XWB
in service - 11 years
Posts: 16,115
|
Post by XWB on Apr 30, 2014 12:38:45 GMT 1
|
|
philidor
in service - 6 years
Posts: 8,950
|
Post by philidor on Apr 30, 2014 12:54:42 GMT 1
From the press release :
- "Final assembly of the first Airbus A320neo is advancing rapidly in Toulouse, France, putting this 'new engine option' jetliner programme on track for its maiden flight later this year".
- "In parallel, the first A320neo jetliner’s PW1100G-JM engines are being prepared at Pratt & Whitney’s manufacturing facilities in the U.S., and will be delivered to Airbus in the coming months"
(in both sentences, emphasis is mine).
Isn't the second sentence an admission that P&W is struggling to meet delivery schedule ?
I do hope the latest engine incident in Canada does not delay the programme.
|
|
XWB
in service - 11 years
Posts: 16,115
|
Post by XWB on Apr 30, 2014 12:59:48 GMT 1
First flight was always planned for Q4 2014, although it might fly in September.
|
|
philidor
in service - 6 years
Posts: 8,950
|
Post by philidor on Apr 30, 2014 14:00:24 GMT 1
First flight was always planned for Q4 2014, although it might fly in September. ... But there also was a scheduled date of delivery of the first P&W engine to Airbus, for flight test purposes. I read it, though I cannot remember it and don't hear of it any more. I guess I am getting nervous as first flight is around the corner ... |
|
XWB
in service - 11 years
Posts: 16,115
|
Post by XWB on Apr 30, 2014 14:11:48 GMT 1
Both engines will be delivered separately, hence Airbus is using the term "in the coming months".
I recall reading that the first engine should arrive in May/June, while the second engine should arrive 1 month after the first one.
|
|
Baroque
in service - 2 years
Posts: 3,991
|
Post by Baroque on Apr 30, 2014 14:26:41 GMT 1
As I see it, it is just that Airbus is way ahead of schedule. They probably want to make sure everything on their part is working properly well before first flight.
And IIRC, the original EIS was supposed to be Q1 or Q2 of 2016. Airbus then brought it forward by 6 months.
With the A350 tests going smoothly, I expect Airbus to be comfortable with their other programs with more freed up resources in hand.
|
|
|
|
A320neo
Apr 30, 2014 16:50:25 GMT 1
Post by FabienA380 on Apr 30, 2014 16:50:25 GMT 1
Why would both engines be delivered separately, will Airbus conduct it's own series of tests at TLS?...  |
|
Baroque
in service - 2 years
Posts: 3,991
|
Post by Baroque on Apr 30, 2014 17:32:58 GMT 1
Why would both engines be delivered separately, will Airbus conduct it's own series of tests at TLS?... Pratt could have delivered both at the same time. But I presume it is better to deliver the first one as soon as it is off Pratt's assembly line so that Airbus can install their test stuff and take the time to get used to it, fix any issues etc.  |
|
philidor
in service - 6 years
Posts: 8,950
|
Post by philidor on Apr 30, 2014 18:20:28 GMT 1
The basic facts of the Montréal incident are still obscure. www.montrealgazette.com/business/Pratt+Whitney+looks+into+engine+test+incident/9787709/story.html- Which version of the GTF was being tested on that flight ? Was it the A320 NEO engine (as we believe on this forum), a variant for another A320 derivative (as imagined on another forum), or the C-Series engine (as supposed by the Canadian press) ? - Was the problem with the tested engine or with one of the 747 engines ? - How serious was the problem (was there an engine fire as initially supposed, which is questioned in the article I linked to ?)? |
|
s543
in service - 2 years
Posts: 3,959 
|
Post by s543 on Apr 30, 2014 23:16:45 GMT 1
Well I have read the whole article twice and frankly it is long and it is quite an art to write such a long thing and state NOTHING - but the impression is it was the 1500 for CS, like there is no doubt - but ?
|
|
