Rolls Royce testing

[Lons]

Reportedly true but most likely just a story - Made me smile anyway :lol:

****** FROM ROLLS-ROYCE STAFF MAGAZINE ******


Sometimes it DOES take a Rocket Scientist!!


Scientists at Rolls Royce built a gun specifically to launch dead chickens at the windshields of airliners and military jets all travelling at maximum velocity.

The idea is to simulate the frequent incidents of collisions with airborne fowl to test the strength of the windshields.

American engineers heard about the gun and were eager to test it on the Windshields of their new high speed trains.

Arrangements were made, and a gun was sent to the American engineers.

When the gun was fired, the engineers stood shocked as the chicken hurled out of the barrel, crashed into the shatterproof shield, smashed it to smithereens, blasted through the control console, snapped the engineer's back-rest in two and embedded itself in the back wall of the cabin like an arrow shot from a bow..

The horrified Yanks sent Rolls Royce the disastrous results of the experiment, along with the designs of the windshield and begged the British scientists for suggestions.



Rolls Royce responded with a one-line memo:






"Defrost the chicken."

 

[adidat]

What an aw fowl story! :lol:

Adidat

 

[Grahamshed]

It would take several large drinks before I could believe that to be true.

 

[DIY Stew]

:lol: :lol: :lol:

 

[AES]

It definitely ain't true, honest.

But a good story though.

AES

 

[woodaxed]

I dont see why its not true years ago a company i worked for recieved a drill from the usa with the boast it was the worlds smallest drill so we drilled a hole down the middle of it and sent it back

 

[jpt]

They built one of those cannons on mythbusters and found that using frozen chickens, although I think they used turkeys, created a lot more damage, so yes it could be true.

john

 

[jpt]

They built one of those cannons on mythbusters and found that using frozen chickens, although I think they used turkeys, created a lot more damage, so yes it could be true.

john

 

[monkeybiter]

I seem to remember hearing they test the vulnrability of jet engines by firing chickens at them.

I heard the drill story 45 years ago, then it involved a British company responding to a German request for the smallest drill available. The Germans duly sent the 'smallest' drill back with a hole through it.

 

[Phil Pascoe]

There was the story of the Japanese manufacturer, on being told by the British buyer that they expected a failure rate of 0.002% ( or similar) said that they weren't accustomed to it, but they could arrange to perform that badly.

 

[Midnight]

the gun exists, that much is true, but it's used to simulate birds trikes, the chickens being shot into gas turbines... the frozen chicken (turkey in this instance) highly probable... General Electric springs to mind, tho my memory could be wrong...

 

[adidat]

I seem to remember hearing they test the vulnrability of jet engines by firing chickens at them.

I heard the drill story 45 years ago, then it involved a British company responding to a German request for the smallest drill available. The Germans duly sent the 'smallest' drill back with a hole through it.

how small are we talking about?

adidat

 

[AES]

OK then, some explanation as to why the story is not true (sorry):

Depending on several factors, the airliner you fly off to holiday on could be powered by aeroengines designed and built by any one of total six manufacturers in the world. To get their engine approved by the European and US aviation safety authorities, ALL manufacturers have to submit a sample engine/s to a whole series of test, one of which is the "chicken test" (though it is by no means the most spectacular - see below). The above tests are all extremely well documented and thoroughly specified in every detail so there's no question of a manufacturer making the sort of mistake that this story included. But as someone has already said "the chicken gun" does exist (one at every manufacturers plant) and like everything else, the size and weight of the chicken is carefully defined (depends on the power rating and size of the engine).

As a (secondary) point, the aeroengine business is so very fiercely competitive that no manufacturer would start discussing problems with satisfying any one of the tests with a competitor or with an airworthuiness authority.

In short, while it is an amusing story it is just not true. You can trust me on this one as I'm a professional aircraft engineer and knowing stuff like this is my daily bread & butter.

But back to my "see below":

A while back a very interesting programme appeared on German TV discussing several aspects of building the new Airbus A380 (the so-called "Super Jumbo"). The programme included spectacular footage of stuff like engine testing and brakes and landing gear testing. Some of those clips appeared on YouTube (sorry I have no links), the most spectacular of which was the "Blade Off" test. Here the manufacturer fits a small explosive charge to the root of one of the Fan Blades (the big blades at the front of the engine) and then runs the engine at full power on the test bed before firing the charge. To pass that test the engine MUST carry on runnng (albeit at reduced power!) and MUST retain all the debris within the engine. Like I said, applicable to ALL manufacturers.

Krgds
AES

P.S. Exactly the same principles apply to wind screen testing, t's just that engines are a bit more spectacular!

 

[defsdoor]

The engine doesn't have to continue running (there's no way it could as it would be out of balance and shake the wing to pieces) - the test is to ensure that the shroud contains all the debris - preventing it from breaching the cabin or damaging the wings.

 

[AES]

@defsdor:

Sorry Sir, you're wrong. The engine DOES have to continue running for a defined minimum period of time - it's a sghort time agreed, but the whole point is that despite the out of balance forces the engine should run long enough so that the crew have time enough to shut it down properly (proper drills, fire the extinguishers, etc.)

Check EASA and/or FAA certification regs for engine certification, especially if the engine is to be ETOPS (Extended Range Twin Engine Operations) qualified.

AES

 

[woodaxed]

Why do people have to spoil a perfectly good funny story with trivia like the truth

 

[bugbear]

I dont see why its not true years ago a company i worked for recieved a drill from the usa with the boast it was the worlds smallest drill so we drilled a hole down the middle of it and sent it back

I bet the old hands told all the new starters that story.

http://www.snopes.com/business/genius/wire.asp

BugBear

 

[woodaxed]

i remmeber a mate of mine years ago got an apprenticeship as a car mechanic first day there he was sent to the parts dept
to get a long weight he said he was there for 15 minutes before he realised he had been wound up

 

[Phil Pascoe]

Did they wind him up on a sky hook?

 

[Jonzjob]

How long is not very long?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=736O4Hz4 ... =endscreen

That one wasn't shut down by the driver me-thinks??? :mrgreen: It didn't do what the Gloucester Javalin used to do though and that is one engine go bang and take the second with it! It was NOT a good glider and then went almost vertical!