When It All Goes Wrong

[Ted]

But they do own Lycoming. Also, putting a IO-360 in front of a C172 is a bit different from integrating two RR turbofans into a 787 system and airframe. Something about what Geezer said bothers me in that, if true, the Boeing guys are simply happy if the engines weigh what they're supposed to weigh, perform the way they're supposed to, etc., and that's the ONLY thing the ENTIRE Boeing company cares about.

Cessna does not own Lycoming. Lycoming and Cessna are both part of Textron but they are separate companies. Also, in the piston world the nacelles are always done by the airframer and never by the engine OEM. In the jet world, it varies. Sometimes the nacelles are done by the engine OEM, sometimes by a 3rd party supplier, and sometimes by the airframer. Whether you have a jet or a piston, nacelles are very important to optimize engine operation. Piston engine OEMs tend to make nacelles that don't do a good job of providing sufficient engine cooling. Limits are not goals.

 

[spiderweb]

Cessna does not own Lycoming. Lycoming and Cessna are both part of Textron but they are separate companies. Also, in the piston world the nacelles are always done by the airframer and never by the engine OEM. In the jet world, it varies. Sometimes the nacelles are done by the engine OEM, sometimes by a 3rd party supplier, and sometimes by the airframer. Whether you have a jet or a piston, nacelles are very important to optimize engine operation. Piston engine OEMs tend to make nacelles that don't do a good job of providing sufficient engine cooling. Limits are not goals.

Thank you for the information. It would seem further to support the notion that it is smart to have at least a few engineers at Boeing who at least know something about engines.

But I still haven't gotten an answer; or perhaps clarification. Is it true the Boeing company are really without a single engineer who knows about engines? If true, this is quite an assertion. Remember: Boeing is one of the largest, if not THE largest aircraft manufacturer in the world. Are we seriously saying that there is no one within the company who could be consulted on regarding integration of engines?

As a reminder for us all, Geezer asserted, "Boeing used to have some really knowledgeable engine guys but they were reassigned or retired years ago." Does this mean 1) what I said, above, or 2) there ARE indeed engine guys there, but they suck?

 

[X3 Skier]

Are we seriously saying that there is no one within the company who could be consulted on regarding integration of engines?

As a reminder for us all, Geezer asserted, "Boeing used to have some really knowledgeable engine guys but they were reassigned or retired years ago." Does this mean 1) what I said, above, or 2) there ARE indeed engine guys there, but they suck?

I'll try one more time. The Propulsion groups at the Airframers, both Commercial and Military, are focused and knowledgeable about installing a package to make the most efficient system. That involves Nacelles, Nozzles, Inlets and other parts outside the engine. They spend essentially zero time worrying about compressor or turbine blades, fuel nozzles, discs and other gizmos that suck, squeeze, burn and blow. I've said this many times and if you interpreted that as meaning they don't do the design of the installation, I have no clue why.

Simply put, if it involves designing the mounting/installation, the Airframers are responsible and very good at it. What they do not do is spend resources to duplicate what the engine guys do to make the engine deliver its promised performance. OTOH, some engine companies maintain a small group to do installation work since some Airframers may want to farm out that business to somebody else it they think it's cheaper.

Cheers

 

[spiderweb]

I'll try one more time. The Propulsion groups at the Airframers, both Commercial and Military, are focused and knowledgeable about installing a package to make the most efficient system. That involves Nacelles, Nozzles, Inlets and other parts outside the engine. They spend essentially zero time worrying about compressor or turbine blades, fuel nozzles, discs and other gizmos that suck, squeeze, burn and blow. I've said this many times and if you interpreted that as meaning they don't do the design of the installation, I have no clue why.

I have interpreted nothing. Rather, I am verifying.

You said--and, these are your own words--""Boeing used to have some really knowledgeable engine guys but they were reassigned or retired years ago." Now, this is either true, or it is false.

I apologize, because I think I am annoying you. But I'm not stupid, and I'm certainly not "interpreting" your assertion that the ENTIRE company is perfectly fine with outsourcing engines, with not a single, sentient human being in the company who knows Jack about them. You were quite clear, and I believe you are telling the truth.

Now, you may feel fine and dandy about that, and that's your choice. But I certainly do not feel OK with that blind trust, and that's MY choice.

 

[X3 Skier]

The engine guys I described that were retired or reassigned were very knowledgeable about the innards of engines, not the installation. They were led by a guy named Magne Arness (not sure about the spelling). The Propulsion Groups no longer have that skill but they are very skilled at designing and getting engines structurally and aerodynamically installed on the airframe.

BTW, its a similar situation for the APU, Radar, ECS, Hydraulic Pumps etc. Airframers are basically structures, plumbing, stability and control, aerodynamics, and a few other disciplines in depth and most of all system integrators.

Another interesting item is the last time a situation that was closely integrated was probably the United Aircraft and Transportation Company back in the early 1930's when Boeing, Pratt & Whitney, Hamilton Standard, others AND several airlines were all in one big holding company. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Aircraft_and_Transport_Corporation

All things considered, the type of technical division of labor existing today has resulted in the best airplanes in the world. You desire a different arrangement and that's fine with me

Cheers

 

[Ted]

The engine guys I described that were retired or reassigned were very knowledgeable about the innards of engines, not the installation. They were led by a guy named Magne Arness (not sure about the spelling). The Propulsion Groups no longer have that skill but they are very skilled at designing and getting engines structurally and aerodynamically installed on the airframe.

BTW, its a similar situation for the APU, Radar, ECS, Hydraulic Pumps etc. Airframers are basically structures, plumbing, stability and control, aerodynamics, and a few other disciplines in depth and most of all system integrators.

Another interesting item is the last time a situation that was closely integrated was probably the United Aircraft and Transportation Company back in the early 1930's when Boeing, Pratt & Whitney, Hamilton Standard, others AND several airlines were all in one big holding company. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Aircraft_and_Transport_Corporation

All things considered, the type of technical division of labor existing today has resulted in the best airplanes in the world. You desire a different arrangement and that's fine with me

Cheers

I'd agree. I'd actually argue that on pistons (at least for legacy air-cooled pistons) it's more important that the airframers know something about engines because of the dynamics of piston engines' power output relative to various parameters. Turbine cooling is more or less handled internally as a matter of design, pistons aren't that way.