keesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Posted (2 years 10 months 1 day ago) and read 20798 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.
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..
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.
Ronaldo747 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 318 posts, RR: 0 Reply 2, posted (2 years 10 months 23 hours ago) and read 20361 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 ....
point2point From United States of America, joined Mar 2010, 1964 posts, RR: 1 Reply 3, posted (2 years 10 months 22 hours ago) and read 20297 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.
keesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 4, posted (2 years 10 months 22 hours ago) and read 20208 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.
luv2cattlecall From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 1648 posts, RR: 2 Reply 5, posted (2 years 10 months 19 hours ago) and read 18314 times:
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!
par13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 5918 posts, RR: 8 Reply 6, posted (2 years 10 months 19 hours ago) and read 18319 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
PITingres From United States of America, joined Dec 2007, 966 posts, RR: 12 Reply 7, posted (2 years 10 months 19 hours ago) and read 18241 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.
SolarFlyer22 From US Minor Outlying Islands, joined Nov 2009, 397 posts, RR: 0 Reply 8, posted (2 years 10 months 19 hours ago) and read 18075 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.
"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.
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?
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.
JBirdAV8r From United States of America, joined Jun 2001, 4459 posts, RR: 22 Reply 13, posted (2 years 10 months 17 hours ago) and read 16230 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.
N809FR From United States of America, joined Aug 2010, 179 posts, RR: 2 Reply 14, posted (2 years 10 months 17 hours ago) and read 16170 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.
DocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 16932 posts, RR: 57 Reply 16, posted (2 years 10 months 16 hours ago) and read 15340 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.
pnwtraveler From Canada, joined Jun 2007, 2057 posts, RR: 12 Reply 17, posted (2 years 10 months 15 hours ago) and read 15226 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.
JBirdAV8r From United States of America, joined Jun 2001, 4459 posts, RR: 22 Reply 18, posted (2 years 10 months 15 hours ago) and read 14957 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.
par13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 5918 posts, RR: 8 Reply 21, posted (2 years 10 months 14 hours ago) and read 14237 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.
ikramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21041 posts, RR: 60 Reply 22, posted (2 years 10 months 14 hours ago) and read 14180 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.
EPA001 From Netherlands, joined Sep 2006, 3658 posts, RR: 36 Reply 23, posted (2 years 10 months 14 hours ago) and read 14004 times:
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.