737 Max CFM engine shortage

[nonsense]

Boeing are suffering a shortage of engines for 737s which has reached the point that, quote:
"Boeing is outfitting 737s with temporary engines so pilots can fly them to nearby King County International Airport, also known as Boeing Field, these people said. The temporary engines are removed there and trucked back to Renton to fly more 737s to Boeing Field, they said. The airport is Boeing’s main delivery center for new jets." (https://www.wsj.com/articles/at-boeing-factory-unfinished-737s-pile-up-1535972401)

Further googling reveals the issue has been developing for several months and also affects Airbus A320 to a lesser degree (because of an available alternative engine).
I was surprised that a search of pprune revealed no mention of this problem.

[GordonR_Cape]

Mentioned briefly in another thread: https://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/611829-trent-1000-losses.html#post10215815

[KenV]

Further googling reveals the issue has been developing for several months and also affects Airbus A320 to a lesser degree (because of an available alternative engine).The "alternative engine" on the A320NEO is the P&W1100G. But it is even less available than the GE engine.

[glad rag]

Reference?

[SMT Member]

Reference?

LMGTFY (http://lmgtfy.com/?q=https%3A%2F%2Fairlinerwatch.com%2Fairbus-is-waiting-for-the-new-pw1100g-engines-to-resume-a320neo-deliveries%2F)

Plenty more where that came from.

It's sadly the standard these days, that as good as all new engines have serious issues, whether they're hanging off an Airbus or Boeing.

[KenV]

It's sadly the standard these days, that as good as all new engines have serious issues, whether they're hanging off an Airbus or Boeing.Pratt's geared turbo fan is experiencing numerous technical issues. GE's LEAP engine not so much, but their engine is used by both Boeing and Airbus and they cannot keep up with demand. And it's not just engines. Both Boeing and Airbus are experiencing problems from multiple Tier 1 suppliers not be able to meet demand. And those Tier 1 suppliers are facing delivery delays from their Tier 2 suppliers. The problem is both deep and widespread.

[SMT Member]

Seats, galleys, engines - and those are just the ones who've made the news.

My reference to the engines also involved the RR debacle on the 787s, as well as the troubles experienced by the GEnx, the abandoned attempt by SNECMA to field a new biz jet engine, etc.

As a unrepentant cynicist, my gut feeling is that the industry is short of experienced scientist, engineers and assembly line workers, and too long on MBAs, bean counters and a computer generation accepting, and working with a restrained budget ensuring, that v.1 of anything is always a bit buggy. That might fly if you're producing Angry Birds, but the stakes are rather different when you're building aero engines.

[tdracer]

As a unrepentant cynicist, my gut feeling is that the industry is short of experienced scientist, engineers and assembly line workers, and too long on MBAs, bean counters and a computer generation accepting, and working with a restrained budget ensuring, that v.1 of anything is always a bit buggy. That might fly if you're producing Angry Birds, but the stakes are rather different when you're building aero engines.
Actually, issues with new a engine type shortly after EIS is hardly a new phenomena. JT9D (and not just the -3), CF6-80A, PW2000, PW4000, GE90, RB211-524, CFM56-7, I could go on. They all had issues, some worse than others. Pushing the state of the art is hard.
The GEnx had a reasonably good EIS mechanically - it's issues were with Ice Crystal Icing (a phenomena that is far from new but still not well understood).
Most engines that have had reasonably seamless introductions have been derivative engines (e.g. CF6-80C2, PW4000/112"), not new from the ground up engines.
As Ken notes, the issues with the Leap are not related to operational issues - it's keeping the production rate up. However the Leap is not really a ground breaking new engine - it's basically taking all the technology of the GEnx and implementing it on a smaller scale.

[msbbarratt]

Actually, issues with new a engine type shortly after EIS is hardly a new phenomena. JT9D (and not just the -3), CF6-80A, PW2000, PW4000, GE90, RB211-524, CFM56-7, I could go on. They all had issues, some worse than others. Pushing the state of the art is hard.
The GEnx had a reasonably good EIS mechanically - it's issues were with Ice Crystal Icing (a phenomena that is far from new but still not well understood).
Most engines that have had reasonably seamless introductions have been derivative engines (e.g. CF6-80C2, PW4000/112"), not new from the ground up engines.
As Ken notes, the issues with the Leap are not related to operational issues - it's keeping the production rate up. However the Leap is not really a ground breaking new engine - it's basically taking all the technology of the GEnx and implementing it on a smaller scale.

Er, didn't the GEnx have a hydrogen embrittlement problem with its HP shaft? I recall articles about brand new 787s taxiing down to the runway for their first flight, only for engines to vomit their innards rearwards as the shafts let go with essentially zero hours on the clock. Sounds like a mechanical issue.

I also recall that the problem got sorted out pretty quickly, and was another shining example of the whole industry valuing cooperation in the name of safely; I heard RR made a sincere offer of help to GE sort out the problem, and GE I'm sure would have accepted it if necessary. Just at the moment though I suspect everyone has their hands full dealing with their own problems.

[tdracer]

Er, didn't the GEnx have a hydrogen embrittlement problem with its HP shaft? I recall articles about brand new 787s taxiing down to the runway for their first flight, only for engines to vomit their innards rearwards as the shafts let go with essentially zero hours on the clock. Sounds like a mechanical issue.

I also recall that the problem got sorted out pretty quickly, and was another shining example of the whole industry valuing cooperation in the name of safely; I heard RR made a sincere offer of help to GE sort out the problem, and GE I'm sure would have accepted it if necessary. Just at the moment though I suspect everyone has their hands full dealing with their own problems.
It was the fan shaft, not he HP shaft. It was a very specific issue with improperly stored engines (some GEnx engines sat around for over 2 years before being installed on an aircraft due to the production delays on the 787 program). There was some issue with the type of anti-seize compound they used when they assembled the fan shaft that resulted in stress corrosion of the shaft - for reasons that were well over my head (I'm not a materials guy) it wouldn't have been an issue if the engines hadn't been stored for so long. It was solved by going to a different anti-seize compound.
At any rate, the problem was discovered and sorted well before the 787 was ever certified - there were no related engine failures in service.

OK, edited to add, I may be suffering from "convenient memory" - the fan shaft problem might have come up post-certification, when Boeing was pulling stored aircraft and flying them in preparation for delivery - the memory is a bit foggy on that. But I'm confident that none of the shaft failures occurred in-service.

[msbbarratt]

It was the fan shaft, not he HP shaft. It was a very specific issue with improperly stored engines (some GEnx engines sat around for over 2 years before being installed on an aircraft due to the production delays on the 787 program). There was some issue with the type of anti-seize compound they used when they assembled the fan shaft that resulted in stress corrosion of the shaft - for reasons that were well over my head (I'm not a materials guy) it wouldn't have been an issue if the engines hadn't been stored for so long. It was solved by going to a different anti-seize compound.
At any rate, the problem was discovered and sorted well before the 787 was ever certified - there were no related engine failures in service.

OK, edited to add, I may be suffering from "convenient memory" - the fan shaft problem might have come up post-certification, when Boeing was pulling stored aircraft and flying them in preparation for delivery - the memory is a bit foggy on that. But I'm confident that none of the shaft failures occurred in-service.

Ah, thank you. Yes, I don't recall it affecting service either. None the less, it's was surely the kind of mechanical issue that resulted in a lot of people feeling discombobulated, not least the pilots!

[RufusXS]

Looks like things are looking up for 737 Maxs and the Leap powered A320s in terms of engine supply.

Supply Chain Ramp-Up Bodes Well For Boeing 737 Production Recovery | Optimizing Engines Through the Lifecycle content from Aviation Week (http://aviationweek.com/optimizing-engines-through-lifecycle/supply-chain-ramp-bodes-well-boeing-737-production-recovery)

[Turbine D]

Originally Posted by tdracer
It was the fan shaft, not he HP shaft. It was a very specific issue with improperly stored engines (some GEnx engines sat around for over 2 years before being installed on an aircraft due to the production delays on the 787 program). There was some issue with the type of anti-seize compound they used when they assembled the fan shaft that resulted in stress corrosion of the shaft - for reasons that were well over my head (I'm not a materials guy) it wouldn't have been an issue if the engines hadn't been stored for so long. It was solved by going to a different anti-seize compound.
At any rate, the problem was discovered and sorted well before the 787 was ever certified - there were no related engine failures in service.
As I recall the anti-seize compound used initially on the GEnx engines for the 787 was a replacement for that historically used by GE. It was more "eco" friendly. Once the problem with the new compound was identified, the anti-seize was switched back to the historically used compound.

[4runner]

Outsourcing...