Dl757md From United States of America, joined May 2004, 1562 posts, RR: 16
Reply 6, posted (8 years 9 months 3 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 4708 times:
Quoting HAWK21M (Reply 4): How do they rate with the RB211-535Cs & E4s.Maintenance wise.
I don't have any experience with the RB211s so I can't comment firsthand. I've heard some components on the RR are harder to get to but there are probably some that are more difficult on the PW. The core engine on the RR has been more reliable AFAIK. The PW has had 14th stage stator cracking problems which PW fixed but then the 10th and 11th stage stators began cracking. It was a real problem for us as. At one point in '02 or '03 we had 16 planes grounded because we didn't have serviceable motors for them. We got really proficient at 757 engine changes because we were playing musical engines all the time. PW has since remedied the problem and no others have surfaced to date. It remains to be seen however, if the 2037 will reach the level of reliability of the RB211.
113312 From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 582 posts, RR: 1
Reply 13, posted (8 years 9 months 3 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 4591 times:
The best sources for comparison would be AA and UPS. AA has Rolls Royce engines on all that they bought new. But, the planes that came from the TWA merger had P&W. UPS bought planes new from Boeing with both engines.
TepidHalibut From Iceland, joined Dec 2004, 211 posts, RR: 6
Reply 15, posted (8 years 9 months 2 weeks 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 4536 times:
Quoting HAWK21M (Reply 14): How does the Engine get ETOPS capability.What constitutes Engine requirements to be fullfilled for ETOPS.
Generally speaking, from in-service reliability stats. IIRC, the aircraft basically gets 60-mins ETOPS as a matter of course, and once the fleet achieves 250,000 hrs in service, the engine can get 90-min ETOPS IF the IFSD rate is suitably low. There would be similar stats requirements for higher ETOPS ratings. ("Early ETOPS" is a completely different kettle of fish.) JAR-OPS is the set of regs you may wish to consider...
Lightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 14031 posts, RR: 100
Reply 20, posted (8 years 9 months 1 week 12 hours ago) and read 4303 times:
Quoting HAWK21M (Reply 4): Ok Thanks.
How do they rate with the RB211-535Cs & E4s.Maintenance wise.
In the past, as noted, poorly. As well as the stator cracks noted by DL757md, the turbine life was only half of promise on the PW2000's initially. I'm curious to know how the "fix" is working out. The RR's for a while had 4X the turbine life of the Pratt's, but a much higher fuel burn.
Quoting MarkC (Reply 11): The 2000's are ETOPs capable. Some of the very early build parts are not though. Its easy enough to convert most during an overhaul.
You seem to know your Pratt's... Welcome to my RU list.
An added benefit is the Pratt's burn a lot less fuel than the RR's. However, the RR's improved reliability helped them get into ETOPs service easier.
Quoting HAWK21M (Reply 16): So On the Engines Point of View.With Regards to ETOPS only Requirement is a Good track record in terms of IFSD.
From the design side, its a little more than that. There is a *ell of a lot more documentation for a new ETOPs design than non-ETOPs. However, to take an existing fleet and convert it to ETOPs, its much simpler on the engine side than the airframe side. The other change for ETOPs vs. non-ETOPs is the maintenance plan. However, I would need to have an operations guy explain in more detail. We R&D weenies only worry about that when we go in to fix a problem.