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?

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. :cool:

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!!

:\

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?

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!

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. :ok:

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




:cool:

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

1994 :eek:

And so Bus, you are telling me it took them two years to get it from MAN to DXB for the first flight in 1996? ;) (A6-EMD)

Must have been really sick!! :yuk:

halas

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.

:ok:

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 :ok:

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.

Halas, due flying on one engine it was a very long delivery flight!
Alright, so it was 1996 - my memory is not what it used to be!

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 !

There you go, nilnotedtks- I have burst! Anyway, what does it matter? See your pm for my email address. I'm off to improve my excuse for a website!

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.

Nah, this is something they would never talk about publically. :ok: And there is no restrictions as of yet, nobody has bought the highest weights. :E

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.

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.

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.

Alrighty then...I'll have a crack.

Is the tail too short 747FOCAL?

or

Is it to do with the aircrafts MAC?:confused:

Well yeah, little point in developing a 110,000ib class engine if the airframe manufacturer has said it will only offer one engine choice and you are not it:hmm:

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 :D

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. :confused:

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

Doesn't this usually count as one event?

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. :)

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.

747FOCAL,

????:confused:

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!

anyone want a 550 seat twin ...... no problem .......

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

http://www.airliners.net/info/stats.main?id=107

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.:E

hobie,

Anyone for sardines!:)

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.:confused:

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.:)

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

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.

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.


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.

It is :E :E
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.

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.

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.

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.

Agree with you whole-heartedly. :ok:

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...

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.

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

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 ?

:hmm:

cargo hold:confused:

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