XH558 Vulcan, two engines destroyed in takeoff incident.

Hazza

Hazza

Messages
2,089
Name
Harry
Edit My Images
Yes
Yesterday while increasing thrust for a take off, engines 1 and 2 were destroyed by a critical failure, reported to be ingestion of desiccant bags into the #1 engine.

All crew are safe, and following a full emergency response at Robin Hood Airport, the Aircraft has been recovered to her hangar where assessment and repairs are ongoing.

Both engines are damaged beyond repair, and the Trust have two spare engines available.

Full reports and details:

TVOC site, news on right. http://www.vulcantothesky.org/

What a real shame, I wonder how longer the trust will be able to keep her airborne :(
 
With no spare engines now they will be on the brink of being grounded.
Silica gel bags ingested - wonder where they came from. Foreign object damage to jet engines is a risk and a good reason to frequently examine all areas for any loose material lying about.

Bit of a pity that happening after the long struggle to get her flying again. Must be a lot of gutted people amongst those involved.
 
Terrible shame, i'm quite fond of the vulcans. Hoping they can find the funds to repair.

How would silica gel packs get sucked into the engine, do they use them whilst the aircraft's parked up?
 
Last edited:
Bernie174 said:
On the plus side it's engine only damage, so 2 engine swaps and it's sorted.
Click to expand...

there are only 4 spare certified olympus engines in the world. rolls royce have refused to service any so no chance of getting any more.

jimmyb said:
Terrible shame, i'm quite fond of the vulcans. Hoping they can find the funs to repair.

How would silica gel packs get sucked into the engine, do they use them whilst the aircraft's parked up?
Click to expand...

it sounds like they use them in the hanger to keep the moisture out, no idea how they were left in the engine though. i guess the investigation will figure that out.
 
arclight said:
With no spare engines now they will be on the brink of being grounded.
Silica gel bags ingested - wonder where they came from. Foreign object damage to jet engines is a risk and a good reason to frequently examine all areas for any loose material lying about.

Bit of a pity that happening after the long struggle to get her flying again. Must be a lot of gutted people amongst those involved.
Click to expand...

Maybe they fell out of a photographers bag??

Damn photographers rights, insisting on photographing near air bases ;)
 
I'm surprised some silica gel damaged the engines to such a catastrophic end. Would have thought the blades would have sliced and then it got vaporised before doing any major damage, depending on the size of the bags i suppose.
 
jimmyb said:
I'm surprised some silica gel damaged the engines to such a catastrophic end. Would have thought the blades would have sliced and then it got vaporised before doing any major damage, depending on the size of the bags i suppose.
Click to expand...

Indeed, I imagine if they were using some to keep the engines dry maybe so may have been quite large?

But beads sucked in at take off thrust I'd imagine would be like a shotgun. The bang the engines made was described by onlookers was much much louder of that bang the jet force drag car makes if you've ever seen that.
 
The bags are about 9ins x 5ins x 1 to 2ins or so thick. They weigh about 0.5kg.
 
This is terrible news :( I only hope that they can find and work on spare parts in an effort to try and repair the damaged engines if possible once they've inspected them properly once out of the airframe :(
 
there are only 4 spare certified olympus engines in the world. rolls royce have refused to service any so no chance of getting any more.
Click to expand...

I'd not be too certain about that. From what I understand there's a plan afoot.....


I'm surprised some silica gel damaged the engines to such a catastrophic end. Would have thought the blades would have sliced and then it got vaporised before doing any major damage, depending on the size of the bags i suppose.
Click to expand...

You'd be surprised at the damage to an areo engine that even the smallest object can do. Even if there wasn't damage to the turbines, I hate to think what would have happened in the combustion chambers.
 
Last edited:
Be interested to hear exactly how this incident came about. Where were the bags left and why were they not noticed prior to startup. The AAIB may well be concerned how this came about. Could have been a much different outcome if the aircraft had got airborne prior to the engine failures.
 
arclight said:
Be interested to hear exactly how this incident came about. Where were the bags left and why were they not noticed prior to startup. The AAIB may well be concerned how this came about. Could have been a much different outcome if the aircraft had got airborne prior to the engine failures.
Click to expand...

Bet the guy responsible for taking them out of the plane is kicking himself! Tragic mistake to make.

doesn't the vulcan have 4 engines, I was on the understanding aircraft are still able to fly on just 50% of their engine power after V1 or is it different for military aircraft?
 
jimmyb said:
Bet the guy responsible for taking them out of the plane is kicking himself! Tragic mistake to make.

doesn't the vulcan have 4 engines, I was on the understanding aircraft are still able to fly on just 50% of their engine power after V1 or is it different for military aircraft?
Click to expand...

Not sure, maybe once airborne? I reckon it needs all 4 to get up?
 
jimmyb said:
doesn't the vulcan have 4 engines, I was on the understanding aircraft are still able to fly on just 50% of their engine power after V1 or is it different for military aircraft?
Click to expand...

Whether it's able or not I don't think they'd be allowed to do it. Even if they are I wouldn't have thought they'd want to try in case they had another failure leading to the loss of the aircraft and possibly the crew.
If I was trying to take off in a plane and it went bang or did anything I felt was unusual the last thing I'd do is continue trying to take off.
 
DazJW said:
Whether it's able or not I don't think they'd be allowed to do it. Even if they are I wouldn't have thought they'd want to try in case they had another failure leading to the loss of the aircraft and possibly the crew.
If I was trying to take off in a plane and it went bang or did anything I felt was unusual the last thing I'd do is continue trying to take off.
Click to expand...

It depends where on take of you are if your past V1 as a rule it's a case of take off and return for a landing, only in the very worst situations do you attempt to reject T/O after V1

Matt
 
The AAIB may well be concerned how this came about
Click to expand...

Nope not really, doesn't come under the heading of an accident, so apart from mild interest like the rest of us, nothing to do with them.

neil_g

It seems that at least one, and possibly both of the engines that came out of XH558 in the last few years are serviceable.
It's not certain that there is no such thing as a Vulcan engine laying about somewhere, either, nor is it certain that RR wont play the game, and overhaul and zero hour any that can be found. Remember that at one point there were 100 odd of these aircraft floating about, and being military they weren't flogged to death (as an example the Typhoon has a life of around 4500 hours and expected to last for 25 or so years, an Airliner will do that in 18 months!) so there's a reasonably good chance of low hours engines being in museums or maintenance schools or indeed in the wings of the remaining preserved air frames.

Not sure, maybe once airborne? I reckon it needs all 4 to get up?
Click to expand...

Probably not. Remember that this is an aircraft designed to carry a lot of fuel, plus either 21000 lbs of bombs, or a bucket of instant sunshine to Mother Russia. On this flight it wouldn't have very much fuel, no weapons, a lot of its wiggly amps military stuff no longer on board and only 3 not the former 5 crew. It climbs like a love sick angel on 4, so I doubt given the runway length at Finningley it'd have had too much problem getting up. The possibility of an engine fire though is a different matter. Then again, it didn't happen, so no point in discussing what if's.

On a happier note, Vulcan's from 9 and 35 Squadrons (NEAF Bomber Wing) made my double English lessons at school so much more interesting. My School overlooked Episkopi Bay, were there was a bob target, and I could look out of the nissen hut classroom window and watch them miss on a regular basis.
 
Last edited:
neil_g said:
Not sure, maybe once airborne? I reckon it needs all 4 to get up?
Click to expand...

My uncle was an engine tech on them from their introduction right through the 70s, Finningley and Waddington. He told me that during the Red Flag bombing competitions with the Americans in the US desert ranges, the B52 would be in trouble if it lost just one of its eight engines on take off if fully fuelled and bombed. The Vulcan however, could take off fully loaded on two engines.

He also told me that during the annual Battle of Britain displays when they had 4 Vulcans demonstrate the 4 minute nuclear attack warning scramble [4 Vulcans start up from dead and airborne within 4 minutes], they were authorised to continue with the take off on 3 engines should one fail to start so as not to spoil the display. They wouldn't do that if they weren't supremely confident that the Vulcan could take off safely on just 3.

I have a feeling that in the current displays, impressive as it sounds, they're not quite giving it its max thrust, no doubt to preserve engine life. Having heard countless Vulcans take off in the 60s and 70s I can't help feeling they were louder. Four Vulcans in a near vertical [ok, realistically let's say 60 degrees] max thrust power climb is both a sound and feeling that stays with you for life.
 
MisterE said:
My uncle was an engine tech on them from their introduction right through the 70s, Finningley and Waddington. He told me that during the Red Flag bombing competitions with the Americans in the US desert ranges, the B52 would be in trouble if it lost just one of its eight engines on take off if fully fuelled and bombed. The Vulcan however, could take off fully loaded on two engines.

He also told me that during the annual Battle of Britain displays when they had 4 Vulcans demonstrate the 4 minute nuclear attack warning scramble [4 Vulcans start up from dead and airborne within 4 minutes], they were authorised to continue with the take off on 3 engines should one fail to start so as not to spoil the display. They wouldn't do that if they weren't supremely confident that the Vulcan could take off safely on just 3.

I have a feeling that in the current displays, impressive as it sounds, they're not quite giving it its max thrust, no doubt to preserve engine life. Having heard countless Vulcans take off in the 60s and 70s I can't help feeling they were louder. Four Vulcans in a near vertical [ok, realistically let's say 60 degrees] max thrust power climb is both a sound and feeling that stays with you for life.
Click to expand...

I can vouch for the B52s struggling with one engine down.
It happened when I was stood on the fence at RAF Fairford with my parents watching them take off fully armed for the first gulf war.
An awesome sight, but one that's forever ingrained in my memory.
About 5 had gone up without a hitch, then as another powered up the runway and lifted off, it's wing dipped sharply and was inches from the ground. The pilot must have over corrected has he went sharply the other way.

It was like something out of a film. People, mainly grown men were screaming and running for their lives, as they thought this huge flying bomb was about to plough into the ground.
Thankfully he got airborne. We heard later on the news he made an emergency landing at another base due to an engine malfunction on take off.
 
jimmyb said:
I'm surprised some silica gel damaged the engines to such a catastrophic end. Would have thought the blades would have sliced and then it got vaporised before doing any major damage, depending on the size of the bags i suppose.
Click to expand...


You'd be surprised what can damage an aircraft engine. Even if its been raining and there is a pool of water in the intake it can cause damage to an engine once its run up as the amount of air sucked down the intake is enough to pick the water up as one large body like a slab of ice and smash it into the blades bending them and screwing the engine.

So the sort of silica gel bags that area used with aircraft would easily damage the compressor blades to beyond repair.

As a rough guide though, to repair a Tornado GR4 engine, including man hours to remove and refit a new engine then have RR fix it costs the RAF £250k per engine. Will be considerably higher for a typhoon. Couldn't say how much it would be for this aircraft having only a few engines and limited spares.
 
MisterE said:
My uncle was an engine tech on them from their introduction right through the 70s, Finningley and Waddington. He told me that during the Red Flag bombing competitions with the Americans in the US desert ranges, the B52 would be in trouble if it lost just one of its eight engines on take off if fully fuelled and bombed. The Vulcan however, could take off fully loaded on two engines.

He also told me that during the annual Battle of Britain displays when they had 4 Vulcans demonstrate the 4 minute nuclear attack warning scramble [4 Vulcans start up from dead and airborne within 4 minutes], they were authorised to continue with the take off on 3 engines should one fail to start so as not to spoil the display. They wouldn't do that if they weren't supremely confident that the Vulcan could take off safely on just 3.

I have a feeling that in the current displays, impressive as it sounds, they're not quite giving it its max thrust, no doubt to preserve engine life. Having heard countless Vulcans take off in the 60s and 70s I can't help feeling they were louder. Four Vulcans in a near vertical [ok, realistically let's say 60 degrees] max thrust power climb is both a sound and feeling that stays with you for life.
Click to expand...

would that be 2 failing on one wing or one failing on each wing..... would be an interesting take off, full thrust from one side and nil from the other i'd imagine...
 
Lynton said:
would that be 2 failing on one wing or one failing on each wing..... would be an interesting take off, full thrust from one side and nil from the other i'd imagine...
Click to expand...

I'd hazard a guess at one per side, although the engines are relatively close to the centre line so perhaps it wouldn't be total disaster if both were on one side.

As an aside, a Boeing 777 with just 2 massive GE90s or Trents can safely continue a max power climb if it loses one engine on takeoff without missing a beat, and these engines are some distance from the centre line. The rudder is automatically kicked over by computer if it senses a power loss on one engine.
 
MisterE said:
My uncle was an engine tech on them from their introduction right through the 70s, Finningley and Waddington. He told me that during the Red Flag bombing competitions with the Americans in the US desert ranges, the B52 would be in trouble if it lost just one of its eight engines on take off if fully fuelled and bombed.
.
.
.
Four Vulcans in a near vertical [ok, realistically let's say 60 degrees] max thrust power climb is both a sound and feeling that stays with you for life.
Click to expand...

For three years I worked in an office with some former Canberra crews. They recounted stories of being at Red Flag when, having watched some fully loaded B52s struggle into the air at the very end of an impossibly long runway, they would turn to their American hosts and watch their reactions when it was the turn of the Vulcans to take off. The Vulcan would rotate about a quarter of the way along the runway and reach for the skies at 60 degrees. Many an American lower jaw would hit the floor.
 
Bernie174 said:
Nope not really, doesn't come under the heading of an accident, so apart from mild interest like the rest of us, nothing to do with them.

neil_g
Click to expand...

The AAIB has powers to investigate anything it deems to be a serious aviation incident. I'd be surprised if they were not interested.
 
Bernie - I was under the understanding even the engines in static vulcans couldn't be used without being overhauled and certified? Everything I've read to date has mentioned rr not wanting to get involved, got any sources for your info?
 
arclight said:
The AAIB has powers to investigate anything it deems to be a serious aviation incident. I'd be surprised if they were not interested.
Click to expand...

The Vulcan operators have already stated that the AAIB will not be investigating as it was a contained accident, like any other plane that suffers engine damage.
 
MisterE said:
The Vulcan operators have already stated that the AAIB will not be investigating as it was a contained accident, like any other plane that suffers engine damage.
Click to expand...

Yes, it was reported to them among others, as required by law, and they did say that.

There are other agencies involved. However, it does need explaining and the cause requires puting right. It was a severe incident as the Vulcan Trust have said in their statement which is entirely unacceptable.
 
MisterE said:
The Vulcan operators have already stated that the AAIB will not be investigating as it was a contained accident, like any other plane that suffers engine damage.
Click to expand...

Yes, it was reported to them among others, as required by law, and they did say that.

There are other agencies involved. However, it does need explaining and the cause requires puting right. It was a severe incident as the Vulcan Trust have said in their statement which is entirely unacceptable - the incident that is.
 
arclight

See the AAIB Website

Definition of an accident

Accident" means an occurrence associated with the operation of an aircraft which might take place between the time any person boards the aircraft with the intention of flight and such time as all persons have disembarked, in which:

(a) a person suffers a fatal or serious injury;

(b) the aircraft sustains damage or structural failure which adversely affects its strength, performance or flight characteristics requiring a major repair or replacement;

(c) the aircraft is missing or is completely inaccessible.

It does not include engine failure or damage, when the damage is limited to the engine, its cowlings or accessories; or for damage limited to propellers, wing tips, antennas, tyres, brakes, fairings, small dents or puncture holes in the aircraft skin.
Click to expand...


The VTTS's latest new letter has this to say on the subject
A full formal investigation of the incident is now underway, headed by the Chairman of the Trust's Safety Review Committee, which will continue in parallel with the repair work on the aircraft. The Aircraft Accident Investigation Branch has confirmed that, as the damage to the engines was contained, the incident is not reportable to them.
Click to expand...

As I said, it is of no interest to AAIB. Moving on....



neil_g
I don't know where you get the idea RR don't want to be involved, they have been very involved in things so far. Of course anything taken from a dead airframe would need overhaul, which doesn't necessarily need to be done by RR. However, RR is a business, it'll do anything if you pay them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top