787's serious problems ... Boeing's in a hole
#31
#32
I'm pretty sure that the AV-8B is powered by a RR engine, but that is the only USN/USMC tactical aircraft that I can think of. I think the newest model of the KC-130s for the USMC also use RR engines. It seems that GE is the preferred engine manufacturer overall, but that is just an observation. I certainly don't know the type of every engine in use.
USMCFLYR
USMCFLYR
#35
#36
I think Boeing will pull through. I don't think Boeing, Airbus, GE, or RR are in for an easy ride especially when it comes to next gen aircraft.
It's difficult to name any iconic engineering firm that hasn't had major issues at some point.
JJ
#37
Source: Rolls-Royce AE 3007 (United States) - Jane's Aero-Engines
My point was that some may want to call the V2500 engines on the 90 as RR, but it's no more RR than PW. I wouldn't call the V2500 a real RR engine anymore than I would call the 3007 a real RR designed engine. I threw the AE3007 in just as a reminder to some that the name on the side is not always the designer.
I say that going back to my point earlier which was, according to some engine folks, RR's compressor sections of their engines are designed in such a way as to not be as reliable. The engine failure on the 380 was not a surprise. That's the problem.
1 word, Charleston. They came to that ploy late, had they done that earlier it may have achieved their desired pressure on IAM751 but instead they've ruined their supply chain and manufacturing quality. Boeing is inept right now. I think Delta referred to them as a ship without a rudder a few months ago. That's buried in the L&G thread somewhere.
Last edited by forgot to bid; 12-21-2010 at 07:08 AM.
#38
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Posts: 2,539
As I recall, the US Harrier purchase was an industrial offset to the British purchase of the US Trident missile system. I note that the Harrier replacement is to be powered by a Pratt and Whitney engine (F-135).
#39
Back to the 787, makes you wonder if they should've just tried some of their 787 systems out on the 748 first or even an upgraded 763. If it worked run with a 787 later.
If they wanted to be revolutionary they could've turned that RC flying wing into something real using conventional systems but allowing the wing to win the efficiency instead of pushing unconventional technologies, supply chain processes and manufacturing to their limits and putting it all into a conventional design made out of plastic. Unconventional stuff in a conventional looking design or vice versa?
If they wanted to be revolutionary they could've turned that RC flying wing into something real using conventional systems but allowing the wing to win the efficiency instead of pushing unconventional technologies, supply chain processes and manufacturing to their limits and putting it all into a conventional design made out of plastic. Unconventional stuff in a conventional looking design or vice versa?
#40
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post