philidor
in service - 6 years
Posts: 8,950
|
Post by philidor on Feb 12, 2018 0:43:15 GMT 1
|
|
|
Post by fanairbus on Feb 12, 2018 8:44:17 GMT 1
Isn't this becoming ridiculous? You obviously are not aware of aviation history. Entirely new engines have consistenly come with serious issues, sometimes threatening the viability of whatever programme relied on them, just to become successful after a fix. Do you remember, for instance, the showdown between EK and GE about the 77W engines ? This is not a consumer item, that should be reliable from day one, this is an extremely ambitious undertaking from P&W, which their customers are fully aware of. They remain quiet and certainly vigilant, let's follow their example. Thanks, yes you're right Philidor, I'm not that experienced although I have for years been excited by this area. I don't remember the showdown on the EK and GE 77W engines. This forum is a great learning place for me and I hope that my relative ignorance can stimulate educating replies, both for me and also others perhaps at a similar knowledge level. I would make an observation though that in retrospect the P&W decision to allow distribution of the engine seems to have been premature. I would be completely fuming as an airline executive and if such history is there for new engine release then I would have a contract plastered with so many penalty clauses as to influence the manufacturer to undertake a lot more maturity testing before launching. To voice another seemingly similar parallel situation - perhaps inadvisedly - the 787 battery eventually caused grounding of fleets. It does seem strategically shortsighted for manufacturers to risk so much just to make an opening market window. In some respects CFM though have also fallen into the same trap and if either had a mature enough product then perhaps that would be the deciding factor for eventual market share. Perhaps the regulators could set a reliability figure for aircraft engine plants that would automatically trigger industry penalties for their developers to help protect the public?
|
|
|
Post by airboche on Feb 12, 2018 10:48:53 GMT 1
Pratt must get their act together. If this is still not solved now it will take much more time for any improvement to arrive downstream at airline aircraft level. PW has a promising product but they might lose customer confidence if this goes on.
Airbus can't bring the rates up if half of the fleet is set to remain waiting for engines. No deliveries, no payments, no income. I hope this can be solved soon. Boeing must party.
|
|
philidor
in service - 6 years
Posts: 8,950
|
Post by philidor on Feb 12, 2018 11:38:48 GMT 1
I would be completely fuming as an airline executive and if such history is there for new engine release then I would have a contract plastered with so many penalty clauses as to influence the manufacturer to undertake a lot more maturity testing before launching. But that's not how it works, it's the other way around ! Engine suppliers are driven to overpromise. The first stage is engine supplier selection by the aircraft manufacturer. At that stage, the latter sets ambitious weight, performance and schedule (engine certification, first delivery, delivery, ramp-up ...) targets. Would-be suppliers may lose the game at that early stage (= not be picked), so that they are more or less forced to commit to meeting these targets, even when they know time may be too short. They do provide for penalties in their pricing, though. When customers have a choice of engines, then there is a second stage, which is engine selection by each customer. All contracts provide for performance and reliability guarantees, and penalties can be stiff. Customers however are price-conscious, and are aware that guarantees don't come for free. Some customers have specific performance demands (remember EK's attempts at achieving increased engine thrust for its 778/779 powerplants, even though in that case GE was the sole engine supplier). Altogether, though reliability matters to all customers, some of them just increase the pressure for more performance commitments.
|
|
|
Post by airboche on Feb 12, 2018 11:57:53 GMT 1
All of this should have been adressed before the test phase not now with record production running.
|
|
|
Post by peter on Feb 12, 2018 13:04:12 GMT 1
But that's not how it works, it's the other way around ! I wonder how you would react if you had just bought a new car with an engine that overheats on the way home.....
|
|
philidor
in service - 6 years
Posts: 8,950
|
Post by philidor on Feb 13, 2018 0:29:57 GMT 1
I wonder how you would react if you had just bought a new car with an engine that overheats on the way home..... Airlines get a much better treatment than any individual customer. They are fully compensated by P&W, that's why you don't hear them much.
|
|
cck
Final Assembly Line stage 1
Posts: 228
|
Post by cck on Feb 27, 2018 17:33:58 GMT 1
|
|
|
Post by kevin5345179 on Feb 27, 2018 18:05:31 GMT 1
I suppose Airbus has slight edge here given that engines come from 2 sources while Boeing must deal with CFM ....
|
|
Baroque
in service - 2 years
Posts: 3,991
|
Post by Baroque on Feb 27, 2018 18:09:27 GMT 1
There might be room for a third engine manufacturer after all, if production rates of aircraft of this category can be maintained at such levels past the next decade. I used to be of the view that next generation narrowbody replacements would likely have 2 choices, but a 3rd player may be warranted to address the production difficulties we see these days.
|
|