Boeing's final word/RR-Trents
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: the edge of madness
Posts: 493
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Boeing was pressured by, among others, Singapore Airlines to offer the Trent on the 773ER and 772LR but the exclusivity deal put to them by GE was unmatchable by RR even though they were already running a Trent at above 100k/lb. The ability to develop a 115k/lb engine was never the issue. But what goes around comes around and RR now have a de facto exclusivity on the A350XWB, although they never asked for it, because GE won't / can't compete with the 773ER / 772LR by offering an engine on this type. The A350XWB has now outsold the 773ER and 772LR so RR must be smiling in quiet satisfaction. And sales to date of the GEnEX exclusive 747-8 probably means they are relaxed about that decision too. From their point of view, exclusivity isn't always what it's cracked up to be - e.g. A340-500/600.
exclusivity isn't always what it's cracked up to be
It isn't all the profit per model, but the development resources (labor and capital) that are limited to how many models you can actually develop per unit time.
The challenge gets easier when you have larger (money and labor) and fewer manufacturers competing.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: the City by the Bay
Posts: 547
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And certain airlines are forced to change their engine habits. CX with GE90 instead of their usual RR fare. And Ci with RR on their A350 order instead of their usual American engines.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Where ever my Blackberry says i am
Posts: 126
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BBG
Just come back on a BA777 with GE and must admit that i was slightly edgy about it impressive looking as it was.
All the BA engineers i've spoken too prefer the Trent and i would rather travel on one too.
Didn't the GE when performing the blade off tests fail every time.....so they blew it half way up the blade and were given dispensation by the FAA for it.
Easy 69
Just an quickie....doing what for 35 years in aviation. Nothing suspisious in the question just curiosity.
Personally i would rather fly on a plane with power from RR than GE or PW..
All the BA engineers i've spoken too prefer the Trent and i would rather travel on one too.
Didn't the GE when performing the blade off tests fail every time.....so they blew it half way up the blade and were given dispensation by the FAA for it.
Easy 69
Just an quickie....doing what for 35 years in aviation. Nothing suspisious in the question just curiosity.
Didn't the GE when performing the blade off tests fail every time.....so they blew it half way up the blade and were given dispensation by the FAA for it
The GE met the regulations and is safe. BTW how many fan blade failures have they had that causes your concern?
and How many have RR had?
Without factual data you only have personal speculation about flight safety between engines.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Where ever my Blackberry says i am
Posts: 126
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
lomapaseo
The fact that the GE90 has not had a fan blade off yet or that it passed the test does not detract from the fact (to which i stand to be corrected) that the original blade off tests, it failed. GE was given a special dispensation to carry out a blade off test "not at the root". Im pretty sure it was documented in FI as i remember thinking at the time "that surely this cant be right" or fair.
ALL the BA engineers (that ive spoken to) that have worked on both engines (a position that BA is almost unique in terms of like for like power outputs) prefer the Trent. At the end of the day you have to trust their judgement and its their comments and opinions that I base my "factual data" on.
Im not saying that the GE90 is unsafe or unreliable but i know which engine i prefer to see attached to the wing. Maybe its for the above mentioned "data" but after a Tanquerray and tonic or two i start to not give a damm as i know that no airline is dumb enough to use "bad" engines.
But as the Rolls Royce advert about 25 years ago went (to the sight of an RB211 with a prominent 'RR', on a wing, seen through a passenger window) said. "Re-assuring, Isn't it". Very potent ad if you ask me. And yes i do like to see the double R on my engines.
Safe flying old bean
The fact that the GE90 has not had a fan blade off yet or that it passed the test does not detract from the fact (to which i stand to be corrected) that the original blade off tests, it failed. GE was given a special dispensation to carry out a blade off test "not at the root". Im pretty sure it was documented in FI as i remember thinking at the time "that surely this cant be right" or fair.
Without factual data you only have personal speculation about flight safety between engines
Im not saying that the GE90 is unsafe or unreliable but i know which engine i prefer to see attached to the wing. Maybe its for the above mentioned "data" but after a Tanquerray and tonic or two i start to not give a damm as i know that no airline is dumb enough to use "bad" engines.
But as the Rolls Royce advert about 25 years ago went (to the sight of an RB211 with a prominent 'RR', on a wing, seen through a passenger window) said. "Re-assuring, Isn't it". Very potent ad if you ask me. And yes i do like to see the double R on my engines.
Safe flying old bean
Think you need to put the comments RE BA engineers preferences into context . This is comparing the GE 90 - 94B the Trent 800 which i fully agree with . The GE had a difficult entry to service with BA , and they then got the Trent when it had been in service a few years as it also had some problems . The most common GE at present is the 115 which powers the 777-300ER /200LR . Totally different from the earlier engine and although there are a few issues its a very reliable engine , and from a line engineers point of view , doesnt use oil and very rarely open the cowls !! Unlike the 94b !!
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: West Sussex
Age: 82
Posts: 58
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry, lomapaseo, but the GE90 did not meet the FAR33 blade off regulation. It enjoyed the use of a Special Condition to allow separation away from the top root seration.
No other engine enjoyed this alleviation.
No other engine enjoyed this alleviation.
CAAD
Yes I am aware of what it demonstrated. Your words are slighty more correct.
Tis true that it was certified by testing under a Special Condition of equivalency under part 33
In the end it had to show that it could be safely shut down after the release of the highest energy blade (typically but not necessarily a fan blade) released at its inner-most retention. But like an integral bladed rotor (blisk) the argument is what is the inner-most retention. GE argued that the typical disk-blade root area was to be controlled to the same standards as the disk (prime reliable) thus the inner-most portion of the blade that was exposed to similar hazards as RR & PW blades was the root airfoil.
So at least we may agree that after their redesign following their first test they have now demonstrated an equivalent level of safety?
Sorry, lomapaseo, but the GE90 did not meet the FAR33 blade off regulation. It enjoyed the use of a Special Condition to allow separation away from the top root seration.
No other engine enjoyed this alleviation.
No other engine enjoyed this alleviation.
Tis true that it was certified by testing under a Special Condition of equivalency under part 33
In the end it had to show that it could be safely shut down after the release of the highest energy blade (typically but not necessarily a fan blade) released at its inner-most retention. But like an integral bladed rotor (blisk) the argument is what is the inner-most retention. GE argued that the typical disk-blade root area was to be controlled to the same standards as the disk (prime reliable) thus the inner-most portion of the blade that was exposed to similar hazards as RR & PW blades was the root airfoil.
So at least we may agree that after their redesign following their first test they have now demonstrated an equivalent level of safety?
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Where ever my Blackberry says i am
Posts: 126
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Easy 69
Hmmm....so you started as ATC and then became a manager
bvcu
I thought i did. I did say of similar power output. If i remember correctly when they introduced the GE powered 777's they used them on the LHR - CDG route due to birth pains with the new engine.
lomapaseo
From your last reply it seems that you are either an engineer or just have a deep knowledge of the GE90
But either way your post sounds like its certification was a compromise of design and testing.
That in my mind is not an equal or superior level of safety.
half of it listening to @rseholes, the other half ignoring them
bvcu
Think you need to put the comments RE BA engineers preferences into context
lomapaseo
From your last reply it seems that you are either an engineer or just have a deep knowledge of the GE90
But either way your post sounds like its certification was a compromise of design and testing.
following their first test they have now demonstrated an equivalent level of safety?
gone til november
it's not yet november aren't you gone yet?
Nobody is superior as yet. Check back after the fleet is retired.
Design and certification are promises backed up by certified equality compared to the regulation standard.
it's not yet november aren't you gone yet?
That in my mind is not an equal or superior level of safety
Design and certification are promises backed up by certified equality compared to the regulation standard.
Mistrust in Management
Gone till November
If i remember correctly when they introduced the GE powered 777's they used them on the LHR - CDG route due to birth pains with the new engine.
Regards
Exeng
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Where ever my Blackberry says i am
Posts: 126
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not correct I'm afraid. The CDG route was planned from the beginning to speed up Pilot training.
I take it back.
Still prefer to see the Trent hanging off the wing.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Where ever my Blackberry says i am
Posts: 126
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
JW411
How right you are.
Lomapaseo
I thought i'd come back early.
Yes neither has made a huge leap infront of the other in terms of reliability but you also have to ask why did BA change back to RR when they ordered new 777's. There must have been a good reason why they would go through the expense of changing engine on the same type.
Must say though the GE90 is one quiet engine when it flies over my house.
How right you are.
Lomapaseo
I thought i'd come back early.
Yes neither has made a huge leap infront of the other in terms of reliability but you also have to ask why did BA change back to RR when they ordered new 777's. There must have been a good reason why they would go through the expense of changing engine on the same type.
Must say though the GE90 is one quiet engine when it flies over my house.
Mistrust in Management
Gone till November
I was given to understand that the original order for GE powered 777's was tied in with GE buying the BA engine overhaul facility at Treforest in South Wales.
Once all that was complete BA reverted to RR (which is probably what they wanted all along)
Regards
Exeng
Once all that was complete BA reverted to RR (which is probably what they wanted all along)
Regards
Exeng
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Where ever my Blackberry says i am
Posts: 126
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Exeng
That caused a big stir when they bought GE and though it caused a furore it was strenuosly denied that it had anything to do with Treforest.
But why would BA go through the whole expensive process of introducing a new engine onto an established fleet. There's more to it than meets the eye.
That caused a big stir when they bought GE and though it caused a furore it was strenuosly denied that it had anything to do with Treforest.
But why would BA go through the whole expensive process of introducing a new engine onto an established fleet. There's more to it than meets the eye.
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: 8000 feet of cabin altitude
Posts: 543
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If we're talking rollbacks , there was a software issue that meant an extended period of TOGA takeoffs on the GE powered ER/LR until the problem was fixed
And to a previous poster:
Why would Emirates be unhappy with the Trent? Until the arrival of the A380/new 777s and the departure of the classic 'busses, it was the powerplant across the fleet.
Rumour has it the GP7200 isn't what it was promised to be. Should have gone for the Trent 900......but that's another story!