LegacyDriver
Moving Target
- Joined
- Mar 7, 2004
- Posts
- 1,691
This question is probably best aimed at GV as he is incredibly knowledgeable in this area. Anyone else feel free to chime in as well.
I understand what the regs say about engine failures and containment (or at least think I do) but the actual TESTING and IMPLEMENTATION of these rules is not something I know much (if anything about).
It is my impression that containment shrouds/rings are built to withstand a theoretical uncontained engine failure. However, what I want to know is, how is the actual ring/shroud size, shape, thickness, etc. arrived at? Do they just do a measure on the energy of a rotating part coming off the engine and build it to withstand that? It seems to me that blowing up a multi-million dollar engine on purpose would be prohibitively expensive.
The first parts-shedding engine failure on a production airplane would seem to be the first true test of the effectiveness of a containment ring/shroud. Am I wrong?
I understand what the regs say about engine failures and containment (or at least think I do) but the actual TESTING and IMPLEMENTATION of these rules is not something I know much (if anything about).
It is my impression that containment shrouds/rings are built to withstand a theoretical uncontained engine failure. However, what I want to know is, how is the actual ring/shroud size, shape, thickness, etc. arrived at? Do they just do a measure on the energy of a rotating part coming off the engine and build it to withstand that? It seems to me that blowing up a multi-million dollar engine on purpose would be prohibitively expensive.
The first parts-shedding engine failure on a production airplane would seem to be the first true test of the effectiveness of a containment ring/shroud. Am I wrong?
