Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
New 787/RR Trent 1000 Issue.  
User currently offlineWINGS From Portugal, joined May 2005, 2831 posts, RR: 68
Posted (4 years 3 months 1 week 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 15850 times:

It seems that both Boeing and Rolls Royce have encountered yet another bump on the long road to the certification of the 787. Hopefully this issue will be dealt with promplty.


Boeing's first 787 test aircraft, ZA001, experienced an engine surge on one of its two Rolls-Royce Trent 1000 engines on 10 September during testing in Roswell, New Mexico, grounding the aircraft and prompting a swap of the power plant.

Boeing says the replacement engine is already in New Mexico and is being installed. The airframer declined to offer a timelime for ZA001's return to flying, though programme sources say the aircraft could return to flying as early as 17 September, with a commencement of test operations the following day.


http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...t-aircraft-after-engine-surge.html

Regards,
Wings


Aviation Is A Passion.
21 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineSwallow From Uganda, joined Jul 2007, 557 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (4 years 3 months 1 week 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 15615 times:

I'd say 2 incidents for a new engine in flight testing is pretty much par for the course. The first one, an uncommanded roll-back was caused by a faulty sensor.

The 380 was also plagued by faulty sensors during its early airline life, so let's hope RR gets maturity on these engines to improve dispatch reliability after EIS



The grass is greener where you water it
User currently offlineWINGS From Portugal, joined May 2005, 2831 posts, RR: 68
Reply 2, posted (4 years 3 months 1 week 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 14985 times:

Quoting Swallow (Reply 1):
I'd say 2 incidents for a new engine in flight testing is pretty much par for the course. The first one, an uncommanded roll-back was caused by a faulty sensor.

Agree, although due to the extreme tight certification schedule, this will no doubt create further headaches for Boeing. Due to the latest incident ZA001 has been grounded for seven days.

Regards,
Wings



Aviation Is A Passion.
User currently offlineOyKIE From Norway, joined Jan 2006, 2755 posts, RR: 4
Reply 3, posted (4 years 3 months 1 week 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 13364 times:

Quoting WINGS (Reply 2):
Agree, although due to the extreme tight certification schedule, this will no doubt create further headaches for Boeing. Due to the latest incident ZA001 has been grounded for seven days.

They must surly be biting nails... I am confident that they will sort these problems out. The GE engines has less hours, but it seems that this engine is experiencing less problems at the moment?



Dream no small dream; it lacks magic. Dream large, then go make that dream real - Donald Douglas
User currently offlineNYC777 From United States of America, joined Jun 2004, 5803 posts, RR: 47
Reply 4, posted (4 years 3 months 1 week 3 days ago) and read 12346 times:

Well with all the progress Boeing has made with the 787 flight test sschedule and with the extra 6 weeks in the test schedule the time that ZA001 has been on the ground can be made up. The other 3 RR powered 787s are either in planned layups or undergoing planned ground testing. I don't think there will be any impact to the schedule from this.

Boeing has completed almost 60% of the required 787 flight test hours and almost 70% of the planned RR/787 flight test hours. They've been flying (with the exception of this week) all the airplanes steadily for about 10 hours a day.



That which does not kill me makes me stronger.
User currently offlinelightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 13551 posts, RR: 100
Reply 5, posted (4 years 3 months 1 week 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 9085 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting WINGS (Thread starter):
Boeing's first 787 test aircraft, ZA001, experienced an engine surge on one of its two Rolls-Royce Trent 1000 engines on 10 September during testing in Roswell, New Mexico, grounding the aircraft and prompting a swap of the power plant.

What, an engine besides the PW4000 surging? Don't they know there is a copyright on that?   

Quoting Swallow (Reply 1):
I'd say 2 incidents for a new engine in flight testing is pretty much par for the course. The first one, an uncommanded roll-back was caused by a faulty sensor.

I'd agree, but it is bad PR for RR.  

It sounds like the map for the compressor stators was off. Oops... Or perhaps the fuel flow ramp rate (up or down) was off.

This has to be looked into. But if wasn't for other issues, this is something that would normally be 'swept under the rug.' It is very typical.

Lightsaber



Societies that achieve a critical mass of ideas achieve self sustaining growth; others stagnate.
User currently offlineAesma From Reunion, joined Nov 2009, 6958 posts, RR: 12
Reply 6, posted (4 years 3 months 1 week 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 8865 times:

Quoting Swallow (Reply 1):
I'd say 2 incidents for a new engine in flight testing is pretty much par for the course. The first one, an uncommanded roll-back was caused by a faulty sensor.

The 380 was also plagued by faulty sensors during its early airline life, so let's hope RR gets maturity on these engines to improve dispatch reliability after EIS

Except the A380 didn't need ETOPS certification, unlike the 787.



New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
User currently offlinetdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80
Reply 7, posted (4 years 3 months 1 week 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 8058 times:

Quoting OyKIE (Reply 3):
The GE engines has less hours, but it seems that this engine is experiencing less problems at the moment?

It's too early to tell...at the equivalent point in the RR program, none of the RR issues had shown up yet.

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 5):
What, an engine besides the PW4000 surging? Don't they know there is a copyright on that?

The surge, isn't the interesting part...it's the reaction that differs.

RR: Holy !@#%, what did you just do?!
GE: Well, that's not good.
PW: What bang?

Tom.


User currently offlineokie From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 3190 posts, RR: 3
Reply 8, posted (4 years 3 months 1 week 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 7541 times:

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 7):

The surge, isn't the interesting part...it's the reaction that differs.

RR: Holy !@#%, what did you just do?!
GE: Well, that's not good.
PW: What bang?

Tom.


Thanks Tom you made my day.

For an engine change it looks to be more of an issue than a scheduling or sensor problem.
Which brings me to the question, what is the normal (cycles/hours) for warranty on a new turbine?

Okie


User currently offlinetdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80
Reply 9, posted (4 years 3 months 1 week 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 6869 times:

Quoting okie (Reply 8):
For an engine change it looks to be more of an issue than a scheduling or sensor problem.

Depends...they reported a surge. A surge can be anywhere from an annoying interruption to totally frying the compressor, which would drive you to a change. Not enough data to tell yet.

Quoting okie (Reply 8):
Which brings me to the question, what is the normal (cycles/hours) for warranty on a new turbine?

The turbine is usually life-limited, with the cycles/hours varying by engine. As one data point, the first LLP on a CFM56-7B is at 48500 hours.

Tom.


User currently offlinelightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 13551 posts, RR: 100
Reply 10, posted (4 years 3 months 1 week 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 6556 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 7):
The surge, isn't the interesting part...it's the reaction that differs.

RR: Holy !@#%, what did you just do?!
GE: Well, that's not good.
PW: What bang?

  

touche'

You made my day!   

Lightsaber



Societies that achieve a critical mass of ideas achieve self sustaining growth; others stagnate.
User currently onlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15836 posts, RR: 27
Reply 11, posted (4 years 3 months 1 week 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 6169 times:

Quoting zwaving (Reply 11):
First of all it is my most humble opinion that if it were not for the A380 crowd sitting on the 787 corral like a bunch of vultures looking for a hint of weakness, there would not be a line written anywhere about this power surge or whatever on the first 787 test craft.

I think that's a difficult assumption to make since the 787 is really only the second major airliner program done entirely after the major proliferation of the internet. Just imagine what would have been said if A*net had existed when the 747 was being build, or the MD-11.

Quoting zwaving (Reply 11):
The way I see it, if Dassault builds it, the French fly it, sans tendering process.

By the same coin, Dassault is probably more than willing to build whatever France wants. For what it's worth, the French have operated plenty of American aircraft, and still do have significant numbers of C-130s and KC-135s. Plus, I see plenty of Boeings flying for Air France.

Quoting zwaving (Reply 11):
So, I don't understand why the US lets a French Co. even ask for an opportunity to tender.

Because the point is for the Air Force to get the right plane for the job.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlineBrianDromey From Ireland, joined Dec 2006, 3929 posts, RR: 9
Reply 12, posted (4 years 3 months 1 week 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 5954 times:

Quoting zwaving (Reply 11):
So, I don't understand why the US lets a French Co. even ask for an opportunity to tender. Sounds fair to me, but then what do I know.

There is a greater demand for openess, clarity and responsibility from the US electorate regarding public funds than in many other countries. The administration must prove the purchased product/service is the best available at the best price. Stakes are high, Boeing and BAe have been caught greasing the wheels, competion is necessary.

How is this in any way relevant to the topic at hand? This is the usual, when all else fails attack the opposition. Neither the A380 nor the 787 have had ideal paths from the drawing board into service. What is it they say about glasshouses and throwing stones?



Next flights: MAN-ORK-LHR(EI)-MAN(BD); MAN-LHR(BD)-ORK (EI); DUB-ZRH-LAX (LX) LAX-YYZ (AC) YYZ-YHZ-LHR(AC)-DUB(BD)
User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 20358 posts, RR: 59
Reply 13, posted (4 years 3 months 1 week 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 5429 times:

Quoting Swallow (Reply 1):
I'd say 2 incidents for a new engine in flight testing is pretty much par for the course. The first one, an uncommanded roll-back was caused by a faulty sensor.

And then there was that minor issue of an uncontained failure. Bit of egg on their face there.

I wonder if airlines are going to start canceling their RR contracts. With the delays and the additional issues, I'd imagine the contracts could be unilaterally canceled without significant fines or fees and GE would be only too happy to pick up the slack!


User currently offlinePM From Germany, joined Feb 2005, 7007 posts, RR: 63
Reply 14, posted (4 years 3 months 1 week 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 5241 times:

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 13):
I wonder if airlines are going to start canceling their RR contracts.

If they do (which I doubt) it won't be because of two unrelated incidents before the plane even enters service.

All engines experience "issues" before, during and after EIS. Airlines would prefer if they didn't but they well understand that a trouble-free development, introduction, and career is asking for the moon.

Now, if any current RR Trent 1000 customers have reason to believe that either or both of these incidents suggest a fundamental design flaw then they may be reviewing their options. But we still seem a very long way from anything like "a fundamental design flaw".

You might as well ask how many airlines cancelled their 787 orders when the wing/body join issue emerged. Rather few, is the answer, I believe.

Moreover, put yourself in the shoes of an airline CEO who cancels their order for T1000s and negotiates an order for GEnxs ... and two months later a GEnx fails.

Odd blips here and there are par for the course. (It's why it takes a year to test new airliners.) Airlines aren't likely to be spooked by a unique failure here or there.







I hope...   


User currently offlineokie From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 3190 posts, RR: 3
Reply 15, posted (4 years 3 months 1 week 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 5012 times:

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 9):
The turbine is usually life-limited, with the cycles/hours varying by engine. As one data point, the first LLP on a CFM56-7B is at 48500 hours


I understand that but at what point does the manufacturers warranty end. Is it pro-rated?
I know it is dollars per hour if leased but what about purchased, what point does the operator pay the repairs?

Okie


User currently onlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31435 posts, RR: 85
Reply 16, posted (4 years 3 months 1 week 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 4834 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting PM (Reply 14):
Now, if any current RR Trent 1000 customers have reason to believe that either or both of these incidents suggest a fundamental design flaw then they may be reviewing their options. But we still seem a very long way from anything like "a fundamental design flaw".

If anything, it is the GEnx that suffers from a "design flaw" (if not a fundamental one) in that they had to re-design the entire front third of the engine in order to meet their SFC targets...   


User currently offlineokie From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 3190 posts, RR: 3
Reply 17, posted (4 years 3 months 1 week 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 4777 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 16):
If anything, it is the GEnx that suffers from a "design flaw" (if not a fundamental one) in that they had to re-design the entire front third of the engine in order to meet their SFC targets


I do not get into the A vs B or RR vs GE vs PW thing.
That being said SFC missing the target and issues requiring a low time engine replacement is quite a different cup of tea.

Okie


User currently offlinelightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 13551 posts, RR: 100
Reply 18, posted (4 years 3 months 1 week 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 4614 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting okie (Reply 15):
I understand that but at what point does the manufacturers warranty end. Is it pro-rated?

Warrantees are usually pro-rated. They are similar to tire warranties. e.g., an early failure is paid in full, but if only 10% of the warranteed life is left, than a credit for 10% of the estimated cost of the part of the engine rebuild that is the turbine is paid for (which is a big chuck of the rebuild).

Guarantee length often varies customer to customer. The greater the discount... the less the guarantee (usually, negotiation dependent of course). On narrow bodies, 5,000 to 7,500 cycles is typical for today. Manufacturers are really trying to push for a fixed fee "power by the hour" (which is mostly a fee per takeoff). In that case, the airline doesn't worry about turbine life, the manufacturer would. "Power by the hour" service contracts are the most profitable way to sell an engine...



Societies that achieve a critical mass of ideas achieve self sustaining growth; others stagnate.
User currently offlinePM From Germany, joined Feb 2005, 7007 posts, RR: 63
Reply 19, posted (4 years 3 months 1 week 2 days ago) and read 4485 times:

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 18):
"Power by the hour" service contracts are the most profitable way to sell an engine...

Do all three of the big OEMs offer this? RR make a big deal out of it. What about GE and PW?


User currently offlineAesma From Reunion, joined Nov 2009, 6958 posts, RR: 12
Reply 20, posted (4 years 3 months 1 week 2 days ago) and read 4476 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 11):
By the same coin, Dassault is probably more than willing to build whatever France wants.

Exactly. I'm not overly enthusiastic that France did the Rafale alone, but the Eurofighter isn't carrier capable (it may be one day), and the UK for example has to buy F-35Bs they'll get who knows when for that capability.



New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
User currently offlinelightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 13551 posts, RR: 100
Reply 21, posted (4 years 3 months 1 week 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 4400 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting PM (Reply 19):
Do all three of the big OEMs offer this? RR make a big deal out of it. What about GE and PW?

Yes! For a while, Pratt did really well selling power by the hour. I know GE does also. For RR, HALF their engines are on a 'power by the hour' contract!    I believe that is the highest in the industry.

http://www.flightglobal.com/director...facturer=3082&navigationItemId=382

Operators with a large common fleet never pick 'Power by the Hour'. Its too expensive. (Hence why it is very profitable for the engine vendor. But it takes a large common fleet to make it less expensive than 'power by the hour.') It also excludes certified 'alternate sources' of parts. For example, Pratt makes CFM-56-3 parts to get in on that massive revenue stream. The payoff for 'power by the hour' is EIS: This keeps the airline from having to staff up engineering early before the fleet is established. It also simplifies early guarantee disputes as the engine vendor is fully responsible.

http://atwonline.com/operations-main...-sell-pma-parts-cfm56-engines-0309

I wonder if this is why RR does so well with small airlines? (There large 'power by the hour' organization has global reach now...)

Lightsaber



Societies that achieve a critical mass of ideas achieve self sustaining growth; others stagnate.
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
787 With Trent 1000 Engines Have Started! posted Wed May 20 2009 21:11:56 by TwinOtter4Ever
RR Trent 1000 Gains Certification posted Tue Aug 7 2007 12:42:41 by BDRules
RR Trent 1000 First Flight? posted Tue Mar 27 2007 01:11:12 by BoeingBus
Air China Orders RR Trent 1000 For 787s posted Wed Sep 13 2006 13:58:36 by PanAm_DC10
ILFC Orders RR Trent-1000 For B787s posted Mon Jul 17 2006 11:22:58 by PanAm_DC10
Rolls-Royce Completes Test Run Of New Trent 1000 posted Tue Feb 14 2006 19:17:38 by Leelaw
Icelandair Chooses Trent 1000 For 787 posted Tue Feb 7 2006 10:43:30 by PanAm_DC10
Eads Meets On A350 Airliner, RR -> Trent 1000 posted Tue Jun 7 2005 18:01:44 by Keesje
New 787 Schedule Released posted Thu Aug 27 2009 07:01:36 by Brons2
Saudi Arabian Picks RR Trent 700EP For A333 Fleet. posted Wed Apr 8 2009 01:14:55 by WINGS