787's serious problems ... Boeing's in a hole
12-20-2010, 08:44 PM
#21
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2008
Posts: 299
Originally Posted by alvrb211
Irony? Are you kidding?
Good luck finding an airline or aircraft, with the exception of SWA and the B737, that doesn't operate RR engines.
Try the same with Air force, Army & Navy. They are all major RR customers and that includes the US DOD!
JJ
Good luck finding an airline or aircraft, with the exception of SWA and the B737, that doesn't operate RR engines.
Try the same with Air force, Army & Navy. They are all major RR customers and that includes the US DOD!
JJ
12-20-2010, 08:57 PM
#22
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2007
Posts: 1,045
Originally Posted by tortue
If Rolls Royce is so good, how come they needed a bailout from the British government in the 1970s (which was only given if the US promised to guarantee the loans for the L-1011). If they're so good, the product should be able to stand on its own without a bailout.
I think a customer base of over 600 airlines and defense contracts in over 100 countries (including the USA) proves the company isn't troubled by the events of last century. Your point?
T
12-20-2010, 11:12 PM
#23
APC co-founder
Joined APC: Feb 2005
Position: B777
Posts: 5,853
As an aside, the delays in the 787 program have spurred production increases in the 777 line. Boeing announced that 777 production will increase to 8.3 airframes per month (the second recently announced production increase) which equates to about 100 airframes per year.
12-21-2010, 12:38 AM
#24
veut gagner à la loterie
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: Light Chop
Posts: 23,286
Originally Posted by alvrb211
The reason Rolls keeps winning engine contracts is because they are a world class engine builder who's products are in demand.
The recent uncontained engine failure of a Trent 1000 occured on a test bed in England and NOT on a B787. The engine was being tested beyond operational limits when it failed.
Conversley, the recent uncontained failures of large GE turbofans occured on a few aircraft while in service under normal conditions. And yes, the recent uncontained failure of a Trent 900 did occur in service under normal conditions. This was the first uncontained failure of a large RR engine in 142 million service hours. This speaks volumes in terms of reliability!
Regardless, both GE and RR build world class engines and the demand from Boeing, Airbus, and literally hundreds of airlines worldwide proves it.
JJ
The recent uncontained engine failure of a Trent 1000 occured on a test bed in England and NOT on a B787. The engine was being tested beyond operational limits when it failed.
Conversley, the recent uncontained failures of large GE turbofans occured on a few aircraft while in service under normal conditions. And yes, the recent uncontained failure of a Trent 900 did occur in service under normal conditions. This was the first uncontained failure of a large RR engine in 142 million service hours. This speaks volumes in terms of reliability!
Regardless, both GE and RR build world class engines and the demand from Boeing, Airbus, and literally hundreds of airlines worldwide proves it.
JJ
The Trent 900 also had a uncontained failure while hanging underneath an A380 in flight, which we’re all aware of. So wouldn't that be 2 in a few month span?
Qantas Blames Rolls-Royce for Engine Failure - WSJ.com
Boeing 747 and Airbus A380 Aircraft News from Flightglobal
In early June during routine ground testing at a Rolls-Royce facility in Derby, England, a Trent 1000 suffered a major failure that saw pieces of the engine pierce the protective coverings and damage the test area. The incident raised red flags at Boeing, since the engine being tested was destined for a production airplane, not a prototype. Rolls-Royce officials scrambled to minimize the fallout and come up with a fix to a problem involving oil pooling in the engine's turbine.
Boeing officials in September said they were confident that solution would work. Prior to the engine failure in England, Boeing's fleet of Trent 1000-equipped test flight Dreamliners had seen at least one other engine issue.
Then on Sept. 10, while taxiing at during test operations at an airport in Roswell, N.M., one of the 787's two engines experienced a power surge, which forced the pilots to shut the engine. The incident required the engine be replaced and at the time, Boeing officials called the event "an isolated incident."
Originally Posted by alvrb211
Irony? Are you kidding?
Good luck finding an airline or aircraft, with the exception of SWA and the B737, that doesn't operate RR engines.
Try the same with Air force, Army & Navy. They are all major RR customers and that includes the US DOD!
JJ
Good luck finding an airline or aircraft, with the exception of SWA and the B737, that doesn't operate RR engines.
Try the same with Air force, Army & Navy. They are all major RR customers and that includes the US DOD!
JJ
Of the 800 aircraft in the fleet at Delta only 8 are RR powered. The 8 are the 777ERs, the remaining LRs are GE. That's about 1% of the fleet.
You can point to the V2500 on our MD90s but RR and PW have their hand in that pot. I wouldn't count it anymore than saying the AE3007 on ERJ's is really a RR designed engine.
IAE V2500 (International) - Jane's Aero-Engines
The irony I see is that the RR engines on the L1011 put RR into receivership and the subsequent failures of RR to have a timely delivery of what was needed to compete against the DC-10 eventually pushed Lockheed out of commercial aviation. Now here is the 787 and A380 having trouble with theirs. You could claim any of the engine manufacturers are ‘world class’ but when it trips up the manufacturing and potential operational success of the aircraft who cares if they’re world class?
Now is Boeing or Airbus going to be pushed out of commercial aviation because of RR engines? No. I'm not saying the A380 and/or the 787 will fail because of RR, however, if either of these two planes do fail because of engine issues then they can join the L1011, which ironicallyhad RR engines.
Now, for background, this is then:
Jumbo Jet Engines for Lockheed Push Rolls-Royce in Red
Catch a Falling TriStar - TIME
And this is now:
A380 deliveries hit by Rolls-Royce engine failure: Airbus - The Economic Times
More Setbacks Expected For 787
Boeing 787 EIS delayed by three months due to Trent 1000 failure ? Airline Industry Review
Scrutiny high for 787 ETOPS certification | Puget Sound Business Journal
FT.com / Companies / Aerospace & Defence - Rolls-Royce scrambles to pin down problem
A calm Rolls-Royce carries on amid engine issues Due Diligence - MarketWatch
Qantas can sue Rolls-Royce on A380 on engines | The Australian
40 Rolls Royce engines on half A380 superjumbos need replacing, says Qantas boss | Mail Online
Also, I didn't add the 717 but according to some of the folks at AirTran they talk about the RB715 engines on the 717 having significant issues in terms of TBOs below 3000 hours and a lack of support. I don't know if that's true nor do I have a link and maybe one of the AT folks could elaborate. That said, I'd gladly take every 717 built into the fleet even if they're having problems with the RR engines but if the 717 is having issues with RR engines add that to the pile.
Again, just a friendly reminder, if it's a good engine I could care less who built it. If it's a bad engine or bad plane, I don't want to fly it. I really could care less who builds the engines or the plane, not a homer for any country or any manufacturer.
Last edited by forgot to bid; 12-21-2010 at 12:50 AM.
12-21-2010, 12:46 AM
#25
Can't abide NAI
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Jun 2007
Position: Douglas Aerospace post production Flight Test & Work Around Engineering bulletin dissembler
Posts: 11,989
3,000 hours? Sure someone did not leave a zero off? 3,000 is astonishingly low for a modern engine in 121 service.
The CFM 56's are on the wing 30,000 hours and have minimal work needed, even after flying for 9 or 10 years. When parts are needed there are a variety of sources which compete on price.
The CFM 56's are on the wing 30,000 hours and have minimal work needed, even after flying for 9 or 10 years. When parts are needed there are a variety of sources which compete on price.
12-21-2010, 12:59 AM
#26
veut gagner à la loterie
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: Light Chop
Posts: 23,286
Originally Posted by Bucking Bar
3,000 hours? Sure someone did not leave a zero off? 3,000 is astonishingly low for a modern engine in 121 service.
The CFM 56's are on the wing 30,000 hours and have minimal work needed, even after flying for 9 or 10 years. When parts are needed there are a variety of sources which compete on price.
The CFM 56's are on the wing 30,000 hours and have minimal work needed, even after flying for 9 or 10 years. When parts are needed there are a variety of sources which compete on price.
http://www.airliners.net/aviation-fo...d.main/224664/
Actually, I had heard about this because at the time I was at Coex and overheard a conversation because CAL had RR engines on their 757s. Now while the RR engines on the CAL aircraft are or were based on anecdotal evidence more reliable than the PW the pilots commented the fuel burns were higher. No idea if the latter is true or was the driving factor to have PW on so many other airlines 757s including DAL and NWA.
Now to be fair, and obviously I'm not a RR lover... or hater, but their Trent 700 engines get into the 40,000 range sometimes and obviously engines should be running at least into the 20,000 to 30,000 range. I did see a blurb from some engine folks saying that these high overhaul ranges are not necessarily indicative of reliability, for whatever that's worth.
12-21-2010, 01:25 AM
#27
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2007
Position: 747 FO
Posts: 937
Originally Posted by contrails
After taking a VIP tour on the factory floor in Everett, donning the shoe covers and crawling around in 747s, 767s, and 777s that were in various stages of production from green sheet metal to one 777 that was in the final hours until heading to the paint shop, I was blown away by the craftsmanship that appears to go into building these machines. It is imperative to have experienced, qualified people building them, even if they seem a bit overpaid. As Boeing is finding out the hard way, they are worth the extra coin.
12-21-2010, 04:37 AM
#28
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2010
Position: Not on this message board.
Posts: 159
Originally Posted by forgot to bid
The Trent 1000 (787 engine) failure was an uncontained failure of an engine during high power runs (or as RR put it "outside normal parameter") but the engine involved was not a prototype and this wasn't a run it up til it fails kind of thing. This shocked folks probably as much as the debris shocked the facility.
The Trent 900 also had a uncontained failure while hanging underneath an A380 in flight, which we’re all aware of. So wouldn't that be 2 in a few month span?
Qantas Blames Rolls-Royce for Engine Failure - WSJ.com
Boeing 747 and Airbus A380 Aircraft News from Flightglobal
In early June during routine ground testing at a Rolls-Royce facility in Derby, England, a Trent 1000 suffered a major failure that saw pieces of the engine pierce the protective coverings and damage the test area. The incident raised red flags at Boeing, since the engine being tested was destined for a production airplane, not a prototype. Rolls-Royce officials scrambled to minimize the fallout and come up with a fix to a problem involving oil pooling in the engine's turbine.
Boeing officials in September said they were confident that solution would work. Prior to the engine failure in England, Boeing's fleet of Trent 1000-equipped test flight Dreamliners had seen at least one other engine issue.
Then on Sept. 10, while taxiing at during test operations at an airport in Roswell, N.M., one of the 787's two engines experienced a power surge, which forced the pilots to shut the engine. The incident required the engine be replaced and at the time, Boeing officials called the event "an isolated incident."
Am I kidding? No.
Of the 800 aircraft in the fleet at Delta only 8 are RR powered. The 8 are the 777ERs, the remaining LRs are GE. That's about 1% of the fleet.
You can point to the V2500 on our MD90s but RR and PW have their hand in that pot. I wouldn't count it anymore than saying the AE3007 on ERJ's is really a RR designed engine.
IAE V2500 (International) - Jane's Aero-Engines
The irony I see is that the RR engines on the L1011 put RR into receivership and the subsequent failures of RR to have a timely delivery of what was needed to compete against the DC-10 eventually pushed Lockheed out of commercial aviation. Now here is the 787 and A380 having trouble with theirs. You could claim any of the engine manufacturers are ‘world class’ but when it trips up the manufacturing and potential operational success of the aircraft who cares if they’re world class?
Now is Boeing or Airbus going to be pushed out of commercial aviation because of RR engines? No. I'm not saying the A380 and/or the 787 will fail because of RR, however, if either of these two planes do fail because of engine issues then they can join the L1011, which ironicallyhad RR engines.
Now, for background, this is then:
Jumbo Jet Engines for Lockheed Push Rolls-Royce in Red
Catch a Falling TriStar - TIME
And this is now:
A380 deliveries hit by Rolls-Royce engine failure: Airbus - The Economic Times
More Setbacks Expected For 787
Boeing 787 EIS delayed by three months due to Trent 1000 failure ? Airline Industry Review
Scrutiny high for 787 ETOPS certification | Puget Sound Business Journal
FT.com / Companies / Aerospace & Defence - Rolls-Royce scrambles to pin down problem
A calm Rolls-Royce carries on amid engine issues Due Diligence - MarketWatch
Qantas can sue Rolls-Royce on A380 on engines | The Australian
40 Rolls Royce engines on half A380 superjumbos need replacing, says Qantas boss | Mail Online
Also, I didn't add the 717 but according to some of the folks at AirTran they talk about the RB715 engines on the 717 having significant issues in terms of TBOs below 3000 hours and a lack of support. I don't know if that's true nor do I have a link and maybe one of the AT folks could elaborate. That said, I'd gladly take every 717 built into the fleet even if they're having problems with the RR engines but if the 717 is having issues with RR engines add that to the pile.
Again, just a friendly reminder, if it's a good engine I could care less who built it. If it's a bad engine or bad plane, I don't want to fly it. I really could care less who builds the engines or the plane, not a homer for any country or any manufacturer.
The Trent 900 also had a uncontained failure while hanging underneath an A380 in flight, which we’re all aware of. So wouldn't that be 2 in a few month span?
Qantas Blames Rolls-Royce for Engine Failure - WSJ.com
Boeing 747 and Airbus A380 Aircraft News from Flightglobal
In early June during routine ground testing at a Rolls-Royce facility in Derby, England, a Trent 1000 suffered a major failure that saw pieces of the engine pierce the protective coverings and damage the test area. The incident raised red flags at Boeing, since the engine being tested was destined for a production airplane, not a prototype. Rolls-Royce officials scrambled to minimize the fallout and come up with a fix to a problem involving oil pooling in the engine's turbine.
Boeing officials in September said they were confident that solution would work. Prior to the engine failure in England, Boeing's fleet of Trent 1000-equipped test flight Dreamliners had seen at least one other engine issue.
Then on Sept. 10, while taxiing at during test operations at an airport in Roswell, N.M., one of the 787's two engines experienced a power surge, which forced the pilots to shut the engine. The incident required the engine be replaced and at the time, Boeing officials called the event "an isolated incident."
Am I kidding? No.
Of the 800 aircraft in the fleet at Delta only 8 are RR powered. The 8 are the 777ERs, the remaining LRs are GE. That's about 1% of the fleet.
You can point to the V2500 on our MD90s but RR and PW have their hand in that pot. I wouldn't count it anymore than saying the AE3007 on ERJ's is really a RR designed engine.
IAE V2500 (International) - Jane's Aero-Engines
The irony I see is that the RR engines on the L1011 put RR into receivership and the subsequent failures of RR to have a timely delivery of what was needed to compete against the DC-10 eventually pushed Lockheed out of commercial aviation. Now here is the 787 and A380 having trouble with theirs. You could claim any of the engine manufacturers are ‘world class’ but when it trips up the manufacturing and potential operational success of the aircraft who cares if they’re world class?
Now is Boeing or Airbus going to be pushed out of commercial aviation because of RR engines? No. I'm not saying the A380 and/or the 787 will fail because of RR, however, if either of these two planes do fail because of engine issues then they can join the L1011, which ironicallyhad RR engines.
Now, for background, this is then:
Jumbo Jet Engines for Lockheed Push Rolls-Royce in Red
Catch a Falling TriStar - TIME
And this is now:
A380 deliveries hit by Rolls-Royce engine failure: Airbus - The Economic Times
More Setbacks Expected For 787
Boeing 787 EIS delayed by three months due to Trent 1000 failure ? Airline Industry Review
Scrutiny high for 787 ETOPS certification | Puget Sound Business Journal
FT.com / Companies / Aerospace & Defence - Rolls-Royce scrambles to pin down problem
A calm Rolls-Royce carries on amid engine issues Due Diligence - MarketWatch
Qantas can sue Rolls-Royce on A380 on engines | The Australian
40 Rolls Royce engines on half A380 superjumbos need replacing, says Qantas boss | Mail Online
Also, I didn't add the 717 but according to some of the folks at AirTran they talk about the RB715 engines on the 717 having significant issues in terms of TBOs below 3000 hours and a lack of support. I don't know if that's true nor do I have a link and maybe one of the AT folks could elaborate. That said, I'd gladly take every 717 built into the fleet even if they're having problems with the RR engines but if the 717 is having issues with RR engines add that to the pile.
Again, just a friendly reminder, if it's a good engine I could care less who built it. If it's a bad engine or bad plane, I don't want to fly it. I really could care less who builds the engines or the plane, not a homer for any country or any manufacturer.
Ok-- know all the facts. My father worked for RR for 40 years.
DELTA approached RR about re-engining the 757 fleet because-- as you DAL peeps may remember about 8-10 years ago-- the PW engines on DAL's 757s had major problems-- no flex/reduced thrust take offs, no single engine taxi, etc. There were many limitations put on pilots with what they could do.
Delta looked into re-engining with the RB211-535, but ultimately found that it was too cost prohibitive. So to say that Delta "only has 8" may be true, but it almost was much more than that! The AE engine on the ERJ is Rolls Royce, Allison is owned by RR. That is like saying the 747's in DAL fleet aren't really Delta. They are now!
ALSO,
British Airways DID change their order mid-order from Boeing with the 777s from GE to RR after having several major failures with their GE engines, one grenading on the take-off roll at Heathrow, shutting down that runway! This is why half of their 777s have GE, and half have RR.
GE has had their share of MAJOR problems! They get through it, and have a fantastic product... it is called progress.
RR's number 1 customer as of 2005? American Airlines.
RR builds a fantastic product (yes, I am biased, but look at the numbers!).
-spike
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
