Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
User avatar
garpd
Posts: 2557
Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2005 9:29 am

RE: RR Having Massiv Problems With Their 747 RB-211?

Fri Aug 19, 2005 6:04 pm

Quoting CV747 (Reply 49):

Yes, You missed Cargolux.
they choses the RR because they burn less fuel and are supposed to be more efficient. Cargolux seems to have problems with the engines. It's even gone so far that the mechanics nick name the RR = Rotating Rubish...

Can we get a source for all the wild rumours you are spending.

To me it seems you've seen that one photo with a Cargolux 747 ferrying on 3 engines and immediately jumped to conclusions.
arpdesign.wordpress.com
 
SA7700
Posts: 2930
Joined: Thu Dec 18, 2003 9:38 pm

RE: RR Having Massiv Problems With Their 747 RB-211?

Fri Aug 19, 2005 6:14 pm

Thanks ZSOFN, I appreciate it!


Rgds

SA7700
When you are doing stuff that nobody has done before, there is no manual – Kevin McCloud (Grand Designs)
 
CV747
Topic Author
Posts: 166
Joined: Wed Jan 26, 2000 11:23 pm

RE: RR Having Massiv Problems With Their 747 RB-211?

Fri Aug 19, 2005 6:18 pm

Quoting GARPD (Reply 50):
Can we get a source for all the wild rumours you are spending.

To me it seems you've seen that one photo with a Cargolux 747 ferrying on 3 engines and immediately jumped to conclusions.

To be honest, I don't care what it seems to you. I have this info from an insider at the Cargolux Maintenance department. That picture is a co-incident. Ferry flights with 3 engines are nothing new.
 
kiwiandrew

RE: RR Having Massiv Problems With Their 747 RB-211?

Fri Aug 19, 2005 6:32 pm

Quoting CV747 (Reply 52):
To be honest, I don't care what it seems to you. I have this info from an insider at the Cargolux Maintenance department.

your original post made it sound as though a number of operators are having major problems - but your most recent post makes it clear that the only basis you have for your assertions is from a single person at a single airline ( and not one of the bigger operators of the RB211 either ) I don't think you should be surprised ( or offended ) if some members are a little skeptical of your claims without more evidence to back them up - perhaps you could be a bit more specific about what these "massive problems" are supposed to be ?
 
User avatar
ZSOFN
Posts: 1380
Joined: Fri Jun 24, 2005 5:20 pm

RE: RR Having Massiv Problems With Their 747 RB-211?

Fri Aug 19, 2005 6:51 pm

Without trying to sound biased (I'm not), I believe the modern forms of the RB211 have sold less than its competitors for the same reason as the 767 outsold the A300 (I PROMISE I'm not pro-A but all the stats pointed to the A300 outdoing the 767 in performance at time of introduction). Perhaps a certain amount of general bias towards the US manufacturers.

However on the other hand the RB211's early forms were not so successful, almost driving RR out of business completely. It was also probably the ultimate downfall of the L1011. These memories may have lingered for many airlines when they've made their decisions over engine choices for their new heavies.

Edit: Typo

[Edited 2005-08-19 12:08:58]
 
TEAtheB
Posts: 78
Joined: Fri Aug 19, 2005 5:04 am

RE: RR Having Massiv Problems With Their 747 RB-211?

Fri Aug 19, 2005 7:26 pm

Why did airlines buy the RB211?

Look at the photos that ZSOFN posted. See how long the engine core is on the 2 shaft Pratt and GE engines? The 3 shaft RB211 has a shorter core (the core, not the nacelle) and is the lighter engine. Same reason helped the Trent 800 take the highest market share on the 777 until GE bought exclusivity (to be honest, still not sure if GE have caught up).
 
TEAtheB
Posts: 78
Joined: Fri Aug 19, 2005 5:04 am

RE: RR Having Massiv Problems With Their 747 RB-211?

Fri Aug 19, 2005 7:28 pm

Quoting TEAtheB (Reply 55):
on the 777 until GE bought exclusivity

By that I meant -200LR and -300ER, obviously.
 
User avatar
garpd
Posts: 2557
Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2005 9:29 am

RE: RR Having Massiv Problems With Their 747 RB-211?

Fri Aug 19, 2005 7:32 pm

Quoting CV747 (Reply 52):
To be honest, I don't care what it seems to you. I have this info from an insider at the Cargolux Maintenance department. That picture is a co-incident. Ferry flights with 3 engines are nothing new.

Ok so your source shows some problems within Cargolux. Thats justification for you to start a thread alleging "Massive" problems across the entire RB211 customer base?
The credibility of your "info" just sank to almost zero.
arpdesign.wordpress.com
 
GQfluffy
Posts: 3072
Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2005 1:25 pm

RE: RR Having Massiv Problems With Their 747 RB-211?

Fri Aug 19, 2005 8:42 pm

Quoting Henny (Reply 48):
nonsense, it's sure as hell plausible to suggest that the latest rendition of the GE90 was selected purely due to it being an American engine, built by a tens of hundred-strong American labour force.

Has the Trent reached the 115k tons of thrust mark yet?
This isn't where I parked my car...
 
trex8
Posts: 5673
Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2002 9:04 am

RE: RR Having Massiv Problems With Their 747 RB-211?

Fri Aug 19, 2005 8:51 pm

Quoting Kaitak744 (Reply 38):
Pratt & Whitney PW4062
63,300 lb (281.57 kN)

Rolls-Royce RB211-524H2-T
59,500 lb (264.67 kN)

General Electric CF6-80C2B5F
62,100 lb (276.23 kN)

ypu can count the number of GE B5F and Pratt 62 engine powered 747s on your hands and feet, most are B1F and 56
 
User avatar
garpd
Posts: 2557
Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2005 9:29 am

RE: RR Having Massiv Problems With Their 747 RB-21

Fri Aug 19, 2005 8:55 pm

Quoting GQfluffy (Reply 58):

Has the Trent reached the 115k tons of thrust mark yet?

Why should RR bother to make it so when GE has exclusivity from the word go.
It would be a waste of money for RR to develop the trent further to 115K for the 777 when they're not going to get to hang it on any of them bar the 200ER and 300.

If that was an attempt at arguing the GE90 exclusivity, its mooted.
If it was a simple question, then the answer is no, for the same reasons.

[Edited 2005-08-19 13:56:22]

[Edited 2005-08-19 13:57:10]
arpdesign.wordpress.com
 
User avatar
ZSOFN
Posts: 1380
Joined: Fri Jun 24, 2005 5:20 pm

RE: RR Having Massiv Problems With Their 747 RB-211?

Fri Aug 19, 2005 9:29 pm

Hey shall we just turn this thread into a tribute to the RB211?  Smile

I said I wasn't biased earlier, but after thinking about this over lunch (man, I'm so cool) I'd have to say that I do favour RR products. For starters, I currently live in Bristol, UK - only a couple of miles away from RR's Filton plant. The RB211 was the 1st engine I'd heard of as a child, and I loved BA's 747 classics and L1011s.

That said, I don't have any problems with the competition whatsoever - I think that the development of jet engines into what they are today is nothing short of miraculous (to steal a line from AA's CEO).

I think it's impressive that RR turned what was an under-performing engine into a market leader, whilst developing new larger models such as the Trents.
 
darkblue
Posts: 227
Joined: Thu Sep 11, 2003 10:27 pm

RE: RR Having Massiv Problems With Their 747 RB-211?

Fri Aug 19, 2005 9:44 pm

Quoting GARPD (Reply 60):
Why should RR bother to make it so when GE has exclusivity from the word go.
It would be a waste of money for RR to develop the trent further to 115K for the 777 when they're not going to get to hang it on any of them bar the 200ER and 300.

This debate has gone around and around here in the forums. For the original 777 RR and PW chose to create derivatives of current engines and GE chose to develop a new engine. When development began on the 200LR/300ER, GE only had to create a derivative of the base GE90, but PW and RR could not push their current engines any further, they would have had to design new engines. Therefore, the GE90 was the obvious choice for the -200LR/300ER. GE recognized the market wasn't very big, so they told Boeing that they would only proceed with the GE90 if they could get an exclusive contract. Certainly if RR had a suitable engine, they would have asked for the same thing.

Now put yourself in Boeing's shoes. You need to choose which engine to put on your new aircraft. Do you select the existing proven engine that GE will provide, or do you select a new engine the RR and PW don't even have yet?

Certainly there are lots of things that went into their decision, and GE does have a history of providing financial backing to Boeing for programs like this, but RR or PW could have done the same. I'm not totally sure how much RR or PW even wanted to provide an engine. They would have had high development costs, but very little return.

So please end this boo-hoo crap about RR and PW getting left off the 777. GE was just in a better position to provide the engine. End of story.
 
CV747
Topic Author
Posts: 166
Joined: Wed Jan 26, 2000 11:23 pm

RE: RR Having Massiv Problems With Their 747 RB-211?

Fri Aug 19, 2005 9:52 pm

Quoting GARPD (Reply 57):
Ok so your source shows some problems within Cargolux. Thats justification for you to start a thread alleging "Massive" problems across the entire RB211 customer base?
The credibility of your "info" just sank to almost zero.

Thanks for the nice comment.
Sorry, maybe I should not have braught it up.
It is not one source, I know a lot of people there, and they all tell me the same. They have far too many engine failures on the RB211 lately. What I was after was to get an opinion from somebody at QF or CX, because I was told that the others have similar problems. This is why the engine pool is dry and that the cue for overhaul at RR is getting longer and longer.

Now, think, if the engine pool is dry. BA, CX and QF have no problems. Who is using all the spare engines? Cargolux on its 8 aircraft?

Maybe it's all just smoke and pigs can fly...
 
TEAtheB
Posts: 78
Joined: Fri Aug 19, 2005 5:04 am

RE: RR Having Massiv Problems With Their 747 RB-211?

Fri Aug 19, 2005 10:34 pm

Quoting GQfluffy (Reply 58):
115k tons

115k tons?!!

You're getting confused with the weight of the GE90  Smile
 
User avatar
ZSOFN
Posts: 1380
Joined: Fri Jun 24, 2005 5:20 pm

RE: RR Having Massiv Problems With Their 747 RB-211?

Fri Aug 19, 2005 10:39 pm

Quoting DarkBlue (Reply 62):

Thanks for the info DarkBlue, I hadn't seen that side of things before. Makes sense to me!
 
henny
Posts: 100
Joined: Wed Apr 06, 2005 7:04 am

RE: RR Having Massiv Problems With Their 747 RB-21

Sat Aug 20, 2005 2:50 am

Quoting TEAtheB (Reply 64):
115k tons?!!

You're getting confused with the weight of the GE90

LOL - Seriously made me chuckle.

Quoting GQfluffy (Reply 58):
Has the Trent reached the 115k tons of thrust mark yet?

...108k I believe.

Rolls Royce have a habbit of not building things that are not needed, Sir.

No Trent in any variant needs to go past 115K at the moment. If Boeing decided to let the 777LR customers in with intentions of buying Rolls Royce, It'd be more than possible - therein lies the answer to your rather dogmatic, 2D, "my-daddy-can-beat-up-your-daddy" question/statment.





[Edited 2005-08-19 19:55:11]
3, 2, 1... Now!
 
boeingbus
Posts: 1545
Joined: Sat May 29, 2004 12:37 am

RE: RR Having Massiv Problems With Their 747 RB-21

Sat Aug 20, 2005 3:33 am

Quoting Henny (Reply 66):
Rolls Royce have a habbit of not building things that are not needed, Sir.

Maybe its a habit they need to break??? Look at the A350 and the 747Adv - it just may never fly rollers because they couldn't think of the future. Not a good thing for British industry... Yes, its a cheap shot but you have to wonder what the hell is going on at RR... A probable solution maybe that RR should buy out PW to gain some good engineers and customers too.
Airbus or Boeing - it's all good to me!
 
eg777er
Posts: 1782
Joined: Fri Feb 04, 2000 11:11 pm

RE: RR Having Massiv Problems With Their 747 RB-211?

Sat Aug 20, 2005 3:45 am

From Wikipedia:

Trent 8104
Originally designed for the 777-200LR and 777-300ER (both part of the 777X project), it comes in two thrust ratings, 104,000 and 114,000 lbf (463 to 507 kN) and has been tested up to 117,000 lbf (520 kN).

Rolls-Royce offered the 8104 to Boeing earlier than other manufacturers. Boeing had a requirement that the participating engine developer assume a risk-sharing role on the overall 777X project. Rolls-Royce was unwilling to do so; General Electric was, however, and Boeing selected advanced developments of the GE90, the GE90-110B and GE90-115B. This relegated the 8104 to the role of a demonstrator engine. It featured swept-back fan blades and a host of new technologies such as contra-rotating spools.
 
TEAtheB
Posts: 78
Joined: Fri Aug 19, 2005 5:04 am

RE: RR Having Massiv Problems With Their 747 RB-21

Sat Aug 20, 2005 3:48 am

Quoting BoeingBus (Reply 67):
Look at the A350 and the 747Adv - it just may never fly rollers because they couldn't think of the future.

Nonsense.

Both GE and Rolls-Royce will have demanded exclusivity on the 747A because the numbers that are likely to be sold will not justify two engine types. GE, having been at the top for longer than Rolls-Royce in terms of market share, will have had more surplus cash to offer Boeing to fund the 747A development program. GE have a track record of doing this anyway.

As for the A350, I believe it was reported in Flight International that GE is some sort of "engine supplier of choice" for the first 100 orders. After that, Rolls-Royce can join the party. Flight International expected RR to get involved soon after they published the article, but as far as I am aware, nothing has yet been announced.

I think the biggest danger Rolls-Royce face is complacency (having won lead engine status for the A380 and the 787). Taking on Pratt employees is unlikely to guard against this.
 
whitehatter
Posts: 5180
Joined: Sat Jun 12, 2004 6:52 am

RE: RR Having Massiv Problems With Their 747 RB-211?

Sat Aug 20, 2005 4:01 am

Quoting Henny (Reply 66):

No Trent in any variant needs to go past 115K at the moment. If Boeing decided to let the 777LR customers in with intentions of buying Rolls Royce, It'd be more than possible - therein lies the answer to your rather dogmatic, 2D, "my-daddy-can-beat-up-your-daddy" question/statment.

Not much point as Rolls now see future development being concentrated on the Trent 1000 line and developing engines in that family.

Boeing also are legally prevented from offering any other engine on the 777 development aircraft (200LR/300ER). It can be argued that even if GE dropped the exclusivity contract with Boeing then it might not be worth another engine supplier getting on board at this stage of the 777 program.

Incidentally...the comments about the GE90 and American workforces are also wrong as SNECMA of France are a partner in the GE90 program. As they are in CFM and also the CF6 line.
Lead me not into temptation, I can find my own way there...
 
henny
Posts: 100
Joined: Wed Apr 06, 2005 7:04 am

RE: RR Having Massiv Problems With Their 747 RB-21

Sat Aug 20, 2005 4:29 am

Quoting WhiteHatter (Reply 70):
SNECMA of France are a partner in the GE90 program. As they are in CFM and also the CF6 line.

I would have thought the French had something to do with it!

In earnest - A good point I fleetingly overlooked.

..... "Anyone who owns a Rickenbacker 360 Jetglo can't be all bad..."

My goodness, another Ric player. Well, I'm more fanatic than anything... I've owned a few 4001s, 4003s, 4004 Cii's - bassist, here.

Keep playing that damned guitar, Sir! Big grin

[Edited 2005-08-19 21:33:50]
3, 2, 1... Now!
 
User avatar
ZSOFN
Posts: 1380
Joined: Fri Jun 24, 2005 5:20 pm

RE: RR Having Massiv Problems With Their 747 RB-211?

Sat Aug 20, 2005 7:30 am

Quoting WhiteHatter (Reply 70):
As they are in CFM and also the CF6 line

I'm not sure you're correct there with regards to the CF6. As I recall, the CF6 was pre SNECMA, and CFM, being the joint venture between GE and SNECMA, used the "CF" part to signify that GE was involved. Open to corrections though!
 
User avatar
sunrisevalley
Posts: 5392
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2004 3:26 am

RE: RR Having Massiv Problems With Their 747 RB-211?

Sat Aug 20, 2005 8:54 am

Quoting CV747 (Thread starter):
Has anyone heard this before?



Quoting ZSOFN (Reply 11):
Not disgarding what you're saying at all, just want to try and pin these complaints down to an airline or situation.



Quoting GARPD (Reply 16):
As for the idea that there are "massive" problems with RRs... what a load of crap

There is one thing I know for sure; there was a top level meeting in HGK during the past year with CX, QF and another carrier on one side of the table and RR on the other. They were not there to pat each other on the back and tell each other what jolly good fellows they are! This was serious stuff! On the basis of this I believe 747CV's information is factual.
 
TEAtheB
Posts: 78
Joined: Fri Aug 19, 2005 5:04 am

RE: RR Having Massiv Problems With Their 747 RB-211?

Sat Aug 20, 2005 5:28 pm

Quoting SunriseValley (Reply 73):
On the basis of this I believe 747CV's information is factual.

Depends what you define as "massive problems". Every company (especially in the Aerospace industry) has issues that need to be addressed. Far better for that company to discuss these with its customers than bury its head in the sand.

To describe an engine with over 80 million flying hours to its name as having "massive problems" with no real evidence to back it up is overstating it to say the least.
 
User avatar
ZSOFN
Posts: 1380
Joined: Fri Jun 24, 2005 5:20 pm

RE: RR Having Massiv Problems With Their 747 RB-211?

Sat Aug 20, 2005 5:51 pm

Quoting SunriseValley (Reply 73):
There is one thing I know for sure; there was a top level meeting in HGK during the past year with CX, QF and another carrier on one side of the table and RR on the other

I'm not surprised to hear that RR meets with its customers with which it has contracts worth billions. Must happen all the time! Sure, it's quite possible there were some issues to sort out but we would have heard A LOT more from either camp if there were remotely significant issues with the RB211. Us A.netters would know!
 
User avatar
garpd
Posts: 2557
Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2005 9:29 am

RE: RR Having Massiv Problems With Their 747 RB-211?

Sat Aug 20, 2005 8:16 pm

Quoting TEAtheB (Reply 74):
Depends what you define as "massive problems". Every company (especially in the Aerospace industry) has issues that need to be addressed. Far better for that company to discuss these with its customers than bury its head in the sand.

To describe an engine with over 80 million flying hours to its name as having "massive problems" with no real evidence to back it up is overstating it to say the least.

Precisely.

The way this thread has gone, one would think anybody with RRs hagging on their aircraft were unable to operate properly.

If that were so airlines with the RB 211 as the core of their fleet such as Icelandair, AA, Thomas Cook and BA would be in incredibly far up an undesirable creek without a paddle.

I think the sitiation is that a few problems from one or two maintenance facilities has been blown out of all proportion. Most likely by a bunch of disgruntled engineers.
The accusation that the parts pool is empty is nonsense. Perhaps it is for Cargolux.. but BA, AA and CX have plenty spares and RR are still producing RB211 parts.
arpdesign.wordpress.com
 
GDB
Posts: 14195
Joined: Wed May 23, 2001 6:25 pm

RE: RR Having Massiv Problems With Their 747 RB-211?

Sat Aug 20, 2005 8:43 pm

I mentioned the problems BA had last year, which went on for many months, long enough I suspect to be implicated in that media frenzy nonsense in Feb this year.

The problem is not the actual engines, but that facility in Wales, BA are the most experienced RB211 operator, especially on 747's, but the Wales facility does not only do work for BA, now I don't know if they do Cargolux, or not, but if they do, you've probably found the answer to any problems Cargolux might be having.

BA are NOT experiencing problems on RB211's at this time.
Still, I've only been in BA Engineering for nearly 20 years, what do I know compared to on line rumour, half truths, gossip and retarded media reportage?

In the past decade or so, R/R has not only completely transformed their position on large wide bodies, but has focused much more on customer support, where in the past, they may have been weaker than the two US giants, losing out on a Saudi order 10 years ago brought this issue to a head.

As an aside to what I've mentioned about the problems I saw at first hand with Wales overhauled Olympus 593's, Wales also did AF's OL 593's, in 1999 AF had far worse OL 593 engine reliability figures than BA, but the BA OL 593 hours were significantly higher then.
I suspect that while BA were (as you'd expect having once owned the facility and been the biggest customer by far), more aware of the increasing quality lapses at Wales, and took extra precautions to guard against this, AF may well not have done, only having OL 593's done by them.
Is this happening again, IF Cargolux RB211's are overhauled in Wales too?
 
User avatar
garpd
Posts: 2557
Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2005 9:29 am

RE: RR Having Massiv Problems With Their 747 RB-211?

Sat Aug 20, 2005 8:51 pm

GDB, welcome to my RU list sir!
arpdesign.wordpress.com
 
David L
Posts: 8551
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 2:26 am

RE: RR Having Massiv Problems With Their 747 RB-211?

Sun Aug 21, 2005 1:31 am

Quoting GDB (Reply 77):
I've only been in BA Engineering for nearly 20 years, what do I know

There's your problem - your views are clouded by experience!  Smile
 
trex8
Posts: 5673
Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2002 9:04 am

RE: RR Having Massiv Problems With Their 747 RB-211?

Sun Aug 21, 2005 6:33 am

Quoting GQfluffy (Reply 47):
GE eventually fixed every problem and the 90 turned into a great engine. Hence it being selected as the sole engine on the 772LR.

as already said in another reply, it was because GE was willing to put money into the project and to a lesser extent it was a lower risk technically for Boeing

Quoting TEAtheB (Reply 55):
The 3 shaft RB211 has a shorter core (the core, not the nacelle) and is the lighter engine

not so, for almost any engine which the 524 competed with, the competition weighs less by several hundred pounds, the advantage the 3 shaft was better bird strike resistance and less performance deterioration with time compared to the GE and PW engines

Quoting ZSOFN (Reply 72):
I'm not sure you're correct there with regards to the CF6. As I recall, the CF6 was pre SNECMA,

SNECMA have a 10% share of the CF6-50 and -80 and a 24% share of the GE90
 
User avatar
ZSOFN
Posts: 1380
Joined: Fri Jun 24, 2005 5:20 pm

RE: RR Having Massiv Problems With Their 747 RB-211?

Sun Aug 21, 2005 8:06 am

Quoting Trex8 (Reply 80):
SNECMA have a 10% share of the CF6-50 and -80 and a 24% share of the GE90

Thanks for clearing that up
 
darkblue
Posts: 227
Joined: Thu Sep 11, 2003 10:27 pm

RE: RR Having Massiv Problems With Their 747 RB-211?

Tue Aug 23, 2005 12:03 am

Quoting ZSOFN (Reply 72):
I'm not sure you're correct there with regards to the CF6. As I recall, the CF6 was pre SNECMA, and CFM, being the joint venture between GE and SNECMA, used the "CF" part to signify that GE was involved. Open to corrections though!



Quoting Trex8 (Reply 80):
SNECMA have a 10% share of the CF6-50 and -80 and a 24% share of the GE90

Not only that, but SNECMA does final assembly and acceptance testing for all CF6-80E1 engines.
 
CV747
Topic Author
Posts: 166
Joined: Wed Jan 26, 2000 11:23 pm

RE: RR Having Massiv Problems With Their 747 RB-211?

Tue Aug 23, 2005 12:20 am

Quoting GDB (Reply 77):
Is this happening again, IF Cargolux RB211's are overhauled in Wales too?

Hi GDB,
Thanks for a good answer. First of all, yes Cargolux does use the factory in wales for their overhaul.
I met some of my friends from Cargolux over the week-end and they told me that they are experiancing big problems with the RB211. And they are trying to work out with RR what is gonig on. The factory is fully booked and I was told that CX has about 25 engines in the cue waiting for overhaul. All spare engines have been used, which is a very unconfortable situation.
Because I was flamed over the picture of LX-TCV being ferried with one engine strapped to Luxembourg. I asked about that case and I was told that this engine had been on the wing for one week.

Is it possible that the engine is under more pressure for the fact that they work on a freighter and that the CV utilisation factor is very high?

Olafur
 
GDB
Posts: 14195
Joined: Wed May 23, 2001 6:25 pm

RE: RR Having Massiv Problems With Their 747 RB-211?

Tue Aug 23, 2005 3:04 am

So, CV747, you have GE to blame then!
They 'manage' that facility, if it makes your colleagues feel any better, they caused BA no end of problems last year.
Not that BA are having problems right now.

Really then, the title of this thread should be 'GE facility causes RB211 problems (again)'
 
dynkrisolo
Posts: 1849
Joined: Mon Feb 12, 2001 12:12 am

RE: RR Having Massiv Problems With Their 747 RB-211?

Tue Aug 23, 2005 6:15 am

Quoting CV747 (Reply 83):
The factory is fully booked and I was told that CX has about 25 engines in the cue waiting for overhaul. All spare engines have been used, which is a very unconfortable situation.



Quoting GDB (Reply 84):
Really then, the title of this thread should be 'GE facility causes RB211 problems (again)'

There is another angle to these alleged problems. The increasing backlog at engine maintenance service providers could very well be caused by a rise in unscheduled engine removals.

Whether the Wales facility is at fault or not, ultimtely, it's Rolls-Royce's reputation that is at stake. Rolls will either have to work with the service providers to ease the bottleneck, or provide interim solutions for their customers. That's called customer service. I don't think pointing the finger at the service providers will help their own reputation.
 
User avatar
garpd
Posts: 2557
Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2005 9:29 am

RE: RR Having Massiv Problems With Their 747 RB-211?

Tue Aug 23, 2005 6:23 am

Quoting CV747 (Reply 83):

Is it possible that the engine is under more pressure for the fact that they work on a freighter and that the CV utilisation factor is very high?

Hmmm

Has anyone thought that perhaps the problem, or ate least one of several is perhaps over stressing on the engines? Some overzealous pilots using higher trust settings that required?

Or perhaps it is indeed an operational issue. Engines worked to hard and then the questionable oberhauling in Wales. Added together these could be the reason for the issues CX is having.
arpdesign.wordpress.com
 
User avatar
sunrisevalley
Posts: 5392
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2004 3:26 am

RE: RR Having Massiv Problems With Their 747 RB-211?

Tue Aug 23, 2005 10:06 am

Quoting GARPD (Reply 86):
Or perhaps it is indeed an operational issue. Engines worked to hard and then the questionable oberhauling in Wales. Added together these could be the reason for the issues CX is having.

The Wales issue is hardly relevant to QF's issues with the engine. They do their own overhauls.I go back to my original statement, the problems are/were serious enough for a meeting between three affected carriers who operate RR powered 747-400's and RR . This was much more than a stroll in the park as has been suggested by GARPD and GBD.
 
AvFan4ever
Posts: 80
Joined: Sat Feb 05, 2005 7:07 pm

RE: RR Having Massiv Problems With Their 747 RB-211?

Tue Aug 23, 2005 11:05 am

Quoting GDB (Reply 84):
So, CV747, you have GE to blame then!
They 'manage' that facility, if it makes your colleagues feel any better, they caused BA no end of problems last year.

Sounds good to me. As a passenger, it's great to know that BA has no control over their engine overhaul vendors.
 
TEAtheB
Posts: 78
Joined: Fri Aug 19, 2005 5:04 am

RE: RR Having Massiv Problems With Their 747 RB-211?

Tue Aug 23, 2005 9:33 pm

Quoting Trex8 (Reply 80):
not so, for almost any engine which the 524 competed with, the competition weighs less by several hundred pounds,

If that is correct, then apologies.

I jumped to the (possibly incorrect) conclusion that the 3 shaft design, which tends to reduce the weight of the Trent engines, did the same for the RB211-524.
 
GDB
Posts: 14195
Joined: Wed May 23, 2001 6:25 pm

RE: RR Having Massiv Problems With Their 747 RB-211?

Wed Aug 24, 2005 3:26 am

Well SunriseValley, actually working in BA Engineering, (the largest users of these engines by far), I can say that BA are NOT having problems, when they did last year it was due to oil contamination at Wales, leading to operational problems and soon a backlog.
This is first hand info, not that this means much on this site these days.

And if anyone thinks BA are the only major carrier to outsource engine overhaul, you are in for a rude shock.
Not that I think we should have, just for a deal on the wrong engines we got lumbered with on the 777's initially, with all the headaches we had with them.
(Guess why BA now has a 'no launch customer' policy now?)
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Moderator
Posts: 22108
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

RE: RR Having Massiv Problems With Their 747 RB-21

Wed Aug 24, 2005 11:00 am

Quoting Dynkrisolo (Reply 85):

There is another angle to these alleged problems. The increasing backlog at engine maintenance service providers could very well be caused by a rise in unscheduled engine removals.

Has anybody thought that the reason so many engines are being maintained is that during the "bad years" engine overhaul was down to save $$$?

As to excessive problems with the RB211... its been very reliable over the years. Maybe one or two shops have dropped the ball lately, but I would ride a plane with RB211's any day and I'm a Pratt fan!

Quoting GDB (Reply 90):
(Guess why BA now has a 'no launch customer' policy now?)

BA was burned bad with the GE-90's. From 84k the engines were derated down to 74k until GE could fix the issues. While not as bad as the original JT-9D (casing out of round, stalls, many aborted flights), the original GE-90 almost saved Pratt's commercial market.

Lightsaber
6 months without TV. The best decision of my life.
 
andrewtang
Posts: 368
Joined: Sat Jun 23, 2001 8:51 pm

RE: RR Having Massiv Problems With Their 747 RB-21

Wed Aug 24, 2005 11:39 am

CX sends their RB211 engines to HAESL (Hong Kong Aero Enginer Service Limited) for overhauls instead of ferrying them to Wales to be overhauled. HAESL is 45% joint venture by Rolls-Royce, HAECO and 10% by SIAEC. The rest of the RR Trents in CX are overhauled by HAESL also.



[Edited 2005-08-24 04:42:18]
 
dynkrisolo
Posts: 1849
Joined: Mon Feb 12, 2001 12:12 am

RE: RR Having Massiv Problems With Their 747 RB-211?

Wed Aug 24, 2005 11:46 am

Quoting Lightsaber (Reply 91):
From 84k the engines were derated down to 74k until GE could fix the issues.

Man, what are you talking about? Need I refresh your memory that all the early 772s didn't need 84k thrust. The first 772igw that required higher engine thrust was delivered in 97, about two years after the first 772 entered into service.
 
User avatar
PM
Posts: 5391
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 5:05 pm

RE: RR Having Massiv Problems With Their 747 RB-211?

Wed Aug 24, 2005 8:11 pm

Quoting Kaitak744 (Reply 12):
Did I miss any?

Well, if your memory is long enough you might recall that Air India (another ex-pink bit of the globe)originally selected the RB211 for their 744s. But then there were allegations of corruption (gasp!) and the order was switched to PW.

Quoting AirbusA6 (Reply 29):
they chose GE instead (the least favourite engine!)

Not the least favourite engine when they chose it. In fact, since the BA order went in so early, it's hardly meaningful to talk of market success and popularity at that stage. BA were the fourth airline to order the 777 and the first to order the GE90. Both ANA and Thai ordered their planes before BA but selected engines after BA had gone for GE. Indeed, ANA was leaning towards the Trent but took fright when BA chose GE instead and then jumped into the arms of PW. Famously, ANA said at the time that they didn't want to be left operating a "niche" engine (possibly thinking of RR on the 747/767) but then watched the Trent become the most popular engine on the 777 line (and their PW4000 the least popular). Thai were then the first to choose the Trent in the aftermath of RR losing both ANA and BA (maybe RR made a really sweet offer) and were followed withing a year by Cathay and Emirates. GE followed with China Southern, Lauda, Continental and ILFC.

Quoting SA7700 (Reply 33):
Anybody out there who can be of assistance?

There are various online sites (of varying accuracy and reliabilty) but they don't often list engine types. Have you heard of the JP Airline Fleets book that comes out every May/June? It's now in its 39th edition and is very, very reliable. You'll find your engines (and much more) there. Go to www.buchairnet.com and flash your credit card.

Quoting Gasman (Reply 43):
I'm not aware of it happening during the last 15 years, but certainly in days gone by this ex-colony of Britian has faced significant political pressure to buy British aviation products

Maybe, but then ANZ switched to GE for their later 744s and chose RR (I hope objectively!) for their 777s and 787s.

Quoting CX flyboy (Reply 44):
some people are already wondering why we ever bought RR in th first place

Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay back in time Cathay wanted DC-10s with GE CF6s. But the then British government (stand up, Michael Heseltine) leaned on them to by TriStars because they had RB211s. In the fullness of time, RR 747s followed and the RB211 ended up as the incumbent at CX: TriStar, 747, A330, A340, 777... (Including the Trent as a development of the RB211.) And will we see the Trents 900 and 1000 continue the tradition???

Quoting CV747 (Reply 49):
Yes, You missed Cargolux.

Cargolux chose the CF6 for their first four 744s and took a fifth from Air France. But in the late '90s they switched to RR (why?) and now have nine RB211 744s in service or on order. In fact, they're the only airline that has switched to RR away from GE or PW. If there are problems now (which I'm in no position to comment on) it's at least relevant that they dumped GE for some reason and have continued to choose RR for each subsequent incremental order. (For what it's worth, their 15th 744 (due next year) will be GE-powered but that's because it's a used plane (built in 1996) and ex-Asiana.)

Quoting TEAtheB (Reply 55):
(to be honest, still not sure if GE have caught up).

Yes, they have. GE now have something like 44% of the total 777 market with RR and PW on something like 32% and 24% respectively. Take out the 2LR and 3ER and GE and RR are neck and neck.

Quoting BoeingBus (Reply 67):
probable solution maybe that RR should buy out PW to gain some good engineers and customers too.

I might point out that RR have caught up with and then overtaken PW in recent years entirely wth their own engineers. Moreover, PW's woes and travails with the top-end PW4000 for the 777, the woefully unreliable PW2000 and the four-years late PW6000 don't speak too well of their "good engineers". In any case, RR have been merrily gaining traditional PW customers as it is. Who'd have predicted a decade ago that SIA would have just one PW-powered model in service by 2005 (the A310s are all stored or leased out) but two RR models with a third on order? Delta replaced PW MD11s with RR 777s. Malaysia have traditionally preferred PW but chose RR for their 777s. On the A330, Egyptair, Air China, Air Canada and SAS have all been steady PW customers but chose RR instead. (For several years PW were the lead engine on the A330 but are now falling far behind RR.) Three operators switched from PW to RR on the 757 (UPS, Condor and ATA); none switched the other way. Northwest and ANA have long been in the PW camp but will be flying their 787s with RR. I don't think RR need to buy PW to "gain" their customers.

As for the origin of this thread, I have no idea if there are problems with RB211s on 747s but it seems pretty unlikely. It may have the smallest share of the 747 market but there are still 100+ RR 747s flying out there and they have been flying successfully for many years and millions of hours. Why should the whole fleet suddenly run into trouble? RR are and ever more successful and canny company. It beggars belief that they can't organise the production of spare parts.

When the 767 and later the 744 were launched during the 1980s, RR were still pretty bruised and had a derisory share of the civil market. (About 10-15%?) Unsurprisingly, the best they could do was to sign up some traditional customers. But throughout the 1980s and into the 1990s their reputation was restored bit by bit and not least through the RB211-535 which took the largest share of the 757 market and by far the majority of the customers. They were also handicapped by not being on Airbus. (Remember, at the turn of the millennium - just five years ago - there were only 50 Airbus widebodies flying with RR engines; and, of course, there only ever had been those 50!) Until, say, a decade ago RR really were (see above) a "niche" player.

In passing, I believe they were very reluctant to "do" the 767 since they knew their RB211-524 wasn't ideal for the platform but they were pressurised into it by BA. Only BA bought it. (China Yunnan - now part of China Eastern - took three in 1996/97 but only because they cancelled another RR order [757s, I assume] and wanted to avoid cancellation penalties.) Qantas lease some BA machines but they are the only three operators there are.

RR were never going to catch GE and PW on the 747 but it was a pretty effective stepping stone. It kept RR in the game and provided a basis for the Trent family which has been hugely successful. More than 700 A340s, A330s, A380s, 777s and 787s have been ordered with Trents with several of these programmes still in their early days and with the A350 (probably) still to come. The Trent has outsold both GE and PW on the A330 (overturning the US companies' advantage of already being established on Airbus widebodies); it has outsold PW on the 777 and (where there is competition) it is neck and neck with GE; it is certainly holding its own on the A380 and, for what it's worth this early, it appears to be the engine of choice on the 787. The 777-300 first flew with Trents as did the A380 and as will the 787. By any measure, this is a successful programme.

So, from about 10% of the market a quarter of a century ago, RR is now comfortably the second biggest player behind GE. Arguably, RR has done to PW what Airbus did to McD.

Sorry to have stayed somewhat off topic but I often get the impression on A.Net that many posters are several years behind the times and still seem to think of RR as a poor relative to the mighty GE and PW. Those days are over.
 
CV747
Topic Author
Posts: 166
Joined: Wed Jan 26, 2000 11:23 pm

RE: RR Having Massiv Problems With Their 747 RB-211?

Wed Aug 24, 2005 8:52 pm

Quoting GDB (Reply 90):
(Guess why BA now has a 'no launch customer' policy now?)

Would this policy mean that BA can be excluded as launch customer for the 747 Advanced? (Passenger version at least)

Quoting PM (Reply 94):
Cargolux chose the CF6 for their first four 744s and took a fifth from Air France. But in the late '90s they switched to RR (why?)

This is a very good question, indeed.
I was raised at Cargolux and I remember times when GE was talked about as the only good engine for the 747. Cargolux's first 747-200F came with the terrible P&W JT9D-70A, this engine apparently was a night-mare. (As far as I know only 6 747 were built with this engine. The second 747-200F came with JT9D-7 which was a good plane.
The next batch of planes came second hand from Transamerica. Those Aircraft were 747-200C with CF6-50 engines. When the first 747-400F where bought, they were all bought with CF6-80. Then after the fifth new 747 all were ordered with RB211. The pilots didn't like the RR because it cakes longer time to start them up, and the climb performance is worse then on the CF6. The Mechanics don't like the RR either because they say that the eingine is not maintenance friendly. (At least not like the CF6). So why did Cargolux Switch? The official explenation was that the engines consume 5% less fuel then the CF6. But if that was the only reason... I don't know.

Olafur
 
User avatar
PM
Posts: 5391
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 5:05 pm

RE: RR Having Massiv Problems With Their 747 RB-211?

Wed Aug 24, 2005 9:24 pm

Quoting CV747 (Reply 95):
The pilots didn't like the RR because it cakes longer time to start them up, and the climb performance is worse then on the CF6. The Mechanics don't like the RR either because they say that the eingine is not maintenance friendly. (At least not like the CF6). So why did Cargolux Switch? The official explenation was that the engines consume 5% less fuel then the CF6.

Interesting. Thanks. But if that 5% was so advantageous, why didn't other airlines do the same? There must be some other reason.

Meanwhile, and veering off topic again, anyone into probability theory? In spite of their much smaller market share and in spite of then (and now) being based in Switzerland, the first three 744s I flew on were all RR-powered. Cathay ZRH-HKG, Qantas AKL-LAX, and BA EZE-LHR. What were the chances of that?! (GE and PW examples have subsequently followed but the first three were RR. Curious...)
 
CV747
Topic Author
Posts: 166
Joined: Wed Jan 26, 2000 11:23 pm

RE: RR Having Massiv Problems With Their 747 RB-211?

Wed Aug 24, 2005 9:27 pm

Quoting PM (Reply 96):
Interesting. Thanks. But if that 5% was so advantageous, why didn't other airlines do the same? There must be some other reason.

Grützi PM,
That is exactly why I sad that there must be other "not so rational" reasons. More personal decission helpers...

Olafur
ZRH
 
David L
Posts: 8551
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 2:26 am

RE: RR Having Massiv Problems With Their 747 RB-211?

Wed Aug 24, 2005 9:51 pm

Quoting PM (Reply 94):
Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay back in time Cathay wanted DC-10s with GE CF6s. But the then British government (stand up, Michael Heseltine) leaned on them to by TriStars because they had RB211s.

I think that's probably an especially sore point for CX, given that it was hinted very strongly that if they chose the RR powered Tristar, they'd have a good shot at being the first airline allowed to join BA on the Hong Kong to London route. They chose the Tristar and the route was promptly given to BCal. I seem to remember that John Nott was involved in eventually overturning the decision.
 
Dougloid
Posts: 7248
Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2005 2:44 am

RE: RR Having Massiv Problems With Their 747 RB-211?

Wed Aug 24, 2005 9:59 pm

Quoting PM (Reply 94):
So, from about 10% of the market a quarter of a century ago, RR is now comfortably the second biggest player behind GE. Arguably, RR has done to PW what Airbus did to McD.

Nonsense. That was done by Boeing. I was there.
If you believe in coincidence, you haven't looked close enough-Joe Leaphorn

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