Why are the engines on the MAX and neo prone to bowing?












5












$begingroup$


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).



enter image description here

(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










share|improve this question











$endgroup$

















    5












    $begingroup$


    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).



    enter image description here

    (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










    share|improve this question











    $endgroup$















      5












      5








      5





      $begingroup$


      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).



      enter image description here

      (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










      share|improve this question











      $endgroup$




      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).



      enter image description here

      (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






      share|improve this question















      share|improve this question













      share|improve this question




      share|improve this question








      edited 6 hours ago







      ymb1

















      asked 8 hours ago









      ymb1ymb1

      65.6k6210348




      65.6k6210348






















          1 Answer
          1






          active

          oldest

          votes


















          4












          $begingroup$

          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.






          share|improve this answer











          $endgroup$













            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
            });


            }
            });














            draft saved

            draft discarded


















            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









            4












            $begingroup$

            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.






            share|improve this answer











            $endgroup$


















              4












              $begingroup$

              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.






              share|improve this answer











              $endgroup$
















                4












                4








                4





                $begingroup$

                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.






                share|improve this answer











                $endgroup$



                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.







                share|improve this answer














                share|improve this answer



                share|improve this answer








                edited 7 hours ago

























                answered 8 hours ago









                user71659user71659

                2,602720




                2,602720






























                    draft saved

                    draft discarded




















































                    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.




                    draft saved


                    draft discarded














                    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





















































                    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







                    Popular posts from this blog

                    宮崎県

                    How to check if a shell is login/interactive/batch

                    濃尾地震