forgot to bid

From Janes:

This turbofan powers many members of the Airbus A320 family, The V2500 engine was formally launched in January 1984, its design being based on previous work by the partners listed in the company profile. The designation reflected the original five partners (Roman V), and the design thrust of 25,000 lb.

1) The advanced fan, with wide-chord unshrouded blades, was based on that of the Rolls-Royce 535E4,
2) the compressor on a Rolls-Royce research programme which also led to the RB401 and RJ500 (a predecessor Rolls-Royce/Japan project), and
3) the turbines, gearbox and Fadec on Pratt & Whitney work in conjunction with MTU, and
4) FiatAvio (now Avio) for the accessory gearbox. FiatAvio left the consortium; Avio remains a major supplier to the consortium.

Each IAE partner contributes an individual module for the V2500, an arrangement that enables each partner's engineers to concentrate on continuously refining that module.

1) Pratt & Whitney produces the combustor and high-pressure turbine,
2) Rolls-Royce the high-pressure compressor,
3) JAEC the fan and low-pressure compressor and
4) MTU the low-pressure turbine.

Pratt & Whitney and Rolls-Royce assemble and test the engines at their respective facilities in Middletown, Connecticut, US, and at Dahlewitz, Germany. The headquarters' staff (based in Connecticut) is seconded from partner companies and is responsible for sales, marketing, support and administration.The first V2500 engine began testing in December 1985, with certification scheduled for April 1988. The design of the compressor was aimed at achieving a record pressure ratio and record efficiency simultaneously, and it did not deliver the promised performance.

Jabberwock

I believe the number of airplanes BUILT which are non conforming is a unique problem in Boeing's history. The 747 did have engine problems, but the airframe itself was pretty well sorted. In the 787's case there are issues in the very core of the structure and systems design. Just the airplanes sitting on the ramp right now reflect several billion dollars. Boeing is stating that they are going to move on to later build numbers, so the airplanes already built are going to inhabit one very expensive "cockroach corner" at the airport. Further, the humid weather and well sealed fuselages are causing a lot of condensation which apparently is not helping the electrical components any.

Jabberwock

Think you just did

Airhoss

They need to separate the milk from the toast around here..

Columbia

Very interesting article on the 787. It appears they sold the plane for cheese and very likely will never break even. Very sad...

The price of Boeing's 787 sales success - FlightBlogger - Aviation News, Commentary and Analysis

- How the 787 backlog was built
- Predicable costs at 787's foundation
- Scott Carson's ascent
- Can the 787-9 undo the damage?
- Looking at 17 787's per month
- The revival of the 787-10
- Redrawing the supply chain lines

forgot to bid

wonder what the breakeven is for the 787 now, 600, 700, the entire backlog, or 1000 aircraft? How many 757s did Boeing make? 1050

this seems to be a similiar program to the eclipse 500 where over zealous marketing required enormous production volume but design flaws and production issues created increase costs and low production rates which then required price changes and it ended in failure. i mean 787 failure will probably never mean boeing leaving commercial aviation but it is certainly shaping up to be a spectacular failure in terms of results versus goals.

ColdWhiskey

Boeing's use of outsourced vendors and the associated non-conforming parts is also causing them problems with the 737ng (as evidenced by the following Boeing Whistle Blower link). The video clip is long (52 minutes) but very interesting, eye-opening, and disturbing. You may want to take a look, especially if you fly a 737.

Airline Pilot News and Analysis - Video

Jabberwock

At about 12:00 the video becoming riveting (no pun intended). Not only is this a critical safety concern Boeing has complained to the FAA about in modification shops, but now we learn that Boeing's breaches were MUCH worse than they allege others did.

So, if Boeing's testimony in previous cases is to be believed, it is serious. But when Boeing is involved in the same breach, they go silent and admit nothing. If the routine process of bringing in a Designated Engineering Representative to design a fix on the floor, that's fine and happens all the time.

The FAA stated:
Here's what was alleged:But again, if Boeing caught and engineered repairs to the parts before assembly, then it is not a problem. Getting to the bottom of this would take more investigation than non experts with limited budgets can pull off.

The cases involving the Plaintiff's claims on safety have been dismissed. The whistle blower retaliation lawsuits continue.

alvrb211

Too many to remember.

The F-35, AV8 Harrier, V22 Osprey, C-130, Navy T-45 and the next gen Naval destroyers come to mind.

More here: Defence Aerospace - Rolls-Royce


T

forgot to bid

Do you like bring up Rolls Royce engines when talking to women?

I have no idea who makes the engines for said airplanes, I think Satch was thinking of the heavy metal and fighters and well, probably the C130 too.

Because you wrote it in a "it's just the greatest thing EVER" fashion let's play this game:

F-35... PW. Where is the RR engine there? OH YEAH, I forgot, the "alternate engine" is the GE/RR one. The one the DOD said they don't want. The one Obama said he'd veto. The one congress is making them do $$ anyways. Did that get approved?

Next
AV8-Harrier. RR for sure, we knew that. British aircraft really, British engine. Makes sense given what went into the development of that aircraft and it's critical engine.

V22 Osprey... AE1107C. As in Allison. As in not a RR design. RR owns them as of 1995. Kind of like Boeing owns the 717 but it's really a DC-9. More on this in a moment.

C-130... Allison T56, or the AE2100 on the 130J. As in Allison. More in a second.

T-45... RR/Turbomeca. So yes, I guess you can count that as a RR engine, sort of. Kind of like the V2500?

Now back to the point of Bar's original post, the 787 has major problems and one of them is engine related. An engine blew up on the test stand and it should not have. It was a production engine. A A380 had a spectacular failure in flight and grounded the entire A380 fleet and Qantas is after RR financially for that.

My point was after having talked briefly with an engineer who specialized in engine compressors he said he was absolutely not surprised by the A380's failure as RR builds their engines different and it was in his opinion not for the better. His explanation was too fast and furious for me to memorize and write down but the engine oil issue was a part of it. His assertion was it was a design flaw in the Trent engines. If I ever can find an article on the web that has a similar argument I'll post it... if I ever look for one.

BUT, big BUTT, engines fail. Every one of them fails, PW, GE and RR although some believe the RR engines we're designed by the Angel Gabriel or something.

RR is having issues, go to news.google.com and put in Rolls Royce jet engine. To deny that is occurring is a little odd. It's like denying the L1011's demise was due greatly to RR's failure and receivership.