musman9853
Posts: 777
Joined: Mon May 14, 2018 12:30 pm

Re: Reuters: Tim Clark: won't take new planes unless engines are truly ready

Tue Sep 10, 2019 7:06 pm

Spetsnaz55 wrote:
Rumor mill is Emirates will defer about half their 777x orders for 787 planes


makes sense. defer the 77x for a380 replacement later in the decade. in the meanwhile take the smaller, more efficient plane.
Welcome to the City Beautiful.
 
patrickjp93
Posts: 136
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2019 12:00 pm

Re: Reuters: Tim Clark: won't take new planes unless engines are truly ready

Tue Sep 10, 2019 7:10 pm

musman9853 wrote:
Spetsnaz55 wrote:
Rumor mill is Emirates will defer about half their 777x orders for 787 planes


makes sense. defer the 77x for a380 replacement later in the decade. in the meanwhile take the smaller, more efficient plane.


Not really. Axe the older, underperforming A380s from their underperforming routes as early as possible with 777Xs, while taking on smaller planes that can take the place of the 777-300ERs on THEIR underperforming routes.
 
musman9853
Posts: 777
Joined: Mon May 14, 2018 12:30 pm

Re: Reuters: Tim Clark: won't take new planes unless engines are truly ready

Tue Sep 10, 2019 7:14 pm

patrickjp93 wrote:
musman9853 wrote:
Spetsnaz55 wrote:
Rumor mill is Emirates will defer about half their 777x orders for 787 planes


makes sense. defer the 77x for a380 replacement later in the decade. in the meanwhile take the smaller, more efficient plane.


Not really. Axe the older, underperforming A380s from their underperforming routes as early as possible with 777Xs, while taking on smaller planes that can take the place of the 777-300ERs on THEIR underperforming routes.


ideally, that would be what makes sense. but they probably cant ditch the last 15(?) on order, so they're gonna be in the fleet for a long time, with very little money to replace them.
Welcome to the City Beautiful.
 
patrickjp93
Posts: 136
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2019 12:00 pm

Re: Reuters: Tim Clark: won't take new planes unless engines are truly ready

Tue Sep 10, 2019 7:30 pm

majano wrote:
patrickjp93 wrote:
majano wrote:
How do you get to thee years from EIS based on that press release? If the 747-8 was delivered in October 2011 and that press release is October 2011, and you are basing your three years claim on the date of the press release, then 4 years is your answer? Or am I missing something?

In addition, this press release was issued a few moths before the Genx icing problems became apparent. Just to be clear, I am not saying that the Trent Xwb will not develop issues later, or even tomorrow, but I think you could have been ore generous with your facts.


The 747 engine was the 2b, not 1b. The 1b was mid 2012.

It is so disappointing that you keep providing misleading information when you seem to know better. The EIS of the 787 was October 2011 and not mid 2012 as you claim. This makes reading any of your posts a chore.


https://www.geaviation.com/press-releas ... ered-japan

Sorry, March 2012 would be EIS for the GEnx 1B, and it achieved 99.9% dispatch reliability in 3 years on GE Dreamliners.
 
majano
Posts: 135
Joined: Sun Oct 14, 2018 10:45 am

Re: Reuters: Tim Clark: won't take new planes unless engines are truly ready

Tue Sep 10, 2019 8:04 pm

patrickjp93 wrote:
majano wrote:
patrickjp93 wrote:

The 747 engine was the 2b, not 1b. The 1b was mid 2012.

It is so disappointing that you keep providing misleading information when you seem to know better. The EIS of the 787 was October 2011 and not mid 2012 as you claim. This makes reading any of your posts a chore.


https://www.geaviation.com/press-releas ... ered-japan

Sorry, March 2012 would be EIS for the GEnx 1B, and it achieved 99.9% dispatch reliability in 3 years on GE Dreamliners.

Fine. Based on this the Genx reached that milestone "in" three years, and not "within". Secondly, the icing issue is not covered by that initial period. The promising performance of the Trent Xwb might still be disrupted, but knowing what we know now, any claim of equivalent reliability between the Genx and Trent Xwb cannot be considered as genuine.
 
patrickjp93
Posts: 136
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2019 12:00 pm

Re: Reuters: Tim Clark: won't take new planes unless engines are truly ready

Tue Sep 10, 2019 8:21 pm

majano wrote:
patrickjp93 wrote:
majano wrote:
It is so disappointing that you keep providing misleading information when you seem to know better. The EIS of the 787 was October 2011 and not mid 2012 as you claim. This makes reading any of your posts a chore.


https://www.geaviation.com/press-releas ... ered-japan

Sorry, March 2012 would be EIS for the GEnx 1B, and it achieved 99.9% dispatch reliability in 3 years on GE Dreamliners.

Fine. Based on this the Genx reached that milestone "in" three years, and not "within". Secondly, the icing issue is not covered by that initial period. The promising performance of the Trent Xwb might still be disrupted, but knowing what we know now, any claim of equivalent reliability between the Genx and Trent Xwb cannot be considered as genuine.

Talk about being pedantic. Shall I bring up the mathematical definitions of in and within? Both are <= operators expressed through English.

The GEnx-1B is still at 99.9 overall now, so if you want to count total lifetimes, yes, they're equally reliable. The GEnx is just 2 years older and had a single easy fix problem. The Trent 1000 has been dogged by the same problem since its birth and miraculously is impervious to fixes. STC is rightfully wary of its younger siblings' reliability long-term. If the same problems don't show up, it would beg the question on whether RR even WANTS the T1000 to ever succeed.
 
majano
Posts: 135
Joined: Sun Oct 14, 2018 10:45 am

Re: Reuters: Tim Clark: won't take new planes unless engines are truly ready

Tue Sep 10, 2019 8:40 pm

patrickjp93 wrote:
majano wrote:
patrickjp93 wrote:

https://www.geaviation.com/press-releas ... ered-japan

Sorry, March 2012 would be EIS for the GEnx 1B, and it achieved 99.9% dispatch reliability in 3 years on GE Dreamliners.

Fine. Based on this the Genx reached that milestone "in" three years, and not "within". Secondly, the icing issue is not covered by that initial period. The promising performance of the Trent Xwb might still be disrupted, but knowing what we know now, any claim of equivalent reliability between the Genx and Trent Xwb cannot be considered as genuine.

Talk about being pedantic. Shall I bring up the mathematical definitions of in and within? Both are <= operators expressed through English.

The GEnx-1B is still at 99.9 overall now, so if you want to count total lifetimes, yes, they're equally reliable. The GEnx is just 2 years older and had a single easy fix problem. The Trent 1000 has been dogged by the same problem since its birth and miraculously is impervious to fixes. STC is rightfully wary of its younger siblings' reliability long-term. If the same problems don't show up, it would beg the question on whether RR even WANTS the T1000 to ever succeed.

This is extremely absurd. I will leave you to it.
 
strfyr51
Posts: 3887
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2012 5:04 pm

Re: Reuters: Tim Clark: won't take new planes unless engines are truly ready

Tue Sep 10, 2019 9:10 pm

From Clark's statement? Either he can't afford any new airplanes OR he's Grandstanding to Not have to take any He's ordered. Airplanes like any other Mechanical device Break every now and then. And that's WHY you need Parts and People who know how to FIX said Parts around. to keep the airplane going.. Will his CAR run without Parts and Service? Not Likely! CAN he Build an airplane that doesn't break down? NO! So why Grandstand? You don't WNT or can't afford anymore airplanes!!
Had you not shot your Wad GRANDSTANDING with the A380? You wouldn't Be in the mess you're in! You're in a sand pile that you want to be the HUB of the world and It ain't gonna happen!! You Over reached and the rubber band has snapped Back!!
 
patrickjp93
Posts: 136
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2019 12:00 pm

Re: Reuters: Tim Clark: won't take new planes unless engines are truly ready

Tue Sep 10, 2019 9:25 pm

strfyr51 wrote:
From Clark's statement? Either he can't afford any new airplanes OR he's Grandstanding to Not have to take any He's ordered. Airplanes like any other Mechanical device Break every now and then. And that's WHY you need Parts and People who know how to FIX said Parts around. to keep the airplane going.. Will his CAR run without Parts and Service? Not Likely! CAN he Build an airplane that doesn't break down? NO! So why Grandstand? You don't WNT or can't afford anymore airplanes!!
Had you not shot your Wad GRANDSTANDING with the A380? You wouldn't Be in the mess you're in! You're in a sand pile that you want to be the HUB of the world and It ain't gonna happen!! You Over reached and the rubber band has snapped Back!!

Oh DXB and SIN will remain very strong gateway hubs between Europe and SE Asia for at least 30 years. Not everyone can stand 12+ hours in Economy on a plane. Heck PER-LHR at 16:50 shoulder to shoulder with a guy furiously typing on a netbook just about had me snap. That said, he needs ways to cheaply down-gauge his underperforming A380 flights reliably or his brand will be damaged and have knock-on downward trends in addition to his already sinking profits.

The only way DXB falls apart as a hub is if EK can't keep up with its falling capacity on flights in the wake of the most premium travelers flying direct over and around the ME. ETH isn't competent enough to give them trouble, and Qatar's blockade issues will continue for the foreseeable future. Oman may also steal some traffic over time as they grow. MAS, well, not in this decade. After 2030 we'll see.

This is why I largely don't believe the rumor half of the EK 777X order will be deferred or cancelled. If anything STC will be looking to get the A330s and A350s out of his fleet shortly after they arrive to keep his maintenance and crewing costs controlled. If that means deferring some payments to Boeing and maybe some assistance in getting his A330s and A350s sold to keep his cash reserves up, I think Boeing would be happy with that deal. Heck if I were Etihad, Oman, or Malaysian I'd be offering STC 1/2 price on all of the A350s my airline can handle.
 
Aerospice
Posts: 3
Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2018 10:35 pm

Re: Reuters: Tim Clark: won't take new planes unless engines are truly ready

Tue Sep 10, 2019 10:18 pm

lightsaber wrote:
Faro wrote:
lightsaber wrote:
RR skipped high sulfer fuel testing. A standard test at Pratt. This is on RR. The sand wear is due to pushing existing compressor design rules and pushing efficiency by reducing the compressor FOD bleed. A poor design decision.

GE, CFM, and T700 set the global standards. Pratt performed hot/ high testing too late and the seal qualification wasn't specified correctly.



I am absolutely shocked by this...how on earth can a prestigious, blue chip company as RR simply skip a test that proved to be critical to endurance and reliability?...a poor design decision or late qualification testing can happen to any manufacturer, but simply skipping a development test?...incomprehensible...


Faro

I forget the year, but before sometime in the 1980s, high sulfer testing was just ordering a few tankers of LAX jet fuel (the refinery was buying high sulfer fuel), so RR may never have had a test until the EU mandated really low limits. Pratt along the way started having sulfer added to fuel per some customer's demand.

Development testing is routinely skipped as low risk. Pratt now tests RR and GE engines as a for profit service. So the team has become really good at coming up with new tests to sell customers. ;)

Lightsaber

From what I know about the T1000 IP turbine issue is that it is not related to sulphur in the fuel and is more related to atmospheric sulphate/chloride which varies depending on location. The reason the issue wasn't picked up during testing was partly due to the test bed locations as the typical test bed locations were not located in sufficiently high sulphate/chloride environments and the material qualification tests did not identify the issue.
A huge amount of work and testing has been done on the IP turbine issue to understand the degradation mechanisms, develop the fixes, produce the parts and roll out into the fleet. T1000 is still absolutely top priority within Rolls.
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Moderator
Posts: 17920
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

Re: Reuters: Tim Clark: won't take new planes unless engines are truly ready

Wed Sep 11, 2019 12:55 am

Aerospice wrote:
lightsaber wrote:
Faro wrote:


I am absolutely shocked by this...how on earth can a prestigious, blue chip company as RR simply skip a test that proved to be critical to endurance and reliability?...a poor design decision or late qualification testing can happen to any manufacturer, but simply skipping a development test?...incomprehensible...


Faro

I forget the year, but before sometime in the 1980s, high sulfer testing was just ordering a few tankers of LAX jet fuel (the refinery was buying high sulfer fuel), so RR may never have had a test until the EU mandated really low limits. Pratt along the way started having sulfer added to fuel per some customer's demand.

Development testing is routinely skipped as low risk. Pratt now tests RR and GE engines as a for profit service. So the team has become really good at coming up with new tests to sell customers. ;)

Lightsaber

From what I know about the T1000 IP turbine issue is that it is not related to sulphur in the fuel and is more related to atmospheric sulphate/chloride which varies depending on location. The reason the issue wasn't picked up during testing was partly due to the test bed locations as the typical test bed locations were not located in sufficiently high sulphate/chloride environments and the material qualification tests did not identify the issue.
A huge amount of work and testing has been done on the IP turbine issue to understand the degradation mechanisms, develop the fixes, produce the parts and roll out into the fleet. T1000 is still absolutely top priority within Rolls.

Or you can just run batches of high sulfur fuel and create the same content. The cold sections of the engine don't care about sulfur the compressors and fans are not impacted. just run test with high sulfur fuel at has the same degradation. I had a friend I can name who developed a great new thermal barrier coating that failed under high sulfur fuel testing. Eventually he found an alternate chemistry that was almost as good that was stood the high sulfur fuel.

Lightsaber
IM messages to mods on warnings and bans will be ignored and nasty ones will result in a ban.
 
Scotron12
Posts: 102
Joined: Fri Mar 01, 2019 2:13 pm

Re: Reuters: Tim Clark: won't take new planes unless engines are truly ready

Wed Sep 11, 2019 2:12 am

Aerospice wrote:
lightsaber wrote:
Faro wrote:


I am absolutely shocked by this...how on earth can a prestigious, blue chip company as RR simply skip a test that proved to be critical to endurance and reliability?...a poor design decision or late qualification testing can happen to any manufacturer, but simply skipping a development test?...incomprehensible...


Faro

I forget the year, but before sometime in the 1980s, high sulfer testing was just ordering a few tankers of LAX jet fuel (the refinery was buying high sulfer fuel), so RR may never have had a test until the EU mandated really low limits. Pratt along the way started having sulfer added to fuel per some customer's demand.

Development testing is routinely skipped as low risk. Pratt now tests RR and GE engines as a for profit service. So the team has become really good at coming up with new tests to sell customers. ;)

Lightsaber

From what I know about the T1000 IP turbine issue is that it is not related to sulphur in the fuel and is more related to atmospheric sulphate/chloride which varies depending on location. The reason the issue wasn't picked up during testing was partly due to the test bed locations as the typical test bed locations were not located in sufficiently high sulphate/chloride environments and the material qualification tests did not identify the issue.
A huge amount of work and testing has been done on the IP turbine issue to understand the degradation mechanisms, develop the fixes, produce the parts and roll out into the fleet. T1000 is still absolutely top priority within Rolls.


It's certainly costing them. Estimated £1.5Billion they have set aside thru 2020 on the fixes. So yes, the T1000 is a high priority for RR right now.
 
patrickjp93
Posts: 136
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2019 12:00 pm

Re: Reuters: Tim Clark: won't take new planes unless engines are truly ready

Wed Sep 11, 2019 2:22 am

Aerospice wrote:
From what I know about the T1000 IP turbine issue is that it is not related to sulphur in the fuel and is more related to atmospheric sulphate/chloride which varies depending on location. The reason the issue wasn't picked up during testing was partly due to the test bed locations as the typical test bed locations were not located in sufficiently high sulphate/chloride environments and the material qualification tests did not identify the issue.
A huge amount of work and testing has been done on the IP turbine issue to understand the degradation mechanisms, develop the fixes, produce the parts and roll out into the fleet. T1000 is still absolutely top priority within Rolls.


And I say that's damn irrelevant at this point. They got the materials right on the Trent 7000 and XWB, did they not? Swap the mats out touts suites and get the ETOPS back and planes back in the skies!

RR is NOT putting their best onto this. Or, if they are, they're keeping a lid on the rest of the world finding out the A330N and A350 also have this ticking time bomb of an issue.
 
jagraham
Posts: 880
Joined: Sun Jul 17, 2016 11:10 pm

Re: Reuters: Tim Clark: won't take new planes unless engines are truly ready

Wed Sep 11, 2019 5:58 am

lightsaber wrote:
patrickjp93 wrote:
lightsaber wrote:

RR has been in detailed design for a year?!? Wow, I thought they were going to do a demonstrator and then launch an engine for no earlier than 2030 EIS. Did they really pull the A team off the T1000?


The A-Team isn't on the T 1000. That's been obvious for 3 years now.

The high-level design was frozen last year. They ARE in detailed design and still targeting EIS for 2025/26. They've taken the variable pitch fan off the table for 1.0, but that's a blip and wouldn't REALLY do anything for fuel consumption. The main benefit would be roughly 1 tonne of cargo weight by removing the thrust reversers.

https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news ... ign-frozen

Hint, RR dropped the 797 as they aren't ready for 2025 EIS on a lower risk engine. Only on a.net do people seriously think a platform with great sales and an opportunity for a PiP has a business case for an engine replacement early. This is RR commiting to invest $7 to $9 billion USD to develop a new engine and nacelle.

That's what RR SAID they dropped it for. Many analysts around the industry agree that's because that lines up with when the A350 NEO would need to launch. Now, in my opinion that's to deal wit the 787 NG bolstering a GE9X derivative.

To launch the A350 NEO for that timeframe vmeana:
1. Abandoning the high end business jet market, other than the one model of the pearl, to GE and Pratt. Is RR really going to abandon that market?
2. Is RR really going to abandon major PiPs on the current product lines?
They already did on the T 1000. The TEN is the last of them. Can't say for the 7000 and XWB, but RR knows it's not going to sell a new T 1000 order other than replacements. GE has wiped the floor with them. ANZ proves that.

Engines typically make break even 15 years after EIS. For example, the JT9D was announced break even when I worked at Pratt, IIRC in 1998. Now a very profitable engine, since retired, EIS 1970. The more related engines, the better the margins. For decades, only GE had the economy of scale to sell engines out the door at a profit, but it still takes them 10 to 12 years to acheive break even. (My best estimate.)

Good thing RR has the 7000 and XWB to make that happen, but the 1000 is fried and done.

RR doesn't need to replace the engine yet. Heck, CMC PiPs of turbine blades will extend the sales life another 7 to 8 years and the current version has at least six or seven more sales years. So the current TXWB should sell well until 2033 to 2035 (with PiPs).

How is Airbus incentivising RR to fund the effort that early. Oh, upon a NEO, due process allows GE and Pratt to bid.


Wrong. By the discussion above the A350 is underselling relative to where it should because of the 787's outstanding performance on medium-duty long haul and because the 77Ws are still young to be replaced. Airbus needs a more compelling product. The A350 order books are not very well packed. If they don't pounce ahead of the 787 NG announcement, they're going to be staring down the barrel of an additional -11 stretch which wipes out their Transatlantic economics and an improved -10 which Singapore will happily gobble up. If they miss their window to regain the footing, the A350 NEO's own prospects will be in tatters.

Also wrong. Airbus is not obligated to let other OEMs bid. While Brexit may have the EU force Airbus to do so, it's immediately clear they have no intention to given the XWB's reliability and their very close relationship with RR on 2 highly successful planes in operation (sales being Airbus' fault).

Normally for a NEO engine makers demand a step improvement in the airframe. For the 77W is was structural and wing aerodynamics. For the 779 CFRP wing and folding wingtips.

This isn't the Passport to crack into a fortress market. RR will launch their GTF, err... Ultrafan, but they are not ready. They are certainly not a year into the process skipping a demonstrator as the technology proving step.

GE was full throttle on the GE-9x in 2013. By that I mean 3 years into development after doing demonstrator engines. So a start in 2010 for EIS in 2020. RR is good, but 5 to 7 years faster than GE?

Lightsaber

For the NEO it could very well be folding wingtips and a derivative of the laminar paint coating coming from BLADE, but 7-8% of the uplift is in the engine alone, with 3000lbs. of thrust higher ceiling, making the 1100 stretch a much better product too.

The Advance demonstrator already has the geared fan onboard and has tested at iirc 50,000lbs of thrust. It's already the strongest gearbox in aviation.

Your link has a ground test demonstrator in 2021. That aligns with EIS maybe in 2028. I see the quite for 2025. When that article was stated, they were preparing for the 797 which requires being ready by 2025 or automatic expulsion from the bid. RR bowed out as they could not meet the 2025 timeline:

https://markets.businessinsider.com/new ... 1027992089

So we have RR contradicting itself (normal in large organizations).

Even a 2018 EIS is risky for this level of technological change. RR hasn't tested enough on the new turbine, bearing, seal, and compressor issues that a GTF causes. Pratt spent decades and had issues. GE is almost a decade in and us delayed on issues.

If RR announced a new higher thrust pearl tomorrow, I know they worked on that long enough.. well, flight testing could start yesterday... ;)

Ultrafan? RR is starting to learn what they don't know.

On thread, as EK buys on 12 year leases, the re-engined A350 us past any bid they are looking for. EK must quickly downgauge.

I believe the rumors half the 777x will become 787s
I also believe STC isn't happy with the terms on the A339/A359. It isn't like him to negotiate in the press, so he is pushing for change.

These are big orders for already developed engines/airframes. Buy popcorn, I would bet no resolution with Airbus/RR by Dubai airshow. I would also bet the 777x/787 contract is signed by then. Or at least a new MOU. :devil:

Lightsaber



In all fairness to RR, they build the gearbox for the F35B. Which is still the most difficult gearbox in western aviation at the moment. So I think the gearbox portion is not so risky for RR.
Nevertheless, they need to have a full up engine in a test cell next year to support a 2025 EIS. Regardless of whatever improvements might be made for an A350NEO airframe.
 
patrickjp93
Posts: 136
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2019 12:00 pm

Re: Reuters: Tim Clark: won't take new planes unless engines are truly ready

Thu Sep 19, 2019 2:18 pm

jagraham wrote:

In all fairness to RR, they build the gearbox for the F35B. Which is still the most difficult gearbox in western aviation at the moment. So I think the gearbox portion is not so risky for RR.
Nevertheless, they need to have a full up engine in a test cell next year to support a 2025 EIS. Regardless of whatever improvements might be made for an A350NEO airframe.


The gearbox is already on their Advance3 demonstrator on the ground along with their new Carbon-Titanium fan. Next integration item is CMCs.
 
ewt340
Posts: 788
Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2012 7:22 pm

Re: Reuters: Tim Clark: won't take new planes unless engines are truly ready

Thu Sep 19, 2019 8:41 pm

RJMAZ wrote:
Most of us understand the biggest advantage of the hub and spoke model. It allows a small city such as Adelaide to fill a daily A380 and fly to the hub where passengers then travel to dozens of different destinations. It allows dozens of destinations to all fly in the one aircraft.

Emirates should keep this same model and do it with small widebodies and even smaller cities. It should in theory connect towns that would struggle to fill a 737. It should be in theory be able to hit small towns in Europe with populations of under 100,000. It would give them options with one less stop. An untapped market.

Saving fuel is actually pretty minor part of the hub and spoke model. Flipdewaf calculated the fuel burn saving was around 10% and fuel only makes up a fraction of the trip costs. The extra fuselage cycles and crew wages at the hub would cancel out nearly all fuel savings.

I would break Emirates routes into four parts. Thick/Thin and Short/Long

Thin routes under 4000nm = A321
Thick routes under 4000nm = 787-10
Thin routes over 4000nm = 787-8
Thick routes over 4000nm = A350/777X


Yeah no. A321 wouldn't really work for them. I do see either B787-10 or A330-900neo for regional.
And then B777-300ER and B777-9 for the rest.

I can't see them doing narrowbody on main fleet with FlyDubai doing their other work with MAXes.
 
frmrCapCadet
Posts: 3077
Joined: Thu May 29, 2008 8:24 pm

Re: Reuters: Tim Clark: won't take new planes unless engines are truly ready

Thu Sep 19, 2019 9:21 pm

When Seattle first greeted EK they had the lowest fares to much of Africa, SE Asia, and Australia. I assumed the legacies would learn to compete and this did. How much of that was EK under pricing versus the legacies learning to improve service and prices?
Buffet: the airline business...has eaten up capital...like..no other (business)
 
jagraham
Posts: 880
Joined: Sun Jul 17, 2016 11:10 pm

Re: Reuters: Tim Clark: won't take new planes unless engines are truly ready

Thu Sep 19, 2019 10:32 pm

patrickjp93 wrote:
jagraham wrote:

In all fairness to RR, they build the gearbox for the F35B. Which is still the most difficult gearbox in western aviation at the moment. So I think the gearbox portion is not so risky for RR.
Nevertheless, they need to have a full up engine in a test cell next year to support a 2025 EIS. Regardless of whatever improvements might be made for an A350NEO airframe.


The gearbox is already on their Advance3 demonstrator on the ground along with their new Carbon-Titanium fan. Next integration item is CMCs.


This progress appears great. But RR has to freeze the design - soon - to support a 2024 flight test program leading to a 2025 EIS for A359NEO.
 
patrickjp93
Posts: 136
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2019 12:00 pm

Re: Reuters: Tim Clark: won't take new planes unless engines are truly ready

Thu Sep 19, 2019 10:44 pm

jagraham wrote:
patrickjp93 wrote:
jagraham wrote:

In all fairness to RR, they build the gearbox for the F35B. Which is still the most difficult gearbox in western aviation at the moment. So I think the gearbox portion is not so risky for RR.
Nevertheless, they need to have a full up engine in a test cell next year to support a 2025 EIS. Regardless of whatever improvements might be made for an A350NEO airframe.


The gearbox is already on their Advance3 demonstrator on the ground along with their new Carbon-Titanium fan. Next integration item is CMCs.


This progress appears great. But RR has to freeze the design - soon - to support a 2024 flight test program leading to a 2025 EIS for A359NEO.


The HLD IS frozen. I had a link to that previously. The integration testing is what's already going on with Advance3. Details and fine-tuned designs won't be frozen until 2023 I'm sure.
 
jagraham
Posts: 880
Joined: Sun Jul 17, 2016 11:10 pm

Re: Reuters: Tim Clark: won't take new planes unless engines are truly ready

Fri Sep 20, 2019 1:34 am

patrickjp93 wrote:
jagraham wrote:
patrickjp93 wrote:

The gearbox is already on their Advance3 demonstrator on the ground along with their new Carbon-Titanium fan. Next integration item is CMCs.


This progress appears great. But RR has to freeze the design - soon - to support a 2024 flight test program leading to a 2025 EIS for A359NEO.


The HLD IS frozen. I had a link to that previously. The integration testing is what's already going on with Advance3. Details and fine-tuned designs won't be frozen until 2023 I'm sure.


2023 is pushing it. I can't remember a new engine getting through it's own test program and ready for flight test in less than 18 months. Still I hope RR comes through (it's the engineer in me).
 
patrickjp93
Posts: 136
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2019 12:00 pm

Re: Reuters: Tim Clark: won't take new planes unless engines are truly ready

Fri Sep 20, 2019 1:53 am

jagraham wrote:
patrickjp93 wrote:
jagraham wrote:

This progress appears great. But RR has to freeze the design - soon - to support a 2024 flight test program leading to a 2025 EIS for A359NEO.


The HLD IS frozen. I had a link to that previously. The integration testing is what's already going on with Advance3. Details and fine-tuned designs won't be frozen until 2023 I'm sure.


2023 is pushing it. I can't remember a new engine getting through it's own test program and ready for flight test in less than 18 months. Still I hope RR comes through (it's the engineer in me).


Bearing in mind all of the parts will be finalized and most of the parameters and behaviors will have been measured at least once by then, 18 months to me seems like a lot of time. You can be performing tests every single day and crunch the bodies of data in parallel.
 
jagraham
Posts: 880
Joined: Sun Jul 17, 2016 11:10 pm

Re: Reuters: Tim Clark: won't take new planes unless engines are truly ready

Fri Sep 20, 2019 2:01 am

patrickjp93 wrote:
jagraham wrote:
patrickjp93 wrote:

The HLD IS frozen. I had a link to that previously. The integration testing is what's already going on with Advance3. Details and fine-tuned designs won't be frozen until 2023 I'm sure.


2023 is pushing it. I can't remember a new engine getting through it's own test program and ready for flight test in less than 18 months. Still I hope RR comes through (it's the engineer in me).


Bearing in mind all of the parts will be finalized and most of the parameters and behaviors will have been measured at least once by then, 18 months to me seems like a lot of time. You can be performing tests every single day and crunch the bodies of data in parallel.



There is a lot of chamber time (and probably only one chamber that can handle an XWB sized engine unless Rolls wants to rent from competitors), and a lot of flight time that is necessary for a new engine. A derivative can take shortcuts, but a new engine has to do the whole checklist. Yes, 18 months - if RR hurries, and nothing goes wrong. I would suggest 24 to 30 months to allow time to fix something (ala GE9X, whose stator vane problem is about as benign a problem as it gets inside an engine, and is still costing them about 6 months).
 
patrickjp93
Posts: 136
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2019 12:00 pm

Re: Reuters: Tim Clark: won't take new planes unless engines are truly ready

Fri Sep 20, 2019 2:11 am

jagraham wrote:
There is a lot of chamber time (and probably only one chamber that can handle an XWB sized engine unless Rolls wants to rent from competitors), and a lot of flight time that is necessary for a new engine. A derivative can take shortcuts, but a new engine has to do the whole checklist. Yes, 18 months - if RR hurries, and nothing goes wrong. I would suggest 24 to 30 months to allow time to fix something (ala GE9X, whose stator vane problem is about as benign a problem as it gets inside an engine, and is still costing them about 6 months).


Pretty sure the repaired GE9Xs are ready to ship back to Boeing (the original source is an industry analyst with a pretty flawless record), so more like 6 weeks.

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