User avatar
KarelXWB
Crew
Topic Author
Posts: 25155
Joined: Sun Jul 15, 2012 6:13 pm

PW1100G Combustion Chamber Failure

Wed Mar 01, 2017 9:30 pm

In addition the the bearing failures, the current PW1100G combustion chamber needs to be improved as it cannot withstand coastal environments. An improved combustion chamber will be available from September 2017.

Image
https://twitter.com/shukla_tarun/status ... 2811397120
What we leave behind is not as important as how we've lived.
 
User avatar
DocLightning
Posts: 20564
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 8:51 am

Re: PW1100G Combustion Chamber Failure

Wed Mar 01, 2017 9:51 pm

I don't get it. First the casing, then the bearings, now the combustion chamber. It's as if PW is new at this, but they're NOT new at this. It's as if they put all their resources into designing the gearbox and then totally forget about everything else.

I know that some teething problems with a new engine are pretty common. The GEnX had the whole icing issue, for example, but isn't this a bit excessive?
-Doc Lightning-

"The sky calls to us. If we do not destroy ourselves, we will one day venture to the stars."
-Carl Sagan
 
USAFRetired2012
Posts: 13
Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2017 9:07 pm

Re: PW1100G Combustion Chamber Failure

Wed Mar 01, 2017 11:12 pm

I hope that's not proprietary P&W Information.....
 
LH707330
Posts: 1744
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2012 11:27 pm

Re: PW1100G Combustion Chamber Failure

Thu Mar 02, 2017 5:58 am

^Well, at this point it's public....

It seems PW has been having issues with product launches for a while. The 6000 and 4098 were not very strong launches, at least the 1100G seems to be fixable without major interventions.
 
User avatar
KarelXWB
Crew
Topic Author
Posts: 25155
Joined: Sun Jul 15, 2012 6:13 pm

Re: PW1100G Combustion Chamber Failure

Thu Mar 02, 2017 11:43 am

LH707330 wrote:
at least the 1100G seems to be fixable without major interventions.


Indeed. Some parts are failing much earlier then expected, requiring P&W to develop stronger components. Luckily not a design flaw, just a material issue.
What we leave behind is not as important as how we've lived.
 
StereoTechque
Posts: 136
Joined: Sat Nov 28, 2015 7:24 am

Re: PW1100G Combustion Chamber Failure

Fri Mar 03, 2017 3:54 am

KarelXWB wrote:
LH707330 wrote:
at least the 1100G seems to be fixable without major interventions.


Indeed. Some parts are failing much earlier then expected, requiring P&W to develop stronger components.

The Fan Exit vanes on the GTF also has very less impact resistance and is prone to fracture in case of FOD impact. Cons of making an engine highly fuel efficient.
Looking California.. Feeling Minnesota.... R. I.P. Chris Cornell...
 
User avatar
AirlineCritic
Posts: 1247
Joined: Sat Mar 14, 2009 1:07 pm

Re: PW1100G Combustion Chamber Failure

Fri Mar 03, 2017 6:41 am

Ouch.

The numbers seems large to me, but what do I know. Out of how many engines in use is this?
 
User avatar
moo
Posts: 4541
Joined: Sun May 13, 2007 2:27 am

Re: PW1100G Combustion Chamber Failure

Fri Mar 03, 2017 9:53 am

AirlineCritic wrote:
Ouch.

The numbers seems large to me, but what do I know. Out of how many engines in use is this?


70 aircraft have been delivered, so.... 140 engines. A little less than a third of engines in use.
 
User avatar
AirlineCritic
Posts: 1247
Joined: Sat Mar 14, 2009 1:07 pm

Re: PW1100G Combustion Chamber Failure

Fri Mar 03, 2017 10:55 am

That does seem high. Bad.
 
StTim
Posts: 2444
Joined: Thu Aug 08, 2013 7:39 am

Re: PW1100G Combustion Chamber Failure

Fri Mar 03, 2017 1:42 pm

I saw somewhere a breakdown of failures of the two neo engine types. The GTF was slightly higher than the LEAP at this point. That may be due to many factors - such as they have flown more flights to they are having more issues.

Overall the LEAP is pushing the standard boundaries far more than the GTF.

The key question for both is how quickly can they resolve these items and bring the rates under control.
 
StereoTechque
Posts: 136
Joined: Sat Nov 28, 2015 7:24 am

Re: PW1100G Combustion Chamber Failure

Fri Mar 03, 2017 2:36 pm

StTim wrote:

Overall the LEAP is pushing the standard boundaries far more than the GTF.
.

GTF has introduced lot of new technologies on this engine. Hence so many teething issues.

LEAP is relatively simpler. However it uses advanced ceramics in the core to withstand heat effects which is appreciably higher than the competition. Let's hope it does not give any issues in the long run..

As far as fuel efficiency is concerned, the GTF is leading..
Looking California.. Feeling Minnesota.... R. I.P. Chris Cornell...
 
Sancho99504
Posts: 387
Joined: Sun Dec 11, 2005 2:44 pm

Re: PW1100G Combustion Chamber Failure

Sat Mar 04, 2017 6:43 pm

Out of curiousity, what changed between the test engines and production engines? I don't recall seeing anything like this with the test engines. I mean, I know they had some issues, but of this magnitude?
kill 'em all and let God sort 'em out-USMC
 
LH707330
Posts: 1744
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2012 11:27 pm

Re: PW1100G Combustion Chamber Failure

Sat Mar 04, 2017 7:54 pm

StereoTechque wrote:
StTim wrote:

Overall the LEAP is pushing the standard boundaries far more than the GTF.
.

GTF has introduced lot of new technologies on this engine. Hence so many teething issues.

LEAP is relatively simpler. However it uses advanced ceramics in the core to withstand heat effects which is appreciably higher than the competition. Let's hope it does not give any issues in the long run..

As far as fuel efficiency is concerned, the GTF is leading..

Just curious, do you have a source that compares the burn for the two?
 
User avatar
QuarkFly
Posts: 161
Joined: Mon Aug 15, 2016 4:20 pm

Re: PW1100G Combustion Chamber Failure

Thu Mar 09, 2017 2:45 pm

What is the legacy of the PW1100 -- not including the gearbox?... Is it a PW6000 derived core behind the gearbox or IAE 2500 -- or a clean sheet, which would explain some of the teething? The LP turbine will spin faster to drive the gearbox...perhaps that explains the bearing issues, maybe not?

Rotor bow, combustors, bearings, etc...certification testing should have picked up these issues before EIS !!
Always take the Red Eye if possible
 
StereoTechque
Posts: 136
Joined: Sat Nov 28, 2015 7:24 am

Re: PW1100G Combustion Chamber Failure

Thu Mar 09, 2017 4:39 pm

QuarkFly wrote:
What is the legacy of the PW1100 -- not including the gearbox?...

I don't think it is derived from any engine of PW. It is clean sheet designed to replace the IAE and having the same partners MTU and JAEC. RR is no more with IAE.
Looking California.. Feeling Minnesota.... R. I.P. Chris Cornell...
 
User avatar
LAX772LR
Posts: 9215
Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2014 11:06 pm

Re: PW1100G Combustion Chamber Failure

Sun Mar 12, 2017 8:56 am

DocLightning wrote:
I don't get it. First the casing, then the bearings, now the combustion chamber. It's as if PW is new at this, but they're NOT new at this.

That, and quite publicly screwing up on so many engines (PW4098, PW4090, PW4173, etc) over so many models (777, A330, A318, etc).... I'm almost shocked that commercial mainline engine sourcing hasn't become a duopoly between GE and RR.

Then again, so far as widebodies are concerned: it essentially has.
I myself, suspect a more prosaic motive... ~Thranduil
 
User avatar
767333ER
Posts: 620
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 5:14 am

Re: PW1100G Combustion Chamber Failure

Sun Mar 12, 2017 3:17 pm

LAX772LR wrote:
DocLightning wrote:
I don't get it. First the casing, then the bearings, now the combustion chamber. It's as if PW is new at this, but they're NOT new at this.

That, and quite publicly screwing up on so many engines (PW4098, PW4090, PW4173, etc) over so many models (777, A330, A318, etc).... I'm almost shocked that commercial mainline engine sourcing hasn't become a duopoly between GE and RR.

Then again, so far as widebodies are concerned: it essentially has.

Well as if GE and RR never screwed up a few times. Shame on PW for making another flop of a start on an Airbus plane, what's new, but they are very much alive and there is no reason why they shouldn't be. RR is a little behind the game in terms of technology, GE has often had similar problems to PW see the GE90, GEnx, or the A330's CF6. Besides PW has the most sophisticated engine in the market right now, they are the first to really use some of the technology on a widespread use other than Lycomings little go at it, you can expect some problems. Interestingly enough the smaller PW1500G seems to be having a lot less trouble and just can't get built fast enough.
Been on: 732 733 734 73G 738 752 763 A319 A320 A321 CRJ CR7 CRA/CR9 E145 E175 E190 F28 MD-82 MD-83 C172R C172S P2006T
 
User avatar
LAX772LR
Posts: 9215
Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2014 11:06 pm

Re: PW1100G Combustion Chamber Failure

Sun Mar 12, 2017 6:10 pm

767333ER wrote:
Well as if GE and RR never screwed up a few times.

Not in a row, almost predictably. The repetitive PW4090series screwups were almost inexcusable.
Apparently, Boeing and Airbus feel the same way to some extent, as PW hasn't been put alone on a new widebody since.


767333ER wrote:
GE has often had similar problems to PW see the GE90, GEnx, or the A330's CF6.

Hogwash.

Teething problems are one thing, but tell us the last time that a GE engine was 1) taken completely off the market, after entering service, due to complete inability to salvage within a reasonable cost, or 2) was denied certification at its expectant performance level, due to inability to meet regulatory standards.

I'll wait.
We saw both of the above with the PW4098 and PW4090. GE hasn't done anything remotely approaching THAT level of f#ckup.



767333ER wrote:
Besides PW has the most sophisticated engine in the market right now,

Which doesn't mean squat to the market, if it's not reliably flying and earning money.


767333ER wrote:
they are the first to really use some of the technology on a widespread use other than Lycomings little go at it, you can expect some problems.

You can also expect some blowback... after so many RECENT embarrassments, how many more does it want to sustain?
I myself, suspect a more prosaic motive... ~Thranduil
 
kurtverbose
Posts: 463
Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2014 9:33 pm

Re: PW1100G Combustion Chamber Failure

Sun Mar 12, 2017 10:16 pm

767333ER wrote:
RR is a little behind the game in terms of technology


Errr, based on what precisely?

767333ER wrote:
Interestingly enough the smaller PW1500G seems to be having a lot less trouble and just can't get built fast enough.


Yes, add to the list of PW failings - they have production issues.

'Put your trust in God and Pratt & Whitney' - I don't think so. I did want them to succeedd with the GTF, but they look amateurish at the moment. I can't understand how they're still learning how to make fan blades for an engine that's been in commercial service for over a year?

If I was Airbus or Boeing, or an airline, I would be very wary of dealing with P&W.
 
JoeCanuck
Posts: 4264
Joined: Mon Dec 19, 2005 3:30 am

Re: PW1100G Combustion Chamber Failure

Mon Mar 13, 2017 6:01 pm

kurtverbose wrote:
767333ER wrote:
RR is a little behind the game in terms of technology


Errr, based on what precisely?

767333ER wrote:
Interestingly enough the smaller PW1500G seems to be having a lot less trouble and just can't get built fast enough.


Yes, add to the list of PW failings - they have production issues.

'Put your trust in God and Pratt & Whitney' - I don't think so. I did want them to succeedd with the GTF, but they look amateurish at the moment. I can't understand how they're still learning how to make fan blades for an engine that's been in commercial service for over a year?

If I was Airbus or Boeing, or an airline, I would be very wary of dealing with P&W.


What really baffles me are the problems producing fan blades. These aren't made of the same type of bleeding edge materials needed to deal with the temps and pressures of the core. They are part of the heart of the advantages of the GTF concept, yet seem to be something of an afterthought when it came to actually manufacturing them.

I mean, when was the last time any new jet engine design was held up by the fan blades?

I've been a big fan of the GTF since the outset but I haven't been impressed at all, with Pratt's seemingly half assed efforts to get the things into proper production and service.
What the...?
 
kurtverbose
Posts: 463
Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2014 9:33 pm

Re: PW1100G Combustion Chamber Failure

Mon Mar 13, 2017 6:40 pm

LAX772LR wrote:
Teething problems are one thing, but tell us the last time that a GE engine was 1) taken completely off the market, after entering service, due to complete inability to salvage within a reasonable cost, or 2) was denied certification at its expectant performance level, due to inability to meet regulatory standards.

I'll wait.
We saw both of the above with the PW4098 and PW4090. GE hasn't done anything remotely approaching THAT level of f#ckup.


There's also the PW6000. Staggering to think what they lost on each of those 34 engines delivered. 5 years between first flight and first delivery as they were forced into a redesign to meet performance targets.
 
User avatar
767333ER
Posts: 620
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 5:14 am

Re: PW1100G Combustion Chamber Failure

Tue Mar 14, 2017 5:23 am

kurtverbose wrote:
Errr, based on what precisely?

Their massive reluctance to adopt technology such as a composite fan. They said it couldn't be done, they said that titanium was better, GE proved them wrong.
kurtverbose wrote:
Yes, add to the list of PW failings - they have production issues.

'Put your trust in God and Pratt & Whitney' - I don't think so. I did want them to succeedd with the GTF, but they look amateurish at the moment. I can't understand how they're still learning how to make fan blades for an engine that's been in commercial service for over a year?

If I was Airbus or Boeing, or an airline, I would be very war of dealing with P&W.

It's really not much different than with the planes themselves, often when they are new they have many teething issues and though you can't really compare the PW1000G has done a lot better than the 787 did. It has a future, it will be a great engine once they work out the problems. All manufacturers have had their messes, PW has just seemed to have more. The V2500-A1 wasn't all that great, the CFM56-3 was pretty bad at the start, the GE90 had problems, the RB211 almost killed RR though it's problems we're in the testing stage, the CF34-10E is known to be not that great of an engine, the Trent 900 had such a simple but dangerous problem, the GEnx has had its share of problems, and the LEAP is going through its own issues. It is quite obvious that PW is the worst for this, I am not disputing that, but it isn't exclusively them that has teething issues. The fan mounded versions of the PW1000G are having far less problems than the core mounted PW1100G. Production issues happen, that's reality. No one like that, but again, not brand exclusive.
Been on: 732 733 734 73G 738 752 763 A319 A320 A321 CRJ CR7 CRA/CR9 E145 E175 E190 F28 MD-82 MD-83 C172R C172S P2006T
 
User avatar
speedbored
Posts: 1980
Joined: Fri Jul 19, 2013 5:14 am

Re: PW1100G Combustion Chamber Failure

Tue Mar 14, 2017 9:46 am

767333ER wrote:
kurtverbose wrote:
Errr, based on what precisely?

Their massive reluctance to adopt technology such as a composite fan. They said it couldn't be done, they said that titanium was better, GE proved them wrong.

That's a very interesting view of history.

RR chose not to adopt composite fan technology until recently because their hollow titanium fan blade technology was so far ahead of everyone else that it is only due to the latest advances in composite technology that it can now be bettered.
 
StereoTechque
Posts: 136
Joined: Sat Nov 28, 2015 7:24 am

Re: PW1100G Combustion Chamber Failure

Tue Mar 14, 2017 12:41 pm

The Fan Blades of the GTF are Aluminium-Composite hybrid having Titanium leading edge to reduce erosion like the GE90.
Apart from the Blade leading edge, rest of the blade as well as the Exit Guide Vanes are coated with Polyurethane layer for Erosion resistance. Bad choice as far as the PU coating goes, at it is peeling away pretty fast.
Looking California.. Feeling Minnesota.... R. I.P. Chris Cornell...
 
StereoTechque
Posts: 136
Joined: Sat Nov 28, 2015 7:24 am

Re: PW1100G Combustion Chamber Failure

Tue Mar 14, 2017 12:44 pm

speedbored wrote:
RR chose not to adopt composite fan technology until recently because their hollow titanium fan blade technology was so far ahead of everyone else that it is only due to the latest advances in composite technology that it can now be bettered.

Same is used in IAE Fan blades as well. However it has less impact resistance then conventional blade.
Looking California.. Feeling Minnesota.... R. I.P. Chris Cornell...
 
User avatar
speedbored
Posts: 1980
Joined: Fri Jul 19, 2013 5:14 am

Re: PW1100G Combustion Chamber Failure

Tue Mar 14, 2017 1:24 pm

StereoTechque wrote:
Same is used in IAE Fan blades as well.

Because RR used to be part of IAE.

StereoTechque wrote:
However it has less impact resistance then conventional blade.

And CFRP has less impact resistance than aluminium - does that make CFRP lower tech?

The suggestion that RR is "a little behind the game in terms of technology" is truly ridiculous.
 
kurtverbose
Posts: 463
Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2014 9:33 pm

Re: PW1100G Combustion Chamber Failure

Tue Mar 14, 2017 3:55 pm

speedbored wrote:
The suggestion that RR is "a little behind the game in terms of technology" is truly ridiculous.


As is comparing P&W's serial, programme threatening, lack of delivery with an oil pipe problem on the Trent 900.

Put it this way, if Airbus was launching a plane now, with a single source powerplant, do you think they would seriously consider a bid from P&W? I don't think they would. They'd be looking at Pratt's history and thinking they'd maybe be in the same position Dassault is in now, with a plane ready to fly but no silvercrest engines from Safran. Or where they are with the A400 programme, where they've taken a huge financial hit because of continual engine problems.
 
WIederling
Posts: 4058
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

Re: PW1100G Combustion Chamber Failure

Tue Mar 14, 2017 6:28 pm

speedbored wrote:
... latest advances in composite technology that it can now be bettered.


Another (de)motivator was that RR didn't want to touch hand laying of fan blades.

( slightly OT/ot: what hit P&W to hairball fan blade manufacture for their new engines?
They've spent so much money over quite some time. Why the miserliness and general appearance of unpreparedness?)
Murphy is an optimist
 
kurtverbose
Posts: 463
Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2014 9:33 pm

Re: PW1100G Combustion Chamber Failure

Tue Mar 14, 2017 6:40 pm

WIederling wrote:
Another (de)motivator was that RR didn't want to touch hand laying of fan blades.


They've also consistantly delivered the lightest engines.
 
StereoTechque
Posts: 136
Joined: Sat Nov 28, 2015 7:24 am

Re: PW1100G Combustion Chamber Failure

Tue Mar 14, 2017 7:45 pm

kurtverbose wrote:

They've also consistantly delivered the lightest engines.

Is it because of the Three spool design?
Looking California.. Feeling Minnesota.... R. I.P. Chris Cornell...
 
kurtverbose
Posts: 463
Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2014 9:33 pm

Re: PW1100G Combustion Chamber Failure

Tue Mar 14, 2017 7:59 pm

StereoTechque wrote:
kurtverbose wrote:

They've also consistantly delivered the lightest engines.

Is it because of the Three spool design?


Yes.
 
LH707330
Posts: 1744
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2012 11:27 pm

Re: PW1100G Combustion Chamber Failure

Wed Mar 15, 2017 2:46 am

kurtverbose wrote:
StereoTechque wrote:
kurtverbose wrote:

They've also consistantly delivered the lightest engines.

Is it because of the Three spool design?


Yes.

There's a crossover point though: over 65k the triple-spool is generally lighter, below that it's heavier, e.g. RB211-524G vs PW4056/CF6-80C2 (not sure if that's due to the mixer or the engine).
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 10137
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: PW1100G Combustion Chamber Failure

Wed Mar 15, 2017 10:14 am

It's not the gearbox technology failing though, that's good.

The big question is how these items passed the extensive design and certification testing.

Image
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
Tewks
Posts: 4
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 6:23 am

Re: PW1100G Combustion Chamber Failure

Wed Mar 15, 2017 11:17 am

If you recall both P&W and UTC leaders were essentially fired late 2015 early 2016. Plus they removed a layer of management shortly after that. Is it stretch to think that it might have something to do with current situation? Granted recognition of the issues by the board was a little late but action was taken.
 
User avatar
Faro
Posts: 1583
Joined: Sun Aug 12, 2007 1:08 am

Re: PW1100G Combustion Chamber Failure

Wed Mar 15, 2017 12:21 pm

767333ER wrote:
It's really not much different than with the planes themselves, often when they are new they have many teething issues and though you can't really compare the PW1000G has done a lot better than the 787 did. It has a future, it will be a great engine once they work out the problems. All manufacturers have had their messes, PW has just seemed to have more. The V2500-A1 wasn't all that great, the CFM56-3 was pretty bad at the start, the GE90 had problems, the RB211 almost killed RR though it's problems we're in the testing stage, the CF34-10E is known to be not that great of an engine, the Trent 900 had such a simple but dangerous problem, the GEnx has had its share of problems, and the LEAP is going through its own issues. It is quite obvious that PW is the worst for this, I am not disputing that, but it isn't exclusively them that has teething issues. The fan mounded versions of the PW1000G are having far less problems than the core mounted PW1100G. Production issues happen, that's reality. No one like that, but again, not brand exclusive.



Which leads to a rather interesting side-question: what engine (and not engine variant) has had the least amount of teething troubles on EIS? Who would be the winner on that front? The CF6-50 perhaps?


Faro
The chalice not my son
 
kurtverbose
Posts: 463
Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2014 9:33 pm

Re: PW1100G Combustion Chamber Failure

Wed Mar 15, 2017 12:24 pm

keesje wrote:
The big question is how these items passed the extensive design and certification testing.


It's not just that. Why did they take thousands of orders when they didn't have a process to actually manufacture it?
 
rmilstre
Posts: 17
Joined: Mon Sep 12, 2016 11:42 pm

Re: PW1100G Combustion Chamber Failure

Wed Mar 15, 2017 3:54 pm

kurtverbose wrote:
Why did they take thousands of orders when they didn't have a process to actually manufacture it?


Well, that one's pretty simple: you know you're developing a new engine & you know that you'll need to develop new/advanced manufacturing techniques to deliver it. You've got to put it on the market & secure the orders, or your Board of Directors won't authorize the R&D budget to develop any of it.

From a business perspective, having difficulty delivering to the order book is a problem, but it's a much better problem to have than having a product with no sales in hand.
-Rob
 
Flighty
Posts: 8761
Joined: Thu Apr 05, 2007 3:07 am

Re: PW1100G Combustion Chamber Failure

Wed Mar 15, 2017 3:57 pm

Just as a naïve person (although I understand risk prediction) I don't see what the big deal is. Certain components are failing too soon. So they will be revised. This is a manageable situation so long as PW is able to supply spare parts and spare engines, in order to keep the fleet flying right. It sounds like they will resolve this by end 2017. More development cost to PW, but customer impact should be manageable?.

I think it is way early to count PW out. A perfect launch is not the be-all of a 40 year product.
 
kurtverbose
Posts: 463
Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2014 9:33 pm

Re: PW1100G Combustion Chamber Failure

Wed Mar 15, 2017 7:03 pm

rmilstre wrote:
kurtverbose wrote:
Why did they take thousands of orders when they didn't have a process to actually manufacture it?


Well, that one's pretty simple: you know you're developing a new engine & you know that you'll need to develop new/advanced manufacturing techniques to deliver it. You've got to put it on the market & secure the orders, or your Board of Directors won't authorize the R&D budget to develop any of it.

From a business perspective, having difficulty delivering to the order book is a problem, but it's a much better problem to have than having a product with no sales in hand.
-Rob


Companies at this level bring technologies to a readiness level before incorporating them into an engine, and that includes manufacturing readiness.
 
parapente
Posts: 1869
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2006 10:42 pm

Re: PW1100G Combustion Chamber Failure

Thu Mar 16, 2017 5:47 pm

Since there is a discussion on fan blades.A question.

There has clearly been a revolution over the past 15 years in the shape of blades in every dimension.
To my eye the latest leap fan having the most extreme expression of this development.

What (%) efficiency gains have been made?Is there any more to come in this area?
 
kurtverbose
Posts: 463
Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2014 9:33 pm

Re: PW1100G Combustion Chamber Failure

Thu Mar 16, 2017 7:44 pm

There was talk of a bladed spinner. Don't know what's happened to that?

http://www.ingenia.org.uk/Content/ingenia/issues/issue53/Ruffles.pdf

Rolls-Royce is also experimenting with mounting a bladed spinner in front of the main fan blades in order to boost mass flow. Thus additional gas flow can be captured by the fan, without increasing the load on the fan disk. In essence, more flow is squeezed through a fan of a given diameter. The downside to this would be that the additional bladed spinner will increase overall engine noise.
 
saa913
Posts: 1
Joined: Fri Mar 17, 2017 2:53 am

Re: PW1100G Combustion Chamber Failure

Fri Mar 17, 2017 3:00 am

kurtverbose wrote:
There was talk of a bladed spinner. Don't know what's happened to that?

http://www.ingenia.org.uk/Content/ingenia/issues/issue53/Ruffles.pdf

Rolls-Royce is also experimenting with mounting a bladed spinner in front of the main fan blades in order to boost mass flow. Thus additional gas flow can be captured by the fan, without increasing the load on the fan disk. In essence, more flow is squeezed through a fan of a given diameter. The downside to this would be that the additional bladed spinner will increase overall engine noise.


I'm new to the forum, but I believe that was an IHI concept. I do know that R&R is still looking at it. IHI calls it a zero radius ratio fan.
 
rmilstre
Posts: 17
Joined: Mon Sep 12, 2016 11:42 pm

Re: PW1100G Combustion Chamber Failure

Fri Mar 17, 2017 6:27 am

kurtverbose wrote:
Companies at this level bring technologies to a readiness level before incorporating them into an engine, and that includes manufacturing readiness.


Depends on your definition of "this level". My company, albeit in a different industry, invests billions in R&D with the presumption that the underlying manufacturing technologies will intercept the completion of the design. Usually, but not always, this is a reliable presumption. When the presumption is right, life is very rosy. When its wrong... well, let's just say there are an awful lot of late night meetings with vendors, customers, engineers, and production folks to recover as quickly as possible. I would fully expect Pratt to offer the engine for sale well before the new technologies for the engines have been completed.
-R
 
User avatar
KarelXWB
Crew
Topic Author
Posts: 25155
Joined: Sun Jul 15, 2012 6:13 pm

Re: PW1100G Combustion Chamber Failure

Mon Jun 05, 2017 2:57 pm

A small update regarding the combustion chamber:

Another current PW1100G-JM issue, a combustor “shriek” caused by excessive vibration, has been attributed to issues relating to the regulation of air pressure in the number three bearing seal. Calio explained that it has been solved by new engine control software and an improved carbon air seal.

Pratt & Whitney has incorporated all these fixes in an improved PW1100G-JM combustor designated “CSTARS,” which is now undergoing testing at the company’s System Engineering Development Assembly Engine Center in West Palm Beach. CSTARS is the combustor Pratt &Whitney will use to achieve extended twin engine operations (ETOPS) certification for the PW1100G-JM, which it is targeting for this year’s fourth quarter.


http://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/ ... -fuel-burn
What we leave behind is not as important as how we've lived.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos