B787 RR engine replacements

B787register · Mon Dec 24, 2018 5:59 pm

Hi all,
Does anyone have the information on which B787s where grounded due to the engine issue, on what date they grounded and when they returned to service?

UnitedIsBae · Tue Dec 25, 2018 12:12 am

It's about 2 to 1 GE to RR for each 787 order. That means a good amount of airlines have RR Trents so that means lots of them have issues. With over 450 with RR engines, i assume a good majority have some issues.

zkncj · Tue Dec 25, 2018 12:48 am

For NZ it is currently:

ZK-NZF del - Sept 2014
ZK-NZJ del - Sept 2017
ZK-NZC del - Aug 2015

Its typically 3-5 787-9's out of service at time for NZ, the bigger issue is the 789 current is unable to operate some key routes its meant to be on like AKL-EZE.

Hence they have currently dry-leased 2x 77Es from SQ and 1x 77W from BR.

LOT767SP-LPA · Tue Dec 25, 2018 1:08 am

LOT has grounded SP-LRB and LRD

UnitedIsBae · Tue Dec 25, 2018 3:21 am

LATAM is sending back 787-8s to VCV for temporary storage. Also hear that they have cracks in the wing roots so end of the line for them?

LHLX · Tue Dec 25, 2018 5:20 am

LATAM are using their 787-8 on 15:10 hour flights between GRU and TLV - is that safe with those engine issues? Also, all flights for 2019 on this route (and of course many other, shorter routes) are planned with this plane....

UnitedIsBae · Tue Dec 25, 2018 5:36 am

[*]

LHLX wrote:
LATAM are using their 787-8 on 15:10 hour flights between GRU and TLV - is that safe with those engine issues? Also, all flights for 2019 on this route (and of course many other, shorter routes) are planned with this plane....

I think its still within ETOP, FAA and EASA reduced it to 140 min, so its still "safe". I know they have to use them, but from what I've heard on the forum, they won't be using the ones they put in VCV.

Arion640 · Tue Dec 25, 2018 8:24 am

LHLX wrote:
LATAM are using their 787-8 on 15:10 hour flights between GRU and TLV - is that safe with those engine issues? Also, all flights for 2019 on this route (and of course many other, shorter routes) are planned with this plane....

If it wasn’t safe they wouldn’t be flying.

Faro · Tue Dec 25, 2018 9:27 am

Arion640 wrote:
LHLX wrote:
LATAM are using their 787-8 on 15:10 hour flights between GRU and TLV - is that safe with those engine issues? Also, all flights for 2019 on this route (and of course many other, shorter routes) are planned with this plane....

If it wasn’t safe they wouldn’t be flying.

There is the regulatory, itemised and clinical definition of what is deemed to constitute a safe flight environment...and then there is the general, generic definition. If for any reason whatsoever an airline deems a flight not to be safe in the generic sense, the regulatory qualification of ‘safe’ goes out the window...

Faro

TC957 · Tue Dec 25, 2018 10:58 am

At HND in November, I counted 8 ANA 788's with either one engine off or both, most of them parked in remote stands and one near the hanger.

readytotaxi · Tue Dec 25, 2018 11:10 am

Airline compensation must be making a huge dent in Rolls Royce bottom line.

WIederling · Tue Dec 25, 2018 11:57 am

UnitedIsBae wrote:
Also hear that they have cracks in the wing roots so end of the line for them?

Hearsay or something substantial?
( what comes up on a search "787 crack / fatigue" is from around 2015 )

kengo · Tue Dec 25, 2018 12:35 pm

TC957 wrote:
At HND in November, I counted 8 ANA 788's with either one engine off or both, most of them parked in remote stands and one near the hanger.

A few days ago I was fishing at Tsukuba park, across from the remote stand, and I counted 5 787s with one or both engines missing. I think a few might have been returned to service since November.

parapente · Tue Dec 25, 2018 1:14 pm

I think RR are doing well to keep a 'relative' 'lid' on the whole operation as it must be huge,let alone costly.They must be quite a way through the list now but hard to tell.They will certainly breath a sigh of relief when it's over -what a cock up!One imagines not enough testing done before hand.

StTim · Tue Dec 25, 2018 1:27 pm

parapente wrote:
I think RR are doing well to keep a 'relative' 'lid' on the whole operation as it must be huge,let alone costly.They must be quite a way through the list now but hard to tell.They will certainly breath a sigh of relief when it's over -what a cock up!One imagines not enough testing done before hand.

They will certainly be adding different fuel mixtures to coating testing!

BUT - This is how progress happens. There are bumps and learnings on the way.

TC957 · Tue Dec 25, 2018 4:13 pm

kengo wrote:
TC957 wrote:
At HND in November, I counted 8 ANA 788's with either one engine off or both, most of them parked in remote stands and one near the hanger.

A few days ago I was fishing at Tsukuba park, across from the remote stand, and I counted 5 787s with one or both engines missing. I think a few might have been returned to service since November.

Agree, one at least was being worked on, or had a variety of activity around it anyway. When I was at NRT during my visit then, an IL-76 and a couple of AN-124's came & went that week so presumably bringing in new engines ?

Dalmd88 · Tue Dec 25, 2018 5:34 pm

From what we have heard most of the engines that only needed the IPC blade work are done. There are only a few left. We are getting a few in Jan that still need it. All of the others need the HPT and IPT mod and the replacement blades are starting to be produced. Our shop isn't set up for those mods yet. We are expected to be ready in the spring.

B787register · Thu Dec 27, 2018 8:22 am

Thus is a lot wider than what I thought for airlines to still have aircraft grounded for what must be nearly a year?

Channex757 · Thu Dec 27, 2018 8:41 am

readytotaxi wrote:
Airline compensation must be making a huge dent in Rolls Royce bottom line.

Actually not nearly as much as one might imagine.

RR have gotten in front of the problem by treating this as a durability issue rather than a failure one. Engines have been inspected and repairs or improvement work offered under TotalCare contracts, rather than Airline XYZ turning up at their door with a broken engine that failed in flight.

The biggest problem has so far been shop time. Finding available spares obviously, but mostly the availability of time on benches to do the strip-downs. That backs stuff up.

The Trent 7000 is now up to full ETOPS 330 so that promises a fairly positive change to the whole saga. Test engines have demonstrated the planned durability and commonality with the Trent 1000 will hopefully mean parts kits start arriving to do the work on earlier model engines. The Trent 1000-TEN is of course the base engine for the 7000 so that engine is unaffected.

frigatebird · Thu Dec 27, 2018 11:09 am

Channex757 wrote:
readytotaxi wrote:
Airline compensation must be making a huge dent in Rolls Royce bottom line.

Actually not nearly as much as one might imagine.

RR have gotten in front of the problem by treating this as a durability issue rather than a failure one. Engines have been inspected and repairs or improvement work offered under TotalCare contracts, rather than Airline XYZ turning up at their door with a broken engine that failed in flight.

The biggest problem has so far been shop time. Finding available spares obviously, but mostly the availability of time on benches to do the strip-downs. That backs stuff up.

The Trent 7000 is now up to full ETOPS 330 so that promises a fairly positive change to the whole saga. Test engines have demonstrated the planned durability and commonality with the Trent 1000 will hopefully mean parts kits start arriving to do the work on earlier model engines. The Trent 1000-TEN is of course the base engine for the 7000 so that engine is unaffected.

So the Trent 1000-TEN is also still ETOPS 330? While the older generation Trent 1000 have lower ETOPS?

PM · Thu Dec 27, 2018 11:41 am

Unless things dramatically change in less than a week, RR will deliver significantly more large engines this year than GE will. That's a first. And as of today, well over 100 of those engines have been Trent 1000s. It's not all bad news.

brindabella · Thu Dec 27, 2018 1:17 pm

Channex757 wrote:
readytotaxi wrote:
Airline compensation must be making a huge dent in Rolls Royce bottom line.

Actually not nearly as much as one might imagine.

RR have gotten in front of the problem by treating this as a durability issue rather than a failure one. Engines have been inspected and repairs or improvement work offered under TotalCare contracts, rather than Airline XYZ turning up at their door with a broken engine that failed in flight.

The biggest problem has so far been shop time. Finding available spares obviously, but mostly the availability of time on benches to do the strip-downs. That backs stuff up.

The Trent 7000 is now up to full ETOPS 330 so that promises a fairly positive change to the whole saga. Test engines have demonstrated the planned durability and commonality with the Trent 1000 will hopefully mean parts kits start arriving to do the work on earlier model engines. The Trent 1000-TEN is of course the base engine for the 7000 so that engine is unaffected.

Well, I hope you are right. :yes:

As an outsider, I am also worried that RR seem to be taking a real beating.

I have no idea however so perhaps you might enlarge some - if an operator has no Totalcare arrangement but suffers their 787 being prematurely grounded due to excessive wear on the RR engines- how does that not affect the RR bottom-line? Why would the operator not have a claim? :whistleblower:

cheers

Sooner787 · Thu Dec 27, 2018 3:11 pm

Anyone know how many 787's VS and BA still have grounded awaiting new engines?

Bongodog1964 · Thu Dec 27, 2018 4:43 pm

A quick search on both BA source and VS source seems to show they both have two out of service, I think one has 16 in the fleet and the other 17. Not ideal, but probably manageable. .

Channex757 · Thu Dec 27, 2018 5:14 pm

brindabella wrote:
Channex757 wrote:
readytotaxi wrote:
Airline compensation must be making a huge dent in Rolls Royce bottom line.

Actually not nearly as much as one might imagine.

RR have gotten in front of the problem by treating this as a durability issue rather than a failure one. Engines have been inspected and repairs or improvement work offered under TotalCare contracts, rather than Airline XYZ turning up at their door with a broken engine that failed in flight.

The biggest problem has so far been shop time. Finding available spares obviously, but mostly the availability of time on benches to do the strip-downs. That backs stuff up.

The Trent 7000 is now up to full ETOPS 330 so that promises a fairly positive change to the whole saga. Test engines have demonstrated the planned durability and commonality with the Trent 1000 will hopefully mean parts kits start arriving to do the work on earlier model engines. The Trent 1000-TEN is of course the base engine for the 7000 so that engine is unaffected.

Well, I hope you are right.

As an outsider, I am also worried that RR seem to be taking a real beating.

I have no idea however so perhaps you might enlarge some - if an operator has no Totalcare arrangement but suffers their 787 being prematurely grounded due to excessive wear on the RR engines- how does that not affect the RR bottom-line? Why would the operator not have a claim?

cheers

I'm no expert as this is all covered by contracts and confidential agreements, but this sort-of explanation has been put out there to explain why RR isn't being sued for every last penny by operators. Treating it as a warranty recall issue is much less messy than waiting for stuff to break.

Where RR is liable for damages then the figure will be less than the cost of a replacement aircraft. It'll be the difference between the operating cost of the 787 and the ACMI charter, or extra fuel used by a retained one. Again by getting in front of the problem it keeps costs down by also keeping lawyers out of the process.

Revelation · Thu Dec 27, 2018 5:51 pm

PM wrote:
Unless things dramatically change in less than a week, RR will deliver significantly more large engines this year than GE will. That's a first. And as of today, well over 100 of those engines have been Trent 1000s. It's not all bad news.

That's easy to do when you can deliver the same engine multiple times! :biggrin:

Sorry, couldn't resist.

Cheers to all those plugging away at RR and wrestling the crown away from evil GE.

LewisNEO · Thu Dec 27, 2018 6:03 pm

Arion640 wrote:
LHLX wrote:
LATAM are using their 787-8 on 15:10 hour flights between GRU and TLV - is that safe with those engine issues? Also, all flights for 2019 on this route (and of course many other, shorter routes) are planned with this plane....

If it wasn’t safe they wouldn’t be flying.

Well it depends on numerous factors, but you are right, an airline won't use an airplane if it doesn't meet the safety requirements. But it does require more focussed and increased inspections before and after the flights. But I remember a discussion about the FAA thinking to drop the 787 RR ETOPS from 300 minutes to 140. As I recall the inspections are normally done after 200 cycles, but I need to look that up.

As I recall the engine problems of the 787 Trent 1000 engines concern some compressor problems on the 787 Trent 1000 C series and turbine blade corrosion that happens sooner than expected on all of the series. These problems may lead to mid-flight engine shutdown caused by engine failure (or in a way to prevent it). I really do hope they will solve the problem soon. it's gonna be costly for RR for sure.

MBecker99 · Thu Dec 27, 2018 6:11 pm

UnitedIsBae wrote:
LATAM is sending back 787-8s to VCV for temporary storage. Also hear that they have cracks in the wing roots so end of the line for them?

That was the situation back then. Now there is no LATAM 787 stored there.

The only two out of 24 787s that are stored are CC-BBE (B788) at SCL maintenance base and CC-BBC (B788) at AUH, which also got repainted there in August.

smartplane · Thu Dec 27, 2018 7:41 pm

Channex757 wrote:
I'm no expert as this is all covered by contracts and confidential agreements, but this sort-of explanation has been put out there to explain why RR isn't being sued for every last penny by operators. Treating it as a warranty recall issue is much less messy than waiting for stuff to break.

Where RR is liable for damages then the figure will be less than the cost of a replacement aircraft. It'll be the difference between the operating cost of the 787 and the ACMI charter, or extra fuel used by a retained one. Again by getting in front of the problem it keeps costs down by also keeping lawyers out of the process.

After initial wobbles, RR has done a brilliant job on PR and customer communication. The people who need to know, know what's happening, and when, including parts, replacement engines and above / below the line compensation.

Interesting to see when the process is completed, if anyone breaks ranks.

PM · Thu Dec 27, 2018 8:10 pm

Revelation wrote:
PM wrote:
Unless things dramatically change in less than a week, RR will deliver significantly more large engines this year than GE will. That's a first. And as of today, well over 100 of those engines have been Trent 1000s. It's not all bad news.

That's easy to do when you can deliver the same engine multiple times!

Sorry, couldn't resist.

Cheers to all those plugging away at RR and wrestling the crown away from evil GE.

I'll be 63 next month. When I first started playing this game (and I have copies of Flight International going back to the late '60s), RR made do with the crumbs from the table after PW and GE had gorged themselves. The TriStar (and look how that turned out), some 747s, two dozen 767s... Nothing on the A300 or A310. Nothing on the DC10 or MD11. The 3-11 never happened. (Probably just as well.) It was a two-horse race and RR was far, far behind in third.

Fast forward to 2018. PW deliver not one (not one!) widebody engine(*). GE deliver c.44% of widebody engines (A330, 747, 767, 777, 787) while RR deliver c.56% (787, A330, A350, A380).

(*) In 2018 Airbus delivered 1 (one) A380 with EA engines.

I've waited almost as long for this as I waited for Man City to win the title!

george77300 · Thu Dec 27, 2018 8:25 pm

Sooner787 wrote:
Anyone know how many 787's VS and BA still have grounded awaiting new engines?

BA had three grounded at the end of October. Two have since been returned to service with just 1 787-8 (G-ZBJE) out of action at LHR with no engines currently.

george77300 · Thu Dec 27, 2018 8:29 pm

Bongodog1964 wrote:
A quick search on both BA source and VS source seems to show they both have two out of service, I think one has 16 in the fleet and the other 17. Not ideal, but probably manageable. .

BA has 1 out of action currently, a 787-8 (G-ZBJE) - [It was 3 at the end of October however.]
VS has at least two out of action at LHR currently, I'm not too aware about VS though.

BA currently operate 30 787s. (12 788, 18 789)
VS currently operate 17 787s. (All 789s)

LY777 · Thu Dec 27, 2018 8:32 pm

When will all the RR engines be repaired ?

smartplane · Thu Dec 27, 2018 8:37 pm

PM wrote:
Revelation wrote:
PM wrote:
Unless things dramatically change in less than a week, RR will deliver significantly more large engines this year than GE will. That's a first. And as of today, well over 100 of those engines have been Trent 1000s. It's not all bad news.

That's easy to do when you can deliver the same engine multiple times!

Sorry, couldn't resist.

Cheers to all those plugging away at RR and wrestling the crown away from evil GE.

I'll be 63 next month. When I first started playing this game (and I have copies of Flight International going back to the late '60s), RR made do with the crumbs from the table after PW and GE had gorged themselves. The TriStar (and look how that turned out), some 747s, two dozen 767s... Nothing on the A300 or A310. Nothing on the DC10 or MD11. The 3-11 never happened. (Probably just as well.) It was a two-horse race and RR was far, far behind in third.

Fast forward to 2018. PW deliver not one (not one!) widebody engine(*). GE deliver c.44% of widebody engines (A330, 747, 767, 777, 787) while RR deliver c.56% (787, A330, A350, A380).

(*) In 2018 Airbus delivered 1 (one) A380 with EA engines.

I've waited almost as long for this as I waited for Man City to win the title!

Good post.

I'm even older, and can remember when A300's were delivered to the US, and staff delayed / grounded departures for minor defects, like one IFE screen not displaying full R, G and B, or wardrobe / galley catch not working (even if empty). No problem dispatching a US made aircraft with the same defects.

RB211trent · Thu Dec 27, 2018 8:44 pm

LY777 wrote:
When will all the RR engines be repaired ?

I think you mean modified as most aren’t actually broken, they are just being regularly inspected and removed when they are.

LY777 · Thu Dec 27, 2018 8:47 pm

RB211trent wrote:
LY777 wrote:
When will all the RR engines be repaired ?

I think you mean modified as most aren’t actually broken, they are just being regularly inspected and removed when they are.

Yes indeed

seabosdca · Thu Dec 27, 2018 8:55 pm

UnitedIsBae wrote:
LATAM is sending back 787-8s to VCV for temporary storage. Also hear that they have cracks in the wing roots so end of the line for them?

There are currently two LATAM 787s in storage (CC-BBC and CC-BBE). Those are not particularly early-build frames and it would be very odd if they, alone, were having major fatigue issues, without any evidence of that anywhere else in the worldwide 787 fleet.

I would tend to assume they are sitting for lack of engines.

LewisNEO · Thu Dec 27, 2018 9:32 pm

LewisNEO wrote:
Arion640 wrote:
LHLX wrote:
LATAM are using their 787-8 on 15:10 hour flights between GRU and TLV - is that safe with those engine issues? Also, all flights for 2019 on this route (and of course many other, shorter routes) are planned with this plane....

If it wasn’t safe they wouldn’t be flying.

Well it depends on numerous factors, but you are right, an airline won't use an airplane if it doesn't meet the safety requirements. But it does require more focussed and increased inspections before and after the flights. But I remember a discussion about the FAA thinking to drop the 787 RR ETOPS from 300 minutes to 140. As I recall the inspections are normally done after 200 cycles, but I need to look that up.

330 minutes I mean, mistype.

As I recall the engine problems of the 787 Trent 1000 engines concern some compressor problems on the 787 Trent 1000 C series and turbine blade corrosion that happens sooner than expected on all of the series. These problems may lead to mid-flight engine shutdown caused by engine failure (or in a way to prevent it). I really do hope they will solve the problem soon. it's gonna be costly for RR for sure.

Revelation · Fri Dec 28, 2018 12:23 am

PM wrote:
I'll be 63 next month. When I first started playing this game (and I have copies of Flight International going back to the late '60s), RR made do with the crumbs from the table after PW and GE had gorged themselves. The TriStar (and look how that turned out), some 747s, two dozen 767s... Nothing on the A300 or A310. Nothing on the DC10 or MD11. The 3-11 never happened. (Probably just as well.) It was a two-horse race and RR was far, far behind in third.

Fast forward to 2018. PW deliver not one (not one!) widebody engine(*). GE deliver c.44% of widebody engines (A330, 747, 767, 777, 787) while RR deliver c.56% (787, A330, A350, A380).

(*) In 2018 Airbus delivered 1 (one) A380 with EA engines.

I've waited almost as long for this as I waited for Man City to win the title!

Re: A300: I hope this isn't blasphemy to say this, but I had an interesting interaction with an European poster here who said the reason the (presumably natural choice) RR didn't get on to the A300 and GE did was because using RR would have resulted in squabbles about the work share for the UK who already had the wing work. It seemed plausible to me.

Wiki gives the texbook answer:

To attract potential customers in the US market, it was decided that General Electric CF6-50 engines would power the A300 in place of the British RB207; these engines would be produced in co-operation with French firm Snecma.[12][15]

Yet we know "potential" is just that, "potential", while both AF and LH were signed up, so to me the textbook answer rings hollow.

Wiki also goes on to say:

By this time, Rolls-Royce had been concentrating their efforts upon developing their RB211 turbofan engine instead and progress on the RB207's development had been slow for some time, the firm having suffered due to funding limitations, both of which had been factors in the engine switch decision.[8][21][26]

On 10 April 1969, a few months after the decision to drop the RB207 had been announced, the British government announced that they would withdraw from the Airbus venture

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbus_A300

The way I read this, it seems to blame RR itself for not being on the A300.

Re: PW: I guess the only wide body engines they are producing now are for the KC-46 tanker, and I guess none of those will get delivered this year (there is some intel on mil-av that says there has been a lot of activity but it's now slowing down).

Re: Man City: Congrats. I endured the 1918-2004 drought of the Boston Red Sox, and my outlook on life has changed for the better since 2004.

Re: PM: Congrats also on keeping the FI mags going back to the 60s. It must be interesting to flip through some of the old editions from time to time.

nikeherc · Fri Dec 28, 2018 1:37 am

seabosdca wrote:
UnitedIsBae wrote:
LATAM is sending back 787-8s to VCV for temporary storage. Also hear that they have cracks in the wing roots so end of the line for them?

There are currently two LATAM 787s in storage (CC-BBC and CC-BBE). Those are not particularly early-build frames and it would be very odd if they, alone, were having major fatigue issues, without any evidence of that anywhere else in the worldwide 787 fleet.

I would tend to assume they are sitting for lack of engines.

The wing root crack issued occurred in 2014. Mitsubishi changed a process in the wing manufacture. Hairline cracks developed in the area where clips were attached to ribs or stringers. The cracks were detected during final assembly and repaired. No aircraft were delivered with cracks and the problem has not recurred. I’m going to be charitable and pass this off as ignorance and not fanboy propaganda.

PM · Fri Dec 28, 2018 9:25 am

Revelation wrote:

The way I read this, it seems to blame RR itself for not being on the A300.

Probably. That and the usual short-sighted and arrogant attitude of the British government of the day (some things never change) that, on balance, they'd probably prefer not to have too much to do with Johnny European.

Revelation wrote:
Re: PM: Congrats also on keeping the FI mags going back to the 60s. It must be interesting to flip through some of the old editions from time to time.

I wish. My life and my career have taken me all around the world, living in eight countries and working in seven on four continents. My magazines are all now in various cardboard boxes in my sister's attic (I hope!) 8,500Km away on the other side of the Equator.

LewisNEO · Fri Dec 28, 2018 4:54 pm

nikeherc wrote:
seabosdca wrote:
UnitedIsBae wrote:
LATAM is sending back 787-8s to VCV for temporary storage. Also hear that they have cracks in the wing roots so end of the line for them?

There are currently two LATAM 787s in storage (CC-BBC and CC-BBE). Those are not particularly early-build frames and it would be very odd if they, alone, were having major fatigue issues, without any evidence of that anywhere else in the worldwide 787 fleet.

I would tend to assume they are sitting for lack of engines.

The wing root crack issued occurred in 2014. Mitsubishi changed a process in the wing manufacture. Hairline cracks developed in the area where clips were attached to ribs or stringers. The cracks were detected during final assembly and repaired. No aircraft were delivered with cracks and the problem has not recurred. I’m going to be charitable and pass this off as ignorance and not fanboy propaganda.

I found a media link of that issue in 2014: https://www.seattletimes.com/business/b ... ng-cracks/
As answered above, it was solved and dealt with. There are no new issues reported after 2014 with this matter.

JerseyFlyer · Mon Jan 07, 2019 1:13 pm

This is a new take on the root cause of RR's problems with the T1000. All down to resonance derived from reducing the fan blade count by one. Can anyone confirm?

https://aviationnews.online/2019/01/06/ ... ine-issue/

cledaybuck · Mon Jan 07, 2019 1:55 pm

PM wrote:
Revelation wrote:
PM wrote:
Unless things dramatically change in less than a week, RR will deliver significantly more large engines this year than GE will. That's a first. And as of today, well over 100 of those engines have been Trent 1000s. It's not all bad news.

That's easy to do when you can deliver the same engine multiple times!

Sorry, couldn't resist.

Cheers to all those plugging away at RR and wrestling the crown away from evil GE.

I'll be 63 next month. When I first started playing this game (and I have copies of Flight International going back to the late '60s), RR made do with the crumbs from the table after PW and GE had gorged themselves. The TriStar (and look how that turned out), some 747s, two dozen 767s... Nothing on the A300 or A310. Nothing on the DC10 or MD11. The 3-11 never happened. (Probably just as well.) It was a two-horse race and RR was far, far behind in third.

Fast forward to 2018. PW deliver not one (not one!) widebody engine(*). GE deliver c.44% of widebody engines (A330, 747, 767, 777, 787) while RR deliver c.56% (787, A330, A350, A380).

(*) In 2018 Airbus delivered 1 (one) A380 with EA engines.

I've waited almost as long for this as I waited for Man City to win the title!

While RR has made great progress in the widebody sector, being locked out of the narrowbody sector for the foreseeable future has to be concerning. On the plus side, at least they don't have issues to deal with like on extremely high volume narrowbody engines like CFM and PW.

Revelation · Mon Jan 07, 2019 2:17 pm

JerseyFlyer wrote:
This is a new take on the root cause of RR's problems with the T1000. All down to resonance derived from reducing the fan blade count by one. Can anyone confirm?

https://aviationnews.online/2019/01/06/ ... ine-issue/

I think the resonance issue was discussed before, but not the idea that the root cause was the removal of one fan blade to save cost and insufficent testing afterwards also to save cost.

TFA says:

The demands on manufacturers to get new developments into service and keep airlines happy with their incessant demands for greater efficiency, is so overwhelming, testing is conducted only to the level that is in essence, the minimum to prove reliability.

This is an industry-wide problem but manifests itself in dozens of different ways. The commercial pressures, the financial bottom line, always take precedent – and even though all of the parties involved insist safety is their number one concern, it’s hard to really believe that given the potential consequences, especially if you’re as cynical over the way any corporate entity operates.

We can argue in the case of the PW GTF that not even that much testing was conducted.

It's also why I think there will be a bias towards a LEAP variant on NMA rather than RR Advance. Advance will be bringing a lot of new tech to the table (new gear, new CFRP fan, new variable pitch mechanism (allegedly)) along with a reprofiled core, and any one serious issue in any of those things would be seriously bad news for the program.

B7378E9 · Mon Jan 07, 2019 2:23 pm

4 of Thai's 8 787s are grounded.They are:
HS-TQC
HS-TQD
HS-TQE
HS-TQF

JerseyFlyer · Mon Jan 07, 2019 3:21 pm

Revelation wrote:

It's also why I think there will be a bias towards a LEAP variant on NMA rather than RR Advance. Advance will be bringing a lot of new tech to the table (new gear, new CFRP fan, new variable pitch mechanism (allegedly)) along with a reprofiled core, and any one serious issue in any of those things would be seriously bad news for the program.

Maybe, but it would be sad if lack of adequate testing became an argument for resisting innovation.

Regarding the PW issues, it does not seem to be the most innovative component (the gear) that is causing the current problems.

Revelation · Mon Jan 07, 2019 4:21 pm

JerseyFlyer wrote:
Regarding the PW issues, it does not seem to be the most innovative component (the gear) that is causing the current problems.

Interesting, and same can be said for this theory (if true) that the RR resonance issue was due to removing one fan blade without enough testing to understand the system level interactions.

It makes me wonder if the issue is that so many resources are dedicated to unit testing the kewl new things such as gears, and not enough is spend on overall system level interactions.

fsabo · Mon Jan 07, 2019 4:41 pm

Revelation wrote:
JerseyFlyer wrote:
Regarding the PW issues, it does not seem to be the most innovative component (the gear) that is causing the current problems.

Interesting, and same can be said for this theory (if true) that the RR resonance issue was due to removing one fan blade without enough testing to understand the system level interactions.

It makes me wonder if the issue is that so many resources are dedicated to unit testing the kewl new things such as gears, and not enough is spend on overall system level interactions.

With Pratt i think the fire then hire engineers when needed method has really bitten them. I want to feel sorry form them because I think the GTF is really a nice concept and LEAP is simply a reaction to it, but I simply cannot feel sorry for them.

For RR the changes to reduce cost (blade coatings and single fan blade removal) were just bad luck and insufficient testing after the changes. For example, the XWB has been good. I would not be too wary of future RR engines.

JayinKitsap · Mon Jan 07, 2019 5:43 pm

PW's GTF has the LP shaft spinning much faster than before with the same energy being delivered. That changes bearings, dynamics, blade tip velocities, the whole ball of wax. RR with its 3 shaft experience understands this with the middle shaft, but it is new to PW. Yes PW engineered an excellent gearbox, but has been having real issues elsewhere in the engine with the solutions not being tested by time on wing before being introduced.

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net