• 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 7
 
justloveplanes
Posts: 985
Joined: Thu Jul 08, 2004 5:38 am

Re: Rumour: 777X First Flight Likely Delayed to Year End Due GE9X Issues

Tue Jun 11, 2019 12:19 am

keesje wrote:
If GE invested so much in the GE9x there would pressure to get significant ROI and the 777X program, as it looks now, won't offer that. Probably they will go for a GENX upgrade using new technology, to become available around 2025, like the geared Ultrafan.


TBD on the 779. Cathay Pacific's CEO saw something he said impressed him very much on the 779 that he would order 20 more (an earlier forum topic). Have to see what that is, but it might be early data on the engine. It was never clear from the topic thread what exactly he saw, just that he was very impressed. So we can expect some expansion out of this.

Just a rough guess, but one would have to expect Boeing built the 777x business case around a 500 or so frame target.

GEnX CMC PiP would be very good about now.
 
Chaostheory
Posts: 1134
Joined: Wed Mar 06, 2013 2:09 am

Re: 777X First Flight Delayed to Year End Due GE9X Issues

Tue Jun 11, 2019 12:41 am

lightsaber wrote:

RR simplifies engines to reduce development cost, reduce development time, and reduce overhaul costs. These simplified engines burn more fuel. E.g., GENx vs. T1000. Not enough to stop sales, but there is a cost.

Lightsaber


Wrong here too.

Trent 1000 has much lower takeoff and climb burn, no difference in cruise and only slightly higher idle fuel burn.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 20883
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: 777X First Flight Delayed to Year End Due GE9X Issues

Tue Jun 11, 2019 12:47 am

Chaostheory wrote:
lightsaber wrote:

RR simplifies engines to reduce development cost, reduce development time, and reduce overhaul costs. These simplified engines burn more fuel. E.g., GENx vs. T1000. Not enough to stop sales, but there is a cost.

Lightsaber


Wrong here too.

Trent 1000 has much lower takeoff and climb burn, no difference in cruise and only slightly higher idle fuel burn.

Better send that info on to AirNZ, they just kicked T1000 to the kerb because GEnX could deliver more range.
Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world
The heart has its beaches, its homeland and thoughts of its own
Wake now, discover that you are the song that the morning brings
The heart has its seasons, its evenings and songs of its own
 
Chaostheory
Posts: 1134
Joined: Wed Mar 06, 2013 2:09 am

Re: 777X First Flight Delayed to Year End Due GE9X Issues

Tue Jun 11, 2019 12:51 am

Revelation wrote:
Chaostheory wrote:
lightsaber wrote:

RR simplifies engines to reduce development cost, reduce development time, and reduce overhaul costs. These simplified engines burn more fuel. E.g., GENx vs. T1000. Not enough to stop sales, but there is a cost.

Lightsaber


Wrong here too.

Trent 1000 has much lower takeoff and climb burn, no difference in cruise and only slightly higher idle fuel burn.

Better send that info on to AirNZ, they just kicked T1000 to the kerb because GEnX could deliver more range.


I have the respective performance manuals and there isn't a whisker of difference in trip fuel burn.

If engine A had llps hitting cycle limits at 10k versus engine B at 5k, which would you be inclined to buy?

There is quite a bit more to engine procurement decisions than just fuel burn you know.
 
User avatar
ikolkyo
Posts: 2612
Joined: Tue Nov 05, 2013 8:43 pm

Re: 777X First Flight Delayed to Year End Due GE9X Issues

Tue Jun 11, 2019 12:52 am

Revelation wrote:
Chaostheory wrote:
lightsaber wrote:

RR simplifies engines to reduce development cost, reduce development time, and reduce overhaul costs. These simplified engines burn more fuel. E.g., GENx vs. T1000. Not enough to stop sales, but there is a cost.

Lightsaber


Wrong here too.

Trent 1000 has much lower takeoff and climb burn, no difference in cruise and only slightly higher idle fuel burn.

Better send that info on to AirNZ, they just kicked T1000 to the kerb because GEnX could deliver more range.


Better tell all the other airlines that went GE too, there is a reason they are the leading engine on the 787.
 
Chaostheory
Posts: 1134
Joined: Wed Mar 06, 2013 2:09 am

Re: 777X First Flight Delayed to Year End Due GE9X Issues

Tue Jun 11, 2019 1:03 am

ikolkyo wrote:
Revelation wrote:
Chaostheory wrote:

Wrong here too.

Trent 1000 has much lower takeoff and climb burn, no difference in cruise and only slightly higher idle fuel burn.

Better send that info on to AirNZ, they just kicked T1000 to the kerb because GEnX could deliver more range.


Better tell all the other airlines that went GE too, there is a reason they are the leading engine on the 787.


Airlines don't play Top Trumps.

The RB211 on the 757 burns anywhere from 4-8% more than the Pratt (depending on mods) yet it still had more customers. The GTF on the neo has an appreciable fuel burn advantage over the leap which will widen when the PIPs become available in the next 12-18 months, yet the leap to my knowledge is the better seller.
 
acavpics
Posts: 150
Joined: Thu Dec 20, 2018 2:54 am

Re: Rumour: 777X First Flight Likely Delayed to Year End Due GE9X Issues

Tue Jun 11, 2019 1:21 am

Good. Let Boeing, GE and the FAA actually take their time with this one. The last thing we need is a 777 MAX.
 
YellowJ
Posts: 118
Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 1:59 am

Re: Rumour: 777X First Flight Likely Delayed to Year End Due GE9X Issues

Tue Jun 11, 2019 1:29 am

acavpics wrote:
Good. Let Boeing, GE and the FAA actually take their time with this one. The last thing we need is a 777 MAX.


Please stop spouting nonsense.
 
RickNRoll
Posts: 1704
Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2012 9:30 am

Re: 777X First Flight Delayed to Year End Due GE9X Issues

Tue Jun 11, 2019 1:41 am

lightsaber wrote:
FrenchPotatoEye wrote:
lightsaber wrote:
The GE9X is the mist ambitious engine ever. It is a full generation ahead of anything else. So delays are a risk of that level of technology.

Lightsaber


Could you expand on that?

I echo Zekes remarks to be honest. I see nothing substantially new or ground breaking???

1. CMCs, first engine with the tech in commercial service.
2. High Mach # compressor.
3. Enhanced variable cycle tech. For certain the variable turbine cooling of the LEAP. I see actuators being bought for more, but I do not know the specifics.
4. Far more cooling systems than I've ever seen. The turbine clearance control is two generations ahead of anything I've ever seen. In fact, it is was Lefebvre (one of the great chief engineers of engine design) presented in 1995 to graduate students (me), GE, Pratt, and RR. Apparently another grad student listened and made sure this happened. The problem for me is which of my three grad school friends who attended that lecture made it happen. And which of Lefebvre's variable cycle ideas..
5. Low turbine tech. See LEAP-1B and take it a generation forward. Traditionally, I have been a fan of Pratt being the leader here, but GE stole the right Pratt people. See the incredible efficiency bump of the PW1100G with the low turbine enhancement.
6. Fan blade tip Mach number, without a GTF a required tech for installing the low turbine tech. You get one guess why Pratt is so far behind in this tech.
7. Enhanced materials in combustor (less cooling air)
8. Finally imitating Pratt in modeling airflow through the whole engine. Engines are a system and tweaking how air flows from:
a. Low compressor to high, the GE-90 and TrentXWB botched this to the tune of 1 to 1.5% system fuel burn. Hint, the director if Pratt engine development warned of this botch with the PW6000 early in his carrier. I'm quite certain Steve will never allow this to happen again.
b. High compressor to pre-diffuser. GE was always good at this, modern modeling has allowed a nice fuel efficiency increase.
c. High turbine to low turbine. Seriously, compared to Pratt the LEAP and Txwb are amateur hour here. Seriously? Pratt has only been mocking GE and RR on this since Pratt won the F119 vs. F120 clearly on this tech. I only mention military for the clear' this tech is awesome!' timeframe.

But the people who focus on component efficiency do not get how to maximize system efficiency. 'How can the engine burn 2% less fuel by making the low compressor 1/4% less efficient?'. Because that makes the high compressor and pre-diffuser that much more efficient... Sigh...

Then there are a bunch of little technologies GE is just good at such as pre-diffuserss and shorter combustors. Not to mention fans. GE invests more in fan design because they are the least ready for GTFs. Oops.

The Mach numbers in the high compressor still are not at what that one lecture discussed. That is because bearings and seals are not there (see PW1100G issues).

I like how people who don't understand the internals of an engine mock me. Everything I listed is a generation ahead. Everything presents risk being a generation ahead. That means the first flight delay when risk is realized.

I haven't yet begun to discuss what wing efficiency is enabled by folding wing tips. I could do a wing with 4% better L/D than the A350 wing, but only with the aspect ratio. At least I wouldn't do it without that extension to mitigate the risks. Nor have I discussed Boeing's latest take on electrical subsystems. I'm still scratching my head

I work aerospace R&D. I've been exposed to a lot. If you need an example of when adding weight improves a product, see A330NEO (extended wingspan that is heavy and much heavier engines)

Lightsaber


I don't recall anyone ever mocking you. Great discussion of the multiple technology paths the engine companies are taking. None of them are capable of owning the whole technology space so they all focus on the subset they can move forward of the pack with.

I agree that the bleeding edge can cause a lot of problems. I work in the IT sector and have many painful experiences of new technology causing massive disruption, and not in a good way. Fortunately you don't kill anyone if your new technology fails when it doesn't move from ground level.

IIRC when the GE90 first appeared it had numerous problems too but they were managed carefully and the GE90 is now highly reliable and respected engine. Without it the 777 would not have been the success it was.

Maybe this is not the time to be taking any risks, though.
 
musman9853
Posts: 734
Joined: Mon May 14, 2018 12:30 pm

Re: Rumour: 777X First Flight Likely Delayed to Year End Due GE9X Issues

Tue Jun 11, 2019 1:53 am

SFOtoORD wrote:
keesje wrote:
If GE invested so much in the GE9x there would pressure to get significant ROI and the 777X program, as it looks now, won't offer that. Probably they will go for a GENX upgrade using new technology, to become available around 2025, like the geared Ultrafan.


Can you explain the logic of your post or some data to back it up? I don’t follow the point.


ge's spending a lot to develop the tech in th ege9x, they'll likely want to bring that tech to other engines like for the 787
Welcome to the City Beautiful.
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Moderator
Posts: 17659
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

Re: 777X First Flight Delayed to Year End Due GE9X Issues

Tue Jun 11, 2019 2:22 am

Revelation wrote:
Chaostheory wrote:
lightsaber wrote:

RR simplifies engines to reduce development cost, reduce development time, and reduce overhaul costs. These simplified engines burn more fuel. E.g., GENx vs. T1000. Not enough to stop sales, but there is a cost.

Lightsaber


Wrong here too.

Trent 1000 has much lower takeoff and climb burn, no difference in cruise and only slightly higher idle fuel burn.

Better send that info on to AirNZ, they just kicked T1000 to the kerb because GEnX could deliver more range.

Trent does have lower takeoff and climb fuel burn. Data I've seen, GE has 2% lower cruise fuel burn, equal fuel consumption at 4000nm.

GE has longer overhaul intervals, but less than 10k in practice. Much longer than RR if flying into highly polluted cities right now.

No engines are ever identical. If RR matched or burnt less fuel at all stages, early sales would have been better.

The GEnX has slightly more range, for a given payload.

I fully expect half of the new GE9x tech to make it's way into the GEnX.

The T700 outsold the CF6 on the A330 for good reason. Just as the smaller diameter CF6 outsold the RB211.

The GE is winning on maintenance and payload at range on the 787, but the competition continues.

But this is a GE9x thread. A complicated and risky engine. I believe an engine that will sell very well. But it looks like risk has been realized in a time delay.

Lightsaber
IM messages to mods on warnings and bans will be ignored and nasty ones will result in a ban.
 
DenverTed
Posts: 238
Joined: Wed Mar 27, 2019 11:12 pm

Re: Rumour: 777X First Flight Likely Delayed to Year End Due GE9X Issues

Tue Jun 11, 2019 2:42 am

keesje wrote:
If GE invested so much in the GE9x there would pressure to get significant ROI and the 777X program, as it looks now, won't offer that. Probably they will go for a GENX upgrade using new technology, to become available around 2025, like the geared Ultrafan.

2025 for the geared Ultrafan? I thought there was no way Boeing/CFM could deliver 2025 for the NMA? How's the Ultrafan do it then?
I think a 2030 EIS on the Ultrafan is more realistic. Gives the 777 burrito supreme a window. I don't think it will sell in huge numbers, but 500 seems plausible.
 
User avatar
gatibosgru
Posts: 1513
Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2007 2:48 pm

Re: 777X First Flight Delayed to Year End Due GE9X Issues

Tue Jun 11, 2019 2:42 am

Looking forward to seeing it in the air!
@DadCelo
 
Chaostheory
Posts: 1134
Joined: Wed Mar 06, 2013 2:09 am

Re: 777X First Flight Delayed to Year End Due GE9X Issues

Tue Jun 11, 2019 3:09 am

lightsaber wrote:
Revelation wrote:
Chaostheory wrote:

Wrong here too.

Trent 1000 has much lower takeoff and climb burn, no difference in cruise and only slightly higher idle fuel burn.

Better send that info on to AirNZ, they just kicked T1000 to the kerb because GEnX could deliver more range.

Trent does have lower takeoff and climb fuel burn. Data I've seen, GE has 2% lower cruise fuel burn, equal fuel consumption at 4000nm.

GE has longer overhaul intervals, but less than 10k in practice. Much longer than RR if flying into highly polluted cities right now.

No engines are ever identical. If RR matched or burnt less fuel at all stages, early sales would have been better.

The GEnX has slightly more range, for a given payload.

I fully expect half of the new GE9x tech to make it's way into the GEnX.

The T700 outsold the CF6 on the A330 for good reason. Just as the smaller diameter CF6 outsold the RB211.

The GE is winning on maintenance and payload at range on the 787, but the competition continues.

But this is a GE9x thread. A complicated and risky engine. I believe an engine that will sell very well. But it looks like risk has been realized in a time delay.

Lightsaber


You brought the T1000 and GEnx-1 into this discussion.

I'm referring to llp cycle limits not shop visits for overhaul and performance restoration. The two don't go hand in hand. That was clear. You are an engine guy right?

Whichever way you look at it, cycle limits for LLPs or EGT deterioration, the Trent loses.

No cruise advantage to the GEnx-1. For an 8 hour sector, the trip fuel difference would be less than 3 digits. In other words, it's not even worth mentioning. I've verified that by double checking our performance planning manual from Boeing flight ops engineering against the numbers I have from Ethiopian, BA and Qatar.
 
smartplane
Posts: 1024
Joined: Fri Aug 03, 2018 9:23 pm

Re: 777X First Flight Delayed to Year End Due GE9X Issues

Tue Jun 11, 2019 4:08 am

Chaostheory wrote:
lightsaber wrote:

RR simplifies engines to reduce development cost, reduce development time, and reduce overhaul costs. These simplified engines burn more fuel. E.g., GENx vs. T1000. Not enough to stop sales, but there is a cost.

Lightsaber


Wrong here too.

Trent 1000 has much lower takeoff and climb burn, no difference in cruise and only slightly higher idle fuel burn.

One difference is in PBTH / prepaid maintenance. RR is harsher on 'exceptional use' penalties, which make it less likely if EK proceed with the 787, it will be RR powered. However, RR will fix prices for longer. Most GE engine maintenance plans are 1-3 years (5 years is the exception), then re-priced rollovers. In contrast, RR will fix flat 10-12 years (14 for EK).
 
justloveplanes
Posts: 985
Joined: Thu Jul 08, 2004 5:38 am

Re: 777X First Flight Delayed to Year End Due GE9X Issues

Tue Jun 11, 2019 4:13 am

Chaostheory wrote:
lightsaber wrote:
Revelation wrote:
Better send that info on to AirNZ, they just kicked T1000 to the kerb because GEnX could deliver more range.

Trent does have lower takeoff and climb fuel burn. Data I've seen, GE has 2% lower cruise fuel burn, equal fuel consumption at 4000nm.

GE has longer overhaul intervals, but less than 10k in practice. Much longer than RR if flying into highly polluted cities right now.

No engines are ever identical. If RR matched or burnt less fuel at all stages, early sales would have been better.

The GEnX has slightly more range, for a given payload.

I fully expect half of the new GE9x tech to make it's way into the GEnX.

The T700 outsold the CF6 on the A330 for good reason. Just as the smaller diameter CF6 outsold the RB211.

The GE is winning on maintenance and payload at range on the 787, but the competition continues.

But this is a GE9x thread. A complicated and risky engine. I believe an engine that will sell very well. But it looks like risk has been realized in a time delay.

Lightsaber


You brought the T1000 and GEnx-1 into this discussion.

I'm referring to llp cycle limits not shop visits for overhaul and performance restoration. The two don't go hand in hand. That was clear. You are an engine guy right?

Whichever way you look at it, cycle limits for LLPs or EGT deterioration, the Trent loses.

No cruise advantage to the GEnx-1. For an 8 hour sector, the trip fuel difference would be less than 3 digits. In other words, it's not even worth mentioning. I've verified that by double checking our performance planning manual from Boeing flight ops engineering against the numbers I have from Ethiopian, BA and Qatar.


Your data agrees with lightsaber's or close to it. 4000nm at 8 hours is 500 knots or about 575mph... about the cruising speed of a 787. It would appear then, that the Trent is better below this Mark and the GE better above it. How much the change is away from this transition point is an interesting thing....
 
Chaostheory
Posts: 1134
Joined: Wed Mar 06, 2013 2:09 am

Re: 777X First Flight Delayed to Year End Due GE9X Issues

Tue Jun 11, 2019 4:32 am

justloveplanes wrote:
Your data agrees with lightsaber's or close to it. 4000nm at 8 hours is 500 knots or about 575mph... about the cruising speed of a 787. It would appear then, that the Trent is better below this Mark and the GE better above it. How much the change is away from this transition point is an interesting thing....


As I said, the difference is negligible and it doesn't diverge. The longest sectors I compared were against BA's South America sectors which can exceed 14 hours.

I don't know of any airline where 787 engine selection has boiled down to fuel consumption. It just isn't a factor.

When did a.netters become so one-dimensional?
 
justloveplanes
Posts: 985
Joined: Thu Jul 08, 2004 5:38 am

Re: Rumour: 777X First Flight Likely Delayed to Year End Due GE9X Issues

Tue Jun 11, 2019 5:27 am

I am not saying fuel burn is the only factor. I was just pointing out the datum in question that was raised (8 hours / 4K nm) was convergent. Your point of there not being a difference at 14 hours is new and interesting info.
 
downdata
Posts: 550
Joined: Wed Feb 17, 2016 2:38 am

Re: Rumour: 777X First Flight Likely Delayed to Year End Due GE9X Issues

Tue Jun 11, 2019 5:31 am

What does fuel burn or Genx or RR have anything to do with the GE9X issues?
 
marcelh
Posts: 638
Joined: Wed Jun 19, 2013 12:43 pm

Re: Rumour: 777X First Flight Likely Delayed to Year End Due GE9X Issues

Tue Jun 11, 2019 6:05 am

downdata wrote:
What does fuel burn or Genx or RR have anything to do with the GE9X issues?

Probably trying to deviate from the rumors about the GE9X issues, I guess. I only hope that the 779 flies asap.
 
Checklist787
Posts: 156
Joined: Sat Jun 01, 2019 2:37 am

Re: Rumour: 777X First Flight Likely Delayed to Year End Due GE9X Issues

Tue Jun 11, 2019 6:55 am

keesje wrote:
If GE invested so much in the GE9x there would pressure to get significant ROI and the 777X program, as it looks now, won't offer that.


GE and Boeing already offer a significant Roi as the market has chosen the Boeing 777X / GE9X tandem.

keesje wrote:
Probably they will go for a GENX upgrade using new technology, to become available around 2025, like the geared Ultrafan.


Ultra Fan will not be available in 2025, but rather 2029-2030.

It's a very long time ... :roll:

marcelh wrote:

Probably trying to deviate from the rumors about the GE9X issues, I guess. I only hope that the 779 flies asap.


We only hope that reliability will be there. It is the most important. Given the gloomy news of his last months

Airlines will wait
Last edited by Checklist787 on Tue Jun 11, 2019 7:07 am, edited 1 time in total.
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 13783
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

Re: 777X First Flight Delayed to Year End Due GE9X Issues

Tue Jun 11, 2019 7:14 am

lightsaber wrote:
Ok, I'll update first major use if CMCs in the turbine. Yes, CMCs as coatings have been forever.

But what parts, other than ciatings or guide swirlers?

It happens the turbine CMCs are a milestone the industry has been waiting for 35 years.

That is a major leap forward.


I was working with PMCs, MMCs, CMCs, weaving and stitching in the 1980s. This is not some new technology that has only just arisen recently.

Image

In the mid 1990s Safran used SEPCARBINOXR A262 and CERASEPR A300 on the M88-2 engine. They went on to make mixers, nozzles, combustor liners (from CERASEP A410/A415). In early 2000s Japan was building CMC combustor and turbine blades. I know CMC nozzles and turbine shrouds have flown on the Trent 800.

RR developed dual wall CMC turbine blades as part of the FAA CLEEN program ( https://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/he ... r_2014.pdf ), the same program that GE developed TAPS under.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
User avatar
LAX772LR
Posts: 12293
Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2014 11:06 pm

Re: 777X First Flight Delayed to Year End Due GE9X Issues

Tue Jun 11, 2019 7:32 am

lightsaber wrote:
I haven't yet begun to discuss what wing efficiency is enabled by folding wing tips

Interesting, like what? Would love to know more.


PW100 wrote:
Missed one . . .

Olympus?


keesje wrote:
than put all your money on 1 horse. That isn't winning the hearts everywhere so far. E.g. US.

Sincerely doubt Boeing ever expected the aircraft to be much of a seller, if at all, with US airlines..... *maybe* replacing AA/UA's 77Ws some 20yrs down the road, but that's about the foreseeable extent of it.
I myself, suspect a more prosaic motive... ~Thranduil
 
User avatar
BlueSky1976
Posts: 1876
Joined: Tue Jul 20, 2004 9:18 am

Re: 777X First Flight Delayed to Year End Due GE9X Issues

Tue Jun 11, 2019 9:00 am

LAX772LR wrote:
Sincerely doubt Boeing ever expected the aircraft to be much of a seller, if at all, with US airlines..... *maybe* replacing AA/UA's 77Ws some 20yrs down the road, but that's about the foreseeable extent of it.


If Boeing didn't expect the aircraft to be "much of a seller", it wouldn't start the program. It's got a reasonably healthy backlog with just the beginning of the 777-300ER replacement cycle. The loss of Etihad won't hurt much. I'd expect more sales to come in the next 5 - 10 years, once current orders are delivered. I'm sure that at least 400 - 500 of 777X family aircraft will end up being delivered over its lifespan (don't forget that some of those will eventually replace A380s and passenger 747-8s).

It's sad that "6 month delay" is the new norm, though...
Tarriffs are taxes. Taxation is theft. You are not entitled to anything.
If it's a Boeing, I'm not going.
 
User avatar
BoeingVista
Posts: 1983
Joined: Mon Jan 12, 2009 9:54 am

Re: 777X First Flight Delayed to Year End Due GE9X Issues

Tue Jun 11, 2019 9:10 am

lightsaber wrote:

Trent does have lower takeoff and climb fuel burn. Data I've seen, GE has 2% lower cruise fuel burn, equal fuel consumption at 4000nm.

GE has longer overhaul intervals, but less than 10k in practice. Much longer than RR if flying into highly polluted cities right now.

No engines are ever identical. If RR matched or burnt less fuel at all stages, early sales would have been better.

The GEnX has slightly more range, for a given payload.

I fully expect half of the new GE9x tech to make it's way into the GEnX.

The T700 outsold the CF6 on the A330 for good reason. Just as the smaller diameter CF6 outsold the RB211.

The GE is winning on maintenance and payload at range on the 787, but the competition continues.

But this is a GE9x thread. A complicated and risky engine. I believe an engine that will sell very well. But it looks like risk has been realized in a time delay.

Lightsaber


OK, well this is a great OT argument Lightsaber, but back to the actual problem with the GE9X, what is it and how long do you think it will take to resolve?..
BV
 
Max Q
Posts: 7543
Joined: Wed May 09, 2001 12:40 pm

Re: 777X First Flight Delayed to Year End Due GE9X Issues

Tue Jun 11, 2019 9:21 am

Chaostheory wrote:
ikolkyo wrote:
Revelation wrote:
Better send that info on to AirNZ, they just kicked T1000 to the kerb because GEnX could deliver more range.


Better tell all the other airlines that went GE too, there is a reason they are the leading engine on the 787.


Airlines don't play Top Trumps.

The RB211 on the 757 burns anywhere from 4-8% more than the Pratt (depending on mods) yet it still had more customers. The GTF on the neo has an appreciable fuel burn advantage over the leap which will widen when the PIPs become available in the next 12-18 months, yet the leap to my knowledge is the better seller.



I find that really hard to believe, 4-8 %
more burn for the RB211 on the 757 is
a massive difference
The best contribution to safety is a competent Pilot.


Guns and the love of them by a loud minority are a malignant and deadly cancer inflicted on American society
 
tomcat
Posts: 410
Joined: Thu Sep 28, 2000 4:14 am

Re: 777X First Flight Delayed to Year End Due GE9X Issues

Tue Jun 11, 2019 9:22 am

BoeingVista wrote:
lightsaber wrote:

Trent does have lower takeoff and climb fuel burn. Data I've seen, GE has 2% lower cruise fuel burn, equal fuel consumption at 4000nm.

GE has longer overhaul intervals, but less than 10k in practice. Much longer than RR if flying into highly polluted cities right now.

No engines are ever identical. If RR matched or burnt less fuel at all stages, early sales would have been better.

The GEnX has slightly more range, for a given payload.

I fully expect half of the new GE9x tech to make it's way into the GEnX.

The T700 outsold the CF6 on the A330 for good reason. Just as the smaller diameter CF6 outsold the RB211.

The GE is winning on maintenance and payload at range on the 787, but the competition continues.

But this is a GE9x thread. A complicated and risky engine. I believe an engine that will sell very well. But it looks like risk has been realized in a time delay.

Lightsaber


OK, well this is a great OT argument Lightsaber, but back to the actual problem with the GE9X, what is it and how long do you think it will take to resolve?..


This thread is a non-sense. What the article posted in the opening post says is that
While Boeing and GE expect to have a fix ready soon, the first flight is likely to slip into July, if not later.


The GE9X problem is about to be solved, it will only take a few more weeks than expected, not 6 months.
 
Carmitage
Posts: 32
Joined: Tue Jan 17, 2017 1:24 pm

Re: Rumour: 777X First Flight Likely Delayed to Year End Due GE9X Issues

Tue Jun 11, 2019 9:45 am

Revelation wrote:
keesje wrote:
If GE invested so much in the GE9x there would pressure to get significant ROI and the 777X program, as it looks now, won't offer that. Probably they will go for a GENX upgrade using new technology, to become available around 2025, like the geared Ultrafan.

Some people may have made a similar comment about the GE90 a year or more before 777's first flight, and we all know how that turned out.

SFOtoORD wrote:
Can you explain the logic of your post or some data to back it up? I don’t follow the point.

You may find this link to be helpful.


Don't forget the GE90 was an absolute dog (so reliable BA used it on London to Paris, which is somewhat embarrassing for a long haul aircraft), it had sub 20% share and GE wrote off $1bn and told the market that was it. However, it wasn't and GE could either write off another $1bn (which would have messed up McNerney's chances of succeeding Jack Welch) or invest another $1bn buying their way to an exclusive position onto the long range versions of the 777, which were expected to be niche products.

The resulting GE90B was an absolute gem and airlines discovered that if they didn't need the range they could load up the belly with freight and nobody wanted the mainstream 777s anymore.
 
User avatar
FrenchPotatoEye
Posts: 205
Joined: Sun Nov 12, 2017 1:20 pm

Re: Rumour: 777X First Flight Likely Delayed to Year End Due GE9X Issues

Tue Jun 11, 2019 9:45 am

Delays or not, Reuters is reporting Korean air Lines is going to order 777X and Parisian Airshow next week.
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 13016
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: 777X First Flight Delayed to Year End Due GE9X Issues

Tue Jun 11, 2019 9:54 am

tomcat wrote:
BoeingVista wrote:
lightsaber wrote:

Trent does have lower takeoff and climb fuel burn. Data I've seen, GE has 2% lower cruise fuel burn, equal fuel consumption at 4000nm.

GE has longer overhaul intervals, but less than 10k in practice. Much longer than RR if flying into highly polluted cities right now.

No engines are ever identical. If RR matched or burnt less fuel at all stages, early sales would have been better.

The GEnX has slightly more range, for a given payload.

I fully expect half of the new GE9x tech to make it's way into the GEnX.

The T700 outsold the CF6 on the A330 for good reason. Just as the smaller diameter CF6 outsold the RB211.

The GE is winning on maintenance and payload at range on the 787, but the competition continues.

But this is a GE9x thread. A complicated and risky engine. I believe an engine that will sell very well. But it looks like risk has been realized in a time delay.

Lightsaber


OK, well this is a great OT argument Lightsaber, but back to the actual problem with the GE9X, what is it and how long do you think it will take to resolve?..


This thread is a non-sense. What the article posted in the opening post says is that
While Boeing and GE expect to have a fix ready soon, the first flight is likely to slip into July, if not later.


The GE9X problem is about to be solved, it will only take a few more weeks than expected, not 6 months.


I think there are signs (Muilenburg, Zeke, Avweek) from multiple angles. If you need wait for Boeing to state officially (kicking, screaming, deflecting, generalizing), you are always at least 2 months behind the deed.
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
Carmitage
Posts: 32
Joined: Tue Jan 17, 2017 1:24 pm

Re: 777X First Flight Delayed to Year End Due GE9X Issues

Tue Jun 11, 2019 10:07 am

Max Q wrote:
Chaostheory wrote:
ikolkyo wrote:

Better tell all the other airlines that went GE too, there is a reason they are the leading engine on the 787.


Airlines don't play Top Trumps.

The RB211 on the 757 burns anywhere from 4-8% more than the Pratt (depending on mods) yet it still had more customers. The GTF on the neo has an appreciable fuel burn advantage over the leap which will widen when the PIPs become available in the next 12-18 months, yet the leap to my knowledge is the better seller.



I find that really hard to believe, 4-8 %
more burn for the RB211 on the 757 is
a massive difference


The Rolls-Royce version of events is that the -535 did burn more fuel as a new engine (not sure it was as much as 4-8%), but the degradation was much less (the triple spool engine was shorter, so had less whip, reducing the wear on the abradable seals) so the fuel burn through the life of the engine was less - ie if you selected on the basis of initial fuel burn, you went for P&W; through-life, go to RR.

They also were very reliable and sat on the wing for a very long time (vs peers at the time).
 
CHRISBA35X
Posts: 74
Joined: Fri Jun 07, 2019 11:40 am

Re: Rumour: 777X First Flight Likely Delayed to Year End Due GE9X Issues

Tue Jun 11, 2019 10:08 am

I heard a whisper that TG were going to sign up for some 779Xs this year to replace their 744 and A388 fleets. Would be pretty compelling on the Europe - Aus trunk routes. Alongside the KE order it makes sense. Lets see what Paris brings.
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 13016
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: Rumour: 777X First Flight Likely Delayed to Year End Due GE9X Issues

Tue Jun 11, 2019 10:20 am

FrenchPotatoEye wrote:
Delays or not, Reuters is reporting Korean air Lines is going to order 777X and Parisian Airshow next week.


That would be a good win for Boeing. Airbus and Boeing have been competiting for the 777 replacement a Korean for a long time.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-france-airshow-orders/planemakers-race-for-wide-body-orders-in-asia-showdown-idUSKCN1TC0WI
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
User avatar
PW100
Posts: 3705
Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2002 9:17 pm

Re: 777X First Flight Delayed to Year End Due GE9X Issues

Tue Jun 11, 2019 10:48 am

LAX772LR wrote:
PW100 wrote:
Missed one . . .

Olympus?.

While I applaud you for the excellent suggestion, actually I was thinking along the lines of my username :-)
Immigration officer: "What's the purpose of your visit to the USA?" Spotter: "Shooting airliners with my Canon!"
 
Checklist787
Posts: 156
Joined: Sat Jun 01, 2019 2:37 am

Re: Rumour: 777X First Flight Likely Delayed to Year End Due GE9X Issues

Tue Jun 11, 2019 11:27 am

keesje wrote:
FrenchPotatoEye wrote:
Delays or not, Reuters is reporting Korean air Lines is going to order 777X and Parisian Airshow next week.


That would be a good win for Boeing. Airbus and Boeing have been competiting for the 777 replacement a Korean for a long time.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-france-airshow-orders/planemakers-race-for-wide-body-orders-in-asia-showdown-idUSKCN1TC0WI


Nothing surprising for me.

I have NEVER seen the 777-X as a bad seller.

The Triple 7 continues its history for me... :roll:
 
Waterbomber2
Posts: 371
Joined: Mon Feb 04, 2019 3:44 am

Re: 777X First Flight Delayed to Year End Due GE9X Issues

Tue Jun 11, 2019 12:05 pm

Max Q wrote:
Chaostheory wrote:
ikolkyo wrote:

Better tell all the other airlines that went GE too, there is a reason they are the leading engine on the 787.


Airlines don't play Top Trumps.

The RB211 on the 757 burns anywhere from 4-8% more than the Pratt (depending on mods) yet it still had more customers. The GTF on the neo has an appreciable fuel burn advantage over the leap which will widen when the PIPs become available in the next 12-18 months, yet the leap to my knowledge is the better seller.



I find that really hard to believe, 4-8 %
more burn for the RB211 on the 757 is
a massive difference


Yeah but the RB211 are more powerful, more durable, more reliable and easier to maintain.
 
Waterbomber2
Posts: 371
Joined: Mon Feb 04, 2019 3:44 am

Re: Rumour: 777X First Flight Likely Delayed to Year End Due GE9X Issues

Tue Jun 11, 2019 12:07 pm

CHRISBA35X wrote:
I heard a whisper that TG were going to sign up for some 779Xs this year to replace their 744 and A388 fleets. Would be pretty compelling on the Europe - Aus trunk routes. Alongside the KE order it makes sense. Lets see what Paris brings.


It always starts with whispers, so you should get that checked.

Can you see what's whispering at you? :ghost:
 
musman9853
Posts: 734
Joined: Mon May 14, 2018 12:30 pm

Re: Rumour: 777X First Flight Likely Delayed to Year End Due GE9X Issues

Tue Jun 11, 2019 1:00 pm

FrenchPotatoEye wrote:
Delays or not, Reuters is reporting Korean air Lines is going to order 777X and Parisian Airshow next week.


this might be the first airshow where the only orders boeing gets are widebody orders
Welcome to the City Beautiful.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 20883
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Rumour: 777X First Flight Likely Delayed to Year End Due GE9X Issues

Tue Jun 11, 2019 1:03 pm

Carmitage wrote:
Don't forget the GE90 was an absolute dog (so reliable BA used it on London to Paris, which is somewhat embarrassing for a long haul aircraft), it had sub 20% share and GE wrote off $1bn and told the market that was it. However, it wasn't and GE could either write off another $1bn (which would have messed up McNerney's chances of succeeding Jack Welch) or invest another $1bn buying their way to an exclusive position onto the long range versions of the 777, which were expected to be niche products.

The resulting GE90B was an absolute gem and airlines discovered that if they didn't need the range they could load up the belly with freight and nobody wanted the mainstream 777s anymore.

Agreed, the problem child ended up being a major star, which supports my point that one should not rush to judge so early in the game.

FrenchPotatoEye wrote:
Delays or not, Reuters is reporting Korean air Lines is going to order 777X and Parisian Airshow next week.

CHRISBA35X wrote:
I heard a whisper that TG were going to sign up for some 779Xs this year to replace their 744 and A388 fleets. Would be pretty compelling on the Europe - Aus trunk routes. Alongside the KE order it makes sense. Lets see what Paris brings.

Add that to the rumor about China interested in 100 787/777X (which obviously will take a while to sort out due to current circumstances, yet in the end IMO will happen) and it should be an interesting buying season.
Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world
The heart has its beaches, its homeland and thoughts of its own
Wake now, discover that you are the song that the morning brings
The heart has its seasons, its evenings and songs of its own
 
marcelh
Posts: 638
Joined: Wed Jun 19, 2013 12:43 pm

Re: Rumour: 777X First Flight Likely Delayed to Year End Due GE9X Issues

Tue Jun 11, 2019 4:31 pm

Reading a lot of comments, I get the impression that the 779 won’t sell. If an airline needs the capacity and is able to fill it, they will buy the plane. And how “superior” it will be to the A35K remains to be seen. Time will tell.
 
Checklist787
Posts: 156
Joined: Sat Jun 01, 2019 2:37 am

Re: Rumour: 777X First Flight Likely Delayed to Year End Due GE9X Issues

Tue Jun 11, 2019 4:51 pm

Revelation wrote:

FrenchPotatoEye wrote:
Delays or not, Reuters is reporting Korean air Lines is going to order 777X and Parisian Airshow next week.

CHRISBA35X wrote:
I heard a whisper that TG were going to sign up for some 779Xs this year to replace their 744 and A388 fleets. Would be pretty compelling on the Europe - Aus trunk routes. Alongside the KE order it makes sense. Lets see what Paris brings.

Add that to the rumor about China interested in 100 787/777X (which obviously will take a while to sort out due to current circumstances, yet in the end IMO will happen) and it should be an interesting buying season.


And Iran Air who wanted to order 15 777-X and 15 777-300ER then been boycotted.

Anyway the 777-X arouses a strong interest... :roll:
Last edited by Checklist787 on Tue Jun 11, 2019 5:03 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 20883
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Rumour: 777X First Flight Likely Delayed to Year End Due GE9X Issues

Tue Jun 11, 2019 4:52 pm

marcelh wrote:
Reading a lot of comments, I get the impression that the 779 won’t sell. If an airline needs the capacity and is able to fill it, they will buy the plane. And how “superior” it will be to the A35K remains to be seen. Time will tell.

Thing is, blue chip carriers like BA, CX, QR and EY have found room for both in their fleets, so it doesn't seem to be an "either/or" proposition.
Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world
The heart has its beaches, its homeland and thoughts of its own
Wake now, discover that you are the song that the morning brings
The heart has its seasons, its evenings and songs of its own
 
Carmitage
Posts: 32
Joined: Tue Jan 17, 2017 1:24 pm

Re: Rumour: 777X First Flight Likely Delayed to Year End Due GE9X Issues

Tue Jun 11, 2019 6:20 pm

Revelation wrote:
marcelh wrote:
Reading a lot of comments, I get the impression that the 779 won’t sell. If an airline needs the capacity and is able to fill it, they will buy the plane. And how “superior” it will be to the A35K remains to be seen. Time will tell.

Thing is, blue chip carriers like BA, CX, QR and EY have found room for both in their fleets, so it doesn't seem to be an "either/or" proposition.


Agreed - the minimum economic number of a wide body type in a fleet seems to be decreasing - maybe 10 for the A380 and 10-20 for other types - as pilots tend to single routes (?) so the pilot pool is less of a problem. Presumably with long term service agreements, this becomes even easier as the maintenance issues are covered by a monthly cheque rather than having to maintain the skill base to look after multiple types. Contrasts with NB, where it seems like 200 or so seem to be required (i.e. a total fleet of over 400).

I suspect that LTSAs also make swapping engine types (Emirates on the A380, ANZ on the 787) much easier too - is there any pilot training required to fly a Trent 1000 engine 787 or a GEnx one?
 
stephanwintner
Posts: 79
Joined: Thu Jan 03, 2019 5:04 pm

Re: 777X First Flight Delayed to Year End Due GE9X Issues

Tue Jun 11, 2019 6:49 pm

lightsaber wrote:

2. CF-34 (first 'high bypass')


Lightsaber, Um, TF-39 first ran in 1964, TF34/CF34 first run is 1971. I'd always regarded TF39 as the "first high bypass", which led for the CF6 first models and the JT9D a couple years later. (Granted, I got those dates from Wikipedia).

Can you clarify ? Why is the CF34 on your list and the TF39 not on your list ?

Stephan
 
GoSharks
Posts: 121
Joined: Mon Nov 02, 2015 3:23 am

Re: 777X First Flight Delayed to Year End Due GE9X Issues

Tue Jun 11, 2019 7:04 pm

BlueSky1976 wrote:
LAX772LR wrote:
Sincerely doubt Boeing ever expected the aircraft to be much of a seller, if at all, with US airlines..... *maybe* replacing AA/UA's 77Ws some 20yrs down the road, but that's about the foreseeable extent of it.


If Boeing didn't expect the aircraft to be "much of a seller", it wouldn't start the program.

You missed "with US airlines."
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Moderator
Posts: 17659
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

Re: 777X First Flight Delayed to Year End Due GE9X Issues

Tue Jun 11, 2019 7:15 pm

stephanwintner wrote:
lightsaber wrote:

2. CF-34 (first 'high bypass')


Lightsaber, Um, TF-39 first ran in 1964, TF34/CF34 first run is 1971. I'd always regarded TF39 as the "first high bypass", which led for the CF6 first models and the JT9D a couple years later. (Granted, I got those dates from Wikipedia).

Can you clarify ? Why is the CF34 on your list and the TF39 not on your list ?

Stephan

Mistake on my part. Fist commercially successful high bypass.

Anyway, everyone has a different list.

Lightsaber
IM messages to mods on warnings and bans will be ignored and nasty ones will result in a ban.
 
9Patch
Posts: 308
Joined: Wed Mar 13, 2019 10:38 pm

Re: Rumour: 777X First Flight Likely Delayed to Year End Due GE9X Issues

Tue Jun 11, 2019 8:57 pm

marcelh wrote:
Reading a lot of comments, I get the impression that the 779 won’t sell. If an airline needs the capacity and is able to fill it, they will buy the plane. And how “superior” it will be to the A35K remains to be seen. Time will tell.

With the demise of the A380 program the 777X is the only passenger VLA on the market.
That should be good for a few more sales.
 
User avatar
Dutchy
Posts: 9468
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 1:25 am

Re: Rumour: 777X First Flight Likely Delayed to Year End Due GE9X Issues

Tue Jun 11, 2019 9:05 pm

What's up with engine manufactures lately, seems that every new model has issue's with the new engines and even got delayed.
Many happy landings, greetings from The Netherlands!
 
smartplane
Posts: 1024
Joined: Fri Aug 03, 2018 9:23 pm

Re: Rumour: 777X First Flight Likely Delayed to Year End Due GE9X Issues

Tue Jun 11, 2019 9:13 pm

Perhaps another reason for a delay, is review of FAA compliance maturity accorded to Boeing, which underpins the level of self-approval for the MAX and X? Required / actual processes for the MAX are being traced from inception to now, and have already extended to the NG. Seems likely the X will be included, and Boeing will be keen not to link MAX and X, so attribute to GE? Silver lining, is GE have more time to make other improvements.
 
User avatar
zkojq
Posts: 3762
Joined: Fri Sep 02, 2011 12:42 am

Re: Rumour: 777X First Flight Likely Delayed to Year End Due GE9X Issues

Tue Jun 11, 2019 10:23 pm

marcelh wrote:
Reading a lot of comments, I get the impression that the 779 won’t sell. If an airline needs the capacity and is able to fill it, they will buy the plane. And how “superior” it will be to the A35K remains to be seen. Time will tell.


Agreed. For nearly all missions, the 787-10 is a far superior platform. Boeing has optimised the 777-9 for ULH ops, so on shorter routes the 787-10 has much better economics. Even more so if there is substance to the 6t extra MTOW bump.
First to fly the 787-9
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 7

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos