[url=http://www.reuters.com/article/us-boein ... SKBN1862O9]http://www.reuters.com/article/us-boein ... SKBN1862O9[/url]
It must be tough bolting the latest engine onto an ancient air frame design C:-)
Boeing 737 MAX Grounded
-
vanNostrum
- Posts: 338
- Joined: Wed Nov 04, 2015 9:04 pm
Can't blame Boeing too much for this
The LEAP engine is pushing technology with a compression ratio of 22.1
to achive 15% fuel savings
PW is also having problems with the 1000 GTF affecting the A320 neo
limiting the ceiling to 30.000 until the wrinkles are worked out
The LEAP engine is pushing technology with a compression ratio of 22.1
to achive 15% fuel savings
PW is also having problems with the 1000 GTF affecting the A320 neo
limiting the ceiling to 30.000 until the wrinkles are worked out
-
Nark1
Our Airbus NEO's are nothing but headaches. For a while they were grounded, and then for another few months were altitude limited because of oil bypass pumps.
However, when they work, they sip fuel.
However, when they work, they sip fuel.
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
-
Colonel
- Posts: 3450
- Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2015 10:31 am
Just because technological development can be difficult
is not a good reason for not doing it.
I would assert that the most revolutionary and rewarding
technological developments are almost always the most
challenging and difficult.
Not everything in life is low-hanging fruit.
No one remembers, but the first jet engines were hampered
by metallurgical problems and very short life from crude FCU's
and over-temping by the ham-fisted pilots.
Should we have abandoned development of the jet engine
because it was not easy and quick? We could still all be
driving around radial engines and props, I suppose.
The long-forgotten Frank Whittle:
[quote]he formulated the fundamental concepts that led to the creation of the turbojet engine, taking out a [b]patent on his design in 1930[/b]. His performance on an officers' engineering course earned him a place on a further course at Peterhouse, Cambridge where he graduated with a First.
Without Air Ministry support (typical - ED) he and two retired RAF servicemen formed Power Jets Ltd to build his engine with assistance from the firm of British Thomson-Houston.
Despite limited funding, a prototype was created, which first ran in 1937. Official interest was forthcoming following this success, with contracts being placed to develop further engines, but the continuing stress seriously affected Whittle's health, eventually resulting in a nervous breakdown in 1940. In 1944 when Power Jets was nationalised he again suffered a nervous breakdown, and resigned from the board in 1946[/quote]
It was [i]20 years[/i], from the patent in 1930, to 1950
when jet engines first started to appear in any numbers.
Would today's premature ejaculators wait 20 years?
Hell, no. They don't have a 20 minute attention span.
In the age of tube & fabric biplanes, before WWII, this
long-forgotten guy struggled mightily:
[quote]If anybody ever tells you anything about an aeroplane which is so bloody complicated you can't understand it, take it from me: it's all balls.
— [b]R. J. Mitchell[/b], advice given about his engineering staff to test pilot Jeffrey Quill during prototype trials[/quote]
It was not easy for Alan Turing to break the Enigma
encryption, either.
Was the B-29 a waste of time and money?
[quote]Manufacturing the B-29 was a complex task. It involved four main-assembly factories: a pair of Boeing operated plants at Renton, Washington (Boeing Renton), and Wichita, Kansas (now Spirit AeroSystems), a Bell plant at Marietta, Georgia ("Bell-Atlanta"), and a Martin plant at Omaha, Nebraska ("Martin-Omaha" - Offutt Field).[9][15] Thousands of subcontractors were involved in the project.[16] The first prototype made its maiden flight from Boeing Field, Seattle on 21 September 1942.[15] The combined effects of the aircraft's highly advanced design, challenging requirements, and immense pressure for production, hurried development and caused setbacks. The second prototype, which, unlike the unarmed first, was fitted with a Sperry defensive armament system using remote-controlled gun turrets sighted by periscopes,[17] first flew on 30 December 1942, this flight being terminated due to a serious engine fire. On 18 February 1943, the second prototype, flying out of Boeing Field in Seattle, experienced an engine fire and crashed.[18] [u]The crash killed Boeing test pilot Edmund T. Allen and his 10-man crew, 20 workers at the Frye Meat Packing Plant and a Seattle firefighter[/u].[19] Changes to the production craft came so often and so fast that in early 1944, B-29s flew from the production lines directly to modification depots for extensive rebuilds to incorporate the latest changes. AAF-contracted modification centers and its own air depot system struggled to handle the scope of the requirements. Some facilities lacked hangars capable of housing the giant B-29, requiring outdoor work in freezing cold weather, further delaying necessary modification. By the end of 1943, although almost 100 aircraft had been delivered, only 15 were airworthy.[20][21] This prompted an intervention by General Hap Arnold to resolve the problem, with production personnel being sent from the factories to the modification centers to speed availability of sufficient aircraft to equip the first Bomb Groups in what became known as the "Battle of Kansas". This resulted in 150 aircraft being modified in the five weeks between 10 March and 15 April 1944.[22][23][24]
[b]The most common cause of maintenance headaches and catastrophic failures were the engines[/b].[22] Although the Wright R-3350 Duplex-Cyclone radial engines later became a trustworthy workhorse in large piston-engined aircraft, early models were beset with dangerous reliability problems. This problem was not fully cured until the aircraft was fitted with the more powerful Pratt & Whitney R-4360 "Wasp Major" in the B-29D/B-50 program[/quote]
Sound familiar?
Rockie over on AvCan likes to ridicule me for my work in
technology, but it can be very educational nonetheless.
is not a good reason for not doing it.
I would assert that the most revolutionary and rewarding
technological developments are almost always the most
challenging and difficult.
Not everything in life is low-hanging fruit.
No one remembers, but the first jet engines were hampered
by metallurgical problems and very short life from crude FCU's
and over-temping by the ham-fisted pilots.
Should we have abandoned development of the jet engine
because it was not easy and quick? We could still all be
driving around radial engines and props, I suppose.
The long-forgotten Frank Whittle:
[quote]he formulated the fundamental concepts that led to the creation of the turbojet engine, taking out a [b]patent on his design in 1930[/b]. His performance on an officers' engineering course earned him a place on a further course at Peterhouse, Cambridge where he graduated with a First.
Without Air Ministry support (typical - ED) he and two retired RAF servicemen formed Power Jets Ltd to build his engine with assistance from the firm of British Thomson-Houston.
Despite limited funding, a prototype was created, which first ran in 1937. Official interest was forthcoming following this success, with contracts being placed to develop further engines, but the continuing stress seriously affected Whittle's health, eventually resulting in a nervous breakdown in 1940. In 1944 when Power Jets was nationalised he again suffered a nervous breakdown, and resigned from the board in 1946[/quote]
It was [i]20 years[/i], from the patent in 1930, to 1950
when jet engines first started to appear in any numbers.
Would today's premature ejaculators wait 20 years?
Hell, no. They don't have a 20 minute attention span.
In the age of tube & fabric biplanes, before WWII, this
long-forgotten guy struggled mightily:
[quote]If anybody ever tells you anything about an aeroplane which is so bloody complicated you can't understand it, take it from me: it's all balls.
— [b]R. J. Mitchell[/b], advice given about his engineering staff to test pilot Jeffrey Quill during prototype trials[/quote]
It was not easy for Alan Turing to break the Enigma
encryption, either.
Was the B-29 a waste of time and money?
[quote]Manufacturing the B-29 was a complex task. It involved four main-assembly factories: a pair of Boeing operated plants at Renton, Washington (Boeing Renton), and Wichita, Kansas (now Spirit AeroSystems), a Bell plant at Marietta, Georgia ("Bell-Atlanta"), and a Martin plant at Omaha, Nebraska ("Martin-Omaha" - Offutt Field).[9][15] Thousands of subcontractors were involved in the project.[16] The first prototype made its maiden flight from Boeing Field, Seattle on 21 September 1942.[15] The combined effects of the aircraft's highly advanced design, challenging requirements, and immense pressure for production, hurried development and caused setbacks. The second prototype, which, unlike the unarmed first, was fitted with a Sperry defensive armament system using remote-controlled gun turrets sighted by periscopes,[17] first flew on 30 December 1942, this flight being terminated due to a serious engine fire. On 18 February 1943, the second prototype, flying out of Boeing Field in Seattle, experienced an engine fire and crashed.[18] [u]The crash killed Boeing test pilot Edmund T. Allen and his 10-man crew, 20 workers at the Frye Meat Packing Plant and a Seattle firefighter[/u].[19] Changes to the production craft came so often and so fast that in early 1944, B-29s flew from the production lines directly to modification depots for extensive rebuilds to incorporate the latest changes. AAF-contracted modification centers and its own air depot system struggled to handle the scope of the requirements. Some facilities lacked hangars capable of housing the giant B-29, requiring outdoor work in freezing cold weather, further delaying necessary modification. By the end of 1943, although almost 100 aircraft had been delivered, only 15 were airworthy.[20][21] This prompted an intervention by General Hap Arnold to resolve the problem, with production personnel being sent from the factories to the modification centers to speed availability of sufficient aircraft to equip the first Bomb Groups in what became known as the "Battle of Kansas". This resulted in 150 aircraft being modified in the five weeks between 10 March and 15 April 1944.[22][23][24]
[b]The most common cause of maintenance headaches and catastrophic failures were the engines[/b].[22] Although the Wright R-3350 Duplex-Cyclone radial engines later became a trustworthy workhorse in large piston-engined aircraft, early models were beset with dangerous reliability problems. This problem was not fully cured until the aircraft was fitted with the more powerful Pratt & Whitney R-4360 "Wasp Major" in the B-29D/B-50 program[/quote]
Sound familiar?
Rockie over on AvCan likes to ridicule me for my work in
technology, but it can be very educational nonetheless.
-
ScudRunner-d95
- Posts: 1349
- Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 5:08 pm
[quote author=Nark link=topic=6247.msg16433#msg16433 date=1494658516]
Our Airbus NEO's are nothing but headaches. For a while they were grounded, and then for another few months were altitude limited because of oil bypass pumps.
However, when they work, they sip fuel.
[/quote]
Jesus 480 pounds a side burn, did I read that correctly ? That must be back at idle in decent? No?
Our Airbus NEO's are nothing but headaches. For a while they were grounded, and then for another few months were altitude limited because of oil bypass pumps.
However, when they work, they sip fuel.
[/quote]
Jesus 480 pounds a side burn, did I read that correctly ? That must be back at idle in decent? No?
-
ScudRunner-d95
- Posts: 1349
- Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 5:08 pm
Still pretty good, the C680 up at cruise we are somewhere around 800 a side
-
- Similar Topics
- Replies
- Views
- Last post
-
- 2 Replies
- 4472 Views
-
Last post by Liquid_Charlie
-
- 0 Replies
- 1157 Views
-
Last post by News
-
- 1 Replies
- 998 Views
-
Last post by Colonel
