Leeham News and Analysis
There's more to real news than a news release.
Leeham News and Analysis
- Boeing 3Q deliveries up despite strike October 8, 2024
- Strike slows Boeing’s march toward improving safety culture October 7, 2024
- Aerospace supply chain still ailing; Sustainable Aviation Fuel isn’t the answer to go green October 4, 2024
- Bjorn’s Corner: New engine development. Part 27. Long developments October 4, 2024
- Longshoreman strike adds to Airbus, Boeing woes October 1, 2024
Bjorn’s Corner: New engine development. Part 26. New versus old, Trent 1000 vs. XWB
By Bjorn Fehrm
September 27, 2024, ©. Leeham News: We do an article series about engine development and why it has longer timelines than airframe development. It also carries larger risks of product maturity problems when it enters service than the airframe of an airliner.
In our look at examples of recent developments with problems and these put in a historical perspective, looking at the reliability and durability of its predecessor we compare the Rolls-Royce Trent 1000 for the Boeing 787 to the Trent XWB for the Airbus A350.
Figure 1. The Rolls-Royce Trent 1000 with its wide cord hollow titanium fan. Source: Rolls-Royce.
The Trent 1000 compared with the Trent XWB
We compare the development and entry into service of the Rolls-Royce Trent 1000 to the Trent XWB because these are good examples of how it should be done and how it should not be done.
Trent 1000
Rolls-Royce was selected together with GE for the engines of the Boeing 787. Pratt & Whitney also competed for the selection. Rolls-Royce was selected after Boeing had good experience with Rolls-Royce engines operating on the 747, 757, 767, and 777.
The engine supply for the 787 was against a tough Boeing specification, which required very low fuel consumption and low engine weight. Boeing told Rolls-Royce and GE not to oversize the engines (which engine OEMs usually do as new aircraft always have development weight creep, and there is typically a demand for higher thrust engines for a larger version later in the program).
The problem was that Boeing demanded the engines be sized for the 787 when the 787-9 was a 220t aircraft and demanded 64klbf thrust, and the 787-8 was a 205t aircraft demanding 58klbf thrust. We know what happened: The 787-8 landed at 228t, needing 72klbf thrust, and the 787-9 landed at 253t, needing 76klbf.
That is a 20% increase in thrust needed on engines designed tight to the original specification. The result was turbine sections that were highly stressed, where the GE GEnx-1 handled it better than the Trent 1000.
After several engine revisions for both OEMs to correct fuel consumption noncompliance, Rolls-Royce’s in-service problems started. Turbine blades needed a redesign as air pollution affected the coatings and caused cracking. The situation was especially bad for Japanese ANA, as the salty environment exacerbated the turbine problems. Soon, most Trent 1000s had the turbine coating issues. The blades needed a redesign with improved coating.
Then Rolls-Royce discovered that the compressor section ran into resonance frequency issues with blades cracking. The airflow from upstream fan vanes excited a resonance frequency on later compressor-stage blades, resulting in blade fatigue and blade cracks. The risk of compressor failures forced the regulators to demand frequent inspections and ETOPS restrictions. The fix was redesigned blades with changed resonance frequency characteristics.
Taken together, the turbine and compressor problems meant that many Trent 1000 787s were grounded due to ADs demanding changed compressor and turbine blades before the aircraft could continue flying.
The 787 program should have Entered Into Service (EIS) in 2008, but it took three more years before it happened. During these three years of delay, there was no maturity flying program for the engines beyond normal development and certification running, meaning in-service problems stayed undetected until they manifested after the 787s were delivered.
Trent XWB
The Trent XWB was developed with the experience of the 1000. The Airbus A350 specification for engine sizing was realistic and consistent, meaning the main engine on the A350-900 was only revised once, from 78klbf early on to 84klbf. Engine fuel consumption was specified as fractionally better than the 787 engines, which was achievable with the later-developed Trent XWB.
Initial plans called for the A350-1000’s engine to be a throttle-pushed version of the 84klbf engine, but when the A350-1000 was redesigned as a heavier, longer-range -1000, Rolls-Royce redesigned the engine into a dedicated Trent XWB 97klbf, which employed a revised core to handle the higher thrust.
To make the story short about the Trent XWB’s in-service experience, let me quote what a top Airbus manager said to me at the Farnborough Air Show in July. I asked if Airbus worked on getting more engine suppliers than Rolls-Royce for the A350 program. The answer was, “No, why should we? The Trent XWB is our best engine. It has excellent fuel burn, is very reliable, and has good durability. We are very satisfied with the XWB.”
What about the durability issues of the 97klbf version in the Middle East? “Everyone has these issues when engines are introduced there, and Rolls-Royce is addressing it with changes to the engine.”
It’s not often we get such answers from airframe OEMs. How could the Trent XWB be so different from the Trent 1000? These are the main factors:
- The Trent XWB was a sole source development against a well-managed airframe project, allowing the engine to be sized correctly, with margins for durability.
- The A350 program thrust demands were not changed after the initial adjustments. Today, nine years after EIS, the -900 engine is still rated at 84klbf.
- Airbus and Rolls-Royce agreed on a special XWB maturity program for the engine. An 84klbf Trent XWB flew on an Airbus A380, replacing the standard A380 engine for over a year before the A350 entered service. During the program, engines were meticulously monitored and checked after dismantling to detect any wear or tear. This was in addition to normal development and certification running of the engine.
To my knowledge, the Trent XWB is the first engine to have an Airframe and Engine OEM maturity program defined and executed before the engine entered service.
It has paid off for both Airbus and Rolls-Royce. The A350 has a solid in-service reputation, not in the least because of a well-functioning engine.
Re. the recent fuel leak problems with the Trent XWB 97klbf. Insiders say it’s not an engine design issue. A semi-flexible fuel hose has been been treated as a flexible hose and routinely bent during engine service. Damaged hoses need replacing, and maintenance instructions need to be changed.
Very interesting about the 787 gross weight revisions. I didn’t realize the weight growth was so much. I wonder what was the timeline when Boeing realized this as design process matured.
Given the way Boeing ran the project – the design of major subsections was outsourced entirely to suppliers – I’d bet they didn’t realise that they’d lost control of the weight of the aircraft until they had the first parts all together and weighed them…
It was sheer lunacy to run a design / development program.
They might have got away with it, had Airbus not built the A330neo. The warmed up old stager from the European company apparently asks hard questions of the 787, because it’s an excellent product that is also whole lot cheaper to buy.
(Run a programme *that way* is what I meant to say!)
Mathew:
The A330NEO had virtually nothing to do with the 787 program.
The CEO certainly did as it benefited hugely from Boeing screw ups on the 787. Wide bodies were the hot commodity and Boeing was not delivering, Airbus was and they are well deserved to benefited from it.
Airbus has run a far better operation (almost if not to the point of the Yugo vs Toyota comparisons).
It also shouild be note4d that Airbus did Ver 2,3 and 4 of the A330NEO before they gave up and went with the A350.
Only after that did they do the NEO per some of the serious A330 Customers (Air Asia X and Delta) kept pushing it.
The NEO certainly has not sold in the numbers of 1000 that Hazy was predicting (who also was one of the top types demanding a new aircraft, smart guy but I don’t like the spin).
I have not seen break even numbers on the A330NEO. It is selling a bit better now and of course it serves as the basis for a A330MRT upgrade if and when they do that.
It sort of is the as close to direct competitor to the 787 but the 787 is selling much better. Of course Boeing had to mess that up with the Shim debacle and shoot themselves in the foot once again.
Oddly the 787 is not affected by the strike but the fix of the shim deficient ones of course is.
The ‘first’ A350 was the same fuselage width as A330 only, not a neo.
Thats why the final version was called XWB as the market wanted 9 abreast
The A330 Neo orders is very respectable … 360 !
Thats expected as there was a huge order splurge for the CEO in the previous 10 years who are only in mid life There was 87 A330 orders alone in 2010.
The installed base of A330 CEO is still young . That also effects the 777X considering the order surge its had in last 10-12 years [ 10 pm production rate]
With all due respect, the first A350 was the A330NEO Mk1 and went up to 4 before Airbus threw its hands up (don’t blame them) and did the composite A350.
As for XWB, that is a typical Airbus spin. Much like the so called sharklets though I have never seen a wing on a shark and they have one fin not two. The 747 and 777 are wider. So what the stuff about XWB ? Does that make the 777 and 747 XXWB? Or you are going to remove a whole panel for one small hole? I don’t think so.
I believe the A350 was wider to start with but I could be wrong. What is a proposal and what is an idea float?
Air Asia X had a snoot full of A330NEO ordered but backed out. I don’t know how current the order book is.
They have been running two a month production and some of those would be A330MRT.
In some ways its a lot like the 767, still ticking along. Better in that more of its orders are passenger.
Have to ponder if a 767NEO-F is a better option vs a 787F. They could extend it to the -400 fuselage length. Not likely of course.
It was more like the 777X with a new composite wing on same fuselage , as it had much more than new engines …thats what neo means
The earliest Airbus PR only response to the Boeing 7E7 ‘weighing as much as a 767-400 claim’ was a A330-200 lite – same engines and wings, just weight reductions no neo either
https://www.key.aero/article/airbus-a350-story
My version is backed by evidence
Airbus floundering was driven by the not realized at the time observation that it is rather difficult to counter a meme driven campaign boasting fantasy numbers with a real product.
IMU and IMHO: when the vagaries and associated massive delays of the Dreamliner started to surface ( cue the “Lessons” presentation released into the wild ) Airbus dropped the A330 size base for the A350
and went after 777 ( resp slightly below ) market with the A350 XWB line. Again IMU: the -800 was for distraction.
A330 chugged on, rather successfully for many years.
The low effort NEO was done after the new engine ( Trent 1k (TEN) ) had matured.
Looking back Leahy tagging the 787 as a Chineese style shiny plastic copy of the A330 was a rather astute observation.
@Uwe
The change from 787-sized to 777-sized was/is a devastating move from Airbus. It single-handedly ended the 777 and forced Boeing to invest massively into the 777X. It was a brilliant move by Airbus.
The T1000 IPC fist stages had a resonance problem at max continuous thrust from the Fan blade wakes and the IPC flow was slightly increased by new blade designs adding to the problem. The thrust increase did not help the HPT blade lives, The Trent XWB had a different and very skilled chief design engineer who made sure it became a successful engine. Airbus could have done more on the A350-1000 wing like made a custom carbon wing for it, might happen for a A350-1100 stretch.
Airbus should have upscaled the wing, but for production reasons, they just added panels to increase wing area.
The main issue is that the wing is baked in the autoclave and thus restricted in size, if you want to produce it on the same line.
The wing spars, ribs and skins-including stringers- are autoclaved separately
For the A350-1000 they made the inboard leading edge section wider (30cm) plus lengthened the trailing edge and added dropped hinge flaps (like A380)
The wing area increase isnt much , around 22 m2 and aspect ration changed from 9.49 to 9.03
A bigger change would be a longer wing (with folding tips to remain in gate size) for less induced drag
I believe Airbus wanted to wait until the 777X folding wing is certified. After that they can strengthen the 350’s wings, add a folding section, stretch the 350 a few meters, while RR working on a PIP for the Trent XWB-97 and turns it into Trent XWB-100. This is comparable to the changes from A330 to A330neo, a 2bn project back then.
Or they make a custom wing for the -1100 with RR Ultrafans
Ultrafan is indeed the way to go, given the efficiency gains.
And with RR / Airbus seeming liking each other, trusting each other, and knowing how to work well together, Boeing / GE should fear the prospect of such a combination hitting the market.
Unless there is very stiff competition they will wait until they are program cash positive on the T-XWB-97 and A350-1000. It also depend on the customers for the A350-1000 “sunset” version sold to Qantas, if lots of airlines want it to fly non-stop and giving the ME3 stiff competition it might happen quicker in combination with gouvernment subsidies for new production equipment, thinking that the wing of tomorrow production methods can be tried out on this version with 3-6 produced per month giving time for finetuning.
@Claes,
Waiting until they “have to” is certainly one option.
However, judging such a moment is, well, risky, and the pressures come from not just BCA / GE. Environmental pressures in the political landscape of Europe are quite a strong force for change all by themselves (hence experiments such as SAF). Delay too long and one risks getting caught out by some external factor that one hadn’t accounted for. “Develop, or Die” is a very reliable business guideline. And I completely agree – Project Sunrise is an good reason to “Develop” now, rather than just waiting and watching profits roll in.
Also, Airbus’s long term strategy (as so vividly documented in Scott Hamilton’s book “Air Wars”) has been to deprive Boeing of market share, rather than to maximise profits. The profits have come from that strategy, but their magnitude was / is not the guiding business factor in what Airbus has done / is doing. If they stick to it, that would indicate that Airbus would be more rather than less likely to move early on major upgrade (absent any direct competitive reasons emanating from Seattle).
re: profits, strategy.
you miss the difference between good future proof business practice (Airbus)
and liquidating a corporation in Slow Motion behind a “Potemkineske” screen ( Boeing ).
And as far as I can see Boeing’s “best of breed” image from the past was to a significant part the product of carefully created folklore.
claes has it right.
People keep talking about engine and wing changes but that costs and costs a lot.
You immediately loose commonality with your engine and RR needs to sell a lot of engines to make up for the severed definiteness in the Trent 1000/Ten debacle.
In the meantime the 777X is going no where right now (and the strike of course is helping that) and Airbus can and is capitalizing on being available and quite attractive .
“A semi-flexible fuel hose has been been treated as a flexible hose and routinely bent during engine service.”
Interesting explanation. Thanks.
Re: ”an Airbus A380, replacing the standard A380 engine for over a year before the A350 entered service” Was that an A380 performing daily flights with passengers or a Test A380 ?
On 18 February 2012, Airbus announced that the Trent XWB-84 engine had successfully made its maiden flight aboard Airbus’ dedicated Airbus A380 flying test bed. : A380 MSN 1. A second maturity programme was conducted for the Trent XWB-97, which is the thrust variant engine very successfully powering the A350-1000 since 2018.
It was the Airbus test A380, MSN001 AFAIK, but it was flying representative missions fo the maturity tests.
RR also have their own 747 flying test bed in the USA. I think that’s primarily used for engine development (Ultrafan most recently), rather than engine maturation.
Anyone know how much flying this has done with Ultrafan? I’m presuming quite a lot – with the new architecture you’d want to fly it a lot to see how reliable things like the gear box are.
Ultrafan is not an engine, its a concept.
Ultra fan as such can’t be tested as what they have is a typewrote or actually a developmental test article.
Its under test as I write this. The wide body sized version was run at FULL power in Nov 23
The concept is the family of engines, but the biggie (85,000lb) has been turning and burning for a while in the test cells.
Its not a full production engine , 1st of type never are but theres a development program and probably the 2nd test engine for flights is under build.
Boeing dropping the mid sized plane means theres no rush for the rest of this decade
https://www.rolls-royce.com/media/press-releases/2023/18-05-2023-rr-announces-successful-first-tests-of-ultrafan-technology-demonstrator-in-derby-uk.aspx
That makes my point. A Technology Demonstrator.
Same idea as the Open Rotor years ago. Test article(s) built but not something that can go into production.
Other than testing the TD, RR has put it on hold until there is a target size.
85K thrust is the general largest size, or they believe they can scale to bigger if needed (as well as smaller)
I don’t blame RR and its clearly the approach for the future (GTF) but until they have a program to put it on, there will not be development engines built to the UF concept. RR can’t afford to build a full to service spec engine, no one can. Give them a program then yes.
10 years from now if there is a program to bid on, RR will have seen changes in jet tech they would use. Its a tough issue for them or any engine mfg. You don’t want P&W or LEAP problems though P&W has been worse.
Thats not your point at all
“Ultra fan as such can’t be tested .”
your claims are just false , so why not say you got it wrong. The Ultrafan 85,000 lbs/140 in inlet dia version is being tested in cells and will be test flown next year ?
Its a geared turbofan remember , thats the critical change from the Trents
Yes RR doesnt have contracted program to put it on…or they arent telling anyone yet . But considering the previous generation reliability issues thats a good thing they are testing the technology ‘ultra early’
Duke:
You just can’t say you are wrong.
85K is not a program engine. Its a placeholder for more power or less power.
The next one down is 75K on the A330NEO unless you think its an NEO for the A350?
Equally its bits and pieces put together to test the Gear system. The gear itself would be changed depending on thrust for a future engine program (sans a NEO for the A350 and that leaves the 1000 out as you would have to push 100k with heavier engines.
RR is not going to do a production engine unless there is a program and I don’t blame them. 10 years from now the only part still not changed would the the Gear design and the particulars would depend on what a program thrust spec was not some in theory 85k.
RR is looking at higher thrust and lower thrust for the design and apparently they felt 85K proved good enough for the biggest envisioned of 777X type power plants. And that is more than a stretch at 25k under sized.
But materials and engine science is going to change and no one is going to just design an engine and sit on it as there is no program currently nor will there be one for 10 years or better.
Not a program engine now ? Thats a long way from your earlier claim as ‘a concept’ not hardware
The 3 stage Trent family was a big variation in sizes to, from 36-43,000lb to the 97,000 lb we see today
So what , geared turbo fans require much more development than a normal 2 -3 stage based on exiting technology. Pratt started way way back with its Superfan, which was ‘too early’ for a program.
We see the same pre ‘program’ development for the propfan types, or Openfan as CFM calls it now
Im guessing that after the Boeing X-66 TBW proving flights are done using normal engines , the Rise might get a chance to ‘shine’ on the TBW wing
Have not seen ultrafan flying. RR most likely want to altitude test first at Arnold Army center.
It’s also a little self serving by Airbus to pump up the XWB on the A350. GE was not going to compete with itself on the B777X and PW had already exited the higher thrust end of the market.
It is difficult to see any multiple engine choice going forward on wide-body aircraft. There is simply not enough demand to warrant a split.
There will be at least 5 A350 for every 777X, if the 777X program can support a new engine, A350 can certainly support another engine option.
@Tuan
I’m not sure whether that is a vote of confidence for the A350 or an indictment of the B777X. I would have to believe GE would like their investment back on the 777X. As would RR on the B787.
It is the discounting from competition that drives down the business case. In a sole-source scenario, an engine operator can try and get a stated percentage of the aircraft sale in exchange for giving up a portion of its long-term spares income.
I understand that – Airbus does not want to create doubt. GE wants to make money after spending a fortune developing the GE9X.
However, GE had put all their wide-body eggs in one basket, and now that basket is about to tip over. Had they have an engine for the A350, they might very well be in a much better position, and RR would be much worse.
The engine for A350 would also not as close to the bleeding edge as the GE9X.
“The engine for A350 would also not as close to the bleeding edge as the GE9X.”
GE9X seems to exist in an environment similar to the GenX/T1000 : “bleeding edge” and no extended testing/improving due to massive delays on the airframe side. ( and the GE9X seems to have enough issues on its own beyond untested durability.)
GE surely does want to make money back on its investment, but given the delays to the 777x program at Boeing’s end GE must be forking out a lot of money on servicing the financing of the GE9x development (loan interest payments, etc). Even if they could attract the interest of Airbus, financially it might be difficult to fund the necessary development program.
Meanwhile, RR has already spent a large sum on Ultrafan, and can likely bring an engine based on that to market pretty quickly. Boeing / GE must surely be worried about the implications of RR’s work, an the consequences of it showing up on only Airbus aircraft.
Nothing says that Boeing could not Ultra Fan the 777X or the 787.
Likely? No, GE has an exclusive on the 777X just as RR has on the A350.
I believe it was Emirates that demanded an engine with more go pup for the A350-1000.
so you have an engine split already.
And believing RR on the wear issue, right. While all engines have some problems in the ME or equal basing, RR on the 97 is really lawful.
RR is a lot like Boe3ing, not a reliable sources. As time goes by we hear bits and pieces about issues that the Airbus operators have covered up (A350 pain debacle anyone?)
There have also been blade issues on the -900 that is not talked about much but has seen hints of. I believe that was the 900+ that got the miraculous 7% in fuel efficiency.
Funny as the virtually all new Trent 10 barely matched the specs for the 1000.
Updating an old engine and getting 7% is the engineering miracle of all time. They should be shouting it from the cloud tops, though you see nothing in comparison to the GP7000. Hmmm. Of course if you believe in the Easter Bunny, Santa Clause and the Tooth Ferry you can believe 7%.
@TW, if airlines can fly non-stop avoiding the ME3 home bases, the RR/GE top of the line engines will fare much better, starting and landing in cooler and less dusty environments and only seeing half the number of cycles. It would be interesting to see Qantas 787-9 engine costs/hr for the airplanes doing Perth-LHR.
How did you come up with 5 to 1. A total of 501 777X has been order. A total of 1330 A350 has been ordered. My maths make that to be 1 to 2.55. It is very disingenuous to compare A350-900 to 777X as the seat count is 110 difference with same configuration. In fact 297 A350-1000 has been ordered compared to 501 777X.
I think A350 will sells from 2200-2500 copies before requiring a re-engining, while 777X will suffer the fate of the A380, selling at most 600. So may be it’ll be 4-to-1.
But my post was not about that ratio. The point is that the eventually 350 will sells in much greater number than 777X ever will – it’s closer to the most in demand size segment and also is much more flexible, had GE provided an engine (let’s call it the mythical GEXWB), they will end up selling more GEXWB than they do GE9X.
@Tuan
Your assessment of the 777X is probably fair. Of the 501 in backlog, 227 go to Emirates and another 104 go to Qatar. Sure looks like what happened on the A380. It is too much plane. Of what’s left, a lot of those orders are over 10 years old now; a lot changes in 10 years and those orders may never materialize. 600 program sales that actually deliver may be optimistic.
Agreed. But keep in mind the 787 will outsell the A350 as well.
Smaller the plane the better the numbers because they are more flexible.
777X has a limited market. The F option has opened that up and will be the one that keeps selling.
But that also means a strike settlement before Boeing goes belly up so stay tuned.
@TW
Funny you mention the B787. UAL was launch customer on the B777 and they have already indicated that they will replace the B777 with B787.
The B777 has a short window to establish a customer base before everyone gives up and starts with A350 (or B787). There will never be a Tier 2 market when 2 airlines make up 2/3 of the entire backlog. This is a plane that unfortunately is about 5 years too late to market already.
All that said, the B787 will need to be re-engined at some point, though. That is likely going to take a while. I just do not see Boeing signing up for that project until it has cleaned its act up (early 2030s?) That might be the first opportunity RR has to put the UF on wing. It would be almost like re-entering the market given their current position.
@Casey:
My thinking as well. Still have to consider that P&W would bid on a 787 NEO as well.
Good question would be two engine choices or one? I would tend to two but that also gets into the issue about changing engines mid stream.
It had to be worse than is public for NZ, ANA and BA of all airlines as well as some notable losses to various other Airlines like Thai.
Is the 787 dated by the mid 2030 area but still getting orders per the A330NEO ?
Or a boost in the arm like the A320NEO?
I tend to the 2nd as I don’t see anything being offered as an alternative. I don’t see another A330NEO but then ? New wing and engines?
P&W had the 112″ 777 engine for the 777-300 still needing more development. P&W managed to make Boeing and Airbus a tag annoyed with the PW4000’s reliability
It should have been a comparison between the Trent 7000 and the Trent XWB.
The 7000 and Trent 1000 have very similar hardware, but with different bleed systems.
The Trent 7000 and the Trent XWB have both the conventional bleed air system.
Please redo the article. Thank you.
Trent 1000 Mk Zero and the GENX Mk Zero were rushed designs.
787 delayed EIS voided any chance to remedy this in a timely manner.
“Just sitting idle”.
Now this article is about differences in development proceedings
and not about more bleed vs less bleed.
Trent 1000 TEN and 7000 are evolution on a maturing product.
( IMU they have more in common with the XWB than with the original Trent 1000 Mk Zero.
Why should the article have been about the Trent 7000? The article is about new engine development, in this case correctly comparing the original Trent 1000 with the Trent XWB efforts. Boeing’s utter incompetence in managing the 787 development (and lying about thrust requirements) gave Rolls Royce an extra three years to refine the Trent 1000 (Packages A, B, and C) before 787 EIS. Had the 787 airframe been even remotely ready for service in 2008, the state of the Trent 1000 would absolutely have delayed EIS significantly. And shortly after EIS in 2011 RR launched the Trent 1000 TEN to try to get within at least a couple points of their spec performance, an engine which then formed the basis of the Trent 7000. Airbus should send Boeing a thank-you note for providing the opportunity for the Trent 7000 to be at least a marginally serviceable engine.
nice screed!
I’d like to see some real performance numbers on the Trent1000 evolution
same for GenX iterations.
Your GE press chit covering RR performance is worthless. ( IMHO )
Worthless perhaps, but factually correct. And it seems ANA, British Airways, and Air New Zealand might agree with me – all original Trent 1000 customers who have selected the GEnx for subsequent 787 orders.
I’m wondering how many 787 customers are now A350 customers. JAL seems to have gone that way…
The assessment is correct. RR and GE could have had their 787 engines on test aircraft and making hours.
Both RR and GE failed to meet contract specs on SFC. RR did A, B and C upgrades, GE did PIP1 and 2. GE is murky as they quit PIPs but the engines did meet contract specs and then exceeded them by a bit.
They made enough overall changes that there was at least the equivalent of PIP3. Maybe for visual reasons it was deemed better to get it there and avoid publicity.
I don’t have the link but I believe RR did meet the contract with the Trent Ten though the A/B/C did not.
As noted the Trent Ten was scheduled first and was the pacing engine for the 7000. Probably impossible to shift it and probably contract requirements to Boeing played into it.
But Airbus did get the 7000 out of the Ten though likely they would have gotten an engine regardless even if it was a bleed air 1000.
GE clearly got the better on the 787 program. Not that there were not some issues, just nothing like the RR issues.
The Tent 10 was a 75% new engine.
Its downfall was it kept the core and the blade issues transferred over, they had to fix the 1000, then the TEN.
In the meantime RR lost customers in ANA and NZ and there was recently another big mover that dropped RR.
The TEN was the base design for the 7000 so that had to be done but its never going to return anything as a 787 engine, no one wants it. The 7000 on the other hand as an exclusive does not have that problem.
BA would be the other one and that has got to reverberate in RR.
I do keep in mind that the Trent 10 is the non bleed air versions of the Trent 7000 on the A330NEO. Issues were it was the pacing engine for that program and until most of it was sorted, the 7000 was held up.
Interesting business case as to what contract costs RR incurred with a non compliant engine on the 787 as to its SFC. GE was also deficient and had two PIPs and then I gather non pip (or at least public) improvements that met it and then exceeded SFC)
Maybe it was lower cost to roll the 1000 into the TEN and then the 7000 rather than pay Boeing a penalty (though no idea how those penalties work, its not like it can be based on shares as in this case GE is winning hands down)
And to be clear, the Trent 700 became the engine of choice on the A330CEO.
Interesting engine choices in play. FedEx like GE engines. USAF went with PW4000 for reasons I have not read anything about. Granted PW resolved their 4000 issues but too late to be a success.
@TW
The B767F is exclusively powered by GE. Odd but PW never powered the freighter. As it relates to the USAF, TOW probably really does not make a large consideration. The utilization of the tankers is too low to be a concern.
It probably came down to pure cost of acquisition. Oddly enough it will be the ability to source parts in the year 2050+ that will be the greatest concern…long after the commercial installations have retired. That is a major part of why the the B52 is getting re-engined with RR engines.
The Trent 7000 and Trent 1000 TEN are all certified as Trent 1000 derivatives
As the story is about core of the engine it doesnt matter about the different bleed arrangements
https://www.easa.europa.eu/en/downloads/7733/en
Talk about grandfather clauses and AHJ shenanigans.
75% different and its a derivative. Wow, do I have a Bridge in Broklyin I want to sell EASA.
I guess it depends on what side of the pond you are on as to how you apply regs.
Thats more likely that you are 75% wrong, as you often on ‘one or two issues’. Remember how you couldnt accept carbon fibre fuselage shells always had CF ring frames
Born explained how the intial engine estimates from Boeing ( the 787-8 was to be roughly the same GW as the 767-400) were way smaller than the weights for the in service version. For the 787-10 a much improved engine design was required and the Trent XWB was being done at same time. GE was doing the Leap then and its GE9X was a long way ahead.
Interesting info on the Trent XWB; thank you.
Or they make a custom wing for the -1100 with RR Ultrafans
P&W had the 112″ 777 engine for the 777-300 still needing more development. P&W managed to make Boeing and Airbus a tag annoyed with the PW4000’s reliability
@Claes
The 112″ is the perfect example of why competition on large aircraft is not likely again in the future. That engine had three variants (84K/90K/98K) all with meaningful changes to the compressor from one variant to the other. Let alone that the original 777 had all three OEMs on the aircraft. Nobody made money…and why GE has been sole source the last ~20 years.
Same story with the A330…three on a wing for this aircraft was a bad idea.
Outside of the A320 and B787…I cannot think of an aircraft in meaningful production today that offers a choice.
Think RR is very happy for the A330 and the cargo conversions happening now keeping the T700 flying on RR power by the hour agreements. GE CF6-80E1 has lots of commonality with the CF6-80C2 (still in production) and the program should be cash positive by now and even more if it can match RR A330 P2F conversion numbers.
‘Power by the hour’ is a RR trademark , first used in 1962 for then Bristol Siddeley Viper engine on the HS125 business jet.
1960s was an era of Britains aviation firsts..
Supercritical wing for an airliner (VC-10), Carbon fibre composite to replace honeycomb ( also used internally in VC-10and as fan blades on RR Conway), first flight of Concorde
Are Pratt and Whitney the greatest contributors to “net zero”policy?
They are undoubtedly constraining demand by their failure to deliver,and to a lesser extent cfm and Boeing are helping too.On the other hand, they are forcing airlines to to operate less efficient older aircraft.Where is the balance?As the difference in efficiency is not that much,l suspect that making the price higher has more effect.
@Grubbie
There was a prevailing trend in aircraft that the market life was shrinking towards 20 years. Nominally aircraft last thirty years otherwise. There were a lot of aircraft produced and early retirements galore in the late 2010s. Sale/leaseback agreements were made that produced a lot of aircraft that airlines only wanted to fly 6-10 years. A ton of Tier2 inventory,
All that aside, there are aircraft that can be activated to still fly. It may not be the latest aircraft. It may be aircraft that need a D Check.or engines that need a stack of LLPs.
Boeing and Airbus made a “lot” of B737NG and A320ceo.
@Casey:
I would guess most if not all those NG and CEO were passed onto other airlines.
They were still good efficient aircraft, reliable and lower costs would be appealing.
Anyone buying them would know the maint coming up and or engine re-builds due so that would factor into it.