CX715 engine fire
Joined: Oct 2010
Posts: 108
Likes: 0
From: North Pole
I'm sure that the ground staff will be effusively praised in the various CX mouthpieces for their handling of the situation...
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 577
Likes: 0
From: Gweriniaeth Cymru
V,
RB211-535E - engine of choice on 80% of all 757's.....and about the most reliable engine there is.
Best Regards,
N1 Vibes
(We could of course mention at this point the marvellous CF6-80 that throws large chunks of turbine disk at the drop of a hat.....but that would deflate your point)
RB211-535E - engine of choice on 80% of all 757's.....and about the most reliable engine there is.
Best Regards,
N1 Vibes
(We could of course mention at this point the marvellous CF6-80 that throws large chunks of turbine disk at the drop of a hat.....but that would deflate your point)
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 298
Likes: 0
From: In front of the PC
BKK controller.... "Quantas 1 you are cleared to land.....I mean takeoff.....I mean cleared to land....I mean takeoff....."
Golfers....." Looks like a rather large group would like to play thru....."
Golfers....." Looks like a rather large group would like to play thru....."
Yet another Australian pilot steps up to the crease.
Well done to the crew anyway!
Joined: Oct 2008
Posts: 95
Likes: 19
From: On a few nerves apparently
Actually N1 chap, I think it's the -535E4 you want to brag about not the -535E which was almost 10% less efficient than the PW2037 option for the 757. Only a handful of early 757s were equipped with the -535E, the rest are -535E4 which almost matches the fuel efficiency of the 2037 by using wide chord fan blades. Still the PW2037 is more fuel efficient and 1ton lighter per engine compared to the -535E4. Let's not forget how the ridiculously complex RB211 landed RR into bankruptcy and nationalization by the British government. From personal experience, flying both the RR powered and PW powered 744, what a piece of crap, underpowered, unreliable, inefficient, overly sensitive, pieces of crap the -524HT is compared to the PW4000 engines. This latest freezing fog sensitivity is just laughably far too over the top. They're much heavier, less fuel efficient, less compressor efficiency, sound like sh!t with that piercing hissing sound at idle. I've had three of them surge and overtemp and never any problem with the PW4000. Ask one of our engineers how it takes twice as much time to replace components on the RR than it does on the PW and all of a sudden the maintenance costs become a factor too which is another issue. The last three serious incidents all involved the latest RR engines. The CX A330 dual engine failure/malfunction, the A380 engine blow up rupturing the fuel tank, and now again another A330, all RR powered. Btw, if I remember correctly, Bombardier just recently announced that RR will not even be an option on the new Global Express jet they're developing which was the only engine option for the Global Express aircraft until this one. With this, RR is effectively locked out of bizjet aviation. RR is in deep sh!t financially being locked out of bizjet market, the 773ER, the real possibility of losing engine option orders on the A380... not a good big picture.
Too much complexity getting in the way of functionality, kind of like the various British versions of the English language. Unnecessarily complex and less functional than the American version.
Too much complexity getting in the way of functionality, kind of like the various British versions of the English language. Unnecessarily complex and less functional than the American version.
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
From: London
RR in trouble? Hardly
Gulfstream make bizjets, I think. All the large cabin aircraft have RR engines. So, RR alive and kicking there.
As for the 535, I seem to remember airlines switching to it having initially chosen Pratts.
As for the B777, that was a blow, but then along came the A350 and the boot was on the other foot, in my view.
And RR has been gaining market share steadily on the A330. I'd be really interested if anyone could lend weight to the claims that the Trent 700 has some shortcomings.
Probably all some dreadful misunderstanding on my part. That the crew did their jobs well the other day is the one thing that is clear.
As for the 535, I seem to remember airlines switching to it having initially chosen Pratts.
As for the B777, that was a blow, but then along came the A350 and the boot was on the other foot, in my view.
And RR has been gaining market share steadily on the A330. I'd be really interested if anyone could lend weight to the claims that the Trent 700 has some shortcomings.
Probably all some dreadful misunderstanding on my part. That the crew did their jobs well the other day is the one thing that is clear.
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 577
Likes: 0
From: Gweriniaeth Cymru
V for,
what a lot of knowledge you have, but I did answer your question:
As for your information, there needs to be a few clarifications - RR made only one 535E (the E4 as you correctly mentioned) but the earlier variant was the 535-C37 (which relates to the 37,000lb take-off rating, the E4 had 41,000lbs).
For your weight comparison between the RB211-524HT and the PW4000 on the 744, well the PW4000 is installed with C-Ducts, so the engine dry-weight when it's tken off-wing doesn't include these, the RB211-524 has an integrated reverser and exhaust nozzle, making it heavier - in actuality the 3 spool RR engine is acknowledged by those in the know to be at least 300kg lighter when you compare like-for-like (i.e. with the reverser and exh nozzle removed).
For your comparison of the 535Ea being 1 ton heavier than the PW2037 - I have to concede, you may be right....
- RB211-535E4 = 7,680lbs
- PW 2037 = 7,300lbs
....oh dear that'll be 380lbs, oh dear, oh dear - I forgot to mention the PW2037 weight is without the starter and the ignition boxes - let's call it 280lbs shall we?
I can also deduce that you have never flown on the classic 747, for another airline, with the PW JT9 which surges at the mere thought of a crosswind. And the PW4000 also had the same problem, because the Spam's designed the compressor casing to be axially split (a very 1950's design), when CX purchased the SIA a/c they were all converted to the ring-case configuration - thats why you haven't ever experienced a surge on a CX PW powered a/c.
Yes you can drag up the Nationalization of RR(1971 to be precise - 40 years ago), but we won't mention the fact that the US government buys so many military jets with PW engines that it amounts to the same thing, as PW also has a pathetic market share when it comes to the civillian market.....
3x RB211's surge and overtemp - how very unfortunate for you - I hope you changed your undies afterwards. But in general the RB211 rarely has an overtemp when it surges - since I presume you are talking of the surge-in-reverse issue?
As for the hissing sound - then buy a pair of earplugs!
Best Regards,
N1 Vibes
what a lot of knowledge you have, but I did answer your question:
Can Rolls Royce build anything other than garbage for engines?
For your weight comparison between the RB211-524HT and the PW4000 on the 744, well the PW4000 is installed with C-Ducts, so the engine dry-weight when it's tken off-wing doesn't include these, the RB211-524 has an integrated reverser and exhaust nozzle, making it heavier - in actuality the 3 spool RR engine is acknowledged by those in the know to be at least 300kg lighter when you compare like-for-like (i.e. with the reverser and exh nozzle removed).
For your comparison of the 535Ea being 1 ton heavier than the PW2037 - I have to concede, you may be right....
- RB211-535E4 = 7,680lbs
- PW 2037 = 7,300lbs
....oh dear that'll be 380lbs, oh dear, oh dear - I forgot to mention the PW2037 weight is without the starter and the ignition boxes - let's call it 280lbs shall we?
I can also deduce that you have never flown on the classic 747, for another airline, with the PW JT9 which surges at the mere thought of a crosswind. And the PW4000 also had the same problem, because the Spam's designed the compressor casing to be axially split (a very 1950's design), when CX purchased the SIA a/c they were all converted to the ring-case configuration - thats why you haven't ever experienced a surge on a CX PW powered a/c.
Yes you can drag up the Nationalization of RR(1971 to be precise - 40 years ago), but we won't mention the fact that the US government buys so many military jets with PW engines that it amounts to the same thing, as PW also has a pathetic market share when it comes to the civillian market.....
3x RB211's surge and overtemp - how very unfortunate for you - I hope you changed your undies afterwards. But in general the RB211 rarely has an overtemp when it surges - since I presume you are talking of the surge-in-reverse issue?
As for the hissing sound - then buy a pair of earplugs!
Best Regards,
N1 Vibes
Eidolon
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 2,244
Likes: 62
From: Some hole
Originally Posted by VforVENDETTA
CX A330 dual engine failure/malfunction
Originally Posted by Chillimausl
As for the B777, that was a blow, but then along came the A350 and the boot was on the other foot, in my view.
RR designed, built, and tested an engine for the 777-300ER, it was the Trent 8104, it produced over 110,000 lb of thrust on the test stand before Boeing let them know of their exclusive deal with GE.
Originally Posted by stilton
I guess that explains Pratt's enormous success in the widebody business these days..
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
From: London
Can 75% of customers be wrong?
Yes, quite. Thank-you.
GE did a neat hatchet job in my estimation. Made sense in that the GE90 needed to secure a future.
The wonder of RR's engine technology is reflected in the mantra - invent once, use many times. RR's Trent family reflects that. The GE90 was a different matter.
Anyway, RR's press releases tell me that the Trent 700 has captured more than 75% of orders for the A330 in the last three years. In a three-way engine competition that's impressive (I believe RR was once firmly rooted in third place). If it is a poor product, then it's amazing, surely?
But I don't have to work with them day in day out so I'll never have the full picture.
GE did a neat hatchet job in my estimation. Made sense in that the GE90 needed to secure a future.
The wonder of RR's engine technology is reflected in the mantra - invent once, use many times. RR's Trent family reflects that. The GE90 was a different matter.
Anyway, RR's press releases tell me that the Trent 700 has captured more than 75% of orders for the A330 in the last three years. In a three-way engine competition that's impressive (I believe RR was once firmly rooted in third place). If it is a poor product, then it's amazing, surely?
But I don't have to work with them day in day out so I'll never have the full picture.
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 173
Likes: 0
From: East England
V for Vendetta!! apt?
Hi V
Well from your comments you have clearly not actually worked on any wide body engines.....Try changing a stator anti ice valve on the old JT9D.(before they were all removed as too bloody difficult to change)..or may be the fuel control on the same engine...bloody nigh on impossible, or the bleed system...plumbers nightmare...Or may be a routine boroscope inspection....where as an RB-211 the Fuel Pump and Control is relatively easy to replace! Boroscope plugs actually come undone and engine cowlings that you can't use a razors!! Oh and the CF6 not a bad engine...as long as no one farts in front of it as maintenance with a dust pan and brush to sweep up the bits is then required. As for changing the Thrust Reverser Motor!...not recommended.
Well from your comments you have clearly not actually worked on any wide body engines.....Try changing a stator anti ice valve on the old JT9D.(before they were all removed as too bloody difficult to change)..or may be the fuel control on the same engine...bloody nigh on impossible, or the bleed system...plumbers nightmare...Or may be a routine boroscope inspection....where as an RB-211 the Fuel Pump and Control is relatively easy to replace! Boroscope plugs actually come undone and engine cowlings that you can't use a razors!! Oh and the CF6 not a bad engine...as long as no one farts in front of it as maintenance with a dust pan and brush to sweep up the bits is then required. As for changing the Thrust Reverser Motor!...not recommended.
