777-300ER delivery problem?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Plymouth
Posts: 22
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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?
I assume the engine was restarted to check if it was just an instrumentation error.
Doesn't this usually count as one event?
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Skagness on the beach
Posts: 882
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
PPRuNe Supporter
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Devon, UK
Posts: 194
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Plymouth
Posts: 22
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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!
????
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!
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: western europe
Posts: 1,367
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
anyone want a 550 seat twin ...... no problem .......
try a 777-300 single class .....
http://www.airliners.net/info/stats.main?id=107
try a 777-300 single class .....
http://www.airliners.net/info/stats.main?id=107
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Arizona USA
Posts: 8,571
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: the edge of madness
Posts: 493
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: western europe
Posts: 1,367
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
Join Date: Jul 1998
Location: USA
Posts: 80
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
Given the sales records of these models to date one has to question whether Boeing was wise to take GE's...
Usual disclaimers apply!
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: EGGW
Posts: 843
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
However, AFAIK, the GE90-115B was the least technical risky solution and also overall the best in techinical merits
A good measure of any engine is how often one has to open the cowls!
Join Date: Jul 1998
Location: USA
Posts: 80
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is
A good measure of any engine is how often one has to open the cowls!
A good measure of any engine is how often one has to open the cowls!
Last edited by casual observer; 10th Jun 2004 at 12:20.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: the edge of madness
Posts: 493
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Jul 1998
Location: USA
Posts: 80
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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).
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.
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.
Rebel PPRuNer
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Toronto, Canada (formerly EICK)
Age: 51
Posts: 2,834
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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...
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Skagness on the beach
Posts: 882
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: cloud 9
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
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 ?
Wasn't this the smoke in the cockpit incident where the smoke was traced to a hydraulic leak spraying into the electronics bay?
