777-300ER delivery problem?
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: western europe
Posts: 1,367
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
quote ....
"A shake down is meant to pick up on manufacturing problems/ quality and isn't meant to pick up design defects as this appears to be"
AP - what design defects are you suggesting exist?
"A shake down is meant to pick up on manufacturing problems/ quality and isn't meant to pick up design defects as this appears to be"
AP - what design defects are you suggesting exist?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Plymouth
Posts: 22
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
hobie, pull up the full quote.
I said I didn't know if it was a design issue or not. If it is, then it is of interest since it will affect the in service aircraft and may need action. If not then it is a quality issue.
I would have thought that quality/ build issues are something more easily fixed. Lets hope that this is all it is.
Earlier in this thread it has been mentioned that it was an oil problem but nothing stating the suspected cause.
Guess we will never know, unless a mod comes out!!
I said I didn't know if it was a design issue or not. If it is, then it is of interest since it will affect the in service aircraft and may need action. If not then it is a quality issue.
I would have thought that quality/ build issues are something more easily fixed. Lets hope that this is all it is.
Earlier in this thread it has been mentioned that it was an oil problem but nothing stating the suspected cause.
Guess we will never know, unless a mod comes out!!
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: western europe
Posts: 1,367
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AP - your full quote as requested .....
"A shake down is meant to pick up on manufacturing problems/ quality and isn't meant to pick up design defects as this appears to be. If this was a manufacturing quality problem then at least call it as one and the issue should be dropped, if not it shoud be a concern! "
"design defects as this appears to be"
or
"manufacturing quality problem"
just so I have it clear in my mind, What design defect or quality problem are you referring too?
"A shake down is meant to pick up on manufacturing problems/ quality and isn't meant to pick up design defects as this appears to be. If this was a manufacturing quality problem then at least call it as one and the issue should be dropped, if not it shoud be a concern! "
"design defects as this appears to be"
or
"manufacturing quality problem"
just so I have it clear in my mind, What design defect or quality problem are you referring too?
Pilots' Pal
Join Date: Nov 1998
Location: USA
Age: 63
Posts: 1,158
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I remember Emirates first 777 diverting into MAN on its delivery flight in 1994. Problem was an oil leak on the left engine. Rolls scrambled a team in short order!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Plymouth
Posts: 22
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hobie,
I was making reference to gas paths comments about a suspected "Collapsed Scavenge tube".
What else could be the problem except either quality/ manufacturing or design?
Please don't look deaper into my comments than what is already in this thread.
Facts (Rumours) as reported in this thread:
An IFSD of a GE90-115B on a 777-300ER on a pre-delivery flight.
Delivery to AF has been pushed back by a few days.
I don't know what went wrong.
It is suspected that an oil scavenge tube failed as reported by gas path.
This could be quality or design - nothing else possible?!
As an aside 747FOCAL has raised a high weight stability problem causing flight crew and pax nausia!
I think this is a fair summary of the thread to date. Please correct if I have got any of this wrong.
Thanks
I was making reference to gas paths comments about a suspected "Collapsed Scavenge tube".
What else could be the problem except either quality/ manufacturing or design?
Please don't look deaper into my comments than what is already in this thread.
Facts (Rumours) as reported in this thread:
An IFSD of a GE90-115B on a 777-300ER on a pre-delivery flight.
Delivery to AF has been pushed back by a few days.
I don't know what went wrong.
It is suspected that an oil scavenge tube failed as reported by gas path.
This could be quality or design - nothing else possible?!
As an aside 747FOCAL has raised a high weight stability problem causing flight crew and pax nausia!
I think this is a fair summary of the thread to date. Please correct if I have got any of this wrong.
Thanks
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: western europe
Posts: 1,367
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think we have now discounted the original post on this thread ....
quote ....
"I was talking to an ATC friend who seemed to think that the latest 777-300ER to Air France had to divert on its delivery flight.
He didn't have any details although thought that it was engine related."
any pre- delivery snag would have, without doubt, been cleared up before delivery of the Aircraft, and before sign off by the Air France Acceptance Team
I note the first aircraft of this type, delivered to Air France last month, carried out its inaugural flight a few days ago to New York
Air France have a total of 16 Boeing 777-300ER aircraft (10 owned and 6 leased) on order ....... Here's wishing them well with their fine new Aircraft
quote ....
"I was talking to an ATC friend who seemed to think that the latest 777-300ER to Air France had to divert on its delivery flight.
He didn't have any details although thought that it was engine related."
any pre- delivery snag would have, without doubt, been cleared up before delivery of the Aircraft, and before sign off by the Air France Acceptance Team
I note the first aircraft of this type, delivered to Air France last month, carried out its inaugural flight a few days ago to New York
Air France have a total of 16 Boeing 777-300ER aircraft (10 owned and 6 leased) on order ....... Here's wishing them well with their fine new Aircraft
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Plymouth
Posts: 22
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
hobie, as with anything in this forum the original post was put up in good faith following a discussion I had with a friend. I didn't ask about source and from this thread he obviously had some details wrong.
Possible embelishment to get my interest. Guess you have never embelished a story.
Although, I think the thread has been vindicated by the fact that an event has been confirmed but it was pre-delivery.
I think that unless something more constructive is added to the thread then we should call it a day.
Possible embelishment to get my interest. Guess you have never embelished a story.
Although, I think the thread has been vindicated by the fact that an event has been confirmed but it was pre-delivery.
I think that unless something more constructive is added to the thread then we should call it a day.
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: western europe
Posts: 1,367
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AP ..... I'm sure your post was in good faith and indeed I was most interested in the story from an engineering point of view
its amazing how a thread can bomb off in a million directions ...... did you notice an Oil Leak in 1994 (some ten years ago) surfaced to add material to your thread !!!!
cheers .... hobie
its amazing how a thread can bomb off in a million directions ...... did you notice an Oil Leak in 1994 (some ten years ago) surfaced to add material to your thread !!!!
cheers .... hobie
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: wales (new south)
Posts: 80
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Another GE90 IFSD. It should also be noted that this does not apear to have been shutdown as an unnecesary precaution as the unit was swapped out. There was a thread on this a couple of months back that contained basic statistical analysis that pointed to (to me) quite a worrying allowable amount of shutdowns whilst retaining ETOPS.
Since then there have been a few more, within predictable and allowable margins or course, but still it seems to be shall we say not an uncommon occurance, about 1 a month.
You have to wonder about Boeings sanity in comitting to a single powerplant for all HGW 777's, as
a)an unfortunate incident could kill the program and
b) 2 of the largest 777 operators are Rolls customers and this has stalled what should have been slam dunk orders
As too what would happen if BA was ready to comitt to 15 RR powered 300ER's + options, well I have to wonder what would happen if SIA said they'd be down for another 20 or so as well! Or, hang on I have the number for Mr Airbus here somewhere.... NZ's engine choice is a bit of a puzzler if they are looking for ER's.
Since then there have been a few more, within predictable and allowable margins or course, but still it seems to be shall we say not an uncommon occurance, about 1 a month.
You have to wonder about Boeings sanity in comitting to a single powerplant for all HGW 777's, as
a)an unfortunate incident could kill the program and
b) 2 of the largest 777 operators are Rolls customers and this has stalled what should have been slam dunk orders
As too what would happen if BA was ready to comitt to 15 RR powered 300ER's + options, well I have to wonder what would happen if SIA said they'd be down for another 20 or so as well! Or, hang on I have the number for Mr Airbus here somewhere.... NZ's engine choice is a bit of a puzzler if they are looking for ER's.
Last edited by RogerTangoFoxtrotIndigo; 7th Jun 2004 at 12:13.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Dubai, United Arab Emirates
Posts: 65
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bus 429, your memory really is fading ! The oil leak problem was on A6-EME and not 'MD. A6-EMD was the first one delivered and was ferried flawlessly to Dubai, completed with a fine low and slow flypast down Jumeirah beach at 1000" ( remember it well ). A6-EME was the second one to arrive and this was the one that, as is stated, slowly dumped it's engine oil all over the northern hemisphere en route to U.K. Problem was traced to the scavenging oil to the gearbox hydraulicing in the drive shaft and causing the outer case to fracture at the horizontal fire seal. The problem was very clevery sorted by RR who added a few extra large holes in the vertical drive shaft to allow an easy passage for the oil back to the gearbox.
Long time, no hear anyway, miss the aviation quiz !
Long time, no hear anyway, miss the aviation quiz !
Join Date: Jul 1998
Location: USA
Posts: 80
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
747FOCAL:
I wonder if the problem that you are referring to is related to the loading restrictions that the aircraft currently have at the highest available MTOW of 775,000lb. If so, this information is actually available on Boeing's website. My understanding is this problem is currently being worked on and the restrictions will likely be removed.
I wonder if the problem that you are referring to is related to the loading restrictions that the aircraft currently have at the highest available MTOW of 775,000lb. If so, this information is actually available on Boeing's website. My understanding is this problem is currently being worked on and the restrictions will likely be removed.
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: On the ground for now.
Posts: 274
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You have to wonder about Boeings sanity in comitting to a single powerplant for all HGW 777's.
The GE-90-115B is currently the only engine capable of powering the 777-300 IGW. Rolls Royce don't even come close with their highest thrust version.
The GE-90-115B is currently the only engine capable of powering the 777-300 IGW. Rolls Royce don't even come close with their highest thrust version.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Arizona USA
Posts: 8,571
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Another lost opportunity for RR perhaps?
Big twins are the wave of the future, A380 excepted...and suspect that machine is still not suited for all transoceanic routes, due to size.
Big twins are the wave of the future, A380 excepted...and suspect that machine is still not suited for all transoceanic routes, due to size.
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: On the ground for now.
Posts: 274
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The A380 could be twinned with two GE-90s when it's growth goes out to 150,000 lbs of thrust. The core of this engine has much more growth potential. One great engine for GE.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: wales (new south)
Posts: 80
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The GE-90-115B is currently the only engine capable of powering the 777-300 IGW. Rolls Royce don't even come close with their highest thrust version.
Lost opportunity yes but not for want of trying.
747 Focal.... You are such a tease...... You can tell us it not like there are any Journos lurking on these pages
