Sponsor Message:
Aviation Technical / Operations Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Are Entire Engines Ever Changed?  
User currently offlinec5load From United States of America, joined Sep 2008, 917 posts, RR: 0
Posted (4 years 2 months 1 week 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 6980 times:

I know whole engines are typically changed for mx troubles that damage or destroy the engine, but are they ever wholly changed simply based on a maintenance schedule? Let's say after 3 yrs (just a figure, I might be way off) does the entire engine get swapped out for a rebuilt or new one? Or are components of the engine changed according to a schedule, so in the course of 4 or 5 yrs, the engine is pretty much new?


"But this airplane has 4 engines, it's an entirely different kind of flying! Altogether"
33 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlinefr8mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 5370 posts, RR: 14
Reply 1, posted (4 years 2 months 1 week 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 6967 times:

Yes, the engine is changed. Say you have performance degradation and that degradation is due to a turbine disk or the whole turbine section being worn, the most cost effective way to restore that performance is to replace the engine and send the engine in for a shop visit. Same for the compressor or the combustor. Realistically, just about any internal component that is worn and causes a performance degradation beyond what is tolerated, drives an engine change.


When seconds count...the police are minutes away.
User currently offlinetdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80
Reply 2, posted (4 years 2 months 1 week 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 6916 times:

Quoting c5load (Thread starter):
I know whole engines are typically changed for mx troubles that damage or destroy the engine, but are they ever wholly changed simply based on a maintenance schedule?

Yes. Engines contain life-limited parts (LLP's) that cannot be replaced on-wing (turbine disks, combustors, shafts, etc.). The engine is completely changed and sent back to an overhaul shop.

Tom.


User currently offlineviv From Ireland, joined May 2005, 3142 posts, RR: 29
Reply 3, posted (4 years 2 months 1 week 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 6487 times:

Yes, engines are changed periodically, for overhaul.


Nikon D700, Nikkor 80-400, Fuji X Pro 1, Fujinon 35 f/1.4, Fujinon 18 f/2
User currently offlineTristarsteve From Sweden, joined Nov 2005, 3983 posts, RR: 34
Reply 4, posted (4 years 2 months 1 week 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 6438 times:

Quoting c5load (Thread starter):
but are they ever wholly changed simply based on a maintenance schedule?

OK, a modern engine on a large airliner has life limiting parts inside it. The engine must be changed at this limit. But this limit nowadays is around 20000 cycles, and very few engines will ever reach 20000 cycles without being removed for some other reason. A long haul airliner will fly 30 years before it accumulates 20000 cycles!

When I started on the Tristar, the RB211 was limited to 1200 cycles, and rarely acheived that. How times have changed.

Quoting c5load (Thread starter):
Or are components of the engine changed according to a schedule, so in the course of 4 or 5 yrs, the engine is pretty much new?

Yes components are changed, but rarely the bits inside the engine that count. On a GE90 you can change the engine and leave the fan behind, and on most engines you can change the fan on the wing, but because of time constraints, if a new HP section is required, the engine will be changed and repaired in the shop. We change gearboxes and fan blades and fuel pumps on the wing, but not turbine blades. It just is not worth it, it takes too long.


User currently offlineHAWK21M From India, joined Jan 2001, 31667 posts, RR: 56
Reply 5, posted (4 years 2 months 1 week 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 6088 times:

Certain components of an Engine have a overhaul duration & cannot be replaced on line & need to visit an Engine shop.
regds
MEL.



Think of the brighter side!
User currently offlineAA737-823 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 5732 posts, RR: 11
Reply 6, posted (4 years 2 months 1 week 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 5599 times:

Well, I think I understand your question.
And the answer is sometimes.
For example, I know a carrier that will drop a JT-8D-17A every 4000 hours. It's usually for the same exact wear region...
I also know a carrier that has over 30,000 hours ON WING with a RB-211 on a Boeing 757.
So, there's a huge range in there, and a lot of it depends on the engine technology, and the power rating of the engine.
For example, a CFM56-7B20 will (all else being equal, which I admit it never is) last longer than a CFM56-7B24. Why? Because it's the same engine, just with different fuel software to crank the power up, raising EGT, reducing turbine wheel life.

Hope that's been helpful.


User currently onlineViscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 24922 posts, RR: 22
Reply 7, posted (4 years 2 months 1 week 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 5526 times:

Quoting AA737-823 (Reply 6):
I also know a carrier that has over 30,000 hours ON WING with a RB-211 on a Boeing 757.
So, there's a huge range in there, and a lot of it depends on the engine technology, and the power rating of the engine.

Press release last year referring to a CFM56 on a 737NG with 40,000 hrs on the wing, and expected to reach about 48,500 hrs. before the first life-limited part would require engine removal.
http://www.cfm56.com/press/news/tuif...+hours+on+wing+without+removal/512


User currently onlineN243NW From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 1628 posts, RR: 20
Reply 8, posted (4 years 2 months 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 5125 times:

Here's one of my all-time favorites, depicting exactly what you were asking about:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zUR-lutN_vk



B-52s don't take off. They scare the ground away.
User currently offlineRJ111 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 9, posted (4 years 2 months 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 4989 times:

One strategy is to remove say 1 engine of a twin halfway through its life, so the plane isn't flying around with 2 older engines as time goes by.

Also at BA i believe new RB211-524s usually go on the 767, as these have ETOPS standards to comply with. Then as they get older they'll go to the 744.


User currently offlineIFIXCF6 From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 108 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (4 years 2 months 22 hours ago) and read 4840 times:

Another tactic was the use of "rotable" modules and components. A fleet operator might match an engine shop visit overhaul for a shorter time life limited module with assembly to a longer life limited module with approx. the same time left, so as to try to get that engine off wing because the "entire" engine or the "entire" hot section needed maintenance. Hard to really schedule, without a huge fleet.

Mike


User currently offlineex52tech From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 559 posts, RR: 1
Reply 11, posted (4 years 1 month 2 weeks 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 4280 times:

Quoting Tristarsteve (Reply 4):

OK, a modern engine on a large airliner has life limiting parts inside it. The engine must be changed at this limit. But this limit nowadays is around 20000 cycles, and very few engines will ever reach 20000 cycles without being removed for some other reason. A long haul airliner will fly 30 years before it accumulates 20000 cycles!

When I started on the Tristar, the RB211 was limited to 1200 cycles, and rarely acheived that. How times have changed.

Now I could be totally wrong here but at the two airlines I worked at, and in the engine overhaul shops that I worked in we measured engine life in hours not cycles. I m thinking you meant hours.

Hopefully this will help the thread starter. In a perfect world. If you started with a 0 build or an engine that has 0 hours on it, that engine will be in the shop about half way through its life hour limit for a new hot section, which is usually replacement of everything from the burner can (combustion chamber) all the way to the back of the engine. Then theoretically it would run until it needed a new hot section again, and would be at its cold section or compressor hourly limits, or overall hourly time limit.

That generally does not happen, due to engine damage or some type of premature deterioration of an internal component. Some airlines will install components inside engines at a shop visit that may not have enough time left on them to make the max time limit of the engine because they see some deterioration of performance and are betting that the engine performance will fall off below limits before the engine reaches its maximum hourly limit.

On many occasions I have personally installed turbine modules on an engine that have much less time on them than the engines max hourly limit, because we knew that the compressor had deteriorated enough ( usually due to blade tip clearance issues) that the engine was going to fall below performance limits within say 1,000 to 2,000 hours, but the engine still had 4,000 to 5,000 hours left on it.

Hope that helps.



"Saddest thing I ever witnessed....an airplane being scrapped"
User currently offlineboeing767mech From United States of America, joined Dec 2000, 1025 posts, RR: 3
Reply 12, posted (4 years 1 month 2 weeks 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 4260 times:

Quoting c5load (Thread starter):
Let's say after 3 yrs (just a figure, I might be way off) does the entire engine get swapped out for a rebuilt or new one?

The little airline I work, which was shown in the video in this thread had a 767-323ER that had an engine on wing for over 62K hours of total time on the engine. If I remember right the airframe was about 10 years old.

In this time the engine and various valve pumps and fuel controls changed. It also had a couple fan blades changed. Any damage found during a boroscope was checked and recorded to keep a eye on it to check to back sure it was with in limits per the AMM. We also boroblended any damage like rough edges on compressor blades.

It also had coke washes, and water washes to help clean the compressor blades in the gas path. And of course it had ignitors and filters changed and chip detectors inspected during b check.

We also did a couple blade balances during the life of this engine to help with vibrations.

But after 62K hours on wing we did change this engine.

David



Never under-estimate the predictably of stupidty
User currently offlinemaddog888 From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2007, 162 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (4 years 1 month 2 weeks 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 4193 times:

Quoting N243NW (Reply 8):
Here's one of my all-time favorites, depicting exactly what you were asking about:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zUR-lutN_vk

I have a couple of questions regarding stuff I saw in the video. Please excuse the lack of technical terminology, I am not an engineer. Nice video btw.

When they removed the engine , I saw that the side fairing panels & intake cowling remained with the plane not the engine. Is this usual? I always just assumed that the whole thing was dropped off the pylon and a new one attached but then I suppose I shoudn't have as everyone knows about ass-u-me.

Secondly I know it was time lapse photography but it looked like the engineers had the fan rotating whilst they fitted the cowling. I assume (there I go again) that they have to check for clearance but I would have thought there was less risk of damage to do it after the cowling was fitted.

Julian


User currently offlineboeing767mech From United States of America, joined Dec 2000, 1025 posts, RR: 3
Reply 14, posted (4 years 1 month 2 weeks 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 4167 times:

Quoting maddog888 (Reply 13):
I saw that the side fairing panels & intake cowling remained with the plane not the engine. Is this usual? I always just assumed that the whole thing was dropped off the pylon and a new one attached but then I suppose I shoudn't have as everyone knows about ass-u-me.

The cowling and thrust reversors are connected to the pylon via hinge points. The inlet cowl remains with the airplane most of the time. Some engines have the inlet already fitted and is part of a QEC (Quick Engine Change).

Quoting maddog888 (Reply 13):
Secondly I know it was time lapse photography but it looked like the engineers had the fan rotating whilst they fitted the cowling. I assume (there I go again) that they have to check for clearance but I would have thought there was less risk of damage to do it after the cowling was fitted.

The fan is spinning because of the wind blowing thru the hanger. There is a freight door in front part of that hanger that was open during the time of the shoot. There was also a thunderstorm going thru AFW when they where shotting this video so there was some strong winds

David



Never under-estimate the predictably of stupidty
User currently offlineTristarsteve From Sweden, joined Nov 2005, 3983 posts, RR: 34
Reply 15, posted (4 years 1 month 2 weeks 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 4143 times:

Quoting ex52tech (Reply 11):
Now I could be totally wrong here but at the two airlines I worked at, and in the engine overhaul shops that I worked in we measured engine life in hours not cycles. I m thinking you meant hours.

No I did mean cycles. The life limit on a HPTB, of a Turbine disc is how many high power take offs it has performed, not how many hours it has droned along at 38000ft. Modern jet engines are basically on-condition. There is no hours limit, you keep inspecting it until a decision is made to remove it. This decision comes from the engineer in the office. But some cyclic parts are life limited. This is a hard life, and the engine comes out. But a B744 operator may never reach this limit because the aircraft spends all its time in the cruise.

Quoting maddog888 (Reply 13):
When they removed the engine , I saw that the side fairing panels & intake cowling remained with the plane not the engine. Is this usual?

Not on the RB211!!! The whole engine is removed complete with thrust reverser.

Quoting ex52tech (Reply 11):
On many occasions I have personally installed turbine modules on an engine that have much less time on them than the engines max hourly limit

  

When an engine is removed a conference takes place in engine planning to decide what work to do. The engine is removed for a hot section failure, but do we only change the hot section, or shall we change the LP turbine as well? Lots of financial decisions here.

Another factor keeping engines on the wing is that many engine SBs are rated next shop visit. So if the engine stays on the wing, the work (and expenditure) is deferred.


p.s., by inspection I also mean MCDs, filter analysis. SOAP oil checks, routine boroscopes, and print outs from the QAR.

When the Tristar RB211 had a 1200cycle life, we were boroscoping it twice a week at the end of its life to try and keep it flying. We kept a book of drawings of the cracks in the engine (no video boroscopes in those days) and checked the crack propogation. We didn't miss many failures.


User currently offlineFlyingColours From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2003, 2315 posts, RR: 10
Reply 16, posted (4 years 1 month 2 weeks 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 4129 times:

Quoting boeing767mech (Reply 14):
The fan is spinning because of the wind blowing thru the hanger. There is a freight door in front part of that hanger that was open during the time of the shoot. There was also a thunderstorm going thru AFW when they where shotting this video so there was some strong winds

Plus it does not take much of a breeze to get engines windmilling...

Quoting N243NW (Reply 8):
Here's one of my all-time favorites, depicting exactly what you were asking about:

Good Video

I've seen an engine change on the 757-200 a long time ago, I unfortunately couldn't hang around long (no pun intended) but it looked like it was going to take some time, 5-6 hours seems about right for the RB211 I'd guess.

Quoting AA737-823 (Reply 6):
I also know a carrier that has over 30,000 hours ON WING with a RB-211 on a Boeing 757.

Would that be Monarch by any chance? Their engineers are incredible, they have kept their 757s going (and going well) since well, forever. They also did work on our 757s but sadly even they couldn't keep ours going  
Incidentally the engine change I saw was the Monarch guys working on one of our 757s, there is a funny and yet awful story which I won't go into (for a change).

Phil
FlyingColours



Lifes a train racing towards you, now you can either run away or grab a chair & a beer and watch it come - Phil
User currently offlineboeing767mech From United States of America, joined Dec 2000, 1025 posts, RR: 3
Reply 17, posted (4 years 1 month 2 weeks 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 4126 times:

Quoting Tristarsteve (Reply 15):
Not on the RB211!!! The whole engine is removed complete with thrust reverser.

Not on the 757's. The C ducts and cowlings stay on the pylon in the RB211-535E on our airplanes. Only the inlet and common nozzle stay with the engine.

David



Never under-estimate the predictably of stupidty
User currently offlineFlyingColours From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2003, 2315 posts, RR: 10
Reply 18, posted (4 years 1 month 2 weeks 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 4117 times:

Quoting boeing767mech (Reply 17):
Quoting Tristarsteve (Reply 15):
Not on the RB211!!! The whole engine is removed complete with thrust reverser.

Not on the 757's. The C ducts and cowlings stay on the pylon in the RB211-535E on our airplanes. Only the inlet and common nozzle stay with the engine.

Not sure if it helps clear things up either way but here is a photo of an RB211-535E4 being changed.


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Canarian666



Phil
FlyingColours



Lifes a train racing towards you, now you can either run away or grab a chair & a beer and watch it come - Phil
User currently offlineTristarsteve From Sweden, joined Nov 2005, 3983 posts, RR: 34
Reply 19, posted (4 years 1 month 2 weeks 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 4117 times:

Quoting boeing767mech (Reply 17):
Not on the 757's

Yes writing too fast.
The RB211-535 was always a strange engine. Its nothing like any other RB211, except for the inside bits that you never see on the ramp. It so different, you might think that Rolls gave the core engine to an outside co, and told them to design their own engine around it.
It s got C ducts
A hyd thrust reverser
a little BVCU computor that controls the bleed system
The gearbox is back to front, mainly the oil tank is on the other side.
Its got an EEC, which is in the aircraft electronic bay, and steel cables to the FFR.
But in its -E version, it is a brilliant engine that works well. (we used to have -Cs as well.)


User currently offlinetdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80
Reply 20, posted (4 years 1 month 2 weeks 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 3945 times:

Quoting ex52tech (Reply 11):
Now I could be totally wrong here but at the two airlines I worked at, and in the engine overhaul shops that I worked in we measured engine life in hours not cycles. I m thinking you meant hours.

It depends on which component you're talking about. Safe-life components are usually critical in fatigue and don't care about hours, but do care about cycles. Components that suffer erosion/ablation as their primary failure mode (combustors, IGV's) are more likely to be hours than cycles.

Quoting maddog888 (Reply 13):
I saw that the side fairing panels & intake cowling remained with the plane not the engine. Is this usual?

Yes. Besides being mounted to the pylon (not counting oddball RB211's), the reversers are absurdely expensive and hard to source pieces of equipment in their own right, and nobody wants to stock more than they have to.

Quoting maddog888 (Reply 13):
I assume (there I go again) that they have to check for clearance but I would have thought there was less risk of damage to do it after the cowling was fitted.

There's no need for a fan clearance check during an engine change...that was done long before, when the engine was being built-up and test run. The clearance is usually zero anyway, for the critical case, because most engines use an abradable fan case liner that's intentionally a bit too small initially; the fan wears the proper clearance in during the intial engine runs.

Tom.


User currently offlineHAWK21M From India, joined Jan 2001, 31667 posts, RR: 56
Reply 21, posted (4 years 1 month 2 weeks 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 3908 times:

Quoting Tristarsteve (Reply 19):

But in its -E version, it is a brilliant engine that works well. (we used to have -Cs as well.)

The -Cs used to have issues of Oil fumes in Flt deck on T/O power in case serviced with oil to 18-19.
Heard there is a 18% improvement in Fuel consumption on the -E4s in comparism.Can Anyone confirm.
regds
MEL.



Think of the brighter side!
User currently offlineex52tech From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 559 posts, RR: 1
Reply 22, posted (4 years 1 month 2 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 3663 times:

Quoting Tristarsteve (Reply 15):

When the Tristar RB211 had a 1200cycle life, we were boroscoping it twice a week at the end of its life to try and keep it flying. We kept a book of drawings of the cracks in the engine (no video boroscopes in those days) and checked the crack propogation. We didn't miss many failures.

I remember those days before video borescopes.

Twice a week, we would have pulled the sucker before it ended up in Denver on a hot day and took itself out. I can see the cycles point, but we did everything on hours, condition, and engine data.



"Saddest thing I ever witnessed....an airplane being scrapped"
User currently offlineTristarsteve From Sweden, joined Nov 2005, 3983 posts, RR: 34
Reply 23, posted (4 years 1 month 2 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 3635 times:

Quoting HAWK21M (Reply 21):
Heard there is a 18% improvement in Fuel consumption on the -E4s in comparism.Can Anyone confirm

Yes, definitely a big improvement.
I used to depart C and E engined B757s, The fuel load out of here to LHR was 12 tons on a E aircraft, and 13 on a C. So around 14pc better fuel consumption.


User currently offlineHAWK21M From India, joined Jan 2001, 31667 posts, RR: 56
Reply 24, posted (4 years 1 month 1 week 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 3499 times:

Quoting Tristarsteve (Reply 23):
So around 14pc better fuel consumption.

Amazing.
Any news on the Proposed RB211-535E4-C which never entered service.
regds
MEL.



Think of the brighter side!
25 tepidhalibut : Minor correction. It did enter service. 2001, IIRC. It was tailored to ATA's operation out of Chicago Midway airport, with just a little more thrust
26 readytotaxi : So is this a bit like Grand Prix where airlines have "ready to go" engines waiting to be bolted on and then out of the pit lane?
27 Tristarsteve : Well yes. 25 years ago definitely. Engines failed so often then, that engines were assembled onto airfreight stands ready to go. Nowadays, engine fai
28 PresRDC : I've done two deals in the past couple of years where we sold new engines to an airline with minimal discounting in lieu of having the engines overhau
29 c5load : Looking at the photo of the 757 engine change, I noticed two hose hookups on the top of the engine core. Anyone know what those are?
30 tdscanuck : Bleed air. One is probably the starter supply and the other is the engine output, but one might be a surge vent. But bleed air is the only thing on t
31 c5load : Thanks for the info Tom. What is the difference in putting bleed air directly into the engine vs putting an air cart up to the normal bleed air port?
32 tdscanuck : Nothing from a systems point of view; the ducts are all interconnected. The only difference is where the air is coming in to the system. The duct you
33 boeing767mech : The aft pipe is the High Stage Bleed Air. The Fwd pipe is the Intermediate Stage Bleed Air. At lower power setting the High Stage Bleed is being used
Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic Are Entire Engines Ever Changed?
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • Tech/Ops related posts only!
  • Not Tech/Ops related? Use the other forums
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
  • DETAILED RULES
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)


Similar topics:More similar topics...
4 Holers: Are Internal Engines Tilted Differently? posted Sun Apr 17 2005 10:46:18 by F.pier
Are Bleedless Engines The Future? posted Tue Apr 27 2004 05:26:28 by A380900
Are B747's Engines Angled Inwards, And If So Why? posted Tue Jan 20 2004 17:15:32 by IanatSTN
Are Hovercraft Engines Used On Any Plane posted Mon Aug 5 2002 14:38:54 by Trent_800
How Are All Aicraft's Tyres Changed? posted Sun May 12 2002 10:01:02 by Airbus Lover
How Are The Engines Counted... posted Wed Feb 27 2002 01:06:21 by Hoegenfroegen
What Kind Of Engines Are Those? posted Sun Apr 11 2010 14:00:06 by Max777geek
Stage III Jet Engines, Where Are We At Present? posted Sun May 24 2009 02:27:44 by EcuadorianMD11
What Are These Vents On Top Of The Engines? posted Fri Jul 13 2007 17:38:48 by Starlionblue
Are Runways Ever Repaved? posted Thu Mar 8 2007 06:17:01 by CoolGuy

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format