R.R. Trent 1000's

[zoomy]

ETOPS reduced from 330 mins to 140 mins.

Surprised no one has picked on this here.
Just returned from The US where this was on the main news feed yet nothing on it over here??
Yet none of the US airlines use R.R. which was a surprise.

Pretty disappointing.

[uncinqsix]

I flew from Haneda to Auckland on Saturday night, and had the pleasure of a 3am fuel stop in Guam thanks to this. Along with the ETOPS reduction, they have also limited max take-off weight (I assume to enable a lower power setting to be used). The climbs out of both Haneda and Guam were leisurely to say the least

[smack]

It affects Package C engines. The Package B and 1000 Ten versions are unaffected, so not every Trent powered 787 has a reduction in ETOPS.

The reduction in ETOPS is due to a harmonic in the intermediate pressure compressor at maximum continual thrust in certain conditions that can result in blade failure, requiring maximum continual thrust in the remaining engine, increasing the likelihood of a second failure.

[captain_cynic]

smack said:

It affects Package C engines. The Package B and 1000 Ten versions are unaffected, so not every Trent powered 787 has a reduction in ETOPS.

The reduction in ETOPS is due to a harmonic in the intermediate pressure compressor at maximum continual thrust in certain conditions that can result in blade failure, requiring maximum continual thrust in the remaining engine, increasing the likelihood of a second failure.

Package C is about 25% of 787's. Not that I mind, dreadful planes to fly on so the more reasons Airlines have not to order them, the better.

[motomk]

ANZ have been using a couple of Hiflys to cover them. I thought the engine mounts had been made so that any suitable engine could be loaded on? Why can't they replace them with non restricted ones?

[djc206]

captain_cynic said:

Package C is about 25% of 787's. Not that I mind, dreadful planes to fly on so the more reasons Airlines have not to order them, the better.

Brilliant aircraft to fly on if you’re not in economy

[uncinqsix]

djc206 said:

Brilliant aircraft to fly on if you’re not in economy

To be fair, pretty much anything is brilliant to fly on if you're not in economy.

[jonnyb]

uncinqsix said:

djc206 said:

Brilliant aircraft to fly on if you’re not in economy

To be fair, pretty much anything is brilliant to fly on if you're not in economy.

I flew on one in economy, and thought it was quite good. For economy.

[Krikkit]

smack said:

It affects Package C engines. The Package B and 1000 Ten versions are unaffected, so not every Trent powered 787 has a reduction in ETOPS.

The reduction in ETOPS is due to a harmonic in the intermediate pressure compressor at maximum continual thrust in certain conditions that can result in blade failure, requiring maximum continual thrust in the remaining engine, increasing the likelihood of a second failure.

Interesting, it sounds like a blade redesign is already underway as well. I can't imagine that'll be cheap to replace though.

[uncinqsix]

jonnyb said:

uncinqsix said:

djc206 said:

Brilliant aircraft to fly on if you’re not in economy

To be fair, pretty much anything is brilliant to fly on if you're not in economy.

I flew on one in economy, and thought it was quite good. For economy.

It's not really much different to a 10-abreast 777, aside from being a bit quieter. Not as good as a 9 abreast 777 or an A380. The problem is that Boeing originally sold the 787 as a comfortable 8 abreast, but made it just wide enough to cram a tight 9 abreast in. Most airlines have gone for the latter.

[captain_cynic]

djc206 said:

captain_cynic said:

Package C is about 25% of 787's. Not that I mind, dreadful planes to fly on so the more reasons Airlines have not to order them, the better.

Brilliant aircraft to fly on if you’re not in economy

So basically you're saying they're terrible to fly on.

[djc206]

captain_cynic said:

djc206 said:

captain_cynic said:

Package C is about 25% of 787's. Not that I mind, dreadful planes to fly on so the more reasons Airlines have not to order them, the better.

Brilliant aircraft to fly on if you’re not in economy

So basically you're saying they're terrible to fly on.

No I’m clearly not. They’re ok in economy, narrow seats but as others have said no different really to a 10 abreast 777 aside from being quieter and having a lower cabin altitude so actually marginally better. In any other class they’re really quite pleasant.