tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9133703253863123050.post7359656365871781572..comments2024-02-21T03:48:52.674-05:00Comments on Flying Lessons: YIKES, GEnx Engine on My Dreamflight, Not So DreamyChristine Negronihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15190247339367487575noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9133703253863123050.post-42222047100361501522012-09-17T08:22:20.394-04:002012-09-17T08:22:20.394-04:00Jim,
Your assertion here is not logical:"How...Jim,<br /><br />Your assertion here is not logical:"However, I'm sure he'll agree that comparing "low-time" jet engines to "low-time" recips is absurd." Granted the TBF or in this case TUFF (Time Until First Failure) are vastly different, but having flown round-engines, flat engines and jets, I agree with Jim. Ask Tom Emmert; Ferrying a popular single engine airplane from the factory, he got 10 hours into the delivery flight when the engine caught on fire and after an emergency landing in the desert, Tom spent 6 months in the burn intensive care hospital.<br /><br />The reason basic certification and ETOPS require a certain amount of operational time-in-test is to shake out the bugs as engineering "pushes out the envelope." <br /><br />The first X-number of hours after any re-engineering, or maintenance for that matter, are historically the most fraught with problems. That's why airlines do a "post-inspection" flight test after major check events.<br /><br />We will have to wait and see how these new "plastic" developments stand up to the demands of day-to-day airline operations. From engines, to airframes to who-knows-what-next, the key to success is the total robustness and redundancy of these systems to mitigate any single point of failure. Lessons learned are inevitable; disasters are unacceptable.<br /><br /><br />John Darbo<br />John Darbonoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9133703253863123050.post-42964569301954867842012-09-15T11:10:36.965-04:002012-09-15T11:10:36.965-04:00As usual, Jim brings up some cogent issues.
Howev...As usual, Jim brings up some cogent issues. <br />However, I'm sure he'll agree that comparing "low-time" jet engines to "low-time" recips is absurd. The principal difference between one (major) moving part rotating in one direction and thousands flailing cacophonically has done more than anything else to improve engine reliability.<br />RR engine failures, ETOPS diversions, and the Fed are all irrelevant to any problems with the GEnx. If there are consistencies amongst the failure modes, then there have been incorrect design assumptions.<br />I agree wholeheartedly with Jim's final point: pointy-heads in DC can no more "mandate" performance than King Canute could order the tides. Wait til you see how your vehicle performs when CAFE gets to its "mandated" 53 mpg.Grumpynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9133703253863123050.post-10350082664396436992012-09-15T08:57:40.203-04:002012-09-15T08:57:40.203-04:00P.S.
Oh yea, what's up with the 'SNORGTEE...P.S.<br /><br />Oh yea, what's up with the 'SNORGTEES" adds. Those aren't the type ads I would expect you to be endorsing. Clever, but edgy.<br /><br />Later,Jim Blaszczakhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00096277595889819199noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9133703253863123050.post-25260356819445980552012-09-15T08:15:21.530-04:002012-09-15T08:15:21.530-04:00I kinda sorta get the metaphor, but here's som...I kinda sorta get the metaphor, but here's some things to consider.<br /><br />The Rolls Royce engine too had some catastrophic failures during testing.<br /><br />The "low time" engine always has been the least reliable. Talk with any "large recip" pilot and they'll tell you the same thing.<br /><br />Most ETOPS diversions are NOT for engine problems.<br /><br />The 787 has had more than its share of challenges during production/certification. This seems a little like piling on.<br /><br />Lastly, the tolerances and demands on the the structures and systems of the 787 are unlike any seen before. You can't get the kind of efficiency "mandated" by ETS and others without pushing the envelope way out. In engineering, unlike the accounting used by the Federal Reserve, you can't get somethin' for nothin'<br /><br />Keep the blogs coming they are always thought provoking!<br /><br />CheersJim Blaszczakhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00096277595889819199noreply@blogger.com