Sponsor Message:
Aviation Technical / Operations Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
EIS 787 Could Be 2011 After Trent 1000 Test  
User currently offlinekeesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Posted (4 years 3 months 4 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 22032 times:

Details are leaking out on the uncontained failure early august on a Derby test rig. Apart from the usual PR "damage control" few positive signs come out. RR and Boeing saying they have no certainty the program deadlines can not be met, is legally correct. But that's it.

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...-following-trent-1000-testbed.html

The "Package B" engines modification seem drastic too IMO. Revisions include a revised LP turbine design, new blades, relocation of the IP compressor bleed offtake ports and fan outlet guide vanes with improved aerodynamics. A bit more than fine tuning I guess.



The 787 isn't lucky in it's test phase. Thinking back 5 years I think many people agreed introducing so many new technology (engines, composite frame/wings, bleedless systems) all in 1 airframe posed a significant risk and the program was likely to take much longer then scheduled by Boeing.

However this one (together with the tail issues and overambitious test flight schedule) seems almost certain to push EIS with ANA further into 2011. Program progress sofar showed that "If everything works, we can do it" proved a useless prediction tactic.

An engine failure is a bad thing, an uncontained engine failure is rare, dangerous and taken very seriously.

uncontained engine failure after a platform test on a AA 767 a few yrs back

The Trent1000 received joint certification from the FAA and EASA on 7 August 2007. ANA will demand the reasons for this failure to be completely clear & solved, before accepting their first Trent powered 787. I think early 2011 is starting to look optimistic already. I don't know how far the GENX is at this stage..

90 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlinePM From Germany, joined Feb 2005, 6993 posts, RR: 63
Reply 1, posted (4 years 3 months 4 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 22029 times:

Keesje

Your thread beat mine by a minute or so. Mine should be deleted but here's what I posted.

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...-following-trent-1000-testbed.html

OK, I need to get my retaliation in first.

Sounds as if RR may become the scapegoat for Boeing's inability to deliver the 787 in 2010.

Ultimately, neither another slip of a few weeks (late 2010 into early 2011) in the first 787 delivery nor the failure of a test T1000 is likely to mean a hill of beans in the long run but I'm disappointed if Seattle are trying to pass the buck to Derby.


User currently offlineRonaldo747 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 395 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (4 years 3 months 4 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 21595 times:

Ok, maybe I don't know enough about this, but I don't sympathize with the whole sick excitement of this event. An engine has suffered a failure on a test rig - a thing that sometimes happened. It will be investigated and the failure will be fixed - and that's it. I can not see any impact on the 787 program. Furthermore, it's a Package A engine which suffered a failure - and this engine will not enter commercial service on any 787 ...

It's gotta be the so-called summer slump, I guess ....


User currently offlinepoint2point From United States of America, joined Mar 2010, 2766 posts, RR: 1
Reply 3, posted (4 years 3 months 4 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 21531 times:

Quoting keesje (Thread starter):
Revisions include a revised LP turbine design, new blades, relocation of the IP compressor bleed offtake ports and fan outlet guide vanes with improved aerodynamics. A bit more than fine tuning I guess.

Is that all?

It sounds as if they need to practically design a whole new engine.


User currently offlinekeesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (4 years 3 months 4 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 21442 times:

Quoting Ronaldo747 (Reply 2):
I can not see any impact on the 787 program. Furthermore, it's a Package A engine which suffered a failure - and this engine will not enter commercial service on any 787 ...

It shares the intermediate pressure turbine with Package A engines.


User currently offlineluv2cattlecall From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 1650 posts, RR: 2
Reply 5, posted (4 years 3 months 4 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 19548 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

I'm somewhat unfamiliar with the system timeline for the dreamliner, so just to clarify - if everything on Boeing's side had went according to plan, would RR still have taken until late 2010/early 2011 for the engine to be ready for ANA? Or did these findings come about as a result of a test that could only be conducted on the 787 and not on a flying testbed?


When you have to breaststroke to your connecting flight...it's a crash!
User currently offlinepar13del From Bahamas, joined exactly 9 years ago today! , 7627 posts, RR: 8
Reply 6, posted (4 years 3 months 4 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 19553 times:

Quoting keesje (Thread starter):
The 787 isn't lucky in it's test phase. Thinking back 5 years I think many people agreed introducing so many new technology (engines, composite frame/wings, bleedless systems) all in 1 airframe posed a significant risk and the program was likely to take much longer then scheduled by Boeing.

How many items in your list are being built by Boeing, as noted below, the engine received certification in 2007, unless the delays are due to integration on the assembled frame, I call red herring on this one. The engine failed on a test bed with no 787 attached.

Quoting keesje (Thread starter):
The Trent1000 received joint certification from the FAA and EASA on 7 August 2007.

Well within the estimated EIS of the a/c, so Boeing or RR completed the engine within specified time parameters.

Quoting PM (Reply 1):
Sounds as if RR may become the scapegoat for Boeing's inability to deliver the 787 in 2010.

A RR engine failed on a test bed in the UK, how many Boeing personnel are working on that engine to have created this problem, additionally which engine are they talking about, it's an improved package engine.

Now a better conspiracy theory would be that RR is doing this to further delay the 787 entry into service, and since they are the sole engine supplier on the competiton ( A350 ) any additional delays will benefit that product and its OEM  


User currently offlinePITingres From United States of America, joined Dec 2007, 1163 posts, RR: 13
Reply 7, posted (4 years 3 months 4 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 19475 times:

Quoting point2point (Reply 3):
It sounds as if they need to practically design a whole new engine.

It does not.

All the changes listed with the possible exception of the LP turbine stuff are detail improvements in relatively small and localized areas of the engine. The fan, all of the compressors, and 2 of the 3 turbines are largely untouched the way I read it.

Quoting PM (Reply 1):
I'm disappointed if Seattle are trying to pass the buck to Derby.

I would be too, but so far all I see is Keeje trying to pass the buck to Derby.   Seriously, I haven't seen any attempt by Boeing to blame additional delays (i.e. beyond what's already been hinted at prior to the engine event) on RR.



Fly, you fools! Fly!
User currently offlineSolarFlyer22 From US Minor Outlying Islands, joined Nov 2009, 1124 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (4 years 3 months 4 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 19309 times:

Why don't they just switch to GenX and maintain the delivery schedule? That engine is on track as far as I know and is probably the better engine anyway. It was always intended for the 787 and for a while I thought it was the only choice. This is actually a Rolls Royce problem. Doesn't really appear to be Boeing's fault and my guess is that the Trent 1000 will be at least a 6-8 month fix based on the extensive changes required. Most of the 787 delays are not actually caused by Boeing but their sub-contractors. It is Boeing's fault though for outsourcing so much.

User currently offlinelightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 13520 posts, RR: 100
Reply 9, posted (4 years 3 months 4 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 19219 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting keesje (Thread starter):
Details are leaking out on the uncontained failure early august

I missed that event. I will have to do some research.

I found this link on the flight tracking blog (hattip tdscanuck):
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs...=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest

"Inappropriate Operating regime" to me sounds like an increased thrust test point. So this might have nothing to do with the 788 and everything to do with the 789 (pure speculation on my part). Or it could be a turbine cooling failure.   

Keep in mind the GE-90 *never* proved it could do a blade out failure. Instead, GE analyzed and *proved* it wasn't required. Now... this is a bad thing for RR, but both GE and Pratt have had in service failures that were bad.

Quoting keesje (Thread starter):
The "Package B" engines modification seem drastic too IMO.

Very much analogous to the 757. RR will buy back in service 'A engines' and replace them with 'B engines.'

Quoting point2point (Reply 3):
It sounds as if they need to practically design a whole new engine.

The redesign is extensive and expensive. RR must produce a more competitive engine to compete against the GEnX-1B.

I'm sad not seeing the 787 in service.  

Something is up with the GEnX too. They should have been flying by now. With a two year program delay... GE certainly had the time to get it ready. Anyone have any recent updates on the GEnX? In particular, why it is not up doing the stall speed tests as planned?

Lightsaber



Societies that achieve a critical mass of ideas achieve self sustaining growth; others stagnate.
User currently offlinelightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 13520 posts, RR: 100
Reply 10, posted (4 years 3 months 4 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 18587 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting SolarFlyer22 (Reply 9):
Why don't they just switch to GenX

Why isn't the GEnX flying?

I do not think this issue will slow T1000 EIS. There are issues with the engine, it will not meet fuel burn by quite the miss. But the GEnX has had issues too. It is undergoing a redesign almost as extensive at the 'B' version of the Trent 1000. GE was just a little quicker on the revisions (hmmm... makes one wonder if they knew they would have issues from day #1).

If it was just an engine issue, the GEnX would gain further market share.

Quoting SolarFlyer22 (Reply 9):
Most of the 787 delays are not actually caused by Boeing but their sub-contractors. It is Boeing's fault though for outsourcing so much.

The 787 will be a case study in poor project management. Poor ICD definition (come on, no wingbox length requirement!), poor joint analysis (Boeing's fault), and a few other issues. Slamming the vendors is easy. But since the issues were with so many vendors... the 'root cause' points back at Boeing. Just as the A388 will forever be a case study in poor IT management.

Lightsaber



Societies that achieve a critical mass of ideas achieve self sustaining growth; others stagnate.
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31388 posts, RR: 85
Reply 11, posted (4 years 3 months 4 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 18132 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting point2point (Reply 3):
It sounds as if they need to practically design a whole new engine.

GE had to redesign the front third of the GEnx to meet SFC, so it seems doable.

Quoting keesje (Reply 4):
(Package B) shares the intermediate pressure turbine with Package A engines.
Quoting lightsaber (Reply 10):
Or it could be a turbine cooling failure.

As I understand it, Package B has improved IPT cooling so if that was the cause, it might already be addressed, as Rolls has been stating.

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 11):
Why isn't the GEnX flying?

ZA005 is in flight test with GEnx engines.


User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 20334 posts, RR: 59
Reply 12, posted (4 years 3 months 4 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 17979 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 12):

ZA005 is in flight test with GEnx engines.

And doing very well, from what I hear.

I do wonder if ANA won't switch engine manufacturers. The 787 makes it very easy to do so.


User currently offlineJBirdAV8r From United States of America, joined Jun 2001, 4491 posts, RR: 21
Reply 13, posted (4 years 3 months 4 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 17464 times:

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 13):
I do wonder if ANA won't switch engine manufacturers. The 787 makes it very easy to do so.

Engine contracts are about as sophisticated as airplane contracts. From a technical standpoint it's much easier to change engines on the 787 than other airplanes, but I would wonder about the contract. My bet is that ANA will stick with the RR engines, barring a many months-long redesign of the engine (highly unlikely, I would hope).


Interesting, though, to remember that Rolls Royce killed the Lockheed commercial aircraft division--and almost killed Rolls Royce itself. Not that these problems are THAT bad, though.



I got my head checked--by a jumbo jet
User currently offlineN809FR From United States of America, joined Aug 2010, 182 posts, RR: 2
Reply 14, posted (4 years 3 months 4 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 17404 times:

It's a shame that something out of Boeing's control will possibly push back delivery, yet again. I wonder if ANA needs to planes bad enough that they would switch to GEnx engines for the first few deliveries in order to maintain, or as close as possible, their most recently planned EIS.

User currently offlinekeesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 15, posted (4 years 3 months 4 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 16613 times:

Quoting N809FR (Reply 15):
It's a shame that something out of Boeing's control will possibly push back delivery, yet again.

I think there are several parallel issues. Boeing warned for further delays BEFORE this engine failure.

Quoting keesje (Thread starter):
(together with the tail issues and overambitious test flight schedule)


User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 20334 posts, RR: 59
Reply 16, posted (4 years 3 months 4 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 16574 times:

Quoting JBirdAV8r (Reply 14):

Engine contracts are about as sophisticated as airplane contracts. From a technical standpoint it's much easier to change engines on the 787 than other airplanes, but I would wonder about the contract

Remember, no airline is going to sign a contract that allows indefinite delays without any sort of recourse. Other airlines have switched engine manufacturers (especially on the A330). So it's not completely unheard-of.


User currently offlinepnwtraveler From Canada, joined Jun 2007, 2296 posts, RR: 12
Reply 17, posted (4 years 3 months 4 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 16460 times:

Quoting keesje (Reply 16):
Quoting N809FR (Reply 15):
It's a shame that something out of Boeing's control will possibly push back delivery, yet again.

I think there are several parallel issues. Boeing warned for further delays BEFORE this engine failure.

Quoting keesje (Thread starter):
(together with the tail issues and overambitious test flight schedule)

Not sure if it is a literal translation thing or a deliberate spin, but let me rephrase the above a little more accurately. Boeing said flight test margins had been used up and the program was tight, they did not warn that further delays were coming.


User currently offlineJBirdAV8r From United States of America, joined Jun 2001, 4491 posts, RR: 21
Reply 18, posted (4 years 3 months 4 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 16191 times:

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 17):
Remember, no airline is going to sign a contract that allows indefinite delays without any sort of recourse.

Absolutely agree, but cancellation of the contract is a pretty drastic measure. I'd say, if it comes down to it, there might be some monetary compensation, or perhaps some service deal.

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 17):
Other airlines have switched engine manufacturers (especially on the A330).

I'm not familiar with this. Do you have an example? Even though it is still "easy" to change engines on the actual bird, there are other factors to consider--especially this far along (several customer aircraft built, customer basically ready to take delivery). I'm shooting from the hip, but I can't think of any A330 customers who have switched engines this far along in the process.



I got my head checked--by a jumbo jet
User currently offlineBoeingVista From Australia, joined Jan 2009, 1584 posts, RR: 3
Reply 19, posted (4 years 3 months 4 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 15981 times:

Boeing burning suppliers again, the 787 is late because of the fastners, no it was spirit, no it was Alliena workmanship, no it was Rolls Royce.

The important thing is its never Boeings fault.

ZA006 is GE powered, currently 2 months behind schedule, has never flown.



BV
User currently offlineER757 From Cayman Islands, joined May 2005, 2607 posts, RR: 7
Reply 20, posted (4 years 3 months 4 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 15761 times:

Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 21):
Boeing burning suppliers again, the 787 is late because of the fastners, no it was spirit, no it was Alliena workmanship, no it was Rolls Royce.

Unless I missed something no one at Boeing is blaming RR for any delay in regard to this. I beleive the only ones doing that (so far at least) are a few folks here on a.net


User currently offlinepar13del From Bahamas, joined exactly 9 years ago today! , 7627 posts, RR: 8
Reply 21, posted (4 years 3 months 4 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 15471 times:

Quoting ER757 (Reply 20):
Unless I missed something no one at Boeing is blaming RR for any delay in regard to this. I beleive the only ones doing that (so far at least) are a few folks here on a.net

Here you go interjecting truth and facts into a lively discussion.  
Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 19):
Boeing burning suppliers again, the 787 is late because of the fastners, no it was spirit, no it was Alliena workmanship, no it was Rolls Royce.

The important thing is its never Boeings fault.

Except these this actually did happen, RR did blow an engine right and the fastners were wrong  

The 787 is a Boeing a/c and so far Boeing has been paying all the compensation and writing off losses on their books, no sub-contractor has yet been fired, one has been taken over by Boeing and I'm sure those share holders made a pretty penny. The notion that Boeing has not taken the blame for the delays and suffered the consequences is false.


Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 19):
ZA006 is GE powered, currently 2 months behind schedule, has never flown.
Quoting Stitch (Reply 11):
ZA005 is in flight test with GEnx engines.

One down one to go.


User currently offlineikramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21580 posts, RR: 59
Reply 22, posted (4 years 3 months 4 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 15414 times:

I'm not generally one to shoot the messenger, but I'm really getting tired of this OP's tactics. Exactly how much is Airbus paying Keesje to be their mouthpiece on A.net? It's getting absurd. It's not uncommon for paid spokesmen to try to influence forums and blogs, but it's frowned upon. But I really have trouble believing he's an independent voice at this point. It seems as if he constructs these posts in a professional capacity with input from others in order to spin it in a deliberate way.

Long "posts" (reading suspiciously like PR flack) about the failure of this or that Boeing program or aircraft and how the Airbus alternative is going to win, escalating negative Boeing rumors and half truths into "almost certain" facts, and never starting a negative thread about Airbus (and rarely contributing to them). Where was/is he when FI reports A350 EIS at 2014, for example? Was he first to break the news like he is with any Boeing bad news? Did he even comment yet about it? Nope and nope. You'd think if he was simply an Airbus "fan" he'd have something to say about it. But as a paid agent, he'd want to simply distance himself from any bad news unless he's forced to confront it.

Or better yet, respond with a new thread about the 787 and "almost certain" delays to deflect the A350 news. PR trick.

And yet, any positive bit of Airbus news, no matter how minor, he heralds it as a huge thing deserving a long post with pretty pictures to attract the eye and make the reader think the post has more weight and credibility (PR trick again). Airbus salesman tries to push A350s and A380s on Thai even though they don't see a need for them at this time all of a sudden becomes Thai about ready to sign a contract.

It never ends. Between that and combining other people's work with his own ideas without attribution until he's called out on it (repeatedly), and it's just tiring.

As for the story.

The engine is CERTIFIED. As long as the engine failure is understood, it's not going to delay the program for a freaking year as Keesje tries to imply through his "opinion" about the blog post of another with NO FACTS to back up the assertions in the blog let alone Keesje's take on the blog. Certified, in service engines have uncontained failures in the wild, and the entire fleet isn't grounded until it's fully understood unless it's a common event. Jon's stirring up some hits because it's his job, even though I think his reporting here is a little speculative (it's a blog, so it's fine), but it's hardly Keesje's job to do the same.

Or is it...

Anyway, I agree with our RR fan PM on his belief that if the aircraft is delayed again, it will be due to other problems, and the engine failure gives Boeing a little of their own PR leeway to offer it as "one of the reasons" even if it doesn't turn out to be a critical path problem. I don't have much faith in Boeing's forthrightness and this point, though I don't have a reason to doubt RR.



Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offlineEPA001 From Netherlands, joined Sep 2006, 4938 posts, RR: 40
Reply 23, posted (4 years 3 months 4 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 15238 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Stitch (Reply 11):
Quoting point2point (Reply 3):
It sounds as if they need to practically design a whole new engine.

GE had to redesign the front third of the GEnx to meet SFC, so it seems doable.


I find it strange that GE and RR are still having issues that is causing delays to the program. All the delays on the B787 program gave them a lot of extra time to get the job done. But as i.e. Lightsaber stated both engine manufacturers missed the promised targets by quite a margin. So they used the time up to get to the point which they promised. But maybe even here the marketing department may have pushed beyond what the technology department could actually deliver?

Quoting Stitch (Reply 11):
Quoting keesje (Reply 4):
(Package B) shares the intermediate pressure turbine with Package A engines.
Quoting lightsaber (Reply 10):
Or it could be a turbine cooling failure.

As I understand it, Package B has improved IPT cooling so if that was the cause, it might already be addressed, as Rolls has been stating.


If that is the case, then it would be quite reassuring for RR and the B787 program for RR customers. Let us hope this incident, and the rest of the flight test and production issues will not push back the delivery well into 2011. It would be very sad and regrettable if this would turn out to be the case.


User currently offlineBoeingVista From Australia, joined Jan 2009, 1584 posts, RR: 3
Reply 24, posted (4 years 3 months 4 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 15209 times:

Quoting par13del (Reply 21):
Except these this actually did happen, RR did blow an engine right and the fasteners were wrong

The fasteners were bolts because Boeing did not place the order according to the lead time of the supplier that was communicated to Boeing.

Meh, the RR donk did blow though. My point is that Boeing seems to have have been failing with EIS 2010 through flight test delays but now conveniently has someone else to pin it on.



BV
25 Post contains images par13del : Well you need to spend more time on A.Net, everyone and their uncle has been holding Boeing responsible for the delays, who / what actually caused it
26 Rheinbote : The engine/airframe combination ain't. However, Package A will become irrelevant as soon as the 787-8 with Package B is certified, should happen in Q
27 Post contains links and images keesje : however the thread was before I saw the A350 "news" I tried to post on that thread, but stopped because it's hard to react on a somebody said that so
28 Post contains images lightsaber : *&*&%^ You are right. I did a poor scan of the 787 flight testing threads. I see the first flight was 6/10/2010. Oops. I am impressed how qui
29 Post contains images pnwtraveler : As a marketer who has recommended to clients to pay bloggers/poster/surfers to help spread the word about a product, charity or service, it is more a
30 BoeingVista : As asked in another thread, if everybody (Boeing, RR, GE) had taken another year or so with initial definition and design would the 787 be in service
31 SolarFlyer22 : Agreed the whole thing has been poorly managed. I just don't know how they are going to fix things now. I also hope its not this bad for future effor
32 par13del : I would say no, the bulk of the delays have been due to poor management, another year in schools does not help some folk. A better alternative would
33 murchmo : okaaaaay... the article did say this: "We are now investigating in detail and have made good progress in understanding the issue. We do not anticipat
34 ER757 : But they haven't done so, have they? That makes your point moot.
35 Post contains images Stitch : Maybe he should become Gerson Lehrman Group Expert Contributor.
36 jetfuel : Another useless post tainited with misinformation
37 Post contains images DocLightning : Do you guys HONESTLY believe that Airbus cares what we think? Or Boeing? How many people on this site actually have much to do with ordering decision
38 1337Delta764 : I wouldn't be surprised if DL switches to the GEnx engine if they plan on keeping some of their 787 orders. After all, it was NW (not DL) who chose RR
39 tdscanuck : It's not more significant than the -7B/3 or -7BE modifications to the CFM-56 engine, which went off without a whimper (and without complaint on this
40 Post contains images PlanesNTrains : Wow, another interesting Keesje thread about Boeing shortcomings.........................well, now off to his thread about the soon-to-be-worthless 73
41 tommytoyz : There is the teensy little problem called contact law. NW or its successors are bound by any NW contract. DL can not magically void NW contracts. The
42 cpd : But who is to say that anyone countering his opinion isn't a paid Boeing supporter? That's not suggesting you are - but it's a reasonable thing to sa
43 airfrnt : Actually, you would be surprised. I've been involved with the marketing organizations of several fortune 10 companies, and they all do aggressive bra
44 NYC777 : One thing that no one, especially Keesje, mentioned here is that the four 787 test airplanes have flown over 1400 flight hours not including ground te
45 BMI727 : Plus the Planemaker thing on Oman Air's Twitter.
46 Post contains links 328JET : Come on guys, Keesje is only the messenger. If you want to blame somebody that the assumption about EIS 2011 is wrong, please do so. Blame www.flightg
47 Post contains images PlanesNTrains : Oh, I can respect that. However, I think you and I and the majority of A.net can tell who's actually working with an agenda. And it's a relative few
48 328JET : @ PlanesNTrains Sorry to say that, but he is correct by a 100 percent. The B787 is ambitious, probably too ambitious, it had some minor issues and it
49 BMI727 : So ambitious they got hundreds of orders for it. This industry is about pushing the limits and it appears to be about to pay off handsomely for Boein
50 328JET : @ BMI727 So ambitious that the whole programe will be nearly 3 years late.
51 PlanesNTrains : Are you serious? You claim he is "just the messenger"? Well, if the "message" was that RR had a problem with an engine, why the need to throw in all
52 Post contains images PM : Maybe he already is! It was the first engine ordered. We need to be clear about what we're talking about here. Switching from one engine OEM to anoth
53 BMI727 : ...and it still looks like it's going to work out well when all is said and done for Boeing. Those airlines aren't hanging with the program because t
54 1337Delta764 : But NW wasn't the buyer, DL was. NW signed a contract for additional A319/A320 aircraft, and DL has stated that they will not be accepting their deli
55 Post contains images Stitch : That or he has a German doppelgänger sub-contracting for him.[Edited 2010-08-23 22:06:39]
56 Post contains images astuteman : Anybody's move from a designer / builder of a/c to a "facilitator / integrator" will not be an easy one.. Trust me Being a test engine, it's probably
57 PM : And when DL acquired NW they also acquired all the binding contracts into which NW had entered. So, the new DL was indeed the buyer. I don't know the
58 1337Delta764 : DL switched engines twice on the 767: first went with the GE CF6-80A, then the Pratt & Whitney PW4060, and then the GE CF6-80C2. I am pretty sure
59 Baroque : Staying away from the 787 fracas (hopefully) the difficulties with the T1000 might be a partial explanation of why the "advances" for the TXWB appear
60 PlanesNTrains : If DL is the successor to NW, then I fail to see how they can just toss away contracts like wastepaper. When DL and NW combined, they also combined t
61 Post contains images PM : Let's compare like with like. DL ordered a batch of 767s with GE. Then they ordered another batch with PW. (Then they changed their mind again for an
62 Post contains links and images keesje : If we wait for the OEM's to officially confirm a delay, we are the last to know. So much we have learned during the last few yrs. That's not a.net! R
63 Post contains images deltal1011man : ugh 1) had RR done a Trent engine for the LR you can pretty much bet Delta would have RRs on the LR fleet. 2) Delta is more than happy with the Trent
64 Post contains images par13del : They can and DL and the former NW have done so, it's called Chpt.11, unfortunately, they usually use it to void employee contracts and some high valu
65 keesje : Or have GE pay the penalties RR is entitled to..
66 Post contains images PM : Why? I can tell you someone who would not be.
67 Post contains images EPA001 : We know you would be very unhappy with such a situation. And I would not be too happy either. But I guess everybody would be unhappy if this situatio
68 Post contains images par13del : We need the a/c in pax service so the real professionals can determine whether the a/c is good or bad, speaking for myself I'm sick and tired of all t
69 PlanesNTrains : Sorry, that is absolutely false, but you are welcome to your opinion. Sure, but I guess that wasn't clearly implied in what I was reading. I don't kn
70 astuteman : And I'm pretty sure you got that from where the sun don't shine, just to bolster your position. What entitles you to exhibit such surety about my opi
71 deltal1011man : 2nd that........still say Delta needs to do a re-engine on the 330 fleet to Trent 700s. Get some real engine on them.
72 Post contains images Rheinbote : The more substantial modifications are yet to come with Package C. Here's were the thread could go on hold until new factual information comes in.
73 Post contains links keesje : No, the engine in question would have been delivered to ANA. "The Trent 1000 engine involved in the failure was destined for an early All Nippon Airw
74 1337Delta764 : Exactly. DL tends to be opportunistic when it comes to engine selections for their long-haul widebody aircraft. DL chose RR for the 772ERs because it
75 cpd : No Keesje - it's not your message I'm not pleased with (I'm really not interested in the trials and tribulations of engines or planes). I just wish y
76 zeke : I guess what should be remembered is that the Trent 1000 series has been certified since 2007, while these different package improvements may not get
77 tdscanuck : Absolutely true. But that's not the point. What we know, right now, is that RR had an uncontained failure of an engine on a test stand that was event
78 trex8 : as with any journalist Jon ostrower is neither perfect nor capable of predicting with 100% accuracy the industry he reports but he is not one known,
79 Post contains images keesje : CPD, Xcuse me, you are right. I falsely accused you! I doubt RR or anyone else would put a (sold) engine that has to be delivered to an anxious custo
80 Rheinbote : I doubt any of the Package A engines is going to be accepted by an airline customer. I think Package A engines are likely to be replaced by Package B
81 tdscanuck : Your doubts are incorrect. For starters, it's not a sold engine (yet). Beyond that, you always want to make sure that the most extreme operating regi
82 Stitch : As I understand it, the earliest 787-8s will be delivered with Package A engines, which will then be swapped out with Package B engines as they become
83 Baroque : But useful speculation nevertheless. RR do seem to have been doing something unusual.
84 Rheinbote : We're on the same page, Tom. Of course, airlines will happily take Package A engines, I just don't think they will buy them (Keesje was referring to
85 Post contains links tdscanuck : The plot thickens: http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/fl...s-boeing-readying-for-a-787-d.html Still no admission from RR or Boeing of a connection betw
86 Stitch : Boeing is also still barely 50% past the necessary flight hours to attain certification, so the latest slip into 2011 might be due to not having certi
87 keesje : IMO the only positive side about the now confirmed engine slip the is that it is in parallel with test-flight delays and not sequential..
88 Post contains images babybus : I think that is the plan. You know best buddies and all that. It lets Boeing off the hook and no doubt RR get some very healthy engine deal somewhere
89 Post contains links oly720man : Latest news is that it could have been a fault with the engine oil system that triggered the chain of destruction. http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/gene
90 tdscanuck : For those who keep insisting that Boeing never blames themselves, this quote today from the BCA CEO is revealing: "If a supplier has a problem, it's
Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic EIS 787 Could Be 2011 After Trent 1000 Test
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...
No ETOPS For GEnx And Trent 1000? posted Sun Apr 26 2009 09:31:33 by A342
Trent 1000/GENX - Guaranteed Sfc Missed? posted Tue Dec 9 2008 02:22:40 by Superstring
Will The 787/350 Be The Only CF Airplanes posted Wed Sep 26 2007 18:21:57 by Revo1059
RR Trent 1000 For The B787 posted Tue Aug 7 2007 15:29:06 by TepidHalibut
Trent 1000 Question posted Fri Jul 27 2007 05:08:56 by BritJap
Differences Between Trent 1000 & Genx posted Sun Apr 30 2006 19:01:17 by Radelow
What Happens To Test A/C After Testing? posted Thu Jun 17 2010 09:47:27 by c5load
Could A C-17 Be Stretched Using The Same Engines? posted Mon Apr 26 2010 19:40:24 by 747400sp
787 Test Airplane In California? posted Tue Mar 9 2010 21:16:59 by ProPilot83
Could This Be The Future Of Prop Power? posted Tue Dec 1 2009 04:03:55 by Glidepath73

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format