RR Trent for 787 fails on test rig

Well said Jay! And Totty

I love the term ‘uncontained failure’.

Yes it is quiet but the cause of failure could be anywhere in the supply chain

Yes it has gone quiet on this thread, and sure RR has had great praise especially when the 787 made it’s debut at Farnborough and did the tribute fly over RR Derby and visit to the East Midlands Airport.

An engine of the nature of the Trent 1000 has a miriad of different raw materials and components from wide and varied sources, that go to make the finished product.

We are still deep in a global economic recession and one of the resulting effects of this is possible inevitable shortcomings somewhere in the complex supply chain. Often sheer desperate attempts by some in the supply chain to survive economically.

RR has a stringent process for their suppliers and let’s be grateful that this engine failure has manifested on the test rig as it will ensure more safety for production as all information about the failure is to hand.

True this may possibly create some delays.

Yes I suppose there are some scenarios whereby the GE might beat the RR into service. That would be quite a change, but the 787 program is already way off track time wise so its within the realm of possibility

The GE airplanes were always scheduled to be certficated second.

Yes, but if the two GE prototypes completed their tests and the 4 RR frames were not ready yet, additional tests might be made on GE, no?

Currently the second GEnx test frame is promised to fly on 24th of September. Which is delayed, it was expected months ago.

The GE airplanes were always scheduled to be certficated second.

According to this site:http://nyc787.blogspot.com/this engine failure has huge implications for the 787 program and RR.

Apparently it was destined for airframe number 9, and Boeing had intended that airframe to help complete the flight test hours, along with some others. Boeing apparently always intended for additional airplanes (beyond the 6) to help fill out the flight hour requirement for certification.

Furthermore, some engine re-design may be necessary.

Chirp Chirp Chirp.

Its very quiet around here…..One can hear the crickets chirping on this forum since the explosion in the test cell……and it seems that just yesterday (actually it was a few weeks ago) on another thread nationalistic fervor ran amok with people patting themselves on the pack about how great Rolls Royce was.

On closer examination, it is not just Rolls.

The sixth prototype, the second Genx frame, is long known to be delayed. A Rolls explosion could delay entry into service of airplane type (because there are not enough Genx airframes to do the test flights left), but could not delay Genx test frame first flight (if anything, it would be hurried).

What other issues contribute to the delay?

I love the term ‘uncontained failure’.

Chirp Chirp Chirp.

Its very quiet around here…..One can hear the crickets chirping on this forum since the explosion in the test cell……and it seems that just yesterday (actually it was a few weeks ago) on another thread nationalistic fervor ran amok with people patting themselves on the pack about how great Rolls Royce was.

I would submit that RR wasn’t as good as everyone claimed, and yet is not as bad as this embarrassing failure would indicate. For the record, it appears that the engine that suffered the uncontained failure (politically correct engineering parlance for “explosion”) was destined for ZA012, a production airplane:
http://nyc787.blogspot.com/
“In an article by Flightblogger, the newest 6 week deay has been prompted by a lack of the Rolls Royce Trent 1000 engines for the ninth 787 (LN 9, ZA102) as well as subsequent RR powered 787s that would be used in the flight test program. This aircraft was to be used for ETOPS testing as well as functionality and reliability testing using production standard engines. Furthermore, Flightblogger says that the uncontained failure of the engine was an engine that to eventually hang off the wing of ZA102 and power that aircraft. This engine is a package “A” engine.”

D’OH!

Whilst it may not impact the overall timescales of the program,

Turns out it shall. Nightmareliner delivery is officially delayed again, to February 2011 for now:
http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2010/08/27/346722/787-first-delivery-delayed-to-mid-q1-2011.html

I was wondering what they do with all those old supermarket plastic bags and soda bottles that they send for recycling. Now I know! :dev2:

Lucky it didn’t fail on the plane.

Yes indeed…with a plastic wing…what could possibly go wrong 😀

It’s an “A Package” engine with the “B Package” already underway.

My understanding is that the failure was in the IP turbine, which is not subject to change between A-package and B-package – or wasn’t, before this happened! :rolleyes:

Engines must pack up all the time when they’re being tested.

Well not “all the time”, but occasionally for sure. But as the failure is suggested to have involved an uncontained failure, it’s likely to be a cause for concern – not only should the IP turbine not have failed, but the failure should have been contained…

Why would it be a set back?

Anything that results in an unexpected failure (or two failures – turbine and containment), is inevitably going to be a set back to some degree or another. I suspect RR aren’t just going to sit back and say “never mind”… Whilst it may not impact the overall timescales of the program, its going to involve manpower, time, computer time and cost to understand and possibly fix the problem. That’s a set back!

Andy

Good point Mr Totty.

Engines must pack up all the time when they’re being tested. If it’s anything like car design, the idea might be to abuse the hell out of them and then to see which parts break first, strengthening them for production.

I would classify this as a setback, surprised someone hasn’t mentioned it here yet.

Why would it be a set back? It’s an “A Package” engine with the “B Package” already underway.
It’s not the only engine they have. I’m sure this is a minor problem.

I’m sure the R-R chaps will have it sorted soon.

Agreed. I don’t think this particularly newsworthy in the grand scheme of aero engine manufacture.

Lucky it didn’t fail on the plane.

I’m sure the R-R chaps will have it sorted soon.