15 airlines warned over high-altitude ice

Status
Not open for further replies.
Quattro Pete

Quattro Pete

Joined
Oct 30, 2002
Messages
42,384
Location
Great Lakes
Poor Dreamliner, just can't catch a break...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-25068222


Quote:
Fifteen airlines have been warned about the risk of ice forming on Boeing's new 747-8 and 787 Dreamliner planes.

The issue - affecting some types of engines made by General Electric when planes fly near high-level thunderstorms - prompted Japan Airlines to cancel two international routes.
 
Almost as bad as Lockheeds F22 Raptor costs or the F32 delays.

Is the American Aerospace industry going the way of the big 3 auto makers of the 70-00s?
 
This isn't just about the 787.
The 747-8 uses a version of the same engine and apparently saw the first engine performance problems related to icing.
Boeing has advised operators to avoid flying aircraft with GEnx engines within 50nm of thunderstorms.
GE expects to release a fix by March.
The 787 seems to have experienced a level of EIS difficulty that no other Boeing aircraft has seen.
Still, it hasn't seen the engine problems that plagued the early JT9D on the early 747.
 
Originally Posted By: fdcg27

Still, it hasn't seen the engine problems that plagued the early JT9D on the early 747.


Or, even worse, the first Rolls-Royce RB.211 on the Tristar. And it should be noted that both the JT9D/PW4000 and RB.211 engine families were eventually highly successful, despite the rough start they both had.
 
The delays caused by that Rolls engine pretty well killed the L-1011 and nearly killed Rolls.
FWIR, Rolls pitched this engine to Boeing for the 747 while the aircraft was still in development. Good thing Boeing turned to its old partner Pratt instead.
 
Originally Posted By: fdcg27
Good thing Boeing turned to its old partner Pratt instead.


Interesting....but the article goes on to day that Dreamliners equipped with the Rolls Royce engines are not affected with the problem!

L-1011: I spend thousands of hours developing/working on/ building the autoland systems for this airplane. Sadly none are in commercial service in the US now that I know of, although they had quite an enviable safety record.
 
Wonder what the efficiency hit will be from the "fix" on the engines. The boys in Cincinnati better sharpen their pencils so the "Eco" image and notional savings to the airlines aren't lost.
 
Originally Posted By: JHZR2
Wonder what the efficiency hit will be from the "fix" on the engines. The boys in Cincinnati better sharpen their pencils so the "Eco" image and notional savings to the airlines aren't lost.



It didn't seem to hurt them at Dubai.
 
At 40k feet, I doubt there is much temperature difference between flying over Dubai and Alaska.
 
Originally Posted By: JHZR2
At 40k feet, I doubt there is much temperature difference between flying over Dubai and Alaska.


dkryan is writing of the orders garnered by Boeing at the Dubai air show, not the flying conditions there.
 
Originally Posted By: fsskier
Originally Posted By: fdcg27
Good thing Boeing turned to its old partner Pratt instead.


Interesting....but the article goes on to day that Dreamliners equipped with the Rolls Royce engines are not affected with the problem!

L-1011: I spend thousands of hours developing/working on/ building the autoland systems for this airplane. Sadly none are in commercial service in the US now that I know of, although they had quite an enviable safety record.


I don't think that there are any Tristars now flying anywhere in the world.
Sands casino had one operating, but it's currently AOG.
Delta built a fleet of more than thirty on the cheap, but they were all in the desert by about ten years ago.
Pilots who flew her universally praised the aircraft.
Had the L-1011 had earlier delivery dates, it would have eaten the DC-10's lunch.
Alas, that was not to be given the protracted problems with what would turn out to be a very good engine as well as the financial problems suffered by both Lockheed and Rolls, both of which needed government assistance to survive.
In the case of Boeing, the 747 nearly killed it as well and using the Rolls engine as an exclusive offering, as Lockheed did with the Tristar might have been the end of BCA, or might at least have put BCA down the same road as McDonell-Douglas, where new aircraft were nothing more than developments of old ones, with he DC-10 being the last original design undertaken by the company.
 
Delta flew the freqkin' wings off their L-1011s. Rode on them many times- great aircraft, though the interior was a little like a 1970s doctors' waiting room ;-)

IIRC, TriStars didn't really convert well to cargo A/C like DC-10s did. Max GTOW wasn't high enough to make them good cargo haulers, they were better for low-density cargo like people. I think Cathay Pacific picked up some of the ex-Delta craft, but then they didn't keep them in service much longer. The TriStar was (IMO) a much better machine than the DC-10 (and the number of hull losses over the years, even corrected for market share, would agree), but the DC won in the marketplace because of all the delays with the TriStar and its RB.211 engines.
 
I agree. Every airplane I've ever flown has had teething problems early in its life...those problems included the engines in many cases. Operational experience simply can't be completely anticipated, even by extensive testing...so, things crop up, get fixed, and you move one...no big deal. The press makes a big deal, because they don't understand how airplanes work, or how common those fixes are...

For the list of airplanes flown: T-34C, T-2C, TA-4J, F-14A, F-14B, E-2C, S-3B, F-16N, F-5E, F/A-18C, B757, B767, B747-400, A-320, and a few Cirrus, Cessna and other "bug-smashers"...and all those airplanes had "issues" at one point or another...
 
Is the 787 having an unusual number of teething problems, or does it just seem like it?
Certainly the airline world doesn't seem too worried, since the orders keep rolling in.
 
I think that they're minor...but that's one man's opinion...

Look, the A-380, the most recent major airliner launched, has cracks in the wing structure...it's not performing to spec on fuel either...so, no new jet has been trouble-free...
 
Originally Posted By: fdcg27
Is the 787 having an unusual number of teething problems, or does it just seem like it?
Certainly the airline world doesn't seem too worried, since the orders keep rolling in.


I think it's just the news media, we wouldn't know what to do if we didn't have them to warn us of all these scary things.

My guess is that GE was trying to skimp on the bleed air which is typically used for engine anti-ice, unless they tried to go 100% electric.
 
I'll have to look it up - but I think that the 787 was all-electric...no bleed air at all for fuel efficiency...that may be part of the problem...ground-breaking technology...
 
Originally Posted By: Astro14
I think that they're minor...but that's one man's opinion...


You consider a total loss of aircraft a minor bump in the road? It wasn't related to the battery problem, but it all stacks up.

Norwegian airliner "Norwegian" operates 2 787, 6 more on order, all with RR engines. 787 has been nothing but trouble, with 50% of flights delayed due to technical problems (not battery or engines). Norwegian had meeting with Boeing top Raymond L. Conner in Oslo. It was all about what Boeing is going to do abt. qc and maintenance.
Boeing will probably have to pay Norwegian for the lease of 2 Airbus A340 due to the delay and technical problems with 787...

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/norwegian-takes-one-of-its-787s-out-of-service-391087/
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

OVERKILL
High altitude object flying over northern Canada
2 3
Replies
44
Views
2K
hemioiler
Jackson_Slugger
Jetpack Men Over LA
Replies
2
Views
1K
Jetronic
Jackson_Slugger
  • Locked
P-38 Lightning: The Best Plane From World War II?
3 4 5
Replies
83
Views
9K
IndyFan
supton
F9F vs MiG-15s
Replies
7
Views
2K
supton
J
  • Locked
Chinese airliner
2
Replies
29
Views
8K
BalticBob
Back
Top