How Are RR Trents Shipped To Boeing?

seachaz · Fri Jul 20, 2012 6:32 pm

On the way into work today saw the not so unfamiliar site of an engine on its way up I-405 to Paine Field, got me wondering whats the entire shipment process for a Trent to make it to the Everett Assembly lines? Plane or boat across the Atlantic? What's the port of entry? Are they shipped whole partially disassembled from the RR factory? On the flip-side how about GE and PW shipping their engines to Airbus?

bikerthai · Fri Jul 20, 2012 6:41 pm

These large engines are too expensive to ship by anything other than by air.

Don't know the port of entry, but when Boeing Propulsion was at Boeing Field, the Antonov would deliver the engine there. It may be that they still fly the engine there and then truck them up to Everett via 405.

bt

DocLightning · Fri Jul 20, 2012 8:02 pm

Quoting seachaz (Thread starter):
Are they shipped whole partially disassembled from the RR factory?

I know that newer GE engines are designed so that the propulsor can be disconnected easily from the core for shipping. Is this also the case with RR engines?

Stitch · Fri Jul 20, 2012 9:23 pm

Quoting bikerthai (Reply 1):
Don't know the port of entry, but when Boeing Propulsion was at Boeing Field, the Antonov would deliver the engine there. It may be that they still fly the engine there and then truck them up to Everett via 405.

If they deliver to BFI, to get to I-405 they'd either have to drive south on I-5 to the I-405 interchange and then drive back up, or come across I-90 or SR-520. I would therefore expect them to just drive straight up I-5 to Everett.

I would therefore imagine they are flown to SEA and then via I-405. The GE90 fan casing can be removed to allow transport via 747 freighter:

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Craig Murray

So I am guessing the RR and Pratt engines can also be shipped via 747 freighter.

DocLightning · Fri Jul 20, 2012 11:31 pm

Quoting Stitch (Reply 3):

If they deliver to BFI, to get to I-405 they'd either have to drive south on I-5 to the I-405 interchange and then drive back up, or come across I-90 or SR-520. I would therefore expect them to just drive straight up I-5 to Everett.

Why wouldn't they just fly it to Everett? That seems to be an unnecessary step.

canoecarrier · Fri Jul 20, 2012 11:46 pm

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 4):
Why wouldn't they just fly it to Everett? That seems to be an unnecessary step.

My question too. I was up there a month ago doing the Boeing tour and they had 4 of them sitting out in front of the 777 assembly line when we started. I neglected to ask. But, it isn't uncommon to see sections occasionally on 405 or I-5.

KELPkid · Fri Jul 20, 2012 11:53 pm

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 4):
Why wouldn't they just fly it to Everett?

PAE isn't a normal airport of entry (it is a landing rights airport, which means that you can clear US customs there, but only via prior arrangement with US Customs, and usually an extra fee). You could fly it there, but why not just land at SEA, where you can clear customs on the field, and then truck it the rest of the way?

seachaz · Sat Jul 21, 2012 12:09 am

Just for clarification I'm not sure what make/model engine I saw today, looked to be of the Trent 1000/GEnx size though. Have also seen some GE-90-110/115b on 405 in the past (hard to miss) and other various engines coming up I-5 from as far south as Portland.

DocLightning · Sat Jul 21, 2012 12:37 am

Quoting KELPkid (Reply 6):
PAE isn't a normal airport of entry (it is a landing rights airport, which means that you can clear US customs there, but only via prior arrangement with US Customs, and usually an extra fee). You could fly it there, but why not just land at SEA, where you can clear customs on the field, and then truck it the rest of the way?

Why not land at SEA, clear customs, and then fly to PAE? Even if it's a foreign operator, they aren't taking any new cargo aboard for the short domestic leg.

KELPkid · Sat Jul 21, 2012 12:41 am

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 8):
Why not land at SEA, clear customs, and then fly to PAE? Even if it's a foreign operator, they aren't taking any new cargo aboard for the short domestic leg.

Compare the costs per flight hour of a monster like the AN-124 or an IL-76 versus calling the local cartage trucking company sometime...

Get back to me with the results

You're probably paying around $1000 or so just to fire up the engines in the airplane....

speedbird9 · Sat Jul 21, 2012 9:35 pm

It's not confirmed but according to these images it seems as if they do transport them by air from EMA. (see image remarks)

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © John Gregory

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Edward Heriot

I would like to see something more detailed though.

Max Q · Sun Jul 22, 2012 3:53 am

Quoting Stitch (Reply 3):
The GE90 fan casing can be removed to allow transport via 747 freighter:

How is the fan casing transported ?

rwessel · Sun Jul 22, 2012 7:16 am

Quoting Max Q (Reply 11):
Quoting Stitch (Reply 3):
The GE90 fan casing can be removed to allow transport via 747 freighter:

How is the fan casing transported ?

Usually on the same 747. Separately both pieces can fit in through the cargo door (with the fan laid flat), it's only too big when assembled.

DocLightning · Sun Jul 22, 2012 8:51 am

Quoting KELPkid (Reply 9):
Compare the costs per flight hour of a monster like the AN-124 or an IL-76 versus calling the local cartage trucking company sometime... Get back to me with the results You're probably paying around $1000 or so just to fire up the engines in the airplane....

Compared to unloading, loading, securing, and driving? Just rolling the thing off the plane has to be worth $1000.

rwessel · Sun Jul 22, 2012 9:36 am

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 13):
Compared to unloading, loading, securing, and driving? Just rolling the thing off the plane has to be worth $1000.

You're going to have to unload it from the plane at some point, no matter what...

zeke · Sun Jul 22, 2012 12:28 pm

I do not understand why they would not go by ship. I can understand for an AOG situation for them to go by air. For new build aircraft, they have enough advance warning of them to save a lot by sending them by ship.

OldAeroGuy · Sun Jul 22, 2012 2:52 pm

[quote=DocLightning,reply=4]Why wouldn't they just fly it to Everett? That seems to be an unnecessary step.[/quote

Boeing practice has been to build up all engines for both Everett and Renton at the Propulsion Systems Division (PSD).

The bare engine is received from the manufacter, then is equipped at PSD (accessories, cowlings etc) so that they can be installed directly on the Everett and Renton assembly lines. The advantage was that the engine build-up experts were all in one place and could shift easily from one engine type to another as required by rate and production sequencing.

bond007 · Sun Jul 22, 2012 5:05 pm

Quoting bikerthai (Reply 1):
These large engines are too expensive to ship by anything other than by air.

Not sure what you mean by this?

Quoting zeke (Reply 15):
I do not understand why they would not go by ship. I can understand for an AOG situation for them to go by air. For new build aircraft, they have enough advance warning of them to save a lot by sending them by ship.

Agreed, except if you went by boat the whole way to the West Coast, it would be mean going via the Panama Canal of course, but this is done all the time for other cargo.

Jimbo

krisyyz · Sun Jul 22, 2012 5:25 pm

Can't speak about how RRs get to Boeing, but a few months ago I was boarding a KL 74M and I clearly saw two RR engines being loaded into the main deck compartment. They looked to be Trent 700s but that's just a guess based on their size.

KrisYYZ

Dalmd88 · Sun Jul 22, 2012 6:00 pm

Quoting zeke (Reply 15):
I do not understand why they would not go by ship. I can understand for an AOG situation for them to go by air. For new build aircraft, they have enough advance warning of them to save a lot by sending them by ship.

I think it has to do with inventory costs. On very high dollar items no company wants to show ownership of the item for a long inventory time frame. A ship journey would be considered an inventory time for the engine company. They want to build the engine and off load it to the customer fast so they get paid.

tdscanuck · Sun Jul 22, 2012 8:23 pm

Quoting zeke (Reply 15):
I do not understand why they would not go by ship. I can understand for an AOG situation for them to go by air. For new build aircraft, they have enough advance warning of them to save a lot by sending them by ship.

Dalmd88 nailed it:

Quoting Dalmd88 (Reply 19):
I think it has to do with inventory costs.

Shipping is something like 28-48 times slower than air freight. There's a *huge* cost associated with having that many engines in transport and not actually paid for yet.

Tom.

canoecarrier · Sun Jul 22, 2012 9:07 pm

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 20):
Shipping is something like 28-48 times slower than air freight. There's a *huge* cost associated with having that many engines in transport and not actually paid for yet.

Any idea how many they ship at a time? When I was there last month they had 4 engines in a row sitting on the ramp outside the production floor.

tdscanuck · Sun Jul 22, 2012 11:19 pm

Quoting canoecarrier (Reply 21):
Any idea how many they ship at a time?

I would hope they're sync'd up to the production rate and shipping in pairs to match the rate that airplanes need them. However, they may be trying to capture some batch savings by putting multiple engines on one freighter...anyone know how many Trent's fit on one air freighter?

Quoting canoecarrier (Reply 21):
When I was there last month they had 4 engines in a row sitting on the ramp outside the production floor.

I'd expect 2-4 to be there at any one time but that's just a guess...the 737 has a much higher rate so they have more engines in the factory at any one time.

Tom.

simairlinenet · Mon Jul 23, 2012 12:57 pm

Quoting speedbird9 (Reply 10):
It's not confirmed but according to these images it seems as if they do transport them by air from EMA

Engines from SIN are definitely transported by air to Airbus and Boeing. Source: February article in Aviation Week.

bikerthai · Tue Jul 24, 2012 2:44 pm

Quoting Stitch (Reply 3):
I would therefore expect them to just drive straight up I-5 to Everett.

Drove both routes many times. 405 have no tunnels (I-5, seattle conventionl).

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 8):
Why not land at SEA, clear customs, and then fly to PAE? Even if it's a foreign operator, they aren't taking any new cargo aboard for the short domestic leg.

Why pay landing fees at both locations?

Quoting zeke (Reply 15):
I do not understand why they would not go by ship. I

Just figure a 25 million dollar engine for example. At 3% annual interest, you are paying $2000 each day the engine sits around. For a 30 day journey, you are looking at $60,000 dollars before you figure shipping costs, insurance, etc.

bt

tdscanuck · Tue Jul 24, 2012 2:54 pm

Quoting bikerthai (Reply 24):
At 3% annual interest, you are paying $2000 each day the engine sits around. For a 30 day journey, you are looking at $60,000 dollars before you figure shipping costs, insurance, etc.

Real world inventory holding costs (when you roll all the other stuff besides just interest in) are going to be 10+%. You'll spend hundreds of thousands of dollars in extra cost to go by ship.

Tom.

bond007 · Wed Jul 25, 2012 2:52 am

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 25):
Real world inventory holding costs

Except that when it's on a ship you are paying none of the 'real world inventory holding costs', since it's almost all included as part of the actual shipping costs, which are less than your air freight costs (assumed, otherwise no point in this part of the discussion!). Your main cost between air and sea is time, and any monetary costs associated with that, not the normal costs associated with holding inventory, such as warehouse space, labor, pick/pack costs etc., which are significant.

Just to complicate things, it also all depends on where the transfer of title/ownership of the engine takes place.

Jimbo

KELPkid · Wed Jul 25, 2012 3:58 am

Quoting bond007 (Reply 26):
Except that when it's on a ship you are paying none of the 'real world inventory holding costs', since it's almost all included as part of the actual shipping costs, which are less than your air freight costs (assumed, otherwise no point in this part of the discussion!). Your main cost between air and sea is time, and any monetary costs associated with that, not the normal costs associated with holding inventory, such as warehouse space, labor, pick/pack costs etc., which are significant. Just to complicate things, it also all depends on where the transfer of title/ownership of the engine takes place. Jimbo

Tom's point was, though, that the engine manufacturer doesn't get paid until the airframer receives the engine. From the engine manufacturer's point of view, an engine in transit is inventory that must be insured against loss, theft, etc. It gets off the books quicker if its shipped by the most expedient method.. The business case must work out better for shipping by air

Also worthy of note, in most places, unsold inventory is taxable...

bond007 · Wed Jul 25, 2012 11:07 am

Quoting KELPkid (Reply 27):
From the engine manufacturer's point of view, an engine in transit is inventory that must be insured against loss, theft, etc.

Agreed, but they are shipping costs, not inventory costs. The cost if keeping inventory is much higher, and includes those same costs.

Insurance depends on the terms of course ... if it's FOB then Boeing would be responsible (or something like that!).

Quoting KELPkid (Reply 27):
The business case must work out better for shipping by air

Presumably

Jimbo

bikerthai · Wed Jul 25, 2012 1:28 pm

Quoting bond007 (Reply 26):

Just to complicate things, it also all depends on where the transfer of title/ownership of the engine takes place.

Quoting KELPkid (Reply 27):

Tom's point was, though, that the engine manufacturer doesn't get paid until the airframer receives the engine.

These comment is actually more complicated, I think.

The engines are typically purchased separately from the airplane. So I would think, the Engine manufacturer doesn't get paid until the Airline receive the aircraft. Boeing would be just the middle man in build-up and installing the engines.

Which give the Engine manufacturer the incentive of delaying the delivering the engine to Boeing as much as possible to keep the time that the Engine spends at Boeing as short as possible.

bt

zeke · Wed Jul 25, 2012 1:34 pm

Quoting bikerthai (Reply 24):
Just figure a 25 million dollar engine for example. At 3% annual interest, you are paying $2000 each day the engine sits around. For a 30 day journey, you are looking at $60,000 dollars before you figure shipping costs, insurance, etc.

With all those unfinished 787s sitting around PAE, the engines that would have been made to keep up with the production must be sitting around somewhere. I am guessing they are with RR in the UK.

I see no reason why those engines could not go by ship, it is costing RR money in any case.

I suspect part of the reason why RR still has them, is that Boeing has nowhere to store them.

bikerthai · Wed Jul 25, 2012 4:33 pm

Quoting zeke (Reply 30):
I suspect part of the reason why RR still has them, is that Boeing has nowhere to store them.

I remember in the early 90's with the Boeing Machinist Strike, they had many engines stacked up in the parking lot. The larger one required special pallets to support them during transport and storage. Sometimes it's a matter availability of these transport tools/fixtures that determines whether they can ship the engines. So if you have the frame, might as well store them on the airplane.

bt

BreninTW · Thu Jul 26, 2012 2:24 am

A lot of this discussion has been about the costs and time taken to ship the engines. However, I think there may be another factor: Turbulence vs. rough seas.

Either way the engine is going to encounter some roughness during transit, but by air, it is typically of shorter duration. While container ships are big enough to not be as badly affected by mild seas, during rough seas and storms, I imagine the ride can get very rough and risk damage to the engine.

There's also the risk of a container falling overboard during rough seas.

On another forum I belong to, one of the members is/was working at Boeing and he passed an interesting comment one day: He stated that when an engine is delivered to Boeing by road, the first thing they check is the suspension on the truck. If it's spring suspension, the engine is rejected immediately. If it's air suspension, they will proceed with unloading.

bond007 · Thu Jul 26, 2012 2:35 am

Quoting BreninTW (Reply 32):
Either way the engine is going to encounter some roughness during transit, but by air, it is typically of shorter duration. While container ships are big enough to not be as badly affected by mild seas, during rough seas and storms, I imagine the ride can get very rough and risk damage to the engine.

With the huge ships we are talking about here, I cannot imagine this is even the slightest factor. There are no sudden movements on those beasts even in the roughest seas.

Jimbo

tdscanuck · Thu Jul 26, 2012 2:38 am

Quoting BreninTW (Reply 32):
Either way the engine is going to encounter some roughness during transit, but by air, it is typically of shorter duration. While container ships are big enough to not be as badly affected by mild seas, during rough seas and storms, I imagine the ride can get very rough and risk damage to the engine.

I don't think it's physically possible for a large ship to encounter the type of sharp acceleration peaks a truck or airplane goes through. Even if it did, the shipping cradles are sprung for this very reason.

Quoting BreninTW (Reply 32):
There's also the risk of a container falling overboard during rough seas.

I'd be pretty surprised if they were being shipped in standard containers. They don't even do that with shipped fuselage sections and those cost far less.

Tom.

bikerthai · Thu Jul 26, 2012 1:41 pm

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 34):
I'd be pretty surprised if they were being shipped in standard containers. They don't even do that with shipped fuselage sections and those cost far less.

Will those large engines even fit in a standard container? If not, then the price of shipping goes up. Perhaps they can ship the engines in one of the Car carrier ship - if they can fit it through the cargo doors?

One thing about shipping by sea is you have to wrap that engine up real tight if it's not in a sealed container. Don't know if any airline would be happy if they know their engine is sitting in a salt air environment for 30+ days.

As I remember, the 777 skin panels came from Japan in oversized containers. Come to think of it, those containers are the shape of a double tall standard container, so they could be stacked in a standard container ship.

So would you need a double wide by double tall container to be able to hold one of those large engine?

bt

mark2fly1034 · Thu Jul 26, 2012 6:56 pm

Why not have a lot arrive at some airport the same day and send them by train?

bikerthai · Thu Jul 26, 2012 7:12 pm

Quoting Mark2fly1034 (Reply 36):
Why not have a lot arrive at some airport the same day and send them by train?

Production rate for these airplanes do not warrant more than one a day. Even the with the 737, you don't need more than 3-4 a day. If a lot of these engine comes to Boeing at one time, they won't have any place to hold them until they can use them.

This would also be a reason why you don't want to have too many engines on a ship at any one time. Where are you going to put it once it reach the destination?

bt

KELPkid · Thu Jul 26, 2012 7:13 pm

Quoting Mark2fly1034 (Reply 36):
Why not have a lot arrive at some airport the same day and send them by train?

See this:

Quoting BreninTW (Reply 32):
On another forum I belong to, one of the members is/was working at Boeing and he passed an interesting comment one day: He stated that when an engine is delivered to Boeing by road, the first thing they check is the suspension on the truck. If it's spring suspension, the engine is rejected immediately. If it's air suspension, they will proceed with unloading.

Freight rail cars in the US have sprung suspensions

If the load needs to be protected from damage in transit, rail isn't the best way to go...how many times have you sat at a crossing for a train here in the US? I usually hear one or two cars in the train go by and hear "thump thump thump" as they go by...that is usually from flat spots on railcar wheels (created by sudden emergency stops). Maybe engines from GE and/or Pratt move by rail, but I would suspect that they are shipped from the manufacturer either by air or truck

bikerthai · Thu Jul 26, 2012 9:31 pm

Quoting KELPkid (Reply 38):
Maybe engines from GE and/or Pratt move by rail, but I would suspect that they are shipped from the manufacturer either by air or truck

Or an air suspended trailer on a flat bed train car.

Also, on trucks, there is less chance of some miscreant staking out a rail line to put holes in your multimillion dollars engines. 737 frames coming in by rails some times comes in with bullet holes in them.

bt

jetlife2 · Thu Jul 26, 2012 9:36 pm

The comments about how GE90's can be shipped by air are accurate, they can be split easily and transported by 747/777 freighter. However, this is not the way they are shipped to Boeing for production. We ship them overland fully assembled from Ohio to Everett. Takes about 5 days by truck and is very much cheaper than air. We are shipping about 5 a week so a little bit less than a truck a day. Very economical.

n92r03 · Thu Jul 26, 2012 10:28 pm

The OP asked about shipping to Boeing... The video below is to Airbus, but at 2:40 it shows on a truck, truck onto a ferry, then trucked to Airbus.

http://gizmodo.com/5926502/awesome-t...rolls+royce-builds-its-jet-engines

DocLightning · Sat Jul 28, 2012 7:52 pm

Quoting KELPkid (Reply 27):
Tom's point was, though, that the engine manufacturer doesn't get paid until the airframer receives the engine. From the engine manufacturer's point of view, an engine in transit is inventory that must be insured against loss, theft, etc. It gets off the books quicker if its shipped by the most expedient method.. The business case must work out better for shipping by air Also worthy of note, in most places, unsold inventory is taxable...

If you go by sea, you will need to go through the Panama Canal to get to the Port of Seattle, which is a huge detour.

Quoting BreninTW (Reply 32):
Either way the engine is going to encounter some roughness during transit, but by air, it is typically of shorter duration. While container ships are big enough to not be as badly affected by mild seas, during rough seas and storms, I imagine the ride can get very rough and risk damage to the engine.

If it's properly secured and other cargo around it is similarly secured, that should not happen. The engine itself is pretty tough, given what sort of work it is designed to do. Also the ships are very big, often actively stabilized, and although they can move around, it's not sudden jarring. It's just that ships are slow. They don't need to be fast like they used to be because time-sensitive cargo is flown by air.

trex8 · Sun Jul 29, 2012 4:29 pm

Quoting bikerthai (Reply 29):
The engines are typically purchased separately from the airplane. So I would think, the Engine manufacturer doesn't get paid until the Airline receive the aircraft. Boeing would be just the middle man in build-up and installing the engines.

In a previous thread on engine discounts from the OEM it was stated that airlines actually pay full price for the engine to the airframe manufacturer for the engine and then get an immediate rebate from the engine OEM at delivery. Presumably then the engine OEM could be floating some of the airframers money for a period as the engines have to be there for some period before actual delivery..

Article recently ? AWST where RR says their offering for 777X is too big to be carried in anything except a 777F! Apparently the doors on even a 747 not big enough. 146 x 120/124 in on 77F vs 148 x98 nose and 134 x 123 side on 747)

Viscount724 · Sun Jul 29, 2012 10:51 pm

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 42):
Quoting BreninTW (Reply 32):
Either way the engine is going to encounter some roughness during transit, but by air, it is typically of shorter duration. While container ships are big enough to not be as badly affected by mild seas, during rough seas and storms, I imagine the ride can get very rough and risk damage to the engine.

If it's properly secured and other cargo around it is similarly secured, that should not happen. The engine itself is pretty tough, given what sort of work it is designed to do. Also the ships are very big, often actively stabilized, and although they can move around, it's not sudden jarring. It's just that ships are slow. They don't need to be fast like they used to be because time-sensitive cargo is flown by air.

AC had a 77W divert to Fairbanks, Alaska with engine problems on a ICN flight in September 2008. One engine had turbine damage and required an engine change. The new engine was trucked from Toronto, almost 4,000 miles. Took close to a week, plus another week to change the engine (in the open air; lucky it wasn't mid-winter). The aircraft finally left FAI 2 weeks after it arrived. While the Alaska highway between northern British Columbia and Alaska is now paved, some sections can still be fairly rough. The engine survived the trip. Found some photos in this gallery.
http://www.garypaakkonen.com/keyword...4465299_RgUVq#!i=384482300&k=9TRsP

AC had another 77W divert to ANC a little later that also required an engine change.

[Edited 2012-07-29 15:55:45]

[Edited 2012-07-29 15:56:48]

mingocr83 · Sun Jul 29, 2012 11:17 pm

Well...shipping here is fairly simple. Based on the urgency for a lean operation in the Assembly line, the shipping is negotiated with a Air Freight Service provider or several. The deal includes part of the of the amount of engines for the program, this depends on logistics between Boeing, RR and aircraft availability from the service provider (they may subcontract other Air Freighters as well) The price of each engine includes shipping/handling and taxes as well....20 million a piece HAS to include this because of the insurance and such so Boeing can get the engines to the line as fast as they can and RR can get paid few days after the engines were shipped. If B has a overstock they have a warehouse where the engines are on their mounts waiting to be installed.

As far as I know, some of the engine models they get are put together on BPS...Airbus they get the engines fully assembled ready for FAL so the FAL can spit the airplanes quicker...this is all based on operational efficiencies.

BTW this is my first post on A.net, been reading these forums for a few years now...glad to be here and share with you folks..

[Edited 2012-07-29 16:21:38]

[Edited 2012-07-29 16:22:30]

dlednicer · Mon Jul 30, 2012 2:22 am

Quoting bikerthai (Reply 24):
Drove both routes many times. 405 have no tunnels (I-5, seattle conventionl).

Small quibble - I-405 southbound went through the Wilburton Tunnel in Bellevue, until the tunnel was removed in August 2008.

I've seen semi-tractors carrying engines on 405 northbound many times. The engines are carried on flat beds, covered by form-fitting tarps. I've seen Boeing trucks carrying spars from Auburn to Everett quite often too.

I've seen (and photographed) trains carrying 737 fuselages several times. They used to come down through Bellevue, but since the Wilburton Tunnel was taken down, the eastside rail line has been cut. They now go down through Seattle. I've never seen one going into or coming out of the train tunnel under downtown Seattle (or the Cascade Tunnel in Stevens Pass). Someday, I'll catch one - it would make a great photo to catch a 737 nose coming out of a tunnel.

HAWK21M · Mon Jul 30, 2012 8:12 am

Has to be shipped as QECAs [Quick engine change assemblies].Cant be in modular breaks.

bikerthai · Mon Jul 30, 2012 1:50 pm

Quoting trex8 (Reply 43):

Article recently ? AWST where RR says their offering for 777X is too big to be carried in anything except a 777F!

Well, I guess now we know what will limit the size of the next generation of engines. Not it's efficiency, rather how it will be shipped.

bt

Starlionblue · Mon Jul 30, 2012 3:50 pm

Quoting bikerthai (Reply 48):
Well, I guess now we know what will limit the size of the next generation of engines. Not it's efficiency, rather how it will be shipped.

This is not actually a new thing in aviation. Rocket stages have been limited by transportation options as well.

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net