Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Flight Deck Forums > Rumours & News
Reload this Page >

777-300ER delivery problem?

Rumours & News Reporting Points that may affect our jobs or lives as professional pilots. Also, items that may be of interest to professional pilots.

777-300ER delivery problem?

Old 8th Jun 2004, 14:59
  #61 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Plymouth
Posts: 22
Flight has reported this incident this week as two IFSD's for this problem. This is a little confusing since they talk about each being precautionary following low oil warning on the same flight.

I assume the engine was restarted to check if it was just an instrumentation error.

Doesn't this usually count as one event?
always-pending is offline  
Old 8th Jun 2004, 16:06
  #62 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Skagness on the beach
Posts: 882
unmanned transport,

Are you sure the A380 can be twinned? They tried to do that with the 747, but it would fail engine out thrust requirements. In other words in could not stay in the air with just the one engine. I doubt the A380 could either unless that engine could be over thrusted to produce 1.5 times it's rated thrust.


always-pending, you have more than enough here to figure it out like some already have.

It has nothing to do with the tail.
747FOCAL is offline  
Old 8th Jun 2004, 16:15
  #63 (permalink)  
PPRuNe Supporter
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Devon, UK
Posts: 194
Presumably to twin the A380 would also require a great deal of wing structure redesign, since there would be a great deal of redundant structure outboard of the engines. I wonder what the CG issues would be, As well as fiddling with the undercarriage to maintain nacelle clearance? The 330 / 340 wing was designed as a dual purpose item, but I for one have not heard any such suggestions being made about the 380 wing.
Tallbloke is offline  
Old 8th Jun 2004, 19:32
  #64 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Plymouth
Posts: 22
747FOCAL,

????

My question was related to the original thread and not the other issues.


I think someone else was pushing for a bit more info on the other nauseating issue!


Interesting to think of a twin carrying over 500 pax! Take off field length must be a little excessive!
always-pending is offline  
Old 8th Jun 2004, 20:03
  #65 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: western europe
Posts: 1,367
anyone want a 550 seat twin ...... no problem .......

try a 777-300 single class .....

http://www.airliners.net/info/stats.main?id=107
hobie is offline  
Old 9th Jun 2004, 02:06
  #66 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Arizona USA
Posts: 8,572
Tallbloke,

Quite the contrary.
If the 380 was 'redesigned' as a twin, additional heavier wing structure might well be necessary, because 4 engines (in wing mounted pods) provides considerable wing bending relief, which may well not be available with a twin engine design.
The devil is in the details.
411A is offline  
Old 9th Jun 2004, 07:13
  #67 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Plymouth
Posts: 22
hobie,

Anyone for sardines!
always-pending is offline  
Old 9th Jun 2004, 09:12
  #68 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: the edge of madness
Posts: 493
Unmanned

Both RR and P&W pitched engines for the 777-300ER/-200LR: RR actually tested a Trent at 110,000lb years ago. It was strongly rumoured at the time that the single source award had nothing to do with the technical aspects of the various proposals rather the promise of financial assistance to Boeing by GE to develop the airframe if they selected the GE90 on an exclusive basis. The amount was rumoured to be approx $500m but I'm sure 747FOCAL could enlighten us. Given the sales records of these models to date one has to question whether Boeing was wise to take GE's shilling.
Torquelink is offline  
Old 9th Jun 2004, 12:51
  #69 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Skagness on the beach
Posts: 882
Actually I think they were told one price per engine for a single source award and another higher price if there was competition. Not 100% sure though.
747FOCAL is offline  
Old 9th Jun 2004, 20:57
  #70 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: western europe
Posts: 1,367
I suppose a single source for the engine was fully discussed at the time on PPRuNe but you would think the airlines would have told Boeing to stick single source? ...... and yet Boeing still got away with it
hobie is offline  
Old 10th Jun 2004, 01:32
  #71 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 1998
Location: USA
Posts: 80
Both RR and P&W pitched engines for the 777-300ER/-200LR: RR actually tested a Trent at 110,000lb years ago.
Yes. Rolls had a Trent 8104 development engine that they had run up to 110klb thrust. Just like the GE90-115B engine, GE also had run the engine up to nearly 123klb thrust. Being able to run to 110klb thurst during an engine test, it doesn't mean the engine would be able to certify at that level. The 104klb thrust engine wasn't adequate for Boeing's need to develop a plane that would be competitive against the A340-600. Rolls did later propose a GE90-115B equivalent, and so did P&W. Rolls would need major development because the current core is being pushed to the limit. P&W had proposed a whole new centerline engine.

It was strongly rumoured at the time that the single source award had nothing to do with the technical aspects of the various proposals rather the promise of financial assistance to Boeing by GE to develop the airframe if they selected the GE90 on an exclusive basis. The amount was rumoured to be approx $500m
The $500m figure has been floating around for a long time. With any exclusive airframe/engine arrangement, the engine company involved will usually pay extra to get on board. In this case, I believe the arrangement is perhaps more "intimate" than usual. However, AFAIK, the GE90-115B was the least technical risky solution and also overall the best in techinical merits.


Given the sales records of these models to date one has to question whether Boeing was wise to take GE's...
The current sales record is more a reflection of the current market condition rather than the effect of engine exclusivity agreement. Since the B777-300ER launch, Airbus has netted around 30 A340-5/600 orders while Boeing has netted over 70 B777-200LR/-300ER orders. So, the jury is still out.
casual observer is offline  
Old 10th Jun 2004, 08:47
  #72 (permalink)  

Usual disclaimers apply!
 
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: EGGW
Posts: 833
Cool

However, AFAIK, the GE90-115B was the least technical risky solution and also overall the best in techinical merits
It is
A good measure of any engine is how often one has to open the cowls!
gas path is offline  
Old 10th Jun 2004, 09:16
  #73 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 1998
Location: USA
Posts: 80
It is

A good measure of any engine is how often one has to open the cowls!
FWIW, at this point all the three B777 engines have very similar IFSD, UER, SVR, and dispatch reliability rates, with the PW4000 lagging a little bit in the IFSD department.

Last edited by casual observer; 10th Jun 2004 at 12:20.
casual observer is offline  
Old 10th Jun 2004, 09:25
  #74 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: the edge of madness
Posts: 493
747FOCAL

I suspect that all bidders would have offered lower prices for exclusivity.

Casual

Interesting points. But my RR moles tell me that the core development required to hit 125k/lb, while extensive, was no greater than that required for the GE90 and was pretty much "low risk" (well, they would say that wouldn't they). IRO sales performance of the -200LR/-300ER, I don't doubt that the -300ER will sell in reasonable numbers over a period of time as the market recovers, but Boeing built in a headwind by going for exclusivity with GE. Among others, I'm told that TG, CX and SQ would have signed up for the model long before now if Boeing had responded favourably to their request for RR power. But, from an economcs perspective, I suspect that the -300ER wipes the floor with the A340-600 and that, in the absence of any alternative, the -300ER will eventually outsell the A346 comprehensively.
Torquelink is offline  
Old 10th Jun 2004, 12:17
  #75 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 1998
Location: USA
Posts: 80
Interesting points. But my RR moles tell me that the core development required to hit 125k/lb, while extensive, was no greater than that required for the GE90 and was pretty much "low risk" (well, they would say that wouldn't they).
Of course they would. I will provide some more perspective and let you be the judge. Boeing failed to launch the B777X in 1997 with a proposed 102-104klb engine. However, RR run a Trent 8104 development engine test anyway. Why? Becuase they wanted to show Boeing that Rolls was the only engine company willing to commit to Boeing's B777X. Boeing struggled with the design and even considered T/APU, i.e., using the APU for additional thrust on takeoff. If it was indeed easy for Rolls to grow the Trent 8104 beyond 110klb, wouldn't you think that they have jumped on the opportunity? After all, they already had an engine built! Why would they allow GE to "sneak" in? In 1997, GE even pulled out at the last minute in committing a 102klb engine for the then B777X.

Among others, I'm told that TG, CX and SQ would have signed up for the model long before now if Boeing had responded favourably to their request for RR power.
TG is hardly a gage. They would order any airframes, any engines under the sun. Their experience with the B777 engine was not terribly good, especially on the Trent 892 on the -300. At one point, they lost their 180-minute ETOPS rating and was close to losing the 120-minute ETOPS rating. Of late, they seemed to have decided to go mostly with Airbus, partly driven by politics. However, the B7E7 might have changed the wind again at TG.

CX is reluctant of operating twins on long haul especially ETOPS. SARS further postponed their decision. My understanding is the GE90 is not a deterrent for CX, but I would agree with a Rolls engine, we could have a more expedite decision.

SQ's decision was also slowed by SARS. Once again, the GE90 is also not a deterrent. Also, if Rolls was able to penetrate an all-P&W fleet at SQ in 1995 and now become the primary engine supplier at SQ, it means SQ will not be fixated on an engine supplier. Money talks, especially at SQ.

But, from an economcs perspective, I suspect that the -300ER wipes the floor with the A340-600 and that, in the absence of any alternative, the -300ER will eventually outsell the A346 comprehensively.
Agree with you whole-heartedly.
casual observer is offline  
Old 10th Jun 2004, 16:42
  #76 (permalink)  

Rebel PPRuNer
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Toronto, Canada (formerly EICK)
Age: 47
Posts: 2,827
With CNN's Lou Dobbs banging on every day on the US "exporting jobs", it may have been politically tricky for Boeing to single-source to a non-US company...
MarkD is offline  
Old 15th Jun 2004, 14:09
  #77 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Skagness on the beach
Posts: 882
Boeing, GE probe engine shutdowns
Flight International 06/08/04

Boeing and General Electric are investigating the cause of two in-flight shutdowns of a GE90-115B on a 777-300ER just before its delivery to Air France.

The aircraft, delivered to the airline without incident on 30 May, had been performing standard Boeing pre-delivery flights when the crew twice received low oil-pressure warnings and performed two precautionary in-flight shutdowns. After landing, it was discovered that in both events the oil scavenge pipe to the 'A' sump in the engine had collapsed, causing the pressure to drop.

GE says the incident is "unique to this engine" and tests are being performed on the tube at its Cincinnati plant. "That particular engine is being closely monitored, but subsequent runs on it after the pipe was replaced have been uneventful," says GE, which changed the engine before delivery.

Boeing, which plans to deliver 16 777-300ERs to Air France by the end of 2006, says the failure appears to be a "quality issue". The aircraft, line number 480, is the third delivered to Air France.

GE says destructive tests continue, but there has been "no evidence" to date of a quality problem with the tubes. It says engine certification, production ground test, flight test experience and analytical predictions do not currently foresee the scavenge pressures needed to cause the tube to collapse.
747FOCAL is offline  
Old 29th Nov 2004, 10:15
  #78 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: cloud 9
Posts: 6
I guess with a further 6 months to investigate this problem and no further problems having sneaked into the media the original "Unique to this engine" must be true!

Does anyone know the results of this investigation? What caused those multiple events on the one engine?


Guess Boeing and GE have got this one right and are now moving on to the 200LR.

ND
nosedive00 is offline  
Old 30th Nov 2004, 15:16
  #79 (permalink)  
swh

Eidolon
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Some hole
Posts: 1,962
Speaking of results of investigations...any news on the what caused the cargo hold fire in the BA 777 G-VIIU while taxing at Boston on 15th Nov ?

swh is offline  
Old 1st Dec 2004, 12:36
  #80 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Florida
Posts: 5,296
Speaking of results of investigations...any news on the what caused the cargo hold fire in the BA 777 G-VIIU while taxing at Boston on 15th Nov ?
cargo hold

Wasn't this the smoke in the cockpit incident where the smoke was traced to a hydraulic leak spraying into the electronics bay?
lomapaseo is offline  

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information

Copyright 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.