Why are the engines on the MAX and neo prone to bowing?
$begingroup$
The engines of the 737 MAX$^1$ and Airbus A320neo family$^2$ are [more] prone to bowing (shafts deforming if no debow is applied during start – as I understand it, this happens in a turnaround while the core is still hot).
The debow solution is cold motoring to harmonize the temperatures of the various engine parts. This in turn leads to much longer start durations (was upwards of 7 minutes per engine on the A320neo until a dual-cooling button (shown below) was added to allow the motoring of one while the other was being started, which brought the delay down, but still takes longer than the ceo).

(YouTube)
Operational impact aside, why are those engines prone to bowing? The only other jet-liner I'm aware of that needed a debow procedure was Concorde.
My first thought was the higher overall pressure ratios (OPR) of the new engines, while plausible, Concorde's OPR on ground was nowhere near the levels of the new engines (15.5 vs. 40).
What design element/changes made those engines require the noticeable debowing procedure?
$^1$ http://www.b737.org.uk/737maxdiffs.htm
$^2$ http://aviationweek.com/commercial-aviation/new-pw-president-has-nothing-hide-gtf-starting-issue
boeing-737 turbofan engine-starting airbus-neo
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
The engines of the 737 MAX$^1$ and Airbus A320neo family$^2$ are [more] prone to bowing (shafts deforming if no debow is applied during start – as I understand it, this happens in a turnaround while the core is still hot).
The debow solution is cold motoring to harmonize the temperatures of the various engine parts. This in turn leads to much longer start durations (was upwards of 7 minutes per engine on the A320neo until a dual-cooling button (shown below) was added to allow the motoring of one while the other was being started, which brought the delay down, but still takes longer than the ceo).

(YouTube)
Operational impact aside, why are those engines prone to bowing? The only other jet-liner I'm aware of that needed a debow procedure was Concorde.
My first thought was the higher overall pressure ratios (OPR) of the new engines, while plausible, Concorde's OPR on ground was nowhere near the levels of the new engines (15.5 vs. 40).
What design element/changes made those engines require the noticeable debowing procedure?
$^1$ http://www.b737.org.uk/737maxdiffs.htm
$^2$ http://aviationweek.com/commercial-aviation/new-pw-president-has-nothing-hide-gtf-starting-issue
boeing-737 turbofan engine-starting airbus-neo
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
The engines of the 737 MAX$^1$ and Airbus A320neo family$^2$ are [more] prone to bowing (shafts deforming if no debow is applied during start – as I understand it, this happens in a turnaround while the core is still hot).
The debow solution is cold motoring to harmonize the temperatures of the various engine parts. This in turn leads to much longer start durations (was upwards of 7 minutes per engine on the A320neo until a dual-cooling button (shown below) was added to allow the motoring of one while the other was being started, which brought the delay down, but still takes longer than the ceo).

(YouTube)
Operational impact aside, why are those engines prone to bowing? The only other jet-liner I'm aware of that needed a debow procedure was Concorde.
My first thought was the higher overall pressure ratios (OPR) of the new engines, while plausible, Concorde's OPR on ground was nowhere near the levels of the new engines (15.5 vs. 40).
What design element/changes made those engines require the noticeable debowing procedure?
$^1$ http://www.b737.org.uk/737maxdiffs.htm
$^2$ http://aviationweek.com/commercial-aviation/new-pw-president-has-nothing-hide-gtf-starting-issue
boeing-737 turbofan engine-starting airbus-neo
$endgroup$
The engines of the 737 MAX$^1$ and Airbus A320neo family$^2$ are [more] prone to bowing (shafts deforming if no debow is applied during start – as I understand it, this happens in a turnaround while the core is still hot).
The debow solution is cold motoring to harmonize the temperatures of the various engine parts. This in turn leads to much longer start durations (was upwards of 7 minutes per engine on the A320neo until a dual-cooling button (shown below) was added to allow the motoring of one while the other was being started, which brought the delay down, but still takes longer than the ceo).

(YouTube)
Operational impact aside, why are those engines prone to bowing? The only other jet-liner I'm aware of that needed a debow procedure was Concorde.
My first thought was the higher overall pressure ratios (OPR) of the new engines, while plausible, Concorde's OPR on ground was nowhere near the levels of the new engines (15.5 vs. 40).
What design element/changes made those engines require the noticeable debowing procedure?
$^1$ http://www.b737.org.uk/737maxdiffs.htm
$^2$ http://aviationweek.com/commercial-aviation/new-pw-president-has-nothing-hide-gtf-starting-issue
boeing-737 turbofan engine-starting airbus-neo
boeing-737 turbofan engine-starting airbus-neo
edited 6 hours ago
ymb1
asked 8 hours ago
ymb1ymb1
65.6k6210348
65.6k6210348
add a comment |
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
Rotor bowing is not unique to this generation of engines. It was an issue with the early IAE V2500. I remember initially they would have somebody manually rotate the fan some time after shutdown. This engine still has a longer start motoring period over the comparable CFM.
The root cause is simply making the shafts thinner, increasing their flexibility. When natural differential cooling occurs, they bow. This is done in the pursuit of weight reduction, which is important as new engines are larger and heavier than before.
The PW1000G is a special case, which is where the majority of the issues are occurring. Because of the fan gearbox, the fan operates at a slower speed than the core. Thus, for the same amount of power, the core will spin faster with less torque. The thickness of the shafts are only dependent on torque and not speed, so Pratt and Whitney was able to thin the shafts significantly and cut weight. Unfortunately, they did not properly account for rotor bowing.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
});
});
}, "mathjax-editing");
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "528"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2faviation.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f60323%2fwhy-are-the-engines-on-the-max-and-neo-prone-to-bowing%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
Rotor bowing is not unique to this generation of engines. It was an issue with the early IAE V2500. I remember initially they would have somebody manually rotate the fan some time after shutdown. This engine still has a longer start motoring period over the comparable CFM.
The root cause is simply making the shafts thinner, increasing their flexibility. When natural differential cooling occurs, they bow. This is done in the pursuit of weight reduction, which is important as new engines are larger and heavier than before.
The PW1000G is a special case, which is where the majority of the issues are occurring. Because of the fan gearbox, the fan operates at a slower speed than the core. Thus, for the same amount of power, the core will spin faster with less torque. The thickness of the shafts are only dependent on torque and not speed, so Pratt and Whitney was able to thin the shafts significantly and cut weight. Unfortunately, they did not properly account for rotor bowing.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Rotor bowing is not unique to this generation of engines. It was an issue with the early IAE V2500. I remember initially they would have somebody manually rotate the fan some time after shutdown. This engine still has a longer start motoring period over the comparable CFM.
The root cause is simply making the shafts thinner, increasing their flexibility. When natural differential cooling occurs, they bow. This is done in the pursuit of weight reduction, which is important as new engines are larger and heavier than before.
The PW1000G is a special case, which is where the majority of the issues are occurring. Because of the fan gearbox, the fan operates at a slower speed than the core. Thus, for the same amount of power, the core will spin faster with less torque. The thickness of the shafts are only dependent on torque and not speed, so Pratt and Whitney was able to thin the shafts significantly and cut weight. Unfortunately, they did not properly account for rotor bowing.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Rotor bowing is not unique to this generation of engines. It was an issue with the early IAE V2500. I remember initially they would have somebody manually rotate the fan some time after shutdown. This engine still has a longer start motoring period over the comparable CFM.
The root cause is simply making the shafts thinner, increasing their flexibility. When natural differential cooling occurs, they bow. This is done in the pursuit of weight reduction, which is important as new engines are larger and heavier than before.
The PW1000G is a special case, which is where the majority of the issues are occurring. Because of the fan gearbox, the fan operates at a slower speed than the core. Thus, for the same amount of power, the core will spin faster with less torque. The thickness of the shafts are only dependent on torque and not speed, so Pratt and Whitney was able to thin the shafts significantly and cut weight. Unfortunately, they did not properly account for rotor bowing.
$endgroup$
Rotor bowing is not unique to this generation of engines. It was an issue with the early IAE V2500. I remember initially they would have somebody manually rotate the fan some time after shutdown. This engine still has a longer start motoring period over the comparable CFM.
The root cause is simply making the shafts thinner, increasing their flexibility. When natural differential cooling occurs, they bow. This is done in the pursuit of weight reduction, which is important as new engines are larger and heavier than before.
The PW1000G is a special case, which is where the majority of the issues are occurring. Because of the fan gearbox, the fan operates at a slower speed than the core. Thus, for the same amount of power, the core will spin faster with less torque. The thickness of the shafts are only dependent on torque and not speed, so Pratt and Whitney was able to thin the shafts significantly and cut weight. Unfortunately, they did not properly account for rotor bowing.
edited 7 hours ago
answered 8 hours ago
user71659user71659
2,602720
2,602720
add a comment |
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Aviation Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2faviation.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f60323%2fwhy-are-the-engines-on-the-max-and-neo-prone-to-bowing%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown