787's serious problems ... Boeing's in a hole
12-21-2010, 08:39 AM
#41
:-)
Joined APC: Feb 2007
Posts: 7,339
Someone I'm sure is not going to find that funny.
sheesh, I've had many a family member die that way....whoopie cushion heart attack.I think they are just tipping the surface with the 787 problems. From what my engineering friends are saying at Boeing they may just start on the 797. Government bailout??
12-21-2010, 08:49 AM
#42
No longer cares
Joined APC: Mar 2008
Position: 767er Captain
Posts: 12,109
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?
12-21-2010, 10:33 AM
#43
veut gagner à la loterie
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: Light Chop
Posts: 23,286
12-21-2010, 11:02 AM
#44
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2010
Position: Not on this message board.
Posts: 159
12-21-2010, 12:09 PM
#45
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2007
Posts: 1,045
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.
In terms of reliability, the RB211 gave Pratt's 2000 series on the B757 a very bloody nose. This is the main reason most B757's in service are RR powered. The RB211 holds the world record for time on wing before overhaul!
T
12-21-2010, 12:30 PM
#47
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2007
Posts: 1,045
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
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
UPS were having issues with their PW2000 powered 757's. They were not making TBO. They switched to using the proven RR RB211 on their B757's.
JJ
12-21-2010, 01:00 PM
#48
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2007
Posts: 1,045
That's what they (AT guys) said they're hearing. I believe at one point the PW 757s at DAL had a similiar bad situation but I don't know the specifics but just that some people say it got down to within just two or three thousand hours prior to a fix. I thought that was back in the late 90s or 00s but not sure... actually look here, some mechanic comments:
Delta 757 Engines — Civil Aviation Forum | Airliners.net
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.
Delta 757 Engines — Civil Aviation Forum | Airliners.net
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.
The vast majority of B757's in the world are Rolls powered! The PW's used old technology and didn't make TBO. They didn't even have wide chord fan blades. Only RR engines on the B757/B767/B747 had wide chord fan blades.
As PW were not selected for the B787 or the A350XWB, they are pretty much history as far as the civil widebody market goes.
GE and Rolls are different class. I'm a big fan of both, as is the airline industry.
JJ
Last edited by alvrb211; 12-21-2010 at 02:21 PM.
12-21-2010, 03:23 PM
#49
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: Sleeping in the black swan’s nest.
Posts: 5,725
UAL had a TON of teething problems with the PW4077's and the 4090's on the 777. They had a bad habit of blowing main shaft seal and ****ing out all the oil. We had one just past the last ETP from Auckland to LAX for a 180 minute + ETOPS divert to KOA.
(You can't say pi$$ing on APC? REALLY?)
(You can't say pi$$ing on APC? REALLY?)
12-21-2010, 05:14 PM
#50
Moderate Moderator
Joined APC: Mar 2008
Position: Curator at Static Display
Posts: 5,681
Boeing's Historical Teething Pains
Boeing has a long history of aircraft development problems.
The B-17 and B-29 both had engine-cooling problems. In the case of the B-29, it had a nasty habit of catching fire and crashing.
The Stratocruiser had a history of runaway props.
The early 707 (first aircraft I can think of with landing-gear 'trucks') had at least two cases where the trucks failed, and two wheels left the jet.
It took a long time to fix the S-Duct in the 727 to solve compressor stalls on #2.
The 737-100 had too much drag.
The 747 prototype had huge engine problems, namely, the engines would go 'out of round;' ie, they were no longer circular in cross-section. This caused inefficiencies at the least, and if it got severe, blade-inpingement and failure.
The point is, all of these airplanes ended up being remembered as great Boeing airplanes.
In the case of the 787: I believe they will eventually solve their engineering problems. BUT: as others have pointed out, this is the first Boeing airliner where the bulk of the work is parted-out, and largely parted-out internationally (previous work was done mostly in the US, to my knowledge, by Vought, Boeing Wichita, Rohr, etc). Couple that with it being unconventional by Boeing standards (first composite primary structures, first electric air system), and I think it will take much more time to solve than previous dilemmas.
I think where Boeing is failing is in not being honest. The original flight was delayed years. The cert is delayed years. The first deliveries are delayed....weeks or months?
I think we are at least 2 years from the first delivered and certified airplane. And by then, airlines will have either punted and gone elsewhere, or will have been so financially burned by the delay that any efficiencies the plane promised will have been wasted.
The B-17 and B-29 both had engine-cooling problems. In the case of the B-29, it had a nasty habit of catching fire and crashing.
The Stratocruiser had a history of runaway props.
The early 707 (first aircraft I can think of with landing-gear 'trucks') had at least two cases where the trucks failed, and two wheels left the jet.
It took a long time to fix the S-Duct in the 727 to solve compressor stalls on #2.
The 737-100 had too much drag.
The 747 prototype had huge engine problems, namely, the engines would go 'out of round;' ie, they were no longer circular in cross-section. This caused inefficiencies at the least, and if it got severe, blade-inpingement and failure.
The point is, all of these airplanes ended up being remembered as great Boeing airplanes.
In the case of the 787: I believe they will eventually solve their engineering problems. BUT: as others have pointed out, this is the first Boeing airliner where the bulk of the work is parted-out, and largely parted-out internationally (previous work was done mostly in the US, to my knowledge, by Vought, Boeing Wichita, Rohr, etc). Couple that with it being unconventional by Boeing standards (first composite primary structures, first electric air system), and I think it will take much more time to solve than previous dilemmas.
I think where Boeing is failing is in not being honest. The original flight was delayed years. The cert is delayed years. The first deliveries are delayed....weeks or months?
I think we are at least 2 years from the first delivered and certified airplane. And by then, airlines will have either punted and gone elsewhere, or will have been so financially burned by the delay that any efficiencies the plane promised will have been wasted.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
