kevin5345179 wrote:

AAlaxfan wrote:

mjoelnir wrote:

hardly, even if the original engine looks tiny, it puts out 62,000 lbs. Two make 124,000 lbs and that compares to 105,000 lbs on the GE9X. Add to that, that one engine has to be enough on a twin to keep climbing in take off, after one engine failure, than you compare 105,000 lbs with 3 * 64,000 = 204,000 lbs for one engine out.

I would simply say no way in hell you would be able to run a 747-400 (or 747-200/300) on two of this. Even the GE90-115B at 115,000 lbs would not be enough. Still a long way from about 200,000 lbs.

People forget that the 777-300ER and now soon the 777-8/9 use the biggest available engine. A 747-400 is quite a bit heavier, about 60 t at MTOW, the 747-8 about 80 t. Perhaps if you would mount a huge wing.

UM.....3*64000=192000

btw where is 64 klbf comes from ?
I thought you should have 62 instead ??

So what? 105.000 or 115.000 is also nowhere near 186,000 the three engine thrust with 62,000 lbs engines.

pugman211 wrote:

Stitch wrote:

OldAeroGuy wrote:

Note there is no non-normal procedure for inflight wing folding. All non-normals are for ground operations.

Assuming there is one, I would expect it would have to wait until the test frames are flying to identify the conditions and effects.

Well, Boeing have stated they will automatically fold up when on the ground and below 50 knots, so again, assuming it would require weight on the main gear for the tips to be moved to the raised position.

So that really only leaves failure of the hinge, locking mechanism and excessive loads surely? I'm not trying to imply that will happen, but they're the only conditions I can see for the wingtip to fold

Or an issue with the gound sensing system (happened a couple of times on the ***F) and the 50 knot trip signal. I know, that can't possibly happen but I've seen a couple of those can't possibly happen events in my time.

More GE 9X pictures here:

http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/19 ... 47-testbed

There are a few things interesting about the folding wing tips. First in my mind Boeing's statement "The folding wingtips are simple and highly reliable with redundant deploying, retracting and locking mechanisms. We are designing the folding wingtips like every other flight critical system so they meet safety requirements.” is important. Keyword is simple. I have no idea what the design is but I like the concept of simple. Also Boeing has ample experience with folding wing tips and wings on many military aircraft. I don't remember ever seeing a crash because of the folding mechanism failed. I think that this is not really a major challenge to meet all FAA safety criteria. Just my 2 cents.

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... ip-446789/

Interesting article on the folding wingtips.

With the first such mechanism scheduled to enter service on the 777X family in two years, Boeing set a goal to design a folding device so elegant and reliable that its workings would be as unnoticeable to the operators as flap tracks and thrust reversers today.

But that doesn’t mean Boeing engineers assumed the 777X’s folding wing-tips will operate flawlessly forever. In a newly-published, 13-page annex to an airport planning document, Boeing for the first time details how airports and 777X operators should cope with a list of potential, albeit highly unlikely, “non-normal” scenarios for the Liebherr-supplied folding mechanism.

7BOEING7 wrote:

Or an issue with the gound sensing system (happened a couple of times on the ***F) and the 50 knot trip signal. I know, that can't possibly happen but I've seen a couple of those can't possibly happen events in my time.

This is the idea I don't get. As I understand it, the folding mechanism is designed so that it physically cannot move as long as the wing is under flight loads. And so a failure of the ground sensing system alone should not lead to anything.

travaz wrote:

There are a few things interesting about the folding wing tips. First in my mind Boeing's statement "The folding wingtips are simple and highly reliable with redundant deploying, retracting and locking mechanisms. We are designing the folding wingtips like every other flight critical system so they meet safety requirements.” is important. Keyword is simple. I have no idea what the design is but I like the concept of simple. Also Boeing has ample experience with folding wing tips and wings on many military aircraft. I don't remember ever seeing a crash because of the folding mechanism failed. I think that this is not really a major challenge to meet all FAA safety criteria. Just my 2 cents.

Eh, the lifestyle of a commercial aircraft is very different to a military one. A military aircraft is likely getting a solid once over after every single flight. A commercial aircraft could go some time before someone really inspected the wing folding mechanism. Also the folding mechanism for the B777X is quite different to military aircraft due to its location. No fuel or moving parts outboard of the hinge.

Now I do expect Boeing to get this right as airlines will be extremely unhappy if this acts up and ends up grounding lots of flights. And part of that mitigation will be keeping the mechanism simple and over-engineering it for reliability.

Personally I'd be happy to jump on the first flight of one of these to see the wingtip in action. So I'm not against the idea at all. In fact it's quite impressive. Especially if this leads into narrowbody use.

So the key redundancy for the folding wing tip is to ensure air stair trucks - at least one - at each airport that will get visits from this a/c, as long as you can get the pax off when the tips do not fold job well done. Most airports already have remote stands where the a/c can park, so just a long walk.
Of course some may say you also need to keep a bus or two around to get the pax from the remote stand to the terminal, but that is a much easier item to obtain.

If the wing tips should not fold once in a while, the 777-8/9 could be handled like a F sized frame. Any airport being occasionally visited by a 747-8 or A380 should be able to handle it. In the worst case build a stand on any airport that can not handle a F sized near the end of each runway and deplane the passengers there.
I assume that airports do have stairs for emergency and some buses should be easy to obtain.

And depending on the airport, the span itself may not be a major (or even a minor) issue in terms of airport operations. Unlike the A380 and 747-8, the 777X does not have outboard engines so the 777X wings might clear obstacles that the larger frames cannot due to their outboard engines as opposed to their span. There is also no worry about FUD being generated by the outboard engines should they overhang non-paved areas.

Stitch wrote:

There is also no worry about FUD being generated by the outboard engines should they overhang non-paved areas.

Airliners.net is very good at generating FUD, but I think outboard engines are better at generating FOD.

par13del wrote:

So the key redundancy for the folding wing tip is to ensure air stair trucks - at least one - at each airport that will get visits from this a/c, as long as you can get the pax off when the tips do not fold job well done. Most airports already have remote stands where the a/c can park, so just a long walk.
Of course some may say you also need to keep a bus or two around to get the pax from the remote stand to the terminal, but that is a much easier item to obtain.

I vote for exolosive bolts. Simply jetison the tips if they fail to fold.

Video of the GE9X test flight has been posted:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UsY5g3iV1rg

Damn, the thing is huge.

tvarad wrote:

Video of the GE9X test flight has been posted:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UsY5g3iV1rg

Damn, the thing is huge.

It is one of funniest, most disproportionate things I have ever seen in aviation.

chiki wrote:

The engine is huge, wonder if you cant run the 747 on just 2 of these.
https://twitter.com/R_Wall/status/973904829956358144

You could. The problem is, you couldn't run a 747 on one of them, which is what you have to consider on twins.

Here's a status update on both the engine and air-frame. Hope the snags aren't serious enough to disrupt the schedule.

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/boeing-moves-keep-777x-track-engine-snag-010709163--finance.html

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-boei ... SKCN1GS2T0 tells us:

Engine supplier General Electric (GE.N) began flight trials of its new GE9X jet engine on Tuesday after a three-month delay caused mainly by a problem in its compressor. But to put the engine development back on track it must build a new component.

It says the first two 777xs built will move forward with 'temporary' (non-fight) engines. It seems these will be good enough for initial basic testing. They apparently won't even be started. Then as the plane nears taxi testing, etc they will be swapped out for engines with the 'new part'.

Of course, this makes one wonder what that 'new part' is, and why we have one GE-9X flying around with a functioning engine yet they can't make more in time for 777x initial testing.

Sounds like they are having more than a few battles to fight.

777X Vice President and General Manager Eric Lindblad says:

“We are now in the thick of it ... There is no more waiting until later to solve problems,” Lindblad said. “There are still two years left. You cannot give away your buffer.”

And:

“Assuming we continue to march our way through the plan that we have laid out, I feel pretty optimistic about (the engine) and I think that wing assembly is a matter of incorporating the learnings,” Lindblad said.

But of course, things don't always go to plan...

Out of the era of struggling airframe manufacturers and into the era of struggling engine manufacturers!

While obviously not good news, by the sounds of it GE have given themselves a degree of time to solve the issues before delays happen. I'm pretty confident they will solve the worst of the issues before EIS and there will be few problems beyond the usual teething problems, but the pressure is on.

Hopefully we ll have atleast two functioning engines and not just a carbon fiber shell of an engine by the time the plane rolls out in a year.

"But of course, things don't always go to plan..." said Revelation

Well, one of the reasons to have a plan in the first place is to make assessments when necessary (or regularly) about where the Program is against the latest plan.

Learn, reschedule, refine and replan --> New Plan

So the engine plan is showing some slippage - quel surprise! Which current program with new engines is having a smooth sail down the river? Perhaps not enough "learn" or conservatism in some of these plans, and maybe little to no contingency built in de factum! I recall in fixed-price software development projects at the end of 1990s that 20% timescale contingency on delivery plan was considered "normal" ( and even that was rarely achieved, never with the public sector)

It would not be a big surprise to me if Boeing itself is not secretly happy with this GE delay! It gets a bit of "free" timescale relief this way! I have no idea if it is needed, welcomed, or abhorrent!

Edit on dates!

MileHFL400 wrote:

Hopefully we ll have atleast two functioning engines and not just a carbon fiber shell of an engine by the time the plane rolls out in a year.

......I see what you did there......

It is always hard to read between the lines. First impression is this is serious.

During the Dreamliner days we had independent John Ostrower, who, after some time, proved to have the most reliable updates and realistic forecasts. In the end everybody was listening to him, ignoring official press releases and John moved up to FG, WSJ and CNN.

John is independent again now so I'll tune there.

https://jonostrower.com

There are still technical issues with the LEAP as well as Sfc shortfall.Thats not a criticism,it's a brand new engine ,it happens.
Clearly we see there are issues with its biggest brother the GE9x.Again no criticism it's early days.
BUT
If as suspected the B797 is to be launched soon with an all new (50klbs) mid sized version from GE.Thats an awful lot on one companies plate at the same time I would have thought.
I have no doubt whatsoever that GE will be solus or one of the engine OEM's on the 797.
Neither RR or P&W are exactly in a good place right now either.I wonder if this is why Boeing have been taking their time.An engine to hang is rather important!

MileHFL400 wrote:

Hopefully we ll have atleast two functioning engines and not just a carbon fiber shell of an engine by the time the plane rolls out in a year.

Potemkin enignes . . .

This is not a new or show stopping issue. The problem has been reported in just about every printed journal which exists. The problem has to do with the lever arms which actuate the variable stator vanes. Apparently, the issue is exceedance loads on the lever. GE also states there is no slippage expected.

http://aviationweek.com/commercial-avia ... cing-delay

I won't be surprised one bit if this turns out to be the similar delay A330neo experienced. Boeing can sugarcoat it all they want, but if the "flight" engines aren't ready in due time, then it's time to kiss on-time EIS goodbye for the 777-9, sadly...

Revelation wrote:

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-boeing-777x-interview/boeing-moves-to-keep-777x-on-track-after-engine-snag-idUSKCN1GS2T0 tells us:

Engine supplier General Electric (GE.N) began flight trials of its new GE9X jet engine on Tuesday after a three-month delay caused mainly by a problem in its compressor. But to put the engine development back on track it must build a new component.

It says the first two 777xs built will move forward with 'temporary' (non-fight) engines. It seems these will be good enough for initial basic testing. They apparently won't even be started. Then as the plane nears taxi testing, etc they will be swapped out for engines with the 'new part'.

Of course, this makes one wonder what that 'new part' is, and why we have one GE-9X flying around with a functioning engine yet they can't make more in time for 777x initial testing.

Sounds like they are having more than a few battles to fight.

777X Vice President and General Manager Eric Lindblad says:

“We are now in the thick of it ... There is no more waiting until later to solve problems,” Lindblad said. “There are still two years left. You cannot give away your buffer.”

And:

“Assuming we continue to march our way through the plan that we have laid out, I feel pretty optimistic about (the engine) and I think that wing assembly is a matter of incorporating the learnings,” Lindblad said.

But of course, things don't always go to plan...

I wish GE and the GE-9X well; I want the engine to succeed and the 777X to have a timely EIS, but I have a bad feeling about this.

Revelation wrote:

Of course, this makes one wonder what that 'new part' is, and why we have one GE-9X flying around with a functioning engine yet they can't make more in time for 777x initial testing.

The issue is with the lever arms that actuate the Variable Stator Vanes that control the airflow through the HPC. GE decided to go to flight test with the original lever arms while they finish work on the new version.

keesje wrote:

It is always hard to read between the lines. First impression is this is serious.

During the Dreamliner days we had independent John Ostrower, who, after some time, proved to have the most reliable updates and realistic forecasts. In the end everybody was listening to him, ignoring official press releases and John moved up to FG, WSJ and CNN.

John is independent again now so I'll tune there.

https://jonostrower.com

The Dude takes the ARJ-21 seriously?!?

There were far better sources on the initial Dreamliner Potemkin roll out.

The GE9x has an issue. ok.
Did this guy show the RR issues timely? I didn't see any articles on A330NEO delays hurting sales...

I never heard of him before. Everyone knew when we found out Boeing forgot critical wing box dimensions in the ICD and Mitsubishi delivered a composite structure 10mm short that the ICDs were botched.

Finding and broadcasting an issue this early allows recovery time.

Did this analyst broadcast the A380 CATIA error? I new about it before it made Aviation Week.

The 777X will thrive. It's engines are far ahead of anything before, so they will fix more issues.

The compressor lever arms was an early find. New compressors are tougher to tune than prior generation. Eh.

The engines could fly in a high fuel burn mode even with the known issues.

Lightsaber

lightsaber wrote:

I never heard of him before.
Lightsaber

He was our fellow a.netter.

Lightsaber was being sarcastic, you know...

Nonetheless in GE press kit GE9X is now to be certificated in 2019... that is a full 12 month year (as many other). No more quarterly timeframe

Let's see
777X is a very very deep overhaul. The same kind of derivative the A330 was to the A310 for Airbus

Aviaponcho wrote:

Let's see
777X is a very very deep overhaul. The same kind of derivative the A330 was to the A310 for Airbus

A300 to A310 would be more fitting.
Brand New Wing, old fuselage. some more stuff towards FF cockpit, some minimalist step towards FBW .

A300/310 to A340/A330 : nothing much stayed the same beyond the fuselage cross section and some "found to be optimal" layout decissions.

777X: an up-scaled 757 with 767 cockpit and now using an up-scaled 787 wing.??

I think that's a little of an underestimate personally.
Yes the fuse is related to its predecessor but it's changed in many ways including all of the interior ,one could say the engine is 'just an upgrade' but it's way more than that in just about every aspect.As for the (folding) carbon wings ,they are really completely breaking new ground.
It will be one hell of an aircraft imho.
Btw question.Is the 330 MLG related to the A300 MLG (or even 310)?I have no idea.

parapente wrote:

I think that's a little of an underestimate personally.
Yes the fuse is related to its predecessor but it's changed in many ways including all of the interior ,one could say the engine is 'just an upgrade' but it's way more than that in just about every aspect.As for the (folding) carbon wings ,they are really completely breaking new ground.
It will be one hell of an aircraft imho.
Btw question.Is the 330 MLG related to the A300 MLG (or even 310)?I have no idea.

Larger windows, sculpted sidewalls. It isn't just a new wing on the same fuselage.

Does anyone know what the weight penalty is for the sculpted sidewalls? I would expect that they have had to add metal to take the stress at a shorter distance from the outer wall. Something like that does not come for free.

StTim wrote:

Larger windows, sculpted sidewalls.

US auto industry: a brand new model every year : we changed the chromium bling

WIederling wrote:

StTim wrote:

Larger windows, sculpted sidewalls.

US auto industry: a brand new model every year : we changed the chromium bling

But what they don't change is the crash structure. The floor plan stays the same for many years and many models across the companies range. This is the key to survivability. They then bolt fancy bits on and change them every year.

When you change the structure as Boeing are doing - it is akin to changing the floor plan. This would usually require new crash testing etc.

parapente wrote:

It will be one hell of an aircraft imho.

To be honest, I don't think so. It has a later engine than the A350 but is substantially heavier for its extra capability. It is also in VLA territory. I don't see it being a disaster but I don't think it'll be anywhere near as successful as its predecessor.

holzmann wrote:

tvarad wrote:

Video of the GE9X test flight has been posted:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UsY5g3iV1rg

Damn, the thing is huge.

It is one of funniest, most disproportionate things I have ever seen in aviation.

A 747 with four of those things on it would be very handy for large loads on a short field airstrip.

mmo wrote:

This is not a new or show stopping issue. The problem has been reported in just about every printed journal which exists. The problem has to do with the lever arms which actuate the variable stator vanes. Apparently, the issue is exceedance loads on the lever. GE also states there is no slippage expected.

http://aviationweek.com/commercial-avia ... cing-delay

Stitch wrote:

Revelation wrote:

Of course, this makes one wonder what that 'new part' is, and why we have one GE-9X flying around with a functioning engine yet they can't make more in time for 777x initial testing.

The issue is with the lever arms that actuate the Variable Stator Vanes that control the airflow through the HPC. GE decided to go to flight test with the original lever arms while they finish work on the new version.

Respectfully, do we know this report is about the VSV lever arm?

I ask because Tim Hepher has done a lot of aviation reporting, and if the issue was one and the same, I would think he would know and I think he would say so.

Or it could be an editor chose to remove the reference to the actual part?

It's strange because AvWeek reports "As this is an external mechanism on the outside of the HPC case" whereas Reuters says the problem is "in its compressor".

And I don't think the issue was being labelled as a show stopper, in fact the article talks about what is being done so it is not a show stopper.

lightsaber wrote:

keesje wrote:

It is always hard to read between the lines. First impression is this is serious.

During the Dreamliner days we had independent John Ostrower, who, after some time, proved to have the most reliable updates and realistic forecasts. In the end everybody was listening to him, ignoring official press releases and John moved up to FG, WSJ and CNN.

John is independent again now so I'll tune there.

https://jonostrower.com

The Dude takes the ARJ-21 seriously?!?

There were far better sources on the initial Dreamliner Potemkin roll out.

The GE9x has an issue. ok.
Did this guy show the RR issues timely? I didn't see any articles on A330NEO delays hurting sales...

I never heard of him before. Everyone knew when we found out Boeing forgot critical wing box dimensions in the ICD and Mitsubishi delivered a composite structure 10mm short that the ICDs were botched.

Finding and broadcasting an issue this early allows recovery time.

Did this analyst broadcast the A380 CATIA error? I new about it before it made Aviation Week.

The 777X will thrive. It's engines are far ahead of anything before, so they will fix more issues.

The compressor lever arms was an early find. New compressors are tougher to tune than prior generation. Eh.

The engines could fly in a high fuel burn mode even with the known issues.

Lightsaber

Let's be slightly fair...Jon is not and has never been an analyst. Glorified reporter who got lucky thanks to drip-feeding disgruntled Boeing workers during the initial 787 production in 2008.

And there are far bigger, better and more respected journo's out there than him. Guy Norris at Aviation Week is one that springs to mind.

John Ostrower is known to be pretty reliable and has a good reputation for independent reporting. He broke a lot of the 787's teething troubles back then. I hope he will be at full speed again soon.

Revelation wrote:

mmo wrote:

This is not a new or show stopping issue. The problem has been reported in just about every printed journal which exists. The problem has to do with the lever arms which actuate the variable stator vanes. Apparently, the issue is exceedance loads on the lever. GE also states there is no slippage expected.

http://aviationweek.com/commercial-avia ... cing-delay

Stitch wrote:

Revelation wrote:

Of course, this makes one wonder what that 'new part' is, and why we have one GE-9X flying around with a functioning engine yet they can't make more in time for 777x initial testing.

The issue is with the lever arms that actuate the Variable Stator Vanes that control the airflow through the HPC. GE decided to go to flight test with the original lever arms while they finish work on the new version.

Respectfully, do we know this report is about the VSV lever arm?

I ask because Tim Hepher has done a lot of aviation reporting, and if the issue was one and the same, I would think he would know and I think he would say so.

Or it could be an editor chose to remove the reference to the actual part?

It's strange because AvWeek reports "As this is an external mechanism on the outside of the HPC case" whereas Reuters says the problem is "in its compressor".

And I don't think the issue was being labelled as a show stopper, in fact the article talks about what is being done so it is not a show stopper.

No, but I would take an AV report over a Reuters report. There have been no other hints, leaks or any other rumblings about the engine since the revelation of the VSV problem.

lightsaber wrote:

Did this analyst broadcast the A380 CATIA error? I new about it before it made Aviation Week.

I am not sure if he had already left school when that happened...

mmo wrote:

Revelation wrote:

mmo wrote:

This is not a new or show stopping issue. The problem has been reported in just about every printed journal which exists. The problem has to do with the lever arms which actuate the variable stator vanes. Apparently, the issue is exceedance loads on the lever. GE also states there is no slippage expected.

http://aviationweek.com/commercial-avia ... cing-delay

Stitch wrote:

The issue is with the lever arms that actuate the Variable Stator Vanes that control the airflow through the HPC. GE decided to go to flight test with the original lever arms while they finish work on the new version.

Respectfully, do we know this report is about the VSV lever arm?

I ask because Tim Hepher has done a lot of aviation reporting, and if the issue was one and the same, I would think he would know and I think he would say so.

Or it could be an editor chose to remove the reference to the actual part?

It's strange because AvWeek reports "As this is an external mechanism on the outside of the HPC case" whereas Reuters says the problem is "in its compressor".

And I don't think the issue was being labelled as a show stopper, in fact the article talks about what is being done so it is not a show stopper.

No, but I would take an AV report over a Reuters report. There have been no other hints, leaks or any other rumblings about the engine since the revelation of the VSV problem.

Well Guy Norris is a nice, lnowledgeable guy. But he has always been willing to give his Boeing friends the benefit of the doubt.
https://pictures.abebooks.com/isbn/9780975234129-us.jpg

keesje wrote:

mmo wrote:

Revelation wrote:

Respectfully, do we know this report is about the VSV lever arm?

I ask because Tim Hepher has done a lot of aviation reporting, and if the issue was one and the same, I would think he would know and I think he would say so.

Or it could be an editor chose to remove the reference to the actual part?

It's strange because AvWeek reports "As this is an external mechanism on the outside of the HPC case" whereas Reuters says the problem is "in its compressor".

And I don't think the issue was being labelled as a show stopper, in fact the article talks about what is being done so it is not a show stopper.

No, but I would take an AV report over a Reuters report. There have been no other hints, leaks or any other rumblings about the engine since the revelation of the VSV problem.

Well Guy Norris is a nice, lnowledgeable guy. But he has always been willing to give his Boeing friends the benefit of the doubt.
https://pictures.abebooks.com/isbn/9780975234129-us.jpg

Let's be fair, Guy Norris is a pro who has built up a relationship over many years and that's why he is respected.

Ask anyone in media relations and Jon is vilified because of his antics with insubordinate machinist staff that fed him proprietary information.

That's why Norris has the inside track on GE activity around 777X and Mr Blogger-Be-Journonobody doesn't.

Noshow wrote:

John Ostrower is known to be pretty reliable and has a good reputation for independent reporting. He broke a lot of the 787's teething troubles back then. I hope he will be at full speed again soon.

Er, not really.

He was fed information via clandestine machinists observations etc while on the factory floor. He regurgitated that. That's not 'breading' news. It's like trawling the trash for a piece of gold.

Without being spoon-fed, Jon reports nothing at all. He is a fraud. Much like that social blogger Alex Macheras who 'thinks' he is an analyst but clearly is on the payroll of Airbus' UK PR company. He has never ever even worked for an airline or in the industry. Just look at his pathetic Linked In page. He has just three months 'work experience', none of which is aviation!!! LMAó

Nor has he ever commissioned any analytical reports, yet he 'thinks" he is an analyst!!??!!

People like that fool no one. They are both frauds.

Anyway, 777X - let's see if the engine issue at GE causes a project delay for Boeing and emirates...

I don't share your judgement. Ostrower is certainly not anti Boeing in any way. I think we need more open minded guys like him not less. No need to be an "analyst" by your definition. Nobody can know everyhting but he certainly understands the industry. BTW: I like Guy Norris reporting too.

FrenchPotatoEye wrote:

keesje wrote:

mmo wrote:

No, but I would take an AV report over a Reuters report. There have been no other hints, leaks or any other rumblings about the engine since the revelation of the VSV problem.

Well Guy Norris is a nice, lnowledgeable guy. But he has always been willing to give his Boeing friends the benefit of the doubt.
https://pictures.abebooks.com/isbn/9780975234129-us.jpg

Let's be fair, Guy Norris is a pro who has built up a relationship over many years and that's why he is respected.

Ask anyone in media relations and Jon is vilified because of his antics with insubordinate machinist staff that fed him proprietary information.

That's why Norris has the inside track on GE activity around 777X and Mr Blogger-Be-Journonobody doesn't.

Noshow wrote:

John Ostrower is known to be pretty reliable and has a good reputation for independent reporting. He broke a lot of the 787's teething troubles back then. I hope he will be at full speed again soon.

Er, not really.

He was fed information via clandestine machinists observations etc while on the factory floor. He regurgitated that. That's not 'breading' news. It's like trawling the trash for a piece of gold.

Without being spoon-fed, Jon reports nothing at all. He is a fraud. Much like that social blogger Alex Macheras who 'thinks' he is an analyst but clearly is on the payroll of Airbus' UK PR company. He has never ever even worked for an airline or in the industry. Just look at his pathetic Linked In page. He has just three months 'work experience', none of which is aviation!!! LMAó

Nor has he ever commissioned any analytical reports, yet he 'thinks" he is an analyst!!??!!

People like that fool no one. They are both frauds.

Anyway, 777X - let's see if the engine issue at GE causes a project delay for Boeing and emirates...

All analysts and journalists are being fed proprietary information, including Guy Norris. You don’t like a journalist because you don’t like/respect some of his sources. That is a weird reason to dismiss a journalist if what he is reporting is actually true.

Of course it does influence the analysts/journalist views on the companies, and some are clearly more bias than others (or at least worse at hiding their bias).

N14AZ wrote:

lightsaber wrote:

Did this analyst broadcast the A380 CATIA error? I new about it before it made Aviation Week.

I am not sure if he had already left school when that happened...

early twenties around the 787 roll out? i.e. born after 1980 ??

Revelation wrote:

Respectfully, do we know this report is about the VSV lever arm?

Yes - it has been mentioned in plenty of reports over the past few weeks, including those regarding the flight test of the GE9X.

Revelation wrote:

I ask because Tim Hepher has done a lot of aviation reporting, and if the issue was one and the same, I would think he would know and I think he would say so. Or it could be an editor chose to remove the reference to the actual part?

Probably the latter.

Revelation wrote:

It's strange because AvWeek reports "As this is an external mechanism on the outside of the HPC case" whereas Reuters says the problem is "in its compressor".

The VSVs are inside the HPC and the lever actuators are outside so...

If there was a problem with the HPC itself, the engine would not be flying.