Absolutely. RR , P&W, and GE are all in similar situations. The RR XWB is a nice engine. My point was not just getting back to more "flying testbed" cycles, but Materials Technology" in the NEO developments. IMO, the Trent 1000, 9X, and Pratt's GTF were hung under wings too early. I'm not a fan of revenue flights being used as testbeds.
I'm somewhat familiar with the V2500. IMO, it was different than todays issues relating to a lack of progress in Coatings Development, and issues with Metallurgy Development. IMO, I see the V2500 as more of an Engineering Challenge having RR, P&W, JAEC, MTU, and Fiat Avio all having their hands in the cookie jar at the same time. No question adding extra blades to the RC34B HP Compressor was a challenge. I'm just of the opinion it was more getting Teams on the same page than putting rushed designs into service with not ready for prime time component composition.
Thanks for the post. Would have loved to be in your position.
Re, "I'm just of the opinion it was more getting Teams on the same page".
I can't speak for the early design stages, but working with the five (hence the 'V' in 2500) party companies of the consortium was unbelievably smooth, and I can't recall any noteworthy difficulties in the working relationships, apart from the significant time differences between Derby UK, Connecticut USA, and Japan. Less so between France, Germany and Italy.
Prior to E.I.S., difficulties were being encountered with HPC bleed valves. Relatively easy enough to change out, but the added problem was..... which one? There were four (3 on the HPC7 stage, and one HPC10) but with no mechanical indication of whether the valves were stuck in the open or closed position - the latter position inevitably leading to a failed engine start. The problem was rapidly understood to be contamination from minute particles of the HPC abrasive lining.
Several modifications were introduced to the bleed valves, with questionable success, but failed to cure the problem. I recall in a meeting one day that a young, very bright Airbus engineer suggested to the engine manufacturer as an interim measure to redesign the bleed valve; to introduce a mechanical indication to show either a closed or open position of the valve, which obviously wouldn't cure the base problem, but would certainly facilitate maintenance and immediately alert ground staff to which of the 4 valves was sticking, ensuring a more rapid replacement. This idea was turned down by more mature, 'experienced' engineeers, to which the young engineer humbly suggested that non-compliance with his suggestion would lead to major problems - not the least being delays and flight cancellations once the aircraft went into service. And my goodness, didn't that young engineer's prophecy come true with a vengeance!
Multiple delays and flight cancellations were recorded over the following years for that same issue.
I assisted with the first A320-231 deliveries to Adria Airways in 1989. Some 8 years later I was requested to assist a new A320-231 operator in the middle east. I attended the delivery flight departure of the new aircraft, but was unable to be on-site the following day for the Airline's inaugural revenue service flight. I rapidly learnt that the flight had been cancelled due to the failure of one engine to start, due to....... an HPC bleed valve stuck closed! There were many dignataries on board including the country's prime minister, who were certainly not amused. This experience has since reminded me of the old adage, '
With age comes wisdom'. Generally true, but in engineering not always the case.
There's a fascinating post scriptum to the above event, that I can recount if still of interest to some.
www.aviationtoday.com
