Bombardier CSeries Test Aircraft Grounded

[YYZSaabGuy]

Engine fire and apparently damage to the airframe as well - obviously not great news and likely further delays to the test program and EIS.
Will be interesting to learn what led to a catastrophic failure 4,000 hours into the engine test program.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-05-3 ... sting.html

[plhought]

Bummer.

Better now then later I suppose.

[Gino Under]

It would be fairly straight forward if Bombardier had claimed to have had an engine fire or engine failure with one of the aircraft's engines. But, they didn't. They admitted they had an incident, not a failure. I'm thinking there's probably a good reason behind their choice of words, therefore the difference.
Also, the Bombardier press release made no mention of fire or fire damage to any part of their aircraft. Probably because there wasn't. I can't imagine at this stage they'd chance getting caught in a lie with what's at stake.

Whatever happened, credibility will be gained by having the authorities investigate. So they're wise to keep their comments brief for now. Whatever the investigators find will likely be received with less scepticism than if it came from Bombardier or Pratt anyway.

In my estimation this was a non-event event.

http://cseries.com/bombardier-confirms- ... -aircraft/

I wonder what the headlines would read if they burst a tire during rejected takeoff trials to measure stopping distances? I can guarantee you one thing, the press will sensationalize it at all costs.

Gino Under

[Crusty]

I read about this on flightglobal yesterday. I liked the ad in the sidebar.

[Gino Under]

So, it was the TSB that used the term "engine failure". Traditionally engine failures have been called engine failures, not incidents.
I'd imagine Bombardier maintenance personnel know the difference between an engine failure, an IFSD, or precautionary shutdown due to other considerations.

We'll see where this "incident" eventually fits. I'm sure.

Gino

[pelmet]

In my estimation this was a non-event event.

In my estimation, this has the potential to be a very big event. I have been worried for a long time that the engine with its new type of design with a reduction gearbox could cause big problems. We are talking about the certification process and if it turns out to be a reduction gearbox problem, it could be bad news. if it is just a manufacturing defect, then that will be good news that can be corrected reasonably easily.

The other thing that worries me is the fly by wire system. You may remember an entire year long delay to the CRJ-1000 due to a fly by wire fix required for just the rudder.

Anyways, lets hope for the best but an uncontained failure is bad news.

I have heard that P&W has the future of the company on the line with this engine.

[xsbank]

It blew on the ground. I thought of flaming engine failures and Maydays and the local fire department getting all excited and having to try and find Mirabel. It failed, replace on warranty, carry on. It's close to plant shutdown so the maintenance guys get some time off. Meh.

[pelmet]

It blew on the ground. It failed, replace on warranty, carry on.

As if that makes a difference

[Pop n Fresh]

Let's all dump on this program in the hopes of it getting canceled, bombardier going broke or at least causing the final product to costmore.

Then airbus can make more of their competing units instead of us. Oh Canada.

[SheriffPatGarrett]

In my estimation this was a non-event event.

In August 2010, a Rolls-Royce Holdings Plc Trent 1000 engine for the Boeing 787 Dreamliner suffered a blowout on a testbed in the U.K.
Three months later, a Trent 900 model exploded on an Airbus A380 flown by Qantas Airways Ltd.

an engine on the CSeries caught fire during ground tests

Listening to CBC/Radio-Canada, there was a huge flight emergency and they barely made it alive...
These clowns' dishonesty is truly epic.
Remember the Airbus' engine blow out was during line flight with a full load of PAYING passengers!
But according to the MSM, hardly anything happened, just like when a jihadi murder a bunch of people
inside a US military base...

[xsbank]

Sorry Pelmet, engines are just machines and they fail from time to time. Ever practice a V1 cut in the sim? The first GE engine failure on an RJ was at 4000 hours. That engine was not a new model and oops, it quit. In fact, it blew the entire low-speed turbine and the tailpipe off the back.

[SheriffPatGarrett]

Cant beat the Pratt JT3D...
As we cleaned up by 500feet at night in Miami, the tower called and said "Big A, you gave quite a show, like firework going out of your no4!
I'll have to close the runway and send the equipment to clean up...You sure you're OK? Cant be!"

I told him everything looked OK on no4...It did for another second, then BOOM! It felt like we hit a moose with that engine,
and all dials went to zero...So, for a good thirty seconds, it seem like that engine operated as a ramjet for a little while!
Yup! all turbine blades had been shaved off!

[pelmet]

Sorry Pelmet, engines are just machines and they fail from time to time. Ever practice a V1 cut in the sim? The first GE engine failure on an RJ was at 4000 hours. That engine was not a new model and oops, it quit. In fact, it blew the entire low-speed turbine and the tailpipe off the back.

I guess we'll have to wait and see. And I hope you are correct.

As we cleaned up by 500feet at night in Miami, the tower called and said "Big A, you gave quite a show, like firework going out of your no4!

Have you been called Big A frequently in your aviation career. Just had to say it.

[teacher]

So what's the difference between a geared turbofan reduction gear box and a turboprop one? Turboprop gear boxes seem to last pretty well. I'm assuming size and shear amount of force being exerted on the machinery but still, wouldn't the concept be about the same?

Edited to add this link:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-o ... e18942878/

[pelmet]

Sorry Pelmet, engines are just machines and they fail from time to time. Ever practice a V1 cut in the sim? The first GE engine failure on an RJ was at 4000 hours. That engine was not a new model and oops, it quit. In fact, it blew the entire low-speed turbine and the tailpipe off the back.

http://aviationweek.com/commercial-avia ... gine-event
"Bombardier emphasized that the failure was unrelated to the gearbox, and also suggested that a manufacturing defect (rather than a design flaw) may have been the cause."

This is what I had been concerned about, a gearbox failure. Fortunately, it appears that this was not the fault, otherwise, a gearbox design flaw could mean big problems.

[cgzro]

Presumably this affects other aircraft planning to use this engine not just Bombardier ?

[pelmet]

In my estimation this was a non-event event.

In my estimation, this has the potential to be a very big event. I have been worried for a long time that the engine with its new type of design with a reduction gearbox could cause big problems. We are talking about the certification process and if it turns out to be a reduction gearbox problem, it could be bad news. if it is just a manufacturing defect, then that will be good news that can be corrected reasonably easily.

The other thing that worries me is the fly by wire system. You may remember an entire year long delay to the CRJ-1000 due to a fly by wire fix required for just the rudder.

Anyways, lets hope for the best but an uncontained failure is bad news.

I have heard that P&W has the future of the company on the line with this engine.

Sorry Pelmet, engines are just machines and they fail from time to time. Ever practice a V1 cut in the sim? The first GE engine failure on an RJ was at 4000 hours. That engine was not a new model and oops, it quit. In fact, it blew the entire low-speed turbine and the tailpipe off the back.

So....near 3 months later and what's the word? May not be the gearbox but it is not just a simple thing either. A three month delay is already a big event.

[Mig29]

Anyone has any updates on the situation, I would really like to see Bombardier succeed with its CSeries program?

Cheers

[Gino Under]

It seems Bombardier are questioning P&Ws "fix". Sounds like their may be a disagreement between the partners as to how best to proceed with repair, based on press reports.
The importance of and significance of restoring the flight testing of not only the aircraft but especially this GTF engine can't be understated. They should be taking the time necessary to get it fixed.
Once it is resolved the C series is likely to be certified (later than planned) and be an even greater success than their RJ.
This is going to be an excellent aircraft. Especially for pilots.

Gino

[cyeg66]

^I'm just curious, are you being serious, Gino? When allllll the bugs are figured out, I have no doubt it may a really nice little a/c, but you're prepared to claim it'll be more successful than the RJ? That's quite the statement, my friend. (Though part of me hopes you're right, she's a looker).

[midwingcrisis]

Bombardier replaces CSeries marketing executive

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articl ... ve-402849/

[xchox]

@#$! it... Just start up the 728 program. Had more confirmed orders and were already at Taxi Trials before they closed shop.



Shit, there is even talks of restarting the F100 program:



Or just airlines can just buy existing proven designs:






IMO The C-Series is a permanent up-hill battle till at the very least 300 deliveries completed!

[Gino Under]

cyeg66

Seriously. I can see it being be a bigger success than the CRJ (personal opinion). If this GTF issue ever gets resolved.
Allllllll the bugs? Like?
(We might ask why it's taking so long to get back in the air? But, I suspect we'd have to ask Pratt, not Bombardier).
I keep reminding people that the CRJ (when it got certified) only had 12 FIRM orders. The CSeries isn't a regional jet, it hasn't been certified yet, but it already has around 200 plus firm orders. That's way more than the B-737 had when it was certified at a time when Jet A was pennies on the dollar.

But, you never know. Airline management generally know very little about buying aircraft and could easily be influenced more by media and industry analysts than by listening to their own fleet planners. That may be a stretch but, I'm sceptical when it comes to airline management.
The CSeries could well be the aircraft for unionized legacy carriers to use against the LCCs.

As for any comparison with the 170-190... Great aeroplanes but smaller flight deck compared to the C and just not as nice as the wide body CSeries. Plus, the passenger cabin is much roomier than the Embraer with larger overhead bins (visit Bombardier's cabin mockup if you get a chance). Far more passenger appeal IMHO.
Did I mention the bicycle handlebars? Well, the side stick controller doesn't dig into your knee when banking left or right.

Gino Under