Originally Posted by
Asturias56
TD I agree over 20, 40 and even more so 50 years the main engine providers have been amazing in their ability to improve reliability and performance
But the latest offerings have all had issues
RR - we know all about
PWh- PW1100G so bad that Qatar are switching to CFM Leap
GE - real problems with the 9X
SAFFRAN - had to pay Dassault $280 million due to their inability to get the "Silvercrest" to work
Even with the Trent issues, it's shutdown rate is still better - by a long shot - than
anything that was available 40 years ago. We used to think it was good when we had a shutdown ever 10,000 hours, now if it's every 100,000 hours we get worried, and if it's worse than that you get ETOPS limitations (which is the current Trent status).
Yes, Pratt is struggling with their GTF - something that doesn't surprise me in the least. But since Pratt has pretty much bet the farm on the GTF concept, they'll either figure it out or be forced out of the commercial engine business.
GE is looking quite strong currently - 'real problems with the 9X'? REALLY? You're going to criticize an uncertified engine that is still in the development stage and is at least a year away from entry into service because it's behind schedule? Welcome to the real world...
The LEAP has had an uneventful EIS (MAX aircraft issues not withstanding - the engine has been good). The GEnx had issues with Ice Crystal Icing (which some 30 year old engine designs have also struggled with) but those have been sorted - and the basic engine has been excellent with a shutdown rate around 1/200,000 hours (disclaimer - I don't have access to the latest data since I retired but I've seen no indications it's gone down hill since then).
There is a rather predictable shutdown characteristic for new engines after initial EIS. The initial shutdown rate isn't very good as certain teething pains occur - as much as they try, it's very had to predict and account everything that's going to happen in the real world. As those issues are worked out, the shutdown rate gradually improves until it plateau's - and it'll stay pretty steady around that number for many years. Then, gradually, the rate starts getting worse again as the engine find their way to second tier operators who don't maintain them as well, and things simply get old and wear out. Some very popular, currently very reliable engines had plenty of issues early on (GE90 and PW2000, and PW4000/49" immediately come to mind).
Mattyj, the 787 was designed for the engines to be 'plug and play' - not even the pylon should need to change between GE and Rolls. That being said, I don't know that the task of switching out engine manufactures was ever certified. Further, the LRU cost of a GEnx-1B or Trent 1000 is close to $20 million (USD) - changing out your fleet has a huge price tag, especially if no one really wants your old engines...