Suprised you lot have let the 787/Rolls delay go uncommented

[DJC]

Thought Eric would have been all over this by now.

If folks do with to comment, be warned there are a few people who work for Rolls and at Derby on the board!

[M-J-B]

Is it the airframe or powerplant that is late?

[hurstg01]

BBC News said:

Boeing said the setback was due to the availability of a Rolls-Royce engine needed for the final phases of flight testing.

BBC News said:

A spokesman for Rolls-Royce said: "We have been informed by Boeing that the currently planned dates for Trent 1000 engine deliveries will now not support their latest flight test programme requirements.

"We are working closely with Boeing to expedite delivery in support of their programme schedule.

So Boeing rejigged their test flight programme requirements, shifting the goalposts and make RR sound in the press that they are at fault, and RR [very PR aware] said they are doing all they can to keep up with the new schedule?

[M-J-B]

hurstg01 said:

BBC News said:

Boeing said the setback was due to the availability of a Rolls-Royce engine needed for the final phases of flight testing.

BBC News said:

A spokesman for Rolls-Royce said: "We have been informed by Boeing that the currently planned dates for Trent 1000 engine deliveries will now not support their latest flight test programme requirements.

"We are working closely with Boeing to expedite delivery in support of their programme schedule.

So Boeing rejigged their test flight programme requirements, shifting the goalposts and make RR sound in the press that they are at fault, and RR [very PR aware] said they are doing all they can to keep up with the new schedule?

I was hoping that it was the Americans fault.

Why blame yourself when you can blame others

[havoc]

This is Boeing - the masters at blaming others (and making others seem worse than they are - Airbus FBW issues vs 737 rudder hard-over, anyone?!?).

[Chrisgr31]

M-J-B said:

hurstg01 said:

BBC News said:

Boeing said the setback was due to the availability of a Rolls-Royce engine needed for the final phases of flight testing.

BBC News said:

A spokesman for Rolls-Royce said: "We have been informed by Boeing that the currently planned dates for Trent 1000 engine deliveries will now not support their latest flight test programme requirements.

"We are working closely with Boeing to expedite delivery in support of their programme schedule.

So Boeing rejigged their test flight programme requirements, shifting the goalposts and make RR sound in the press that they are at fault, and RR [very PR aware] said they are doing all they can to keep up with the new schedule?

I was hoping that it was the Americans fault.

Why blame yourself when you can blame others

It did appear from the news reports on this that it wasnt Rolls Royces fault but Boeings. Mind you as the aircraft is very late (2 years is it) it does seem slightly surprising the engine isnt ready to go. Although I guess there was no point working on the engine until it became clear that Boeing werent going to can the project!

[TimJMS]

Can we have a link? The only info I can find is a link to an unconfined engine failure that additionally managed to damage the test facility at Derby.

[hurstg01]

TimJMS said:

Can we have a link? The only info I can find is a link to an unconfined engine failure that additionally managed to damage the test facility at Derby.

You can

[TimJMS]

Cheers - does rather point to RR being the culprits though.

[Mojocvh]

More than likely some smoke and mirrors from both companies.

Airbus expo on the dreamliner, some imteresting points ref powerplant.

http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/flightblogger/20...

no where near the full document, in fact they are being very kind to boeing.

http://www.planebusiness.com/buzz/airbus2.pdf

Edited by Mojocvh on Monday 30th August 18:42

[pikeyboy]

TimJMS said:

Can we have a link? The only info I can find is a link to an unconfined engine failure that additionally managed to damage the test facility at Derby.

Just heard from an ex work mate very close to the Trent 1000 dev team that they had a failure due to oil pooling in a shaft during several dry cranks of a Trent 1000 engine. The engine was subsequently started and run up to full power when the pooled oil ignited, the ensuing fire destroyed the engine allowing the turbine and compressor to seperate. Head scratching time regarding oil drainage and air sealing of bearing chambers.

[Somewhatfoolish]

Mojocvh said:

More than likely some smoke and mirrors from both companies.

Airbus expo on the dreamliner, some imteresting points ref powerplant.

http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/flightblogger/20...

no where near the full document, in fact they are being very kind to boeing.

http://www.planebusiness.com/buzz/airbus2.pdf

Edited by Mojocvh on Monday 30th August 18:42

Bloody hell!

[S3_Graham]

DJC said:

Thought Eric would have been all over this by now.

If folks do with to comment, be warned there are a few people who work for Rolls and at Derby on the board!

have you had a hand in this one also mate?

[Mojocvh]

pikeyboy said:

TimJMS said:

Can we have a link? The only info I can find is a link to an unconfined engine failure that additionally managed to damage the test facility at Derby.

Just heard from an ex work mate very close to the Trent 1000 dev team that they had a failure due to oil pooling in a shaft during several dry cranks of a Trent 1000 engine. The engine was subsequently started and run up to full power when the pooled oil ignited, the ensuing fire destroyed the engine allowing the turbine and compressor to seperate. Head scratching time regarding oil drainage and air sealing of bearing chambers.

Is your mate getting a little confused with a titanium fires

[pikeyboy]

Mojocvh said:

pikeyboy said:

TimJMS said:

Can we have a link? The only info I can find is a link to an unconfined engine failure that additionally managed to damage the test facility at Derby.

Just heard from an ex work mate very close to the Trent 1000 dev team that they had a failure due to oil pooling in a shaft during several dry cranks of a Trent 1000 engine. The engine was subsequently started and run up to full power when the pooled oil ignited, the ensuing fire destroyed the engine allowing the turbine and compressor to seperate. Head scratching time regarding oil drainage and air sealing of bearing chambers.

Is your mate getting a little confused with a titanium fires

nope. without going into detail the bearing chambers seal with air which during cranking prior to starting is not at sufficent pressure to seal the bearing chambers. This allows oil to leak past the seal fins and into areas where it can pool, in this case the IP shaft which is used for starting the Trent 1000. Upon start up this pooled oil can lead to a flash fire. A titianium fire is also a messy business and I've seen the results of them during development engine testing, however it wasnt the cause of this failure.

[anonymous-user]

pikeyboy said:

Mojocvh said:

pikeyboy said:

TimJMS said:

Can we have a link? The only info I can find is a link to an unconfined engine failure that additionally managed to damage the test facility at Derby.

Just heard from an ex work mate very close to the Trent 1000 dev team that they had a failure due to oil pooling in a shaft during several dry cranks of a Trent 1000 engine. The engine was subsequently started and run up to full power when the pooled oil ignited, the ensuing fire destroyed the engine allowing the turbine and compressor to seperate. Head scratching time regarding oil drainage and air sealing of bearing chambers.

Is your mate getting a little confused with a titanium fires

nope. without going into detail the bearing chambers seal with air which during cranking prior to starting is not at sufficent pressure to seal the bearing chambers. This allows oil to leak past the seal fins and into areas where it can pool, in this case the IP shaft which is used for starting the Trent 1000. Upon start up this pooled oil can lead to a flash fire. A titianium fire is also a messy business and I've seen the results of them during development engine testing, however it wasnt the cause of this failure.

Was the issue also that the Trent failure resulted in uncontained blade separation?

[pikeyboy]

el stovey said:

pikeyboy said:

Mojocvh said:

pikeyboy said:

TimJMS said:

Can we have a link? The only info I can find is a link to an unconfined engine failure that additionally managed to damage the test facility at Derby.

Just heard from an ex work mate very close to the Trent 1000 dev team that they had a failure due to oil pooling in a shaft during several dry cranks of a Trent 1000 engine. The engine was subsequently started and run up to full power when the pooled oil ignited, the ensuing fire destroyed the engine allowing the turbine and compressor to seperate. Head scratching time regarding oil drainage and air sealing of bearing chambers.

Is your mate getting a little confused with a titanium fires

nope. without going into detail the bearing chambers seal with air which during cranking prior to starting is not at sufficent pressure to seal the bearing chambers. This allows oil to leak past the seal fins and into areas where it can pool, in this case the IP shaft which is used for starting the Trent 1000. Upon start up this pooled oil can lead to a flash fire. A titianium fire is also a messy business and I've seen the results of them during development engine testing, however it wasnt the cause of this failure.

Was the issue also that the Trent failure resulted in uncontained blade separation?

yes as far as I'm aware as it was the compressor and turbine that parted company, blades being uncontained was the least of their worries though. its also worth pointing out that the engines are only designed to be able to containa fan blade off event. Disks failures can not be contained and there are some good pics around of a plane with a turbine disk wedged in the toilet of the aircraft.

[DJC]

S3_Graham said:

DJC said:

Thought Eric would have been all over this by now.

If folks do with to comment, be warned there are a few people who work for Rolls and at Derby on the board!

have you had a hand in this one also mate?

Possibly in the employment of my previous company.

[havoc]

pikeyboy said:

Disks failures can not be contained and there are some good pics around of a plane with a turbine disk wedged in the toilet of the aircraft.

THAT probably hurt!

[Mojocvh]

Hmm a fan spinner came off a cfm(??) fitted to a 737 a year or so ago.
They had damage up to the front cabin door on the same side AND unbelievably, damage to the fuselage on the other side that was non penetration ie the FOD had gone forwards and AROUND the fuselage...................