# Can a House Survive a 747 Engine Falling From 35,000 Feet?

In summary, a group of individuals on a physics forum were discussing whether or not a 747 Jet Engine falling from 35,000 feet would cause significant damage to a house upon impact. Some factors that were considered included the terminal velocity of the engine, its weight, and the shear strength of 4x4 wooden beams. Some forum members believed that the engine would plow through the house due to its dense, relatively small size, while others thought it would cause minimal damage. The weight of the engine was estimated to be around 2-4 tons, and its dimensions were provided as 97" in diameter and 132" in length. However, it was also noted that the engine in the movie had traveled through
After watching Donnie Darko I was curious about a scene where a 747 Jet Engine (just the engine) falls out of the sky and onto the corner of a rather large suburban house. In the movie the house was intact (minus some damage to the side it landed on). Assuming something like this happened in reality, would it be possible for the house to remain somewhat intact if the 747 Jet Engine fell from 35,000 feet onto the corner of the house?

I was having an argument about this with a friend of mine and figured a physics forum would be the best possible place to find an answer.

There are an awful lot of unknowns.

1) What's the terminal velocity of an engine?
2) What's the weight of an engine?
3) What's the shear strength of 4x4 wooden beams?

It seems reasonable to me that a pretty dense, relatively small object like an engine would plunge right through a house, breaking the frame members it directly strikes, but leaving most of the rest of the structure intact. It's much more like a bullet than a bomb.

- Warren

I tried looking up the weight of a 747 Jet Engine but I couldn't find it. I would assume it to be at least 2-3 tons.

I have no idea what the terminal velocity would be. My physics stopped at high school 10 yrs ago

Thanks for any help!

chroot said:
1) What's the terminal velocity of an engine?

Now if someone could dig up the approximate size of the engine we could have a classic post starting with "assume a spherical engine" in the makings.

I guess someone must have calculated the air resistances for cylinderical or water droplet like objects so that part is solvable.

nightshadz: terminal velocity is the maximum velocity a falling object can attain before gravity and air's resistance cancel each other out leaving the object falling at a constant velocity.

I highly doubt the thing would be intact. The engine must have hit the house with a horizontal velocity of at least a hundred miles per hour or so meaning it would plow through the house along with the damage inflited simply because of its energy from falling a few thousand feet.

I know what Terminal Velocity means, i just don't know how to derive it and how to apply it to this problem. Sure I could look it up and plug in some numbers, but those numbers won't have any meaning to me regarding this question.

Also, assuming it did fall from 35,000 feet, wouldn't it eventually end up dropping completely vertical by the time it impacts?

Yes, I was assuming wind resistance would kill its horizontal velocity by the time it hit the ground. That may or may not be a good assumption, but I don't think a tumbling engine is all that aerodynamic.

- Warren

I know what Terminal Velocity means, i just don't know how to derive it and how to apply it to this problem. Sure I could look it up and plug in some numbers, but those numbers won't have any meaning to me regarding this question.

There are a lot of reports of cars crashing into houses at very high speeds, and the over all damage is confined to a small area. A lot times the car doesn't even make it into the house. I assume a jet engine' weight is similar (probabally less) than a car. To me it seems highly probable that the majority of the house would remain intact. As was mentoned its a projectile not a bomb.

inha said:
Now if someone could dig up the approximate size of the engine we could have a classic post starting with "assume a spherical engine" in the makings.
The 747 uses Pratt & Whitney JT9D high-bypass turbofans. They are 97" in diameter, 132" long, and produce from 46,300—56,000 pounds of thrust depending upon the specific model. I can't find a weight figure for them anywhere, but all aviation engines use as light a material as they can get away with, and the biggest part of that engine diameter is just the bypass fan at the front. I'm not sure that one would even reach a ton in weight.

My god it is just a movie. Its like armaggeddon and the gravity of the asteroid. Just get over it and enjoy the moive.

DavidSmith said:
My god it is just a movie. Its like armaggeddon and the gravity of the asteroid. Just get over it and enjoy the moive.
But I enjoy this more than movies. That's why I'm here instead of watching one.

Don't forget that the engine in question took a trip through a time vortex (or equivalent movie-science buzzword), which could have changed its velocity in an arbitrary way to suit any required plot line...

PeteSF said:
Don't forget that the engine in question took a trip through a time vortex (or equivalent movie-science buzzword), which could have changed its velocity in an arbitrary way to suit any required plot line...

I know. That's why I created this thread. To find out what would actually happen assuming a 747 Jet Engine fell from 35,000 feet (without the help of a wormhole).

I don't know the weight of those engines, but I know the engines some B-57 bombers (jet engines) use produce about 1/10th that thrust and weigh about 1.25 tons. Assuming a direct relationship, the engine in question would weigh around 12-13 tons. Not exact, but it's a starting place.

Well, I think its 4 tons. I got this number from a PDF I downloaded which I've linked to. It makes a non-detailed reference to this weight, although coincidentally the aim of the PDF is very, very much related to the question.

PDF: http://www.engineering-eye.com/AUTODYN/customer/paper/pdf/ESHP_1.pdf

Last edited by a moderator:
assuming the engine fell from h meters and has a mass of m

it would have protentional energy of

$$u=mgh$$

ill take a guess here and say that because the engine isn't all that big it doesn't have that much air resistance so suppose it falls in a vacuum
so upon impact it has kinetic energy of

$$e= \frac{mv^2}{2}$$

$$2mgh=mv^2$$
$$v= \sqrt{2gh}$$

suppose it doesn't lose due to air resistance more than 80% of its vacuum falling speed

$$v= \frac{4 \sqrt{2gh}}{5}$$
if it falls from 35,000 feet (10,668 meters) it would have a velocity of at least
v=366 m/sec (1318 km/h)
im pretty sure it would simply act like a bullet penetrate through the roof and leave a big crater on the floor

747 engine: RollsRoyce RB211 : http://home.swipnet.se/~w-65189/transport_aircraft/b747/boeing_747_series.htm

There are some widely conflicting specs for it, but this one appears to give numbers that include the cowling, not just the naked engine: http://www.easa.eu.int/doc/Events/Rolls_Royce.pdf
Weight: 13,900 lbs :
Rolls Royce size: ~208"x168"

Airliner crusing speed: ~500mph
Airliner cruising altitude: 35,000-40,000ft

Edit: deleted obsolete calcs

Last edited by a moderator:
OK, I found another formula that got me a better result for the test case (Got me within an order of magnitude for human v(t).)

First, the real surprise is just how dense an aircraft engine isn't. The mass divided by the volume is slightly less than 0.1g/cm^3! If it were sealed in a plastic bag, it would float 9/10ths out of the water!

OK, takes sense once you think about it, by design, an engine is a mostly air-filled cavity. Boats float with most of their volume out of the water too.

As far as air resistance, one can assume the engine stops working fairly quickly as it falls, so the blades act more as a wall than a passage for airflow. Thus, the engine acts as a solid sphere as far as air resistance goes.

The formula for terminal velocity is:

$$v_t = \frac{.222 \cdot g \cdot (d_s-d_a) \cdot r^2}{n}$$

(reference)

where
g = gravity 9.8m/s
$$d_s$$= density of object (.099g/cm^3)
$$d_a$$= density of air (.001239g/cm^3)
r is the radius of the "sphere" (210cm)
n is the "dynamic viscosity of air near the Earth's surface" (0.00018 g/cm/s)

I get a number of approximately 50m/s, which is a mere 100 mph.

That provides momentum of 315,000 kg-m/s. That is twice the momentum of a 3000kg car moving at 100mph.

One other factor: the engine is moving downward, not laterally. A house can deform laterally, but it will not deform vertically since the ground is immovable. This would lessen the amount of damage it would do (since much of the impact would be transferred to the ground)

Conclusion:

I would conclude that a jet engine falling on a house would do amount of damage that is within 1x and 2x the amount that a car hitting it at 100mph would do.

Thus, the effect in the movie is pretty much bang on on the plausibility scale.

P.S. My wife loves that movie.

Last edited:
If I recall correctly, in the movie the engine falls through the roof and comes to rest in a second-storey bedroom... I'm thinking that the ground storey must have a pretty tough ceiling!

chroot said:
Yes, I was assuming wind resistance would kill its horizontal velocity by the time it hit the ground. That may or may not be a good assumption, but I don't think a tumbling engine is all that aerodynamic.

My assumption has wind resistance not playing a large enough factor to bring the engine to any reasonable speeds (under 100mph). It probably started at 500-600mph and I assume the engine is actually, if it stays in the correct orientation, a rather aerodynamic structure. If it just fell off, it seems like it would stay in its correct orientation for a good deal of time. If it was forced off by like an explosion though, it probably started tumbling immediately... I wonder if boeing has done an experiment for this lol.

## 1. How realistic is the science portrayed in the movie scene?

The level of realism in a movie scene depends on the accuracy of the scientific principles and concepts portrayed. While some movies may take creative liberties for the sake of entertainment, others strive for accuracy with the help of scientific consultants.

## 2. Can the events in the movie scene actually happen in real life?

It is possible for some events in a movie scene to happen in real life, but it ultimately depends on the laws of physics and the level of technology available. Some scenes may require a suspension of disbelief, while others may be scientifically plausible.

## 3. Is the physics in the movie scene consistent throughout the entire film?

In most cases, the physics in a movie scene should be consistent throughout the entire film. However, there may be some inconsistencies due to the use of special effects or the need to advance the plot. It is important for filmmakers to strike a balance between accuracy and storytelling.

## 4. How do the laws of physics play a role in the movie scene?

The laws of physics govern the behavior of matter and energy in the universe, and they play a crucial role in shaping the events in a movie scene. From gravity to momentum to electromagnetism, these laws are often used in creative and imaginative ways to enhance the visual effects and action in a film.

## 5. Are there any scientific inaccuracies in the movie scene?

It is not uncommon for movies to contain scientific inaccuracies, as they often prioritize entertainment over scientific accuracy. Some of these inaccuracies may be minor and can be overlooked, while others may be more significant and can impact the overall believability of the movie. It is important for viewers to approach movies with a critical eye and not take everything at face value.

• General Discussion
Replies
1
Views
8K
• General Discussion
Replies
4
Views
7K