to ward off corrosion to any ferrous metals, contained within. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold PhilH Posted June 5, 2012 RMweb Gold Share Posted June 5, 2012 Used to stop moisture build up in the engines, some can be seen on this page . They are the size of small cushions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stewartingram Posted June 5, 2012 Share Posted June 5, 2012 No names, but I heard this from a witness to the incident last week. Allegedly the silica gel is stored within, to collect moisture. A 'person unamed' who was responsible for removing it during a pre-flight inspection was distracted by someone else, when he returned to his duty he forgot to remove the gel. Oh to be human! I'm told this is true but has been held back due to the enquiry, my sympathies go to everyone involved as something akin to this could happen to everyone; makes you think in the railway preservation side of things? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
34theletterbetweenB&D Posted June 5, 2012 Share Posted June 5, 2012 ...all seems well ... I think it bears saying that insofar as everyone walked away with a whole skin, it did. I admire the enthusiasm and effort, but really have misgivings about continued operation of technology never designed with thoughts of service longevity, and previously maintained on the basis of 'throw decent sized industrial nation defence expenditure at it'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold 2mmMark Posted June 6, 2012 RMweb Gold Share Posted June 6, 2012 I think the Vulcan team were fortunate not to have a tragedy on their hands. The engine failures occured on the runway, not on the climb-out, were contained (i.e. debris stayed within the engine casings) and the flight crew look to have handled the emergency very well. What really surprises me is that there was no "remove before flight" tags or tape on the silica gel bags - something that would clearly indicate the presence of the bags in the intakes. A very sobering incident and the person(s) involved must be mortified. I share 34theletterbetweenB&D's feelings about project. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
34theletterbetweenB&D Posted June 6, 2012 Share Posted June 6, 2012 ... makes you think in the railway preservation side of things? Happily, as a technology which in its fundamentals was got going at a time not far removed from a lump hammer being a precision instrument, it is a lot less demanding than aircraft maintenance and operation; and all the technology remains not only current, but within relatively easy grasp of anyone who has the wit to know which end of the hammer to hold. I am not joking, take the safety critical staying of the steam locomotive firebox. It can be routinely tested by sound, tap it with the hammer, and so on. By comparison, airframes and aviation gas turbines require a graduate level education and continuing education at that level throughout working life to cope with the never-ending knowledge stream to direct both maintenance and flight crew procedure, and the sophistication of the design entails two orders of magnitude more cash per ton life of preserved whatever it is. (My rough wet finger estimate, just look at the relative cost of the Tornado build compared to something with four gas turbines on it and assume the acquisition cost is a good indicator.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beeman Posted June 6, 2012 Share Posted June 6, 2012 This seems a very sad situation.Thankfully catastrophe avoided. Firstly I have never had anything to do with aircraft. but cannot see the sense of using desicant bags in this way to reduce moisture levels unless close fit covers were fitted to inlet/exhausts of the engines.The electrical costs of re-activating the sil.gel would be similar to fitting industrial dehumidifiers, often used in building, piped to the engine housings and a darned sight more effective.being continuous in operation.Moisture is usually condensate due to atmospheric changes, heating to keep above atmospheric temperature will stop condensation, electric powered fan heaters might have worked. Beeman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Bayford Posted June 6, 2012 Share Posted June 6, 2012 I think the Vulcan team were fortunate not to have a tragedy on their hands. The engine failures occured on the runway, not on the climb-out, were contained (i.e. debris stayed within the engine casings) and the flight crew look to have handled the emergency very well. What really surprises me is that there was no "remove before flight" tags or tape on the silica gel bags - something that would clearly indicate the presence of the bags in the intakes. A very sobering incident and the person(s) involved must be mortified. I share 34theletterbetweenB&D's feelings about project. well to give you an idea it takes 25 drums of dessicant to pack out 2 Rolls Royce Trent 700 engines in one drum is 5 bandoiliers containing 7 500 gram bags of the dessicant theres a fair bit of it to tag. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beeman Posted June 7, 2012 Share Posted June 7, 2012 Further to Tom Bayfords clarifications, would seem my suggestion needs adopting.The electrical costs of re-activating that amount would be HIGH, comparing against the electrical consumption of a continuous process unit, which generally still use SGel seems like using steam traction to turbojet technology. Notwithstanding the fact that these would need to be changed as the S.Gel becomes saturated, subject to the flying frequency and stationary calender.I'd bet there would be a dehumidifier manufacturer or service/hire company who would provide for free in return for the advertising value . Beeman. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Bayford Posted June 8, 2012 Share Posted June 8, 2012 Further to Tom Bayfords clarifications, would seem my suggestion needs adopting.The electrical costs of re-activating that amount would be HIGH, comparing against the electrical consumption of a continuous process unit, which generally still use SGel seems like using steam traction to turbojet technology. Notwithstanding the fact that these would need to be changed as the S.Gel becomes saturated, subject to the flying frequency and stationary calender.I'd bet there would be a dehumidifier manufacturer or service/hire company who would provide for free in return for the advertising value . Beeman. The only problem with this could be the certification of these units however we have two great big air con units for the fuel tanks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
royaloak Posted June 9, 2012 Share Posted June 9, 2012 Love the last line on that- Built in 1960, the aircraft flew for the first time in August 1952, so marks its own Diamond Jubilee this year. How does that work, it flew 8 years before it was built? Okay its only a typo but honestly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium spamcan61 Posted June 9, 2012 RMweb Premium Share Posted June 9, 2012 Not a typo just a poor choice of words, XH558 first flew in 1960, the prototype Vulcan first flew in 1952. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
298 Posted June 9, 2012 Share Posted June 9, 2012 Does anyone have any ideas as to how many hours the airframe has left...? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.