Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Are Engines Pacing 787 Deliveries?  
User currently offlineRuscoe From Australia, joined Aug 1999, 1605 posts, RR: 2
Posted (3 years 1 month 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 11966 times:

We all know ad nauseum about the delays in the 787 program.

Despite being years late the Gen X and RR are still not delivering engines with the promised performance.

It raises two questions in my mind

1. How much of the current low delivery rate is due to engines, not just the travel mwork?
2. If the 787 had been on time, would the engines have been ready anyway?

I would be interested if anyone has any thoughts or knowlefge on this.

Thanks

Ruscoe

48 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineBoeingVista From Australia, joined Jan 2009, 1584 posts, RR: 3
Reply 1, posted (3 years 1 month 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 11928 times:

Quoting Ruscoe (Thread starter):
We all know ad nauseum about the delays in the 787 program.

Despite being years late the Gen X and RR are still not delivering engines with the promised performance.

It raises two questions in my mind

1. How much of the current low delivery rate is due to engines, not just the travel mwork?
2. If the 787 had been on time, would the engines have been ready anyway?

I would be interested if anyone has any thoughts or knowlefge on this.

Thanks

Ruscoe

RR are delivering Package A engines, according to flightglobal the first package B is due for delivery to ANA on aircraft 31 in either November or December.

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/art...-in-testing-r-r-and-boeing-362584/

Engines are available for the 787, maybe not up to spec but available. It would be up to the customer to decide if they wished to decline delivery on this basis but as Boeing cannot currently deliver the frames its kind of a moot point.

The real mystery is why the GeNX 787 has still not been certified.



BV
User currently offlineJoeCanuck From Canada, joined Dec 2005, 5478 posts, RR: 31
Reply 2, posted (3 years 1 month 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 11877 times:

The engine makers have been a huge contributor to 787 delays and customer dissatisfaction, and will continue to be for some time to come.

Both RR and GE are promising amazing things for future engines yet they are still having trouble making spec they promised they would achieve 4 years ago with the current models.



What the...?
User currently offlinetdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80
Reply 3, posted (3 years 1 month 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 11814 times:

Quoting Ruscoe (Thread starter):
1. How much of the current low delivery rate is due to engines, not just the travel mwork?

Given that there are undelivered 787's sitting around Everett with engines hanging off them, I'm going to go with "none".

Quoting Ruscoe (Thread starter):
2. If the 787 had been on time, would the engines have been ready anyway?

Define "ready". The Trent 1000 certified on time so they were "ready" in the sense they could have been delivered. They would have been less up to spec than they are now though.

Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 1):
The real mystery is why the GeNX 787 has still not been certified.

According to a recent Boeing update on flightglobal, they haven't finished ETOPS/F&R. F&R has to be complete for certification (ETOPS doesn't).

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 2):
The engine makers have been a huge contributor to 787 delays

How so? The engines were ready *way* before the airplanes. Boeing did say some public stuff about a delay due to an engine redesign but, given the apparent production rate, I can't see how that actually delayed anything.

Tom.


User currently offlinemffoda From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 1112 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (3 years 1 month 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 11808 times:

Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 1):
The real mystery is why the GeNX 787 has still not been certified.

Hell... where have you been?

"GE has received type certification from the U.S Federal Aviation Administration on its Performance Improvement Package (PIP) I for the GEnx-1B engine that will power the Boeing 787 Dreamliner. The Part 33 certification was issued on August 12. "

And,

"GE anticipates the PIP II to certify next year with entry into service by early 2013. "

http://www.geaviation.com/aboutgeae/...resscenter/genx/genx_20110823.html



harder than woodpecker lips...
User currently offlineBoeingVista From Australia, joined Jan 2009, 1584 posts, RR: 3
Reply 5, posted (3 years 1 month 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 11703 times:

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 2):
Both RR and GE are promising amazing things for future engines yet they are still having trouble making spec they promised they would achieve 4 years ago with the current models.

The whole 787 programme made spec and time promises that could not be delivered, it was a great marketing exercise that engineers have been struggling to fulfill.

Quoting mffoda (Reply 4):
Hell... where have you been?

Maybe read before responding....

GeNX certified, Yes

GeNX powered 787 certified, No

Why?



BV
User currently offlinetdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80
Reply 6, posted (3 years 1 month 5 days ago) and read 11553 times:

Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 5):
GeNX powered 787 certified, No
Why?
Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 5):
Maybe read before responding....
Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 3):
According to a recent Boeing update on flightglobal, they haven't finished ETOPS/F&R. F&R has to be complete for certification (ETOPS doesn't).

Tom.


User currently offlineBoeingVista From Australia, joined Jan 2009, 1584 posts, RR: 3
Reply 7, posted (3 years 1 month 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 11369 times:

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 6):

Funny Tom,

I did read your response others didn't

The question of what the hold up on F&R remains unanswered though, they finished the RR certification flying and gained FAA 787 certification in September so whats the hold up with the GeNX?



BV
User currently offlinetdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80
Reply 8, posted (3 years 1 month 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 11340 times:

Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 7):
Funny Tom,

Sorry, the setup was too good to resist.

Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 7):
The question of what the hold up on F&R remains unanswered though

I'm not sure it's held up...they've been flying the wings off ZA006:
http://flightaware.com/live/flight/BOE6

They seem really busy, they're just not done. F&R is pure hours so there isn't really a way to speed it up.

Tom.


User currently offlineJoeCanuck From Canada, joined Dec 2005, 5478 posts, RR: 31
Reply 9, posted (3 years 1 month 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 11156 times:

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 3):

How so? The engines were ready *way* before the airplanes. Boeing did say some public stuff about a delay due to an engine redesign but, given the apparent production rate, I can't see how that actually delayed anything.

The GENx 787 still isn't certified, (which we can assume is an engine specific delay since the RR 787 is certified), and RR still isn't up to spec. They wouldn't even have been fitted onto wings at promised EIS and RR certification came 3 years after original EIS. PIP 2 still isn't on any aircraft in service. PIP2 for the GE will make it 5 years after original EIS before offering promised specs.

RR had a specific delay last year stemming from their test failure and their inability to supply engines.

Boeing promised engine spec based on what the engine makers said they could do and the makers couldn't pull it off...at least not when they said they could do it.

The fact is they really weren't ready way before the airplanes....marginally before the airplanes at best...and still really aren't ready today...at least not ready to provide promised spec performance.

They won't offer on spec performance until after 4 or 5 years after they said.

While they were not the only reason for EIS and certification delays, they have contributed.

As far as I can tell, there are no clean hands in regards to the massive 787 delays...Boeing or suppliers.



What the...?
User currently offlineADent From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 1406 posts, RR: 2
Reply 10, posted (3 years 1 month 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 10989 times:

The GeNX engine was originally certified on March 31, 2008.

They would have been ready to deliver flight worthy engines years ago, just no need. Now they wouldn't have been close to meeting spec performance, but it turns out the airframes they were to be hung on don't meet spec performance either.


User currently offlinenicoeddf From Germany, joined Jan 2008, 1110 posts, RR: 1
Reply 11, posted (3 years 1 month 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 10899 times:

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 9):
The fact is they really weren't ready way before the airplanes....marginally before the airplanes at best...and still really aren't ready today...at least not ready to provide promised spec performance.

So in that sense, the 787 itself is not really ready...at least not ready to provide promised spec performance?


User currently offlineferpe From France, joined Nov 2010, 2805 posts, RR: 59
Reply 12, posted (3 years 1 month 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 10658 times:

Quoting nicoeddf (Reply 11):
So in that sense, the 787 itself is not really ready...at least not ready to provide promised spec performance?

In all fairness, this is no difference to other new A/C. Mention one that met weight spec at first EIS? Some might have met engine spec but not many...



Non French in France
User currently offlineJoeCanuck From Canada, joined Dec 2005, 5478 posts, RR: 31
Reply 13, posted (3 years 1 month 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 10568 times:

Quoting ADent (Reply 10):
They would have been ready to deliver flight worthy engines years ago, just no need. Now they wouldn't have been close to meeting spec performance, but it turns out the airframes they were to be hung on don't meet spec performance either.

The engines were certified as safe for flight...not certified as a component of the 787. The Genx first flew on a 787 about a year and half ago and still isn't certified for the application...and has been pointed out, won't perform to spec until 2013.

Quoting nicoeddf (Reply 11):
So in that sense, the 787 itself is not really ready...at least not ready to provide promised spec performance?

Yes...since the 787's that have been delivered indeed don't meet promised spec. The airlines have chosen to take these aircraft and do the best they can with them, but they can't perform all the tasks for which they were originally ordered.

Don't get me wrong, I'm a huge fan of the 787...not so much of the history of the program. It annoys me to no end when vendors of any ilk make fantastic promises, (and suck some of us into believing them), and they're still struggling to fulfill them half a decade later than they said they could.

Still, it's all been hashed out before and no amount of griping is going to change a thing.

Quoting ferpe (Reply 12):

In all fairness, this is no difference to other new A/C. Mention one that met weight spec at first EIS? Some might have met engine spec but not many...

Justifying screw ups by comparison with other screw ups is something of a copout. I really hope somebody can make some aircraft on time and on spec just to show everyone else how it's done. The industry is in obvious need of somebody blazing, what should be, a very obvious trail...unfortunately.



What the...?
User currently offlinelightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 13535 posts, RR: 100
Reply 14, posted (3 years 1 month 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 9713 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 1):
The real mystery is why the GeNX 787 has still not been certified.

I'm hearing that there are nacelle/engine issues. Note: This is just my rumor mill. From a buddy at Boeing flight test...
So the engine is ok for delivery (if off spec), but the propulsion system isn't.   

And the 787 engines are being delivered as propulsion systems (excluding Boeing doing the pylon, IIRC)...

Lightsaber



Societies that achieve a critical mass of ideas achieve self sustaining growth; others stagnate.
User currently offlinedanwoodman00 From United States of America, joined Feb 2011, 23 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (3 years 1 month 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 9696 times:

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 13):
Don't get me wrong, I'm a huge fan of the 787...not so much of the history of the program. It annoys me to no end when vendors of any ilk make fantastic promises, (and suck some of us into believing them), and they're still struggling to fulfill them half a decade later than they said they could.

I went looking in the archives, and didn't find anything, so this might be a new thread. But...

Does Embraer have a better/worse record that Airbus or Boeing as regards on-time / on-spec delivery?

I know that EMB compete below the large NB and WB space, but they have grown up more than a little. Given that A and B are the only "real comps" for each other, and both have had a lot of bad publicity in the last decade, I'm curious if the up-and-comers like E are using "on time, on target" to differentiate themselves.

It would make an interesting competitive strategy for taking on the brutally-competitive 125+ seat NB range.

Thoughts?


User currently offlineikramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21582 posts, RR: 59
Reply 16, posted (3 years 1 month 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 9645 times:

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 14):
I'm hearing that there are nacelle/engine issues. Note: This is just my rumor mill. From a buddy at Boeing flight test...
So the engine is ok for delivery (if off spec), but the propulsion system isn't.   

And the 787 engines are being delivered as propulsion systems (excluding Boeing doing the pylon, IIRC)...

Lightsaber

This makes sense, because despite Boeing catching up on rework, some of those planes are scheduled to sit for months before delivery. This didn't make much sense. If there are issues with propulsion systems and performance both, it may be that Boeing won't release some aircraft until it is sorted, or customers simply won't accept them without improvements.

Boeing is taking the brunt of the criticism, but if you look at the 748F issue with Al Baker, it was GE that was the culprit. Boeing just isn't about blaming others. They are a business that needs those partners, no matter how inept they seem to be.



Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offlineER757 From Cayman Islands, joined May 2005, 2607 posts, RR: 7
Reply 17, posted (3 years 1 month 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 9491 times:

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 14):
I'm hearing that there are nacelle/engine issues. Note: This is just my rumor mill.

I would think the 747-8 nacelle/engine arrangement is similar enough to the GE 787 engine that if it wasn't an issue for 747 it shouldn't be for the 787. But apparently not??


User currently offlinesteffenbn From Denmark, joined Apr 2010, 263 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (3 years 1 month 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 8470 times:

Quoting ferpe (Reply 12):
In all fairness, this is no difference to other new A/C. Mention one that met weight spec at first EIS? Some might have met engine spec but not many...

777? Just to name one 

-Steffen



A330, A319, 737,738,752,763,763ER,764ER,777-200LR
User currently offlinejsquared From United States of America, joined Sep 2006, 149 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (3 years 1 month 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 8369 times:

Quoting steffenbn (Reply 18):
777? Just to name one

Didn't the 77W outperform the design spec?


User currently onlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31417 posts, RR: 85
Reply 20, posted (3 years 1 month 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 7850 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting ikramerica (Reply 16):
This makes sense, because despite Boeing catching up on rework, some of those planes are scheduled to sit for months before delivery.

And because Boeing spent resources getting those GEnx-powered birds ready for delivery, that was resources they could not spend on getting additional NH birds ready.

So Boeing doesn't have enough resources available to get any more than two NH birds delivered by year's end, but also cannot deliver the GEnx birds they made ready because the propulsion system is not certified and looks like it will not be until early next year.

The net result is only four 787 deliveries, all to NH and all with Trent 1000 power.


User currently offlinelightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 13535 posts, RR: 100
Reply 21, posted (3 years 1 month 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 6733 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting ER757 (Reply 17):
I would think the 747-8 nacelle/engine arrangement is similar enough to the GE 787 engine that if it wasn't an issue for 747 it shouldn't be for the 787.

It is an issue with the 748.    There is certified and then there is performing as intended... and nacelles flying with rolls of high speed tape and RTV trying to improve the flow path...

I cannot say more...   So just consider this idle rumor mill junk...

Disclaimer: I do not work for Boeing. I just have friends in the industry.   

Quoting steffenbn (Reply 18):
777? Just to name one

The initial 777 performed well. But oh was there 'hidden weight' in the joints... Some excess weight has been removed, some still needs refining (and won't be refined if the 777X has a rewing).

Lightsaber



Societies that achieve a critical mass of ideas achieve self sustaining growth; others stagnate.
User currently offlineJoeCanuck From Canada, joined Dec 2005, 5478 posts, RR: 31
Reply 22, posted (3 years 1 month 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 6003 times:

Quoting danwoodman00 (Reply 15):
It would make an interesting competitive strategy for taking on the brutally-competitive 125+ seat NB range.

I don't recall hearing about significant delays in the E-Jet program, not that I'm in any loops. Until the 380 and the 787, I don't think delays were significant for either Airbus or Boeing. It is relatively recently that the wheels came somewhat off of the cart.

Given the longer lead times that both are offering for their current programs, there should be less in the way of delays from future programs. The 350, for example has a more conservative timeline than the 787 and should not suffer nearly the delays. It's also an advantage having someone else take a hit so lessons can be learned at someone elses expense.

The CSeries and the 350 are the next major projects scheduled to fly. We'll know how well those projects were planned in the near future.



What the...?
User currently offlineBoeingVista From Australia, joined Jan 2009, 1584 posts, RR: 3
Reply 23, posted (3 years 1 month 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 5943 times:

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 14):
I'm hearing that there are nacelle/engine issues. Note: This is just my rumor mill. From a buddy at Boeing flight test...
So the engine is ok for delivery (if off spec), but the propulsion system isn't.
Quoting lightsaber (Reply 21):

It is an issue with the 748. There is certified and then there is performing as intended... and nacelles flying with rolls of high speed tape and RTV trying to improve the flow path...

I cannot say more... So just consider this idle rumor mill junk...

Interesting rumour mill junk though...

So.. flow path disruption... Reduced engine stall margin? PIP 1 had a major stall during testing if I recall and ended up being certified at a lower thrust level, so the maybe this PIP was a failed attempt to solve a fundamental engine / nacelle flow issue    the amount of time that GE is projecting for the introduction of PIP's seems unusually long considering that they are meant to bring the engine to spec which should surely be a priority.

Does your idle rumor mill indicate as to whether this has any effect on the operating envelope of the 787 or 748?



BV
User currently offlinetdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80
Reply 24, posted (3 years 1 month 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 5793 times:

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 9):
The GENx 787 still isn't certified

Yes, they're still doing F&R according to the last Boeing update.

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 9):
which we can assume is an engine specific delay since the RR 787 is certified

In the sense that you have to do seperate tests for the different engine/airframe combinations, yes, but that's different than saying the engine is responsible for the delay. The GE engine was certified way before the GE-powered 787 was ready to fly.

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 9):
Boeing promised engine spec based on what the engine makers said they could do and the makers couldn't pull it off...at least not when they said they could do it.

True, but totally irrelevant to the delays because being on spec has nothing to do with certification.

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 13):
Quoting ferpe (Reply 12):
In all fairness, this is no difference to other new A/C. Mention one that met weight spec at first EIS? Some might have met engine spec but not many...

Justifying screw ups by comparison with other screw ups is something of a copout.

It's not a screwup, it's just how aircraft work. Weight spec is the one that is essentially never met.

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 13):
I really hope somebody can make some aircraft on time and on spec just to show everyone else how it's done.

It has never happened before, I'm not sure why we think it will happen in the future.

Quoting steffenbn (Reply 18):
Quoting ferpe (Reply 12):
In all fairness, this is no difference to other new A/C. Mention one that met weight spec at first EIS? Some might have met engine spec but not many...

777? Just to name one

You're thinking of the 777-300 or the -200ER...the original 777, though on time, was not on spec.

Tom.


25 Post contains images tepidhalibut : That's Business. Airframe sales folk sell the product that they want to sell, and the spec go out to appropriate areas (internal and external). Probl
26 JoeCanuck : I certainly understand how these commitments get broken. It's why compensation is written into contracts. One does ones best but it's entertaining wh
27 Ruscoe : Could this from Bloomberg in July: GE Plugs Boeing 787 Engines’ Fuel Vapor Leak, Preventing Further Delays By Rachel Layne and Susanna Ray - Jul 27,
28 Post contains links ferpe : The 787 GEnx delivery delays are detailed in this Flightglobal update: http://www.flightglobal.com/news/art...ification-to-slide-to-2012-365407/ Now i
29 Post contains images Revelation : +8%! It's been a consistent inability for the 787 program to deliver anything in a timely fashion. It seems frame 25 is caught up in the tidal wave o
30 Stitch : I'm sure it has been obvious to Boeing for years. After all, they did pull in one of NH's production standard birds to complete the RR Propulsion Sys
31 tdscanuck : Not necessarily. F&R testing is somewhat unique in that it the way the regulations are written preserves the FAA's ability to add any "testing as
32 Stitch : Sorry, was going off Revelation's comment about "Frame 25". That being said, it stands to reason LN35 would have needed less reconfigure work than LN
33 NYC777 : L/N 35 is out on the Boeing flightline and Flightbloger says that it should start the final F&R/ETOPs testing by mid December so look for tis 1st
34 Post contains images lightsaber : Long PIP times imply major changes. The biggie is increasing the blade count of the low turbine. Translation: A *new* low turbine. It isn't a redesig
35 Post contains images ferpe : When the 787 program got underway everyone assumed that GE would deliver on their promises and the RR would be the "usual" couple of percent short on
36 Post contains images ferpe : OK, so it might have changed but given that this is not the first frame that B certifies and the FAA and B work side by side for years on getting the
37 Post contains images Stitch : The SFC miss on the baseline GEnx (2-3%) was about half that of the Trent 1000 (4-5%) per Airbus' competitive analysis of the 787 program. At the tim
38 kanban : Only the FAA knows why the test requirements changed and they needed a production a/p .. at least when approved, no one can say they skimped on test
39 tdscanuck : Even if that's the case, Boeing has been scrambling to get production frames out the door as fast as they can for years...knowing they need a GE one
40 Post contains links ferpe : It seems the nacelle issues on the GEnx powered 788 takes some time to fix, JAL now expects delivery mid-Feb 2012: http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/gene
41 tdscanuck : I see the mid-Feb 2012 dates in the article you linked, but how are you tying that to any nacelle problem? That's not mentioned anywhere. Tom.
42 ferpe : Reply 21
43 tdscanuck : That's identified as a 747-8 issue...the two aircraft don't have the same nacelle. So how does a 747-8 nacelle problem tie back to a 787-8 JAL proble
44 Ruscoe : I see the Trent 1000 B only received EASA approval today. Ruscoe
45 ferpe : My bad, I read Lightsaber's post wrongly. So what is the reason for another months slip (mid Jan to mid Feb).
46 SSTeve : You read it right the first time. His original post indicted the 787, and the post you quoted seems to suggest the issue is also present on the 747-8
47 OldAeroGuy : It's pretty normal for EIS to take place a month after TC. The initial TC is for a generic airplane, usually with a zero passenger interior. An addit
48 Stitch : Is JL's full cabin on site and ready for installation?
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...
Order Of 787 Deliveries posted Sat Apr 24 2010 00:09:14 by KFlyer
787 Deliveries posted Mon Mar 22 2010 12:39:33 by richiemo
787 Deliveries To Flight Line posted Tue Jun 16 2009 16:05:07 by Zeke
Odds On Qantas To Defer 787 Deliveries posted Fri Mar 27 2009 09:11:23 by Baroque
Delta Appears To Reject Initial 787-8 Deliveries posted Tue Mar 3 2009 17:34:53 by LAXintl
Analyst: No 787 Deliveries Until 2010 posted Fri Oct 10 2008 12:04:55 by IAD787
SUH: No 787 Deliveries Before Sept 2009 posted Wed Mar 19 2008 06:48:13 by Scipio
747LCF Arrives In NGO! (Pics) 787 Deliveries Begin posted Wed Jan 10 2007 14:18:24 by Aaron747
Why Are Engines Painted? posted Tue Jun 13 2006 14:56:57 by Legoguy
Why Are Engines Mouted Under, Not Above, The Wing? posted Thu Jan 31 2002 23:31:59 by Bobcat