Questo sito web utilizza cookie. Continuando a usare e a navigare su questo sito, accetti l'utilizzo dei cookie.
Chiudi
Sapevi che il tracking dei voli di FlightAware è supportato dalla pubblicità?
Puoi aiutarci a mantenere FlightAware gratuito accettando gli annunci pubblicitari di FlightAware.com. Ci impegniamo per far sì che i nostri annunci siano pertinenti e discreti per offrire la migliore esperienza. Aggiungere gli annunci ammessi su FlightAware è facile e veloce oppure puoi prendere in considerazione i nostri account premium.
Chiudi
Back to Squawk list
  • 34

GE recalls 777X turbofans to address compressor issue amid scramble to minimise 777X delays

Aggiunto
 
GE Aviation is recalling four GE9X powerplants from Boeing to address a previously disclosed engine compressor issue that already forced Boeing to delay the 777X's first flight. (www.flightglobal.com) Altro...

Sort type: [Top] [Newest]


VivPike
Viv Pike 5
This might be a dumb question, I don't know. Maybe somebody out there knows the answer, and can enlighten me.

Reading the article, it say's that "Russia's Volga-Dnepr Airlines, which has applied for rights to fly the engines from Washington state to Ohio.", (using the Antonov An-124 freighter), and "US-based airlines are unable to transport the massive GE9Xs, which ship on a stand measuring roughly 8 x 4 x 4m (26 x 14 x 13ft) and weighing 36,000lb (16,300kg)".

My question. Is Boeings own Dreamlifter BLCF not capable to transport these?
williambaker08
william baker 3
They can carry the GE9X’S engines. The issue is that you would have to take the Dreamlifter out of transporting the 787 parts and that could cause delays building the 787’s.
VivPike
Viv Pike 2
I hear you - and understand your point. Does that mean the Dreamlifters are running close to a 24/7 capacity? We're talking about uplifting 4 engines. How long would that exercise take?
rapidwolve
rapidwolve 2
Remember Dreamlifters fly the world, and picking up 787 wings in Japan, parts in Italy and China, means 1 flies out while another is returning...GE needs those engines pronto to test and rectify the problems. This is the application from December to DOT
https://bloximages.newyork1.vip.townnews.com/postandcourier.com/content/tncms/assets/v3/editorial/8/64/864b9622-fef0-11e8-a23e-5b87866b87aa/5c1282fd2c569.pdf.pdf
williambaker08
william baker 4
Well think about this. Your flying the planes from Japan to the US and then back to get the next load. Im not saying they are flying 24/7 but if you stop to fly four engines back to ge you have to load them which takes time fly time to Ge then put the planes back in service. Depending on were the engines are going which is most likely Cincinnati you have to think from Seattle that is around a 4 hour flight and then 4 hours back plus loading and unloading. That can put that Dreamlifter out of normal service for 10 plus hours. And Thats even if the Dreamlifter can carry all 4 engines at once. Thats a question for Rapidwolve??
williambaker08
william baker 1
Hey Rapidwolve. Isnt the 747F big enough to fly the GE9X engines?? I thought they could fly them that way. Also what about the spot on the 747 left wing for a spare engine. Why aren’t we able to use that? My guess is no mounting bracket for the engine of that size.
rapidwolve
rapidwolve 4
Hey william...no the 47F cargo old is only about 3.15M wide by 3.05M high. That GE9X is almost as big around as a 737 fuselage + the stand it is on. And they could not mount it to the "engine cargo" pylon as it would never fit unless you removed that inboard engine...even the test bed 744 aircraft had to be modded to carry the blasted thing.
williambaker08
william baker 1
Your right there. It is a blasted thing. Worlds biggest Jet engine if im not mistaken. Even then if its not the largest its the worlds largest ever built for a Commercial aircraft lol. I knew they could put some engines in the 47F but i wasnt sure if the nose door was big enough for the plane. And my other thought was then engine cargo pylon with that engine would it even have enough ground clearance. But then again they are flying it ona 47-4 test bed. What did they have to do to mod the test bed anyways?
rapidwolve
rapidwolve 4
GE aircraft engineers used their heads, well after getting them slapped a few times. Notice most all the test flights on the 741 and 744 test beds are port side...they used the wing support, already built in for the 5Th engine carry, and just did a few "extra" mods to the wing...then developed 3 pylons, 2 of which got more heads slapped..lol(u cannot have an engine sitting just 6-8 inches above the ground)even the final pylon only has about 16-18" clearance.
Dang thing looks funny too...You could stuff, fan first, 1 of the CF6's into it and still have room to spare all around
williambaker08
william baker 2
So from what I’m getting is they used the 5 engine attachment and took the number 2 off. I just assumed they swapped the number 2 engine with the Ge9x. Uggggs read the comment and brain get out of bed. There using the wing support inside the engine for the fifth engine that’s not on the starboard side. Duhhh. I feel stupid now lol.
aviatorbeast
https://www.ge.com/reports/how-do-you-test-the-worlds-largest-jet-engine-ges-chief-test-pilot-has-the-answers/
rapidwolve
rapidwolve 3
Thks Andy...was looking for that.
williambaker08
william baker 2
Dang it Flightaware. Make the Links Clickable PLEASE. Thank you.
jbsimms
James Simms 4
Not only that but being able to correct mistakes posting after the fact
williambaker08
william baker 2
Hey now i love seeing peoples mistakes. It wasnt my fault the Cargolux 747-8 turned into a Catholic 747-8. Lol
lynx318
lynx318 2
Chuckle. The Pope has bigger issues than being involved in engine juggling. (Now there's an image)
williambaker08
william baker 2
The Cargolux issue was a cockpit smoke issue lol.
lynx318
lynx318 1
Heh, black or white smoke I guess you're referring to???
williambaker08
william baker 2
No I’m talking actually cockpit smoke. Talk to big flyer he’s the one he noticed it.
williambaker08
william baker 2
Highflyer. Not big flyer
lynx318
lynx318 1
Had the chimney smoke colour Pope vote thing in mind.
williambaker08
william baker 1
Ya i know. I figured that out from the movie Eurotrip lol. Anyways moving on.
airuphere
airuphere 2
They can only ship via Antanov for now.. it seems
bidrec
Richard Haas 2
No domestic carrier in the United States has such a plane.

"It's strictly a function of there being no other equivalent aircraft in the U.S.,"

https://www.cleveland.com/metro/2016/08/russia_has_become_our_uber_for.html
airuphere
airuphere 2
Yup exactly I meant Antanov Airlines not the plane specifically
rapidwolve
rapidwolve 2
Actually it's Volga-Dnepr, through their CargoLogicAir arm, who is doing the GE runs.
airuphere
airuphere 1
Right, who must be contracting Antonov Airlines..? As cargo logic has a fleet of 47’s ..no? Either way.
rapidwolve
rapidwolve 1
No..CargoLogic does the planning etc and if it doesn't fit in their 47's, it calls its pop (Volga-Dnepr)..Pop gets permission to use the AN stateside if it's not a regular run. Volga uses their AN-124's
rapidwolve
rapidwolve 1
Not just that, William, but those Dreamlifters also fly Italy, Spain and China. And as you stated, a Dreamlifter would be out of service, not just 10 hrs but more like a whole day just to move a few engines.
The AN 124 can actually load/unload the engines faster from it's belly to transports, where as Dreamlifter would have to have them craned up into the cargo bay. Volga has a contract with GE, and has moved them before so has a better understanding.
williambaker08
william baker 1
One more question for you rapidwolve. Doesn’t the Dreamlifter have its own loader that they slide the planes onto then lift to the plane or lower to the ground?
rapidwolve
rapidwolve 2
I honestly do not think the "elevator" could handle the sheer weight of a 9X...
williambaker08
william baker 1
From what i can find it looks like the TDL DBL-100 Cargo Loader can handle 33,000 LBS.
williambaker08
william baker 4
But someone out there please correct me. I think that im way low on the weight limit here. Anyways Thank you rapidwolve. This is the flightawere im use to. The talking back and forth in a nice tone discussing aircraft and post instead of the trolls being rude and disrespectful. Thank you again Rapidwolve.
VivPike
Viv Pike 4
I concur with you on that, William. Even though I have not commented much, I have read each of your and Rapidwolve's comments and replies, and - besides me learning much - I have enjoyed the polite communication thus far. Thanks to both for the "education".
williambaker08
william baker 2
We all on here dont know everything there is to know about aircraft. I know for a fact i dont know all of it. Hence why i picked rapidwolve brain. Even then he doesnt know it all( no offence to you rapid). But you know most peopld on this website are aircraft admirer but one thing we have in common is we all learn from each other. It maybe something small but its still learning and supporting the Aviation Community. I wanna thank everybody on here thats into aviation and give my well wishes to all of you. I really really apperciate the kind support and all the learning i have learned from this website. Thank you and may we all have calm blue skies in the future.
rapidwolve
rapidwolve 3
Thks William and Viv...yes it is nice picking brains and not getting trampled..lol
rapidwolve
rapidwolve 2
Ok my memory stinks and I should have remembered the Damn Big Loader 110, designed and built for 787 parts was made in Sherbrooke QC...kept picturing the smaller 85 and 100..the 110 can handle 60 tons BUT GE would still have to crane the engine onto and off Dreamlifter in Ohio & Victorville California.
That and I don't know how much fab work on the loader would need to be made to accomodate an engine...they were built for 787 parts.
williambaker08
william baker 2
Thats true. I wasnt even thinking about the unloading. My bad. I mean its smalled then the 787 fuselage so it should fit but it may need mods. And are you sure its a 110. I looked it up and it was saying it was a 100 loader. Look at the Darn link lol.

https://www.oemoffhighway.com/home/article/10166574/darn-big-loader
williambaker08
william baker 2
I must be tired. That article says its a 110 but other places are saying its a 100. IDK lol. My brain probably went to bed before the rest of my body did. Opps. Walking dead lol.
rapidwolve
rapidwolve 2
Mine was already there...the 100 and 85 are smaller loaders..
https://www.aviationpros.com/home/article/10379518/darn-big-loader
williambaker08
william baker 1
That was the link from my other comment rapid. Lol
williambaker08
william baker 1
Well ya. I just picked Japan as an example lol.
bidrec
Richard Haas 2
"Volga-Dnepr served its application on those U.S. carriers operating large all-cargo aircraft. Each carrier
indicated that it did not have aircraft available to conduct the proposed operations and that it had no comment or did not oppose
grant of the requested authority."

https://www.regulations.gov/contentStreamer?documentId=DOT-OST-2019-0053-0002&attachmentNumber=1&contentType=pdf
jbqwik
jbqwik 2
thanks to rapidwolve and william baker for the extended discussion. good info!
VivPike
Viv Pike 3
What about me !! :-( I started the discussion ! (Only kidding - was good, clean and informative).
jbqwik
jbqwik 2
yes Viv - you go!
DaveIsaacs
David Isaacs 2
That was great!
williambaker08
william baker 1
Now now don’t make me have to give you folks cookies. Lol
jbqwik
jbqwik 2
never met a cookie I didn't like :-]
mbrews
mbrews -6
- While the above 30 comments are Longwinded, the article wasn't about big Dreamlifters nor Airbus Belugas. It was about another huge engine development setback for both Boeing and GE, both of which are financially suffering from 737 MAX grounding and low 737 shipment rates. No deliveries = no cash flow. Now comes delays of unknown duration to 777x program. Big lifter talk ignores the severity of the financial situation & further hit to public confidence
rapidwolve
rapidwolve 4
No one mentioned anything about Beluga's, and it isn't a huge engine setback as the aircraft wasn't even suppose to be flight test ready till 2020..Boeing got ahead of the curve on it, GE did not like the test results on some parts discovered during flight tests and expressed so back earlier. Boeing already knew about the engines but wanted test fits done, then sent them back to GE for the retrofits.
It's better safe than sorry, and the timeline still looks feasable...GE has other engines already retrofitted and is testing, and it may be possible to have 7x flight test started later this year. Nothing was ignored, except here comes someone in to trample on a squawk! There is nothing anyone can do except wait.
williambaker08
william baker 2
I think we set a record here Rapidwolve. It took about 24hrs before a squawk got trampled on. Also did you see me link from simpleflying and the 777x engine and recall antonov??
rapidwolve
rapidwolve 2
Yes...seen it before...Volga has a contract with GE now and a US office, so flights may be easier.
williambaker08
william baker 1
Where the heck is there US office?
VivPike
Viv Pike 2
William - from their website, the following : "Airline’s offices are located in the UK (Volga-Dnepr UK Ltd, Uxbridge/Heathrow), United States (Volga-Dnepr Unique Air Cargo Inc., Houston, TX), Ireland (Volga-Dnepr Airlines Ireland Ltd., Shannon), China (Volga-Dnepr China, Beijing and Shanghai)."
rapidwolve
rapidwolve 2
Thks Viv..beat me to it..lol..also in South Korea, India, Singapore.
williambaker08
william baker 1
Of course its in Houston. Everythinng else is too. Thanks Viv and Rapid.
mbrews
mbrews -2
Nothing to see here people, did someone rudely interrupt the stream of happy talk that would delight the GE PR flacks or fanboys (yes its a double entendre'but it fits so well )
rapidwolve
rapidwolve 2
Oh BS..the only thing that fits is you got schooled...I noticed no retort to your candor about setbacks etc....because there really are non. "Initial flight plans have the Boeing 777x program first test flight in Q1 2020" Boeing got ahead and was hoping earlier!
williambaker08
william baker 2
Schooled it is. The World of Aviation Classroom 101. Now sit down and listen up Mbrews. If you look at all the comments which was 43 when you posted your first comment not 30 not a single comment was down voted. Now your comments are both Downvoted. My europia is messed up and was going so good untill you the troll showed up. Now why dont you go back to your Pre-k classmates and talk about tinker toys or barbie dolls.
mbrews
mbrews -4
- Learn to spell. Is it euphoria that's gone ? You've lost that Antonov feeling ? OR did you mean Europhobia ? I'll get my facts on programs & financial setbacks from financial sources like Wall Street Journal, not here. Loss of euphoria? Wham - did you just put yourself into the pre-K place of hurt feelings? If you did spell europia correctly, maybe a trained doctor can explain why your europia is messed up. Lighten up. the flaming is completely unnecessary, and unbecoming a knowledgeable person.

williambaker08
william baker 1
So i missed an H wow. Lol. And who said i lost ther Antonov feeling??? And three im not hurt with any feelings here. And the only one flaming here is you. Your just flaming because you got schooled by Rapidwolve and i told you to go back to pre-k or club penguin lol. See im smiling here your ways arenʻt huting my feelings at all.
williambaker08
william baker 1
And since you know it all let me ask you this question and if you answer it right ill give you some respect and if not then you can take a hike..

What is the Worlds largest turboprop airplane and when was its first flight??
mbrews
mbrews -1
Likely an Antonov An-22 Antei, first flown 27 February 1965. your operative word is respect. Derived from Latin, meaning to look again, to have a second look. Beyond a possibly mistaken impression. have a good day.

williambaker08
william baker 1
Hey Rapid you wanna be the Judge here. Did he answer the question correctly lol. I know the answer but i want an outside party lol.
rapidwolve
rapidwolve 1
1 1/2 parts..yes AN-22, but first flown Dec 1964 (may have been a short flight, but it was it's first).
And respect is derived from Latin, but the Latin verb respicere which means look back at or regard.
williambaker08
william baker 1
I have to admit rapidwolve you are correct lol. Thank you.
mbrews
mbrews -1
"... parts discovered during flight testing ... But don't say the 777x has never been flight tested, engine only operated on the GE-owned B747. Why in the world would Boeing need quantity four (4) engines merely for fitup testing? Answer : The MBAs , who run the show, likely needed to meet a contracted delivery date to stay within contract. The fleet of Belugas is Airbus' equivalent to Boeings Dreamlifters, to ferry large aircraft about the far-flung sites of Airbus manufacturing. The first ones were derived from Airbus A300, more recent Belugas are derived from A330 (I think), newest have been in flight testing in Europe. I have a selfie I took at Everett with 2 Dreamlifters and one Antonov in the same frame. Probably not too rare?, but it was rare for me :)
williambaker08
william baker 2
You think?? This is your argument. You dont even know the the Belugas are orginally A300-600st and the Newest ones are Airbus A330-743L. And two the engines were not tested on the 777x. They havent had their first flight. Rapidwolve said it they they were test fitting the engines and also testing the systems. Yes the issues were Discovered by Boeing and Ge after the engines were installed and Ge recalled them to fix the issues. And as for the need of 4 engines you dont just flight test one aircraft. You usally have 2-4 aircraft to test different systems on each aircraft. Antonovs are contracted to GE to transport the engines to Boeing and back if needed when needed. Now like i said before MBREWS WHY DONT YOU GO BACK TO CLUB PENGUIN and leave the aviation world up to those who know or want to know.
rapidwolve
rapidwolve 1
Because Boeing has 2 aircraft ready to test, models 7-8..1-6 were mock models.
Your comment is so illogical.""... parts discovered during flight testing ... But don't say the 777x has never been flight tested, engine only operated on the GE-owned B747" Of course they were flight tested on the GE test bed, you don't put a non tested/first run of a new design engine on a non test bed for flight.
Research stuff first! After the MAX fiasco " Overall, Boeing is treating the 777X as a ‘when it’s ready’ project when it comes to deadlines and is taking no chances for this aircraft to have any problems at launch." Lufthansa is launch customer and agrees.
Quirkyfrog
Robert Cowling 2
With all these 'little issues' popping up, how many people are comfortable with the FAA announcing they are looking to 'improve' the certification process.

Rubber stamp, or suicide pact?

Still, I remember being in Everett and watching a test flight take off of a -9. Quite a thrill.
picturetaker
GE too? Man, everybody is having engine issues.
chalet
chalet 2
Can´t believe it, another gross and inadequate decision by GE to RUSHING engines to Boeing without having been FULLY AND RELIABLY TESTED. If it is not GE it is P&W or good ole RR from he UK. They would never learn and will have to pay plenty of greenbacks to the affected airlines as penalties. When will the FAA, NTSB and DoD step in and bury the engine makers with fines of their own.
rapidwolve
rapidwolve 6
They were tested, and before they even got to an aircraft, GE decided against installs. It's a brand new engine and quirks do come up. Better safe than sorry...Boeing took delivery of the engines to fit them and make sure systems worked, then sent them back to GE, on GE's dime, to get the retrofits done. Boeing already knew GE wasn't happy, so nothing gross or inadequate at all.
chalet
chalet 0
Or more aptly GE knew that Boeing was not happy, and the Customer Airlines were fuming at both.
rapidwolve
rapidwolve 4
No..no customer airlines are fuming. Lufthansa is launch customer and understands when Boeing stipulated " " Overall, Boeing is treating the 777X as a ‘when it’s ready’ project when it comes to deadlines and is taking no chances for this aircraft to have any problems at launch." GE made the point they did not like the test results, Boeing concurred but still wanted the engines to "run up" on models 7-8..once done, they were removed and GE had them picked up and taken back to Ohio for retrofitting. What is not being stipulatted is that GE already has engines that have had the retrofit done and are testing those, so a great chance Boeing may still get flight testing 7 and 8 this year.
williambaker08
william baker 1
https://simpleflying.com/boeing-777x-engine-recall-antonov/
williambaker08
william baker 1
Check this link out Rapidwolve LOL ^^^^^^
yozzause
DEREK HUGHES 0
Couldn't they piggy back mount on the 747 like the space shuttle, those planes could be spare at the moment anyway, and they wouldnt need to worry about ground clearance either.
lynx318
lynx318 2
Both shuttle carriers are now decommissioned museum pieces (N911NA retired on February 8, 2012 and N905NA Sept 2012 if I read it right), the amount of procedure to get them flying would be costly and time consuming. Also the planes were specially modified & reinforced with mounts to carry the shuttle with weight distribution in mind. Same mounts would be incorrectly placed to transport the engines. Again time and money problem to change, time for which there isn't enough to spare.
rapidwolve
rapidwolve 1
More time and money...they would need to design an actual container to hold the engine so it could be aerodynamic and allow the engine to withstand pressures exerted in a non run state. Another point, it would only be 1 engine at a time.
lynx318
lynx318 1
Yep, only 1 at a time. Not sure what happens with a 5th eng under wing carry to make them aerodynamic?
rapidwolve
rapidwolve 1
Under wing does not stick out like a sore thumb with no airfoil over it, and under wing are left neutral so the fan turns and allows some passage.
Remember that Swiss Air triple 7, with port engine failure, that landed in Nunavut back in 2017. It too had an AN-124 deliver an engine from Zurich
williambaker08
william baker 1
I dont remember that diversion there Rapin. Do you have a flight number or anything so i can look it up. Thanks.
rapidwolve
rapidwolve 1
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/north/swiss-air-777-engine-repair-iqaluit-airport-1.3970708
And it was bloody cold!
williambaker08
william baker 1
Well ya your in the Artic what do you think its going to be. 85 degrees lol. Thank you btw.
rapidwolve
rapidwolve 1
Tell that to the engine...WTHeck couldn't it have shut down off the UK coast..at least Heathrow would be warmer in daytime..lol
williambaker08
william baker 1
That engine was comfortable running a fever untill it shut down. Like most things it was having a bad day and said it needed a vacation and mis judged the ground below. Lol.

Accedi

Non hai un account? Registrati adesso (è gratis) per usufruire di funzioni personalizzate, allarmi voli e molto altro!