787 Issues

Forums › Travel (planes, train, cruise) › 787 Issues

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8

2523 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#2001325 23-Apr-2018 22:44

Just got back from a week in Hawaii flying NZ10/NZ9..
Flight up on 787 had a 1.5h delay for engineering inspection.
Flight back on 777 all on time but on arrival had used sporting gear to declare and the yellow lane took an hour to get through arrrgh!
But good news, got a one-up upgrade for all 5 of us to premium economy for the minimum possible bid of 200 airpoints per seat ba-zing!

Item

1717 posts

Uber Geek

Subscriber

#2001369 24-Apr-2018 08:19

Just flew AKL->Singapore and back again.

Outbound was direct flight, normal, on time etc. On the way back they were offering a hotel and $500 to get bumped in an effort to reduce passenger and luggage weight and thus engine thrust needed to take off but to no avail - we ended up having to detour to Sydney to take on fuel as they were forced to reduce weight here instead.

Overall (we took off late) about 2 hours added to the journey.

kryptonjohn

2523 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#2001396 24-Apr-2018 09:33

Item:

Just flew AKL->Singapore and back again.

Outbound was direct flight, normal, on time etc. On the way back they were offering a hotel and $500 to get bumped in an effort to reduce passenger and luggage weight and thus engine thrust needed to take off but to no avail - we ended up having to detour to Sydney to take on fuel as they were forced to reduce weight here instead.

Overall (we took off late) about 2 hours added to the journey.

2 hrs is a bugger ... hopefully better than just bumping some random poor buggers off like United et al do?

Little

82 posts

Master Geek

#2001408 24-Apr-2018 09:38

I tried to fly to NYC via Houston on Sunday NZ28. Flight was delayed twice, then I changed to go via San Francisco NZ8. Saw the Houston flight was delayed 1 more time after that.

amiga500

1484 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#2001429 24-Apr-2018 10:28

kryptonjohn:

Item:

Just flew AKL->Singapore and back again.

Outbound was direct flight, normal, on time etc. On the way back they were offering a hotel and $500 to get bumped in an effort to reduce passenger and luggage weight and thus engine thrust needed to take off but to no avail - we ended up having to detour to Sydney to take on fuel as they were forced to reduce weight here instead.

Overall (we took off late) about 2 hours added to the journey.

2 hrs is a bugger ... hopefully better than just bumping some random poor buggers off like United et al do?

Is this reduced thrust thing part of the FAA directive? Not exactly confidence inspiring...

Another option to reduce thrust on those engines would be to fit an extra take-off engine in the tail similar to the HS Trident 3. The Brits. managed to cripple this aircraft by giving it low powered engines & enough range to get to Paris and other fairly close Euro destinations. The Trident had the nickname of ground grubber because of its long takeoff roll however it had a very high cruise speed, quite a bit faster than say an A320.

http://www.airliners.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=381739 (Optional fourth engine for takeoff)

kryptonjohn

2523 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#2001432 24-Apr-2018 10:35

Sounds like RR have new compressor and turbine blades that doesn't suffer the fatigue issue. So no replacement engines required - just replacement fan blades. But they can't get them manufactured fast enough.

RR facing US$315 million expense over this debacle - hardly crippling for them. This issue is also affecting A380s with Trent 900 engines:

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/rolls-royce-takes-hit-on-787-and-a380-blade-flaws-446528/

"The manufacturer expects its solutions to the Trent 1000 problems, including redesigned parts, to be "fully embodied" in the fleet by 2022." - yikes.

Dingbatt

6754 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#2001455 24-Apr-2018 10:57

amiga500:
kryptonjohn:

Item:

Just flew AKL->Singapore and back again.

Outbound was direct flight, normal, on time etc. On the way back they were offering a hotel and $500 to get bumped in an effort to reduce passenger and luggage weight and thus engine thrust needed to take off but to no avail - we ended up having to detour to Sydney to take on fuel as they were forced to reduce weight here instead.

Overall (we took off late) about 2 hours added to the journey.

2 hrs is a bugger ... hopefully better than just bumping some random poor buggers off like United et al do?

Is this reduced thrust thing part of the FAA directive? Not exactly confidence inspiring...

Another option to reduce thrust on those engines would be to fit an extra take-off engine in the tail similar to the HS Trident 3. The Brits. managed to cripple this aircraft by giving it low powered engines & enough range to get to Paris and other fairly close Euro destinations. The Trident had the nickname of ground grubber because of its long takeoff roll however it had a very high cruise speed, quite a bit faster than say an A320.

http://www.airliners.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=381739 (Optional fourth engine for takeoff)

This is tongue in cheek right? As discussed earlier in the thread, even the option of changing out the engine type to one already certified is prohibitive. Adding an extra engine, wow!

My understanding is the fatigue issue in the compressor is caused by harmonics at particular combinations of speed and inlet conditions. Something that is very difficult to calculate during design, but probably should have been found during testing. The reduced loads (takeoff weight) will be to avoid the necessity to run one or both the engines in that harmonic inducing range for extended periods.

“We’ve arranged a society based on science and technology, in which nobody understands anything about science technology. Carl Sagan 1996

Equinox IT

Cloud spending continues to surge globally, but most organisations haven’t made the changes necessary to maximise the value and cost-efficiency benefits of their cloud investments. Download the whitepaper From Overspend to Advantage now.

amiga500

1484 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#2001460 24-Apr-2018 11:04

Yep! Very tongue in cheek like Winston suggesting a free trade agreement for North Korea!

kryptonjohn

2523 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#2001461 24-Apr-2018 11:06

Oh, Winston was tongue in cheek? I thought he'd spend a bit too long in the Green Parrot and meant to say South Korea!

After all, who would want a trade agreement with a country that has no hard currency (other than that derived from illegal arms and slave trading)?

Whoops, sorry, went OT.

networkn

Networkn
32349 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2001488 24-Apr-2018 11:23

Might have been asked and answered, but why isn't rolls royce just sending out new engines out that don't have the defect?

sbiddle

30853 posts

Uber Geek

Retired Mod

Trusted

Biddle Corp

Lifetime subscriber

#2001527 24-Apr-2018 12:00

networkn:

Might have been asked and answered, but why isn't rolls royce just sending out new engines out that don't have the defect?

Because they don't have any.

Some engines destined for new aircraft (AOG) were being pulled from the supply chain, but that doesn't result in an immediate fix. That also causes grief for Boeing who then can't build planes.

While I haven't seen an actual figure it's safe to assume RR are capable of building 1-2 engines per day and there are a few hundred affected engines.

kryptonjohn

2523 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#2001564 24-Apr-2018 12:44

Yeah and according to Wiki they're worth about US$42 mil each so you wouldn't want to be sitting on a large inventory of them or handing them over without a fight.

amiga500

1484 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#2001639 24-Apr-2018 13:51

It seems that Air NZ were able to get quite a few of the Trent 1000 'Ten' type engines so they could have a Type 'C' and a type 'Ten' engine on each plane. So it might mean that Air NZ were more pro-active than some other airlines in managing the risk.

kryptonjohn

2523 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#2001649 24-Apr-2018 13:59

amiga500:

It seems that Air NZ were able to get quite a few of the Trent 1000 'Ten' type engines so they could have a Type 'C' and a type 'Ten' engine on each plane. So it might mean that Air NZ were more pro-active than some other airlines in managing the risk.

I can't see how that helps... as if the Ten fails the TypeC still has the distance/time/power restriction?

amiga500

1484 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#2001653 24-Apr-2018 14:09

kryptonjohn:

amiga500:

It seems that Air NZ were able to get quite a few of the Trent 1000 'Ten' type engines so they could have a Type 'C' and a type 'Ten' engine on each plane. So it might mean that Air NZ were more pro-active than some other airlines in managing the risk.

I can't see how that helps... as if the Ten fails the TypeC still has the distance/time/power restriction?

I think it is better than having two of the Type C engines if those engines have the same number of cycles. However, you are right seeing how the FAA have put a 140 minutes' ETOPS on the aircraft. I read on another forum that the FAA have a lot of concern about the engines whether Type 'C' or Type '10'.

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8