For those commenters trying to play a nationalism card, please remember that RR builds engines in the US, too. GE builds engines in the US, France and Canada, with parts coming from other nations, and has an important engineering subsidiary in the UK. Both companies rely on maintenance facilities throughout the world. Any engine problem is an international issue, no matter what the brand on the outside of the box. We fly together; we crash together.
Actually no, GE engines are objectively better. They are much more advanced. They dont need costly titanium blades for the large ducted fan. They use carbon fiber composites they have worked with since the 80s when the prop-fan was a project. They use ceramic composite turbine blades.
Very true. Although, I believe you are eluding to “consumer ethnocentrism”, the belief that ones own domestic products are superior to those of foreign countries.
The Q Interesting point about blades. It was only until recently that GE started using wide chord blades on their engines. This, some 25 years after Rolls! Why ? Because Rolls invented them and patented them! Narrow chord blades, seen on the majority of GE and Pratt are a very, very inefficient design. Case in point; CFM56 has 36 blades. The Rolls V2500 has only 22 wide chord blades! Rolls have always been innovators!
You didn't actually explain what the issue with the engines is... You said the initial problem was fatigue cracking of the IPT blades, but the key problem was "with the compressor". This is a 10 minute video talking about the downstream consequences of the engine problems, without devoting more than about 10 seconds to actually explain what the problem with the engines is!
The main problem which he forgot to explain is that - Rolls Royce have outsourced all their jobs to **INDIA** causing a loss of expertise and excellence and many UK workers being layed off....
Its the blades in the compressor stage. They are developing fatigue cracks. That general issue has been a problem for as long as jet engines have existed. But these days the blades are usually grown as a single metal crystal with near perfect atomic structure. Likewise flaw detection on new blades has advanced a long ways and bad blades almost never make it out of the factory. But something along the way failed with RR's. When it was just the C batch my thought was it was a manufacturing problem, but if it is in the other batches it might be that their quality control system wasn't tuned to find flaws sufficiently small enough (possibly because they miscalculated how large a flaw needed to be to cause a problem) and when they got out into the real world some had flaws which turned into cracks. They must have come up with a new quality control system to check the blades, but we are talking hundreds per plane. Tearing open engines and checking each one is a nightmare.
Getting it right first time is the only way. Modifications in the field are prohibitively expensive and damaging to reputation. Often the problems are caused by excessive pressure from sales and marketing. These issues should not happen in an aircraft engine. The 737 max is an extreme example of sales pressure.
GE currently holds the high ground in commercial aviation engine technology and reliability. The GEnX is the engine on the 787s that I'd prefer to fly on.
I'm flying Air New Zealand next month Auckland to Sydney on a 787-9 with Trent 1000 engines. The trip normally takes about three hours over water without any diversionary airports in between; how is this allowed if there's a directive that the plane must always be within 60 minutes of an airport that is big enough to land a 787?
I think some American viewers are too quick to slant RR. I understand GE is a US manufacturer (who do make amazing engines, the GE90 being my favourite), so there's an element of national pride, but its ludicrous to suggest that all airlines should switch to GE because of this. The GE9X is delayed due to compressor issues, and the CFM56 recently suffered an uncontained engine failure which resulted in a fatality. Granted, the GENX has been a reliable engine, however to say that GE test their engines to a differing standard than RR is not true. Rolls Royce has made some of the most successful and reliable engines ever made (ie RB211).Sadly these issues are always a potential risk when developing such ground-breaking engines. This undoubtedly is causing problems for Rolls Royce, however the Trent 1000 TEN has been developed, as well as the Trent 7000, none of which have these problems. As a Brit I sincerely hope RR get past these issues and get back to making great engines.
Tom Powell, another American engines are causing their customers significant problems. Pratt & Whitney 1000G for the Airbus A320neo continue to face extensive challenges with the next generation engine. After solving a series of mechanical problems with the 1000G, Pratt & Whitney is struggling to deliver new engines or modify existing engines on delivered aircraft. Just few hours ago, budget airline IndiGo said that it has grounded five A320 neo aircraft due to Pratt & Whitney engine issues and these planes are expected to be back in operations in the second half of August. Finally, I'm sure that RR will continue introducing great engines despite the reported temporary issues with some of its current engines.
Tom Powell - American here: I’m proud of our engines. That being said, it’s not unusual to have teething problems for the first few years. All aerospace projects end up overweight, overdue, and over budget. But the problems eventually get fixed. People working inside the aerospace & airline business all know this (first generation airplanes sell at a big discount for a reason), and it’s not a big deal. It’s the RUclips commenters and financial analysts/beancounters that scream bloody murder.
DJ I love your channel because although I know a lot about aviation, I can always come home from school and watch a video from your channel. Keep up the good work mate!!!
Awesome video as always Mr. DJ! Wow the 787 just can't catch a break. First there was the Lithium ion battery issues, and now the RR Trent 1000 engine issues.
Those bad Li-on batteries were supplied by Yuasa, a Japanese battery maker with a helluva good reputation. I wonder whether they subcontracted to China? That's what Samsung did with those disastrous self igniting S7 phone batteries.
RR have fan problems, and GE have engines blowing up at random. To me this seems like an indicator that competition within the industry is compromising safety.
Or just mayby are the volume of avation production so great and the Technology pushing the boundaries so hard that issues are bound to happend. That it dosen't happend at a higher rate is actually quite impressive.
The easiest way to describe the Engine package is this. Most engine manufacturers don't call them packages, but a rev or revision. There's an entire group called Configuration Management. The CM folks are supposed to know the exact parts in each and every aircraft. The first engines that left the factory were outfitted with a specific set of parts. Over the entry into service, anomalies were found which required a redesign. This could be a seal (abnormal wear), a turbine blade (erosion or blade breakage), or possibly an engine tube (cracks or fitment issues). The newly fitted parts now make up the new revision called Package B. This is the new baseline engine that is being built. Further inspection of this engine configuration parts shows abnormal wear, and it's back to the design board. The newly fitted parts package becomes Package C. The A330 program, the Trent 700 Rolls Royce engines used for flight test required swaps every three or four flights due to engine vibrations
A shame for RR who've made the world's best aero-engines since the 1930s. Nobody has more jet experience than RR. But new materials and the striving for lower emissions and fuel burn will inevitably run into problems now and again. Similarly, I still am slightly anxious about the extent of composites used in airframes nowadays. It's a lot more difficult to detect fatigue in composites than in metal.
Well GE does produce more reliable engines in current times at least. In the past, the GE CF6 specifically those fitted on DC-10-10/15's were plagued by issues here and there and clearly GE had learned from those issues of the past. Rolls-Royce on the other hand did not have any severe engine problems in the past and this Trent 1000 issue is brand new for them.
soaringtractor GE didn't start on jets until the US were given jet engine designs in 1947. Both GE's and P&W's first jets were licence built RR Nenes. RR absorbed Whittle's designs and Rover's engines during the war. Quality? Sure there is an issue with the Trent 1000 but apart from the glitches on A380 the history is flawless
The RR Trent 1000 was rushed into service, GE saw them do it and took their time, they should of used s higher reliability compresser blade like GE because it worn out faster that expected, that’s were most of the problems occur, engines in the Package C configuration if RR followed GE’s footsteps with the 787 engine config, they wouldn’t be in this situation in the first place.
GE has been developing production ready steam turbines at least since 1903 and developed the radial compressor the same year, in the great war they created the turbosupercharger for aviation piston engines. In 1918 they started their internal combustion gas-turbine division. Then basically just after the first Whittle internal combustion jet-turbine prototype had been tested in 1937 the whole design was transfered to GE in the USA in early 1941 for further development, as insurance if Britain fell. The whittle design used radial flow compressors. The first turbo-jet powered aircraft to fly was a fully independent German design in 1939. German Scientist Dr. Franz Anslem developed an axial flow turbojet for Junkers in 1942. Westinghouse Corp. successfully tested an axial flow design in early 1943, completely in isolation from both the German and British jet turbine designs. GE developed a production axial flow turbo-jet in 1947 the J-47 and later created the variable stator axial flow engine. Variable stators are likely the largest advancement ever made to gas turbine engines.
" I still am slightly anxious about the extent of composites used in airframes nowadays." As a former airline EVP who was in charge of buying and supervising aircraft production for our fleet, I could not agree more.
Plenty of discussion about the downstream repair costs, and how cost control impacted RR. What about how the problems first started? RR knows how to build engines and blade right. Something went wrong with package C (cutting corners? quality control let sub-par parts through?) and now they are paying for it. Also didn't say is whether it affect other RR engines. How much shared design/process among different Trent engines?
Sean Delaney nope. I went on the hifly airnz. It was just pure white and the interiors where all hifly decided. Entertainment was hifly as well. Also hifly attendants plus 2 airnz attendants and one air nz customer relations because of the mess.
I saw in your video discussing the Trent 1000 engines problem a United 787. My understanding is all US carrier operate only the GEnx from GE, no RR engines in Us carriers
DJ, if the problem is with the Trent 1000 design per se, then how is it that Boeing successfully used it as the launch engine for the 787 ? As far as I'm aware, it performed fine at that time. I suspect that a great deal is hidden from us in contractual detail between the 2 companies, but to produce 31 variants of the engine for 3 variants of the aircraft is unprecedented. Are Boeing asking for the impossible in lean burn engines ? It's a topic that doesn't get as much attention as it should perhaps because it is neccessarily highly technical.
Clearly true (I had hoped that much would be self-evident as engines have to be run in all manner of regimes before cerfification and amass a lot of hours in the process). The number of variants of the Trent 1000 hid the full facts for some time. It seems that 'Package A' didn't suffer any problems at all but didn't meet Boeing's fuel burn requirements by 1%. The ensuing 'Packages B and C' met and then excelled the fuel burn spec but introduced a fatigue problem (as you correctly say) that didn't show its head for about 4 years. The long term fix is the Trent 1000-TEN which is a significant redesign using technology borrowed from the Trent XWB which had the advantage of being designed using more modern CAD tools. The Trent 1000-TEN is in service now. In the meantime, the engines which suffer from fatigue problems haven't actually been grounded (they do require more frequent inspection) but their ETOPS ratings have been severely reduced. For some routes this makes them effectively unusuable e.g. with Air NZ. Air NZ were amongst the first to take delivery of the Trent 1000-TEN which should have solved their particular problem. In the meantime, R-R has a lot of work on its hands, fixing engines in service. I had predicted that ever more demanding fuel burn requirements would eventually have a negative knock-on effect on engine reliability due to Carnot's Principle (hotter running engines being the result) and this may have been the root cause in the case of the case of the Trent 1000.
Dj's Aviation, I hope that as an honest and unbiased vlogger, you'll bring your viewers attention to the issues experienced by GE and P&W engines as well. Thank you.
Royce Royce impacted the Lockheed L-1011 TriStar program from the beginning to almost failure, it ended up behind the Douglas DC-10 program it never caught up.. The blades where made of the a new composite technology that also had a high failure rate .
From my PoV the engine design was rushed from day one. Rolls-Royce was loosing engines to GE. On top of that, Boeing decided to only use GE engines on the 777-200LR/300ER. Meaning during the time frame when Boeing was deciding on who will power the 787, Rolls-Royce just had to win the deal or else they may fall as during that time. So in my PoV, Rolls-Royce rushed the engine design, cut the costs on materials in order to beat GE. While GE was relaxed during that time as they were basically thriving on the GE90 series as well as the the CFM-56 series.
That's not the only factor. The entire industry is going through problems as we switch to geared turbofan, carbon composite engines. P&W have had similar problems on the A320neo.
Jacob Payag The entire Trent 1000 was rushed into service, From the beginning GE even said to RR to uses a higher more durable blade because it’s were the problem can occur, and it did. RR quickly must of rushed this engine into service to get most of the 787 engine costumers more than GE, unfortunately it became the other way around because now GE has far more sales then RR is almost every plane engine they sell to airlines, for the 777, there’s no contest, GE has more than 1,500 orders while RR doesn’t even have 400, they’re doing good in the 787 market with GE but GE is still ahead there too. The reliability for each engine is clear, Airlines prefer it over RR, yet RR makes reliable engines such as the ones powering a330ceo/neo/a350
+Johnny Wynn I think RR should've stayed out of the 787 program and offer more engines to Airbus. They offer engines for the A330, A330neo, A350 and A380. I don't see why they couldn't develop engines for the A320neo, as they are already proven with Airbus.
It’s because RR doesn’t make engines for narrowbody planes, The 757 was like the last plane until it died from service, RR focuses of widebody engines, while GE-CFM joint venture, and PW are the real narrowbody engine winners
Are the 787s offered with an alternative engine to the Trent 1000? If so, could the effected aircraft reasonably be converted to the alternative engine?
7:08 Can someone please explain to me how is that tractor/truck pushing the giant plane ? That plane probably weighs like 100 tons maybe ?? How is that truck able to push the plane ? It should have sufficient torque I am guessing like that of a 13 or 15 litre diesel engine . What kind of engine does it have ? Is it electric ? How much does it weigh ? It should weigh substantial enough so that its wheels do not lose traction . Also what are the other two propeller planes ?
Hi Dj, thanks for another interesting video. I had looked at the Rolls Royce website not long ago and they reported they hope to check the engines without taking them off the wings and it is a shame such a major problem happened on Trent1000 engines . Whilst looking at Rolls Royce website I looked up some facts about the company. (1) for all their products they have customers in more than 150 countries. and 400 Airlines, (2 ) they have marine engines for 70 Navys, (3 ) 500 power plant & Nuclear products. ( 4 ) The last Annual Report showed Revenue of £15 Billion pounds , ( 5 ) Order book of £78 billion pounds (6 ) They spend £1.4 billion pounds on Research & Development, employing 5000 people in 50 countries. DJ . thanking you for all your great videos, hope you reach 100 K subscribers. and I hope you do not mind me giving out some facts about Rolls Royce. I am sure they will fix problems as quickly as they can. I expect Airlines may also chare Rolls Royce for all the # downtime # while planes are being fixed DJ have a good weekend, take care.
Can they not be refitted with different engines ?? What about the ones that have not been finished building , can they not change the engines to be put on them ??
Hey DJ....your channel stands out amongst the multitude of other aviation channels because you offer something different. I love your videos. Keep up the good work and stick with this styles....great stuff...😉💪🏻🙌🏻
I think it would have been useful to explain that many airlines didn't order their 787s with the RR Trent engines. Many, like the Air Canada 787 in your video, have GE engines that don't have these issues.
I have a close friend that works as an engineer for RR. Can't say a lot but basically a lot of middle management have been sacked and they're employing loads of engineers to tackle to huge work load. The blades are essentially grown/moulded from a single crystal of carbon fibre composite. Once it's been fitted you cant just easily replace it. The entire engine basically needs to be rebuilt.
I have read that the problem is confined to the Asia market as it was believed that a high sulphur content in the air was coating the compressor blades and thus causing problems. A shareholder had said that most of the R&D budget was going on resolving this issue.
I work in Roll-Royce as an On-Wing Care mech and within the last 2 years, most of my task were to fly all over asia pacific to deal with the T1000 IPC 1&2 blades issues. We do ultrasonic inspection into the IPC1&2 blade roots looking for cracks and repeat every 100 Flight cycles for T1000 B, C, TEN & T7000 but so far I didn't encounter any cracks within the last 2 yrs. In my experience, Trent engine HPT blades had more detorioration issues than IPC blades. What makes the IPC blades issues critical is that the damage are appearing in the bladeroot area which have a higher potential of blade release.
I planned to fly back to Europe with ANA’s 787 on Monday the 30th of July... ANA announced to cancel a lot of flights from the beginning of August so I was quite lucky... but it could be that I will fly on a different aircraft type than the 787 tough....
The aircraft is built specifically for that engine. Many systems in the plane are customized for the Trent engine. The aircraft would have to be partially disassembled and rebuilt and GE doesn't have hundreds of additional engines just sitting on a shelf waiting for customers. These engines are usually ordered 4 to 6 years in advance of their delivery.
Hubris or Rubbish. . Those Brits have funny accents.. I don't blame the RR technician the only thing flying for them it's those Donald Trump balloons over London..::)
@@cmartin_ok they dont pay anyone in quality enough to care and the company probably has a high pressure toxic culture and nobody wanted to rock the boat so they released the engines with flaws. I bet you 10 to 1 the department leaders in that Trent factory knew of the problems. Playing devils advocate maybe the factory did not point out the flaw because it was so catastrophic to such an expensive project they did not want to lose there $30-$50 an hour job
I heard the engine problem was the reason that Virgin Atlantic didn’t turn a profit last year since they need to keep leasing aircraft. Honestly this is a major mess up on RR’s part but also may have been because of pressure from Boeing and airlines. I also feel as if many airlines may wind up class action suiting against RR because of lost profits.
Multiple choice answer. Cost of installed engine and after sale service. All manufacturers offer what is called Power by the Hour. With power by the hour, the engines are basically leased from the manufacturer. You pay a set price per hour of operation. Some airlines have preferences for engines based on the support manager at their location. It costs millions of dollars for tooling to work on these engines. Some companies will provide the tooling "free" to keep a customer. A good customer support representative is worth his weight in gold. He looks at the engine trend data and schedules replacement parts, while working with the airline customer. AOG (aircraft on Ground) service is huge.
+juel sandy But Airbus actually gained a lot more A320neo orders (in the first few years) due to them offering two engine choices over Boeing just offering one on the 737 MAX. Airbus have also sold over 1400 A330s and they have three engine choices. In my view Boeing couldn't have seen these issues coming as the Trent 1000 didn't experience any problems in testing, and RR have proven engines on the A330, A380 and A350.
Ibirdball RR was proven very reliable on the a380 until Qantas was a witness. Till then RR started to worry all over again to make their engines as reliable as possible, they went right with the a330s and a350s though but I’ll be concerned once they reach a maximum stage of service. You are correct about Airbus selling that many a330s but are you forgetting how many 747/777s Boeing has sold?
Wait, package A engines don't have problems. What are the differences between them and package B and C engines? I'm asking because if there are some differences that might cause them not to have problems, wouldn't it make sense to just switch package B and C engines to package A specs. Also, wouldn't it be even easier to switch the troubled 787s to GE engines?
Are EASA and the FAA not reconsidering their certification of the Engine? I hope we're not heading down the "if it's Rolls Royce it must be ok" path. It started with problems in package C. Now it's packages C & B. Are we not in the realms of the engines are safe unless you can prove they're not? When will package A engines display problems? At the moment, are 787s becoming expensive to operate with the additional maintenance overhead? Skilled maintenance staff do not grow on trees. Isn't an additional 787 check going to push another plane due for a check further down the queue?
Serves Rolls-Royce right. Lack of quality control and testing. Putting people at risk because of their complacency, this will affect both reputation and future sales. Hopefully they’ll now take the time and effort to ensure the quality and reliability of their engines
The Genx provides more thrust but is more economical. Also on the rr website it says the the Trent 800 is the most popular 777 Engine and provides the most thrust and is the lightest. Mmm were did those facts come from, it is lighter than GE and P&W. But the GE90 is so much more powerful that is provides more thrust than its extra weight. What do you think? GE90 with its unique spool up noise, or the RR Trent 800 with its loud rumbling on takeoff?!
Are there any US domestic airlines 787s fitted with Trent 1000s? How difficult would it be to just swap in GE engines of suitable power? Clearly, some material design faults in the Trent 1000 are just now becoming a major problem and my understanding is that compressor problems have plagued it from soon after its certification. What with the internal corruption of RR management that had been going on for decades just announced recently with huge fines and management shakeup, it seems RR is in a bad position to recover and retain brand quality and trust which have been eroding slowly for years following the scandalous oil stub tube manufacturing defect that almost brought down a Qantas A380 full of passengers, but for superior piloting despite an uncontained engine explosion.
All the US carries who operate the Dreamliner all use GEnx engines, but keep in mind that switching from RR to GEnx won’t be easy, it’s very costly and takes a lot of time as well. The pylons all have to be exchanged, modified and all certified, for the plane to fly with its new engine. RR is far behind GE in the competition as well, They’re good but GE has been gaining a much better reliability and performance, sales and efficiency. I’m also worried about the a350 and a330neo which only uses RR and once they begin to frequently kick for more Service/high demand in the next coming years, Problem might start with their engines or so, yet it will be RR who will be spends millions once again
Johnny Wynn Thanks for the information Johnny! 😀 I think we all know that GE had/has a massive success in the long term with it's CFM and Pratt and Whitney partnerships as well as the legendary GE90 series. Have there been any significant problems with the GE9x series so far?
Pure speculation Johny. The design of the Trent family of engines derives from the RB-211 and tens of thousands of airliners fly happily with both the RB-211 and the various Trents. There is a nasty tendency for Americans to jump on the misfortunes, however temporary, of any non-US company and it's getting very stale. Where do you get your reliability figures from btw ? Thin air ? Of course GE are good too. The Brits gave GE the design for the jet engine along with all other US jet manufacturers.
BobEckert56 CFM isn't GE ! It's a joint venture between them and the French. What makes you think the French didn't play their part, P&W too, R-R also has international partnerships.
BobEckert56 No problem Mate! And nope, there hasn’t been any problem with the Ge9x so far, it’s been tested flight last March and is going well, yet the 777x family isn’t out, I’m sure it will do very well 😃
After flying with Norwegian we got stuck with a Wamos Air 747 for a JFK-GTW flight, it was awful. Outdated plane from the 80’s, uncomfortable seats, no inflight entertainment it was a mess. But I guess it’s better than no plane and they got us home which is what counts.
I was recently affected by this. Our British Airways flight from London to Montréal was delayed 5 hours! But thanks to EU law, we are getting a hefty cash compensation!
Yep. EU laws like that - who needs 'em? Throwing off all those pesky pro-consumer shackles is yet another benefit of Brexit. Er, actually, what ARE the other benefits of Brexit again?
Reality is, that due to physics, the "size" of turbine engines are reaching their maximum. The large turbofan engines are reaching the same limits reached by propeller aircraft during WW2 in which the larger the length of the blades the closer they reach the speed of sound at the tips. This coupled with the centrifugal force on the engines are immense when spinning at such speeds. The blades in the Trent 1000 have HUGE centrifugal force loads on them at "climb power" and like a spinning gyro gear, when you induce lateral loading on a spinning wheel the stress gets even greater. This is a limitation and issue being reached on these massive large bypass turbofan engines.
This is all down to one word Greed! RR outsourced many departments, when you do that you lose quality control. Whilst problems with new engines always have problems but these issues are getting worse because as one issue is found and fixed another is found plus every airline has in front of them lots of checks which with cause further delays
Thank you DJ ... I learn something from you in EVERY presentation! Still don’t know all your three letter abbreviations because you never mention what they stand for. Eventually I’ll get on board. 🧐. Soon to 100k subs 👍🏻👍🏻
The ETOPS reduction alone is the kiss of death for those 787s, especially carriers running large numbers of Trent powered 787s (British Airways, Norwegian, Virgin Atlantic), I suspect the carriers that are able to order GE powered 787s (British Airways is required by the UK government to use RR when available) will do so now. Apparently over 70% of 787s were being ordered with GE engines anyway.
Its time to stop Rolls Royce, just do it, do something soon, I'm serious Rolls Royce is going to be damaged if they don't fix the problem, 787 is one of the best aircraft for airlines so engine problems can really destroy it so RR has to act quickly and to make replacements before end of the year, or they can lose trust of manufacturers and bankrupt, thanks DJ for informing us and I like your channel 😊😊😊😊😊
Being British I feel very disappointed that the world's premier aero engine maker has encountered such bad luck...Hopefully things will turn out right for them in the end.
Launchvehicle71. Thanks so much for this careful yet easily understandable discussion of this and complex problem. I keep thinking, where is RR going to get the money to pay for all this? I mean not just the costs of repair but 100s of millions to compensate airlines for the financial losses, all of which will grow more rapidly now that it has been found that the the Package B engines are also infected.
Dose anyone realise that Air New Zealand had two complete engine failures on take off all in one week this causing emergency landings to take place. The photos on line show how the engines had failed in the high compression chamber by the fan blades actually melting because the coating had worn off I suggest looking into this it quite interesting. Btw great content on your channel DJ
I disagree completely. The actual issues are not defined, but only referred to obliquely. And he confused corrosion with cracking. Since they are so new I doubt he meant corrosion fatigue cracking or even WFD. Worse yet no discussion about the difference between these intermediate turbine blades and the previous versions without the problem. A little research FRIST would have been good.
RR is going bankrupt and then the British government is gonna save them and then RR is gonna go bankrupt and then the British government is gonna save them and so on
For those commenters trying to play a nationalism card, please remember that RR builds engines in the US, too. GE builds engines in the US, France and Canada, with parts coming from other nations, and has an important engineering subsidiary in the UK. Both companies rely on maintenance facilities throughout the world.
Any engine problem is an international issue, no matter what the brand on the outside of the box. We fly together; we crash together.
Actually no, GE engines are objectively better. They are much more advanced. They dont need costly titanium blades for the large ducted fan. They use carbon fiber composites they have worked with since the 80s when the prop-fan was a project. They use ceramic composite turbine blades.
Very true. Although, I believe you are eluding to “consumer ethnocentrism”, the belief that ones own domestic products are superior to those of foreign countries.
The Q Interesting point about blades. It was only until recently that GE started using wide chord blades on their engines. This, some 25 years after Rolls! Why ? Because Rolls invented them and patented them! Narrow chord blades, seen on the majority of GE and Pratt are a very, very inefficient design. Case in point; CFM56 has 36 blades. The Rolls V2500 has only 22 wide chord blades! Rolls have always been innovators!
@@theq4602 GE uses technology INVENTED by Rolls Royce in ALL of their current generation turbofans by virtue of Roll's expired patents!
I work at Auckland airport and I can say that a bunch of 787’s with stripped engines are just chilling.
But they gonna fix them and it will be awesome again ;)
You didn't actually explain what the issue with the engines is... You said the initial problem was fatigue cracking of the IPT blades, but the key problem was "with the compressor". This is a 10 minute video talking about the downstream consequences of the engine problems, without devoting more than about 10 seconds to actually explain what the problem with the engines is!
James Williamson problem with the engine is cracking fan blades I believe is what he said
@@lw1088 - nothing whatsoever to do with the fan blades - pay attention.
@@lucee2261 So what is the issue?
The main problem which he forgot to explain is that - Rolls Royce have outsourced all their jobs to **INDIA** causing a loss of expertise and excellence and many UK workers being layed off....
Its the blades in the compressor stage. They are developing fatigue cracks. That general issue has been a problem for as long as jet engines have existed. But these days the blades are usually grown as a single metal crystal with near perfect atomic structure. Likewise flaw detection on new blades has advanced a long ways and bad blades almost never make it out of the factory. But something along the way failed with RR's. When it was just the C batch my thought was it was a manufacturing problem, but if it is in the other batches it might be that their quality control system wasn't tuned to find flaws sufficiently small enough (possibly because they miscalculated how large a flaw needed to be to cause a problem) and when they got out into the real world some had flaws which turned into cracks. They must have come up with a new quality control system to check the blades, but we are talking hundreds per plane. Tearing open engines and checking each one is a nightmare.
I work at Rolls-Royce and we are doing everything to get this Trent 1000 issue solved
Getting it right first time is the only way. Modifications in the field are prohibitively expensive and damaging to reputation. Often the problems are caused by excessive pressure from sales and marketing. These issues should not happen in an aircraft engine. The 737 max is an extreme example of sales pressure.
Thanks. In the meantime, can I get a cocktail and some peanuts?
All the best to you - getting it sorted will be great for so many around the globe!
:)
GE currently holds the high ground in commercial aviation engine technology and reliability. The GEnX is the engine on the 787s that I'd prefer to fly on.
I hope it gets alright cause the Dreamliner is awesome
Not all Dreamliners are fitted with Rolls Royce engines, so the ones with GE engines are not affected at all.
747-pilot comet
sending a replying after 2 years..... ^_^
A messy problem but hope it is resolved, but may I say that Black ANZ 787 is one stunning plane!
I'm flying Air New Zealand next month Auckland to Sydney on a 787-9 with Trent 1000 engines. The trip normally takes about three hours over water without any diversionary airports in between; how is this allowed if there's a directive that the plane must always be within 60 minutes of an airport that is big enough to land a 787?
Absolutely world-class coverage of the airline industry! Keep up the good work!
I think some American viewers are too quick to slant RR. I understand GE is a US manufacturer (who do make amazing engines, the GE90 being my favourite), so there's an element of national pride, but its ludicrous to suggest that all airlines should switch to GE because of this. The GE9X is delayed due to compressor issues, and the CFM56 recently suffered an uncontained engine failure which resulted in a fatality. Granted, the GENX has been a reliable engine, however to say that GE test their engines to a differing standard than RR is not true. Rolls Royce has made some of the most successful and reliable engines ever made (ie RB211).Sadly these issues are always a potential risk when developing such ground-breaking engines. This undoubtedly is causing problems for Rolls Royce, however the Trent 1000 TEN has been developed, as well as the Trent 7000, none of which have these problems. As a Brit I sincerely hope RR get past these issues and get back to making great engines.
Tom Powell, another American engines are causing their customers significant problems. Pratt & Whitney 1000G for the Airbus A320neo continue to face extensive challenges with the next generation engine. After solving a series of mechanical problems with the 1000G, Pratt & Whitney is struggling to deliver new engines or modify existing engines on delivered aircraft.
Just few hours ago, budget airline IndiGo said that it has grounded five A320 neo aircraft due to Pratt & Whitney engine issues and these planes are expected to be back in operations in the second half of August.
Finally, I'm sure that RR will continue introducing great engines despite the reported temporary issues with some of its current engines.
RR Olympus-powered Concorde. Unforgettable.
Great comment!
Any manufacturer can run into problems like this. Hopefully they figure it out
Tom Powell - American here: I’m proud of our engines. That being said, it’s not unusual to have teething problems for the first few years. All aerospace projects end up overweight, overdue, and over budget. But the problems eventually get fixed. People working inside the aerospace & airline business all know this (first generation airplanes sell at a big discount for a reason), and it’s not a big deal. It’s the RUclips commenters and financial analysts/beancounters that scream bloody murder.
DJ I love your channel because although I know a lot about aviation, I can always come home from school and watch a video from your channel. Keep up the good work mate!!!
Awesome video as always Mr. DJ!
Wow the 787 just can't catch a break. First there was the Lithium ion battery issues, and now the RR Trent 1000 engine issues.
Massive innovations and modifications = Massive problems encountered in service - Increased tIme required to remedy. Standard practice.
yep pretty much, but the thing is it still is going to push back innovation as carriers are not going to want to deal with this again.
Airbus seems to be doing better for their A330-2/3
Those bad Li-on batteries were supplied by Yuasa, a Japanese battery maker with a helluva good reputation. I wonder whether they subcontracted to China? That's what Samsung did with those disastrous self igniting S7 phone batteries.
Dose air nz have only rent 1000's or just on some? did they opt for the GE on some of the others?
GE it is then ☹️ hopefully RR recovers
RR have fan problems, and GE have engines blowing up at random. To me this seems like an indicator that competition within the industry is compromising safety.
Get a grip.
The opposite is what competition creates.
Or just mayby are the volume of avation production so great and the Technology pushing the boundaries so hard that issues are bound to happend. That it dosen't happend at a higher rate is actually quite impressive.
Lucky that the Trent 1000 is not on the 747, like the GEnX
How quickly can order with RR be changed to GE. If I were an airliner, I might want to change.
787-8 taking off from Italy had Trent 1000 failure and engine broke up in August 2019. 2 blades broke. Is RR in the UK or India?
Check out what happened to a GP7200 engine on an Air France A380 not so long ago.
The easiest way to describe the Engine package is this. Most engine manufacturers don't call them packages, but a rev or revision. There's an entire group called Configuration Management. The CM folks are supposed to know the exact parts in each and every aircraft.
The first engines that left the factory were outfitted with a specific set of parts. Over the entry into service, anomalies were found which required a redesign. This could be a seal (abnormal wear), a turbine blade (erosion or blade breakage), or possibly an engine tube (cracks or fitment issues).
The newly fitted parts now make up the new revision called Package B. This is the new baseline engine that is being built. Further inspection of this engine configuration parts shows abnormal wear, and it's back to the design board.
The newly fitted parts package becomes Package C.
The A330 program, the Trent 700 Rolls Royce engines used for flight test required swaps every three or four flights due to engine vibrations
Is there another video of yours that explains the actual engine issue in more detail?
A shame for RR who've made the world's best aero-engines since the 1930s. Nobody has more jet experience than RR. But new materials and the striving for lower emissions and fuel burn will inevitably run into problems now and again. Similarly, I still am slightly anxious about the extent of composites used in airframes nowadays. It's a lot more difficult to detect fatigue in composites than in metal.
Well GE does produce more reliable engines in current times at least. In the past, the GE CF6 specifically those fitted on DC-10-10/15's were plagued by issues here and there and clearly GE had learned from those issues of the past. Rolls-Royce on the other hand did not have any severe engine problems in the past and this Trent 1000 issue is brand new for them.
soaringtractor GE didn't start on jets until the US were given jet engine designs in 1947. Both GE's and P&W's first jets were licence built RR Nenes. RR absorbed Whittle's designs and Rover's engines during the war.
Quality? Sure there is an issue with the Trent 1000 but apart from the glitches on A380 the history is flawless
The RR Trent 1000 was rushed into service, GE saw them do it and took their time, they should of used s higher reliability compresser blade like GE because it worn out faster that expected, that’s were most of the problems occur, engines in the Package C configuration if RR followed GE’s footsteps with the 787 engine config, they wouldn’t be in this situation in the first place.
GE has been developing production ready steam turbines at least since 1903 and developed the radial compressor the same year, in the great war they created the turbosupercharger for aviation piston engines. In 1918 they started their internal combustion gas-turbine division. Then basically just after the first Whittle internal combustion jet-turbine prototype had been tested in 1937 the whole design was transfered to GE in the USA in early 1941 for further development, as insurance if Britain fell. The whittle design used radial flow compressors.
The first turbo-jet powered aircraft to fly was a fully independent German design in 1939. German Scientist Dr. Franz Anslem developed an axial flow turbojet for Junkers in 1942. Westinghouse Corp. successfully tested an axial flow design in early 1943, completely in isolation from both the German and British jet turbine designs. GE developed a production axial flow turbo-jet in 1947 the J-47 and later created the variable stator axial flow engine. Variable stators are likely the largest advancement ever made to gas turbine engines.
" I still am slightly anxious about the extent of composites used in airframes nowadays."
As a former airline EVP who was in charge of buying and supervising aircraft production for our fleet, I could not agree more.
Plenty of discussion about the downstream repair costs, and how cost control impacted RR. What about how the problems first started? RR knows how to build engines and blade right. Something went wrong with package C (cutting corners? quality control let sub-par parts through?) and now they are paying for it. Also didn't say is whether it affect other RR engines. How much shared design/process among different Trent engines?
When carriers hire in these replacement aircraft do they change the livery and seats?
Sean Delaney nope. I went on the hifly airnz. It was just pure white and the interiors where all hifly decided. Entertainment was hifly as well. Also hifly attendants plus 2 airnz attendants and one air nz customer relations because of the mess.
Andrew C jeez okay thanks.
I saw in your video discussing the Trent 1000 engines problem a United 787. My understanding is all US carrier operate only the GEnx from GE, no RR engines in Us carriers
Great video! 100 thousand subscribers coming up! I’m just amazed how fast you grow.
can you make a video about Trent 1000 Borescope process
DJ, if the problem is with the Trent 1000 design per se, then how is it that Boeing successfully used it as the launch engine for the 787 ? As far as I'm aware, it performed fine at that time. I suspect that a great deal is hidden from us in contractual detail between the 2 companies, but to produce 31 variants of the engine for 3 variants of the aircraft is unprecedented. Are Boeing asking for the impossible in lean burn engines ? It's a topic that doesn't get as much attention as it should perhaps because it is neccessarily highly technical.
pasoundman This is a fatigue problem. Fatigue occurs after some time, not on day one of launch.
Clearly true (I had hoped that much would be self-evident as engines have to be run in all manner of regimes before cerfification and amass a lot of hours in the process). The number of variants of the Trent 1000 hid the full facts for some time. It seems that 'Package A' didn't suffer any problems at all but didn't meet Boeing's fuel burn requirements by 1%. The ensuing 'Packages B and C' met and then excelled the fuel burn spec but introduced a fatigue problem (as you correctly say) that didn't show its head for about 4 years. The long term fix is the Trent 1000-TEN which is a significant redesign using technology borrowed from the Trent XWB which had the advantage of being designed using more modern CAD tools. The Trent 1000-TEN is in service now. In the meantime, the engines which suffer from fatigue problems haven't actually been grounded (they do require more frequent inspection) but their ETOPS ratings have been severely reduced. For some routes this makes them effectively unusuable e.g. with Air NZ. Air NZ were amongst the first to take delivery of the Trent 1000-TEN which should have solved their particular problem. In the meantime, R-R has a lot of work on its hands, fixing engines in service. I had predicted that ever more demanding fuel burn requirements would eventually have a negative knock-on effect on engine reliability due to Carnot's Principle (hotter running engines being the result) and this may have been the root cause in the case of the case of the Trent 1000.
How crossing the Atlantic from Southamerica with being 60 min away from a diversion airport?
Is it too late to switch affected RR engines with GEnX by now on existing planes?
Did they begin reducing their expenses after this discovery and the cost of the repairs or did they already have cost reduction plans in place?
Is the Trent 1000 a development of the RB-211 engine that gave Rolls - Royce so many problems when it was originally introduced?
How is Trent 1000 different or similar to Trent xwb?
Dj's Aviation, I hope that as an honest and unbiased vlogger, you'll bring your viewers attention to the issues experienced by GE and P&W engines as well. Thank you.
Royce Royce impacted the Lockheed L-1011 TriStar program from the beginning to almost failure, it ended up behind the Douglas DC-10 program it never caught up..
The blades where made of the a new composite technology that also had a high failure rate .
From my PoV the engine design was rushed from day one. Rolls-Royce was loosing engines to GE. On top of that, Boeing decided to only use GE engines on the 777-200LR/300ER. Meaning during the time frame when Boeing was deciding on who will power the 787, Rolls-Royce just had to win the deal or else they may fall as during that time. So in my PoV, Rolls-Royce rushed the engine design, cut the costs on materials in order to beat GE. While GE was relaxed during that time as they were basically thriving on the GE90 series as well as the the CFM-56 series.
That's not the only factor. The entire industry is going through problems as we switch to geared turbofan, carbon composite engines. P&W have had similar problems on the A320neo.
Jacob Payag
The entire Trent 1000 was rushed into service, From the beginning GE even said to RR to uses a higher more durable blade because it’s were the problem can occur, and it did.
RR quickly must of rushed this engine into service to get most of the 787 engine costumers more than GE, unfortunately it became the other way around because now GE has far more sales then RR is almost every plane engine they sell to airlines, for the 777, there’s no contest, GE has more than 1,500 orders while RR doesn’t even have 400, they’re doing good in the 787 market with GE but GE is still ahead there too. The reliability for each engine is clear, Airlines prefer it over RR, yet RR makes reliable engines such as the ones powering a330ceo/neo/a350
Ibirdball
Yet but RR is still the one behind because they’re having way. Problems then the engines you mentioned
+Johnny Wynn I think RR should've stayed out of the 787 program and offer more engines to Airbus. They offer engines for the A330, A330neo, A350 and A380. I don't see why they couldn't develop engines for the A320neo, as they are already proven with Airbus.
It’s because RR doesn’t make engines for narrowbody planes, The 757 was like the last plane until it died from service, RR focuses of widebody engines, while GE-CFM joint venture, and PW are the real narrowbody engine winners
plz teach us more about engines. well explained video BTW
Are the 787s offered with an alternative engine to the Trent 1000? If so, could the effected aircraft reasonably be converted to the alternative engine?
GEnx is the alternative.
7:08 Can someone please explain to me how is that tractor/truck pushing the giant plane ? That plane probably weighs like 100 tons maybe ?? How is that truck able to push the plane ? It should have sufficient torque I am guessing like that of a 13 or 15 litre diesel engine . What kind of engine does it have ? Is it electric ? How much does it weigh ? It should weigh substantial enough so that its wheels do not lose traction .
Also what are the other two propeller planes ?
Mentour Aviator make a video how tugs work and whats different between supertug and regular tug
Can an airline swap out a Trent 1000 engine for a GE engine or is it a matter of the Trent engine being the only that can be used on that jet?
Dj i need hep!
i wanna make youtube videos but what did you use to make you youtube icon?
It may sound stupid but what is a package c,b and a Engine?
Hi Dj, thanks
for another interesting video. I had looked at the Rolls Royce website not long ago and they reported they hope to check the engines without taking them off the wings and it is a shame such a major problem happened on Trent1000 engines .
Whilst looking at Rolls Royce website I looked up some facts about the company. (1) for all their products they have customers in more than 150 countries. and 400 Airlines, (2 ) they have marine engines for 70 Navys, (3 ) 500 power plant & Nuclear products. ( 4 ) The last Annual Report showed Revenue of £15 Billion pounds , ( 5 ) Order book of £78 billion pounds
(6 ) They spend £1.4 billion pounds on Research & Development, employing 5000 people in 50 countries.
DJ . thanking you for all your great videos, hope you reach 100 K subscribers. and I hope you do not mind me giving out some facts about Rolls Royce. I am sure they will fix problems as quickly as they can. I expect Airlines may also chare Rolls Royce for all the # downtime # while planes are being fixed DJ have a good weekend, take care.
Can they not be refitted with different engines ?? What about the ones that have not been finished building , can they not change the engines to be put on them ??
Hey DJ....your channel stands out amongst the multitude of other aviation channels because you offer something different. I love your videos. Keep up the good work and stick with this styles....great stuff...😉💪🏻🙌🏻
I think it would have been useful to explain that many airlines didn't order their 787s with the RR Trent engines. Many, like the Air Canada 787 in your video, have GE engines that don't have these issues.
Hi DJ! Excellent reporting as usual! Thanks for a good job, well done!
I have a close friend that works as an engineer for RR. Can't say a lot but basically a lot of middle management have been sacked and they're employing loads of engineers to tackle to huge work load. The blades are essentially grown/moulded from a single crystal of carbon fibre composite. Once it's been fitted you cant just easily replace it. The entire engine basically needs to be rebuilt.
I haven't got a clue what "off carrots" and "right carrots are". Does anyone have any advice ?
I have read that the problem is confined to the Asia market as it was believed that a high sulphur content in the air was coating the compressor blades and thus causing problems. A shareholder had said that most of the R&D budget was going on resolving this issue.
Congrats for almost hitting 100k
I watched the whole thing and apart from the blades cracking learnt nothing further. Did I miss something?
I work in Roll-Royce as an On-Wing Care mech and within the last 2 years, most of my task were to fly all over asia pacific to deal with the T1000 IPC 1&2 blades issues.
We do ultrasonic inspection into the IPC1&2 blade roots looking for cracks and repeat every 100 Flight cycles for T1000 B, C, TEN & T7000 but so far I didn't encounter any cracks within the last 2 yrs.
In my experience, Trent engine HPT blades had more detorioration issues than IPC blades. What makes the IPC blades issues critical is that the damage are appearing in the bladeroot area which have a higher potential of blade release.
Good video was wondering what happened to the dj show
I planned to fly back to Europe with ANA’s 787 on Monday the 30th of July... ANA announced to cancel a lot of flights from the beginning of August so I was quite lucky... but it could be that I will fly on a different aircraft type than the 787 tough....
Will the trouble become so severe that airlines would switch from the Trent 1000 engines to a different engine type? Thanks!
Sad to see them rollers facing so many issues.
Hi mate :-) and you're doing a great job! Not far too 100k now. 👍👊
So what defect in material or design is the root cause of the cracks? Are these metal parts, if so what alloy? more detail please anyone?
Can someone explain how many modules a trent series comprises of....
And name them
Simple fix. Switch to GE engines.
The aircraft is built specifically for that engine. Many systems in the plane are customized for the Trent engine. The aircraft would have to be partially disassembled and rebuilt and GE doesn't have hundreds of additional engines just sitting on a shelf waiting for customers. These engines are usually ordered 4 to 6 years in advance of their delivery.
southbound1969 yes! Be but a jiffy. After all GE engines are flawless.
southbound1969 , I've spoken to Rolls Royse technician and he told me that GE is rubbish
Hubris or Rubbish. . Those Brits have funny accents..
I don't blame the RR technician the only thing flying for them it's those Donald Trump balloons over London..::)
Except that GE have had problems of their own, with engines suddenly exploding.
What engine does the -10 use
Hope the Trent 1000 will recover from this.......
I hope Rolls Royce can recover from this. How could they get it so wrong?
@@cmartin_ok they dont pay anyone in quality enough to care and the company probably has a high pressure toxic culture and nobody wanted to rock the boat so they released the engines with flaws. I bet you 10 to 1 the department leaders in that Trent factory knew of the problems. Playing devils advocate maybe the factory did not point out the flaw because it was so catastrophic to such an expensive project they did not want to lose there $30-$50 an hour job
I heard the engine problem was the reason that Virgin Atlantic didn’t turn a profit last year since they need to keep leasing aircraft. Honestly this is a major mess up on RR’s part but also may have been because of pressure from Boeing and airlines. I also feel as if many airlines may wind up class action suiting against RR because of lost profits.
Would changing the engine type (like P & W) be just as expensive & time consuming as trying to fix the RR?
Why do airlines choose Trent 1000 over GEnx? Also, is it a design problem or a materiel problem?
Multiple choice answer.
Cost of installed engine and after sale service. All manufacturers offer what is called Power by the Hour. With power by the hour, the engines are basically leased from the manufacturer. You pay a set price per hour of operation.
Some airlines have preferences for engines based on the support manager at their location. It costs millions of dollars for tooling to work on these engines. Some companies will provide the tooling "free" to keep a customer.
A good customer support representative is worth his weight in gold. He looks at the engine trend data and schedules replacement parts, while working with the airline customer. AOG (aircraft on Ground) service is huge.
Great Reporting
Great report!
Gotta wonder if this had any impact on Boeing's decision to go strictly with GE as the only supplier to be offered when buying the 777x?
The 777X was announced in 2015 and was being worked on years before, which was long before the first problems arose with the Trent 1000.
Randy Bentley Boeing wanted to go for GE to only power the 787 but airlines wanted choices which is why we are at this problem today
+juel sandy But Airbus actually gained a lot more A320neo orders (in the first few years) due to them offering two engine choices over Boeing just offering one on the 737 MAX. Airbus have also sold over 1400 A330s and they have three engine choices. In my view Boeing couldn't have seen these issues coming as the Trent 1000 didn't experience any problems in testing, and RR have proven engines on the A330, A380 and A350.
Ibirdball RR was proven very reliable on the a380 until Qantas was a witness. Till then RR started to worry all over again to make their engines as reliable as possible, they went right with the a330s and a350s though but I’ll be concerned once they reach a maximum stage of service.
You are correct about Airbus selling that many a330s but are you forgetting how many 747/777s Boeing has sold?
+Johnny Wynn My point was that you don't have to have one engine type to sell a plane. And after QF32, the A380 engine problems were solved.
Wait, package A engines don't have problems. What are the differences between them and package B and C engines? I'm asking because if there are some differences that might cause them not to have problems, wouldn't it make sense to just switch package B and C engines to package A specs. Also, wouldn't it be even easier to switch the troubled 787s to GE engines?
I know my questions may seem silly, but this really isn't my area of expertise.
Thanks for the video. The costs involved indeed are huge! I wonder what kind of compensation airlines will be getting...
Hopefully the off carrots can be fixed soon! Nicely explained.
Star Trek Theory -
Yep, pretty much. Like if Batch A and Batch B are both perfectly fine, but Batch C (Or some in it) have the issues.
Are EASA and the FAA not reconsidering their certification of the Engine? I hope we're not heading down the "if it's Rolls Royce it must be ok" path. It started with problems in package C. Now it's packages C & B.
Are we not in the realms of the engines are safe unless you can prove they're not?
When will package A engines display problems?
At the moment, are 787s becoming expensive to operate with the additional maintenance overhead? Skilled maintenance staff do not grow on trees. Isn't an additional 787 check going to push another plane due for a check further down the queue?
Serves Rolls-Royce right. Lack of quality control and testing. Putting people at risk because of their complacency, this will affect both reputation and future sales. Hopefully they’ll now take the time and effort to ensure the quality and reliability of their engines
They've been having quality control issues for a little while now. The Qantas 32 engine explosion was caused by a defective tube.
HMSDaring1, other than speculation, what substance do you have to back your assertions ?
This has nothing to do with quality control or testing.
Jess W all high tech complex products hit problems at times look at the space shuttle for instance.
RIP Trent 1000...
By the way congrats for almost reaching 100k subcribers...
The Genx provides more thrust but is more economical. Also on the rr website it says the the Trent 800 is the most popular 777 Engine and provides the most thrust and is the lightest. Mmm were did those facts come from, it is lighter than GE and P&W. But the GE90 is so much more powerful that is provides more thrust than its extra weight. What do you think?
GE90 with its unique spool up noise, or the RR Trent 800 with its loud rumbling on takeoff?!
another great video. interesting stuff.
Amazing video dj as always
Are there any US domestic airlines 787s fitted with Trent 1000s? How difficult would it be to just swap in GE engines of suitable power? Clearly, some material design faults in the Trent 1000 are just now becoming a major problem and my understanding is that compressor problems have plagued it from soon after its certification. What with the internal corruption of RR management that had been going on for decades just announced recently with huge fines and management shakeup, it seems RR is in a bad position to recover and retain brand quality and trust which have been eroding slowly for years following the scandalous oil stub tube manufacturing defect that almost brought down a Qantas A380 full of passengers, but for superior piloting despite an uncontained engine explosion.
All the US carries who operate the Dreamliner all use GEnx engines, but keep in mind that switching from RR to GEnx won’t be easy, it’s very costly and takes a lot of time as well. The pylons all have to be exchanged, modified and all certified, for the plane to fly with its new engine.
RR is far behind GE in the competition as well, They’re good but GE has been gaining a much better reliability and performance, sales and efficiency. I’m also worried about the a350 and a330neo which only uses RR and once they begin to frequently kick for more Service/high demand in the next coming years, Problem might start with their engines or so, yet it will be RR who will be spends millions once again
Johnny Wynn Thanks for the information Johnny! 😀 I think we all know that GE had/has a massive success in the long term with it's CFM and Pratt and Whitney partnerships as well as the legendary GE90 series. Have there been any significant problems with the GE9x series so far?
Pure speculation Johny. The design of the Trent family of engines derives from the RB-211 and tens of thousands of airliners fly happily with both the RB-211 and the various Trents. There is a nasty tendency for Americans to jump on the misfortunes, however temporary, of any non-US company and it's getting very stale. Where do you get your reliability figures from btw ? Thin air ? Of course GE are good too. The Brits gave GE the design for the jet engine along with all other US jet manufacturers.
BobEckert56 CFM isn't GE ! It's a joint venture between them and the French. What makes you think the French didn't play their part, P&W too, R-R also has international partnerships.
BobEckert56 No problem Mate!
And nope, there hasn’t been any problem with the Ge9x so far, it’s been tested flight last March and is going well, yet the 777x family isn’t out, I’m sure it will do very well 😃
After flying with Norwegian we got stuck with a Wamos Air 747 for a JFK-GTW flight, it was awful. Outdated plane from the 80’s, uncomfortable seats, no inflight entertainment it was a mess. But I guess it’s better than no plane and they got us home which is what counts.
I was recently affected by this. Our British Airways flight from London to Montréal was delayed 5 hours! But thanks to EU law, we are getting a hefty cash compensation!
Yep. EU laws like that - who needs 'em? Throwing off all those pesky pro-consumer shackles is yet another benefit of Brexit. Er, actually, what ARE the other benefits of Brexit again?
great video!
Reality is, that due to physics, the "size" of turbine engines are reaching their maximum. The large turbofan engines are reaching the same limits reached by propeller aircraft during WW2 in which the larger the length of the blades the closer they reach the speed of sound at the tips. This coupled with the centrifugal force on the engines are immense when spinning at such speeds. The blades in the Trent 1000 have HUGE centrifugal force loads on them at "climb power" and like a spinning gyro gear, when you induce lateral loading on a spinning wheel the stress gets even greater. This is a limitation and issue being reached on these massive large bypass turbofan engines.
What about American and United’s 787’s?
Travis Kerner they use GE engines
RR has the secret hollow titanium turbine blade technology...Are these the ones which are failing?
dj, trent engines 1000, rr where only put on the 787, never used on air bus, never new thank you , great vd
This is all down to one word
Greed!
RR outsourced many departments, when you do that you lose quality control. Whilst problems with new engines always have problems but these issues are getting worse because as one issue is found and fixed another is found plus every airline has in front of them lots of checks which with cause further delays
Thank you DJ ... I learn something from you in EVERY presentation! Still don’t know all your three letter abbreviations because you never mention what they stand for. Eventually I’ll get on board. 🧐. Soon to 100k subs 👍🏻👍🏻
The ETOPS reduction alone is the kiss of death for those 787s, especially carriers running large numbers of Trent powered 787s (British Airways, Norwegian, Virgin Atlantic), I suspect the carriers that are able to order GE powered 787s (British Airways is required by the UK government to use RR when available) will do so now. Apparently over 70% of 787s were being ordered with GE engines anyway.
Its time to stop Rolls Royce, just do it, do something soon, I'm serious Rolls Royce is going to be damaged if they don't fix the problem, 787 is one of the best aircraft for airlines so engine problems can really destroy it so RR has to act quickly and to make replacements before end of the year, or they can lose trust of manufacturers and bankrupt, thanks DJ for informing us and I like your channel 😊😊😊😊😊
making hasty and afraid decisions is exactly what they should not be doing, or else standard might get cut.
Being British I feel very disappointed that the world's premier aero engine maker has encountered such bad luck...Hopefully things will turn out right for them in the end.
Launchvehicle71. Thanks so much for this careful yet easily understandable discussion of this and complex problem. I keep thinking, where is RR going to get the money to pay for all this? I mean not just the costs of repair but 100s of millions to compensate airlines for the financial losses, all of which will grow more rapidly now that it has been found that the the Package B engines are also infected.
Dose anyone realise that Air New Zealand had two complete engine failures on take off all in one week this causing emergency landings to take place. The photos on line show how the engines had failed in the high compression chamber by the fan blades actually melting because the coating had worn off I suggest looking into this it quite interesting. Btw great content on your channel DJ
I can’t wait till you hit 100k subs
No RR engines in 797 please!
Probably be GE
POWERJET SAM146-Y6!
Very informative video but I thought RR engines were the best but the GE engine is much quieter
the engine on the Qantas 380 had a bad oil pipe in the engine.
You have not explained the issues with the engine.
mtrujillo1973 So what what is the problem with the IP compressor stage?
Just joined, great informative video, that you.
That's was super informative
Thank you DJ
I disagree completely. The actual issues are not defined, but only referred to obliquely. And he confused corrosion with cracking. Since they are so new I doubt he meant corrosion fatigue cracking or even WFD. Worse yet no discussion about the difference between these intermediate turbine blades and the previous versions without the problem. A little research FRIST would have been good.
Best aviation videos
RR is going bankrupt and then the British government is gonna save them and then RR is gonna go bankrupt and then the British government is gonna save them and so on
Good luck with that when Brexit is happening
Srdjan Smudja nah mate, after a HARD brexit the british economy in is gonna be booming.
Rolls-Royce have already been bailed out by a certain Mr. Heath in 1971, the man who was going to 'let lame ducks go to the wall'.
Why is RR in financial trouble?
there gonna be soon