November 27, 2024 - No. 48 In This Issue : Steel Company Tied to Deadly Air Force Osprey Crash Faced Defective Parts Lawsuit in 2001 : Flaw in Osprey Gears Was Known a Decade Prior to Deadly Japan Crash, Internal Report Shows : Magnetic North Pole is moving and changing faster than ever, surprising scientists : The 'Son of Blackbird' Takes Shape: Lockheed's Hypersonic SR-72 Unveiled : GE Aerospace Develops AI Maintenance Records Tool : GE Aerospace demos 1MW hybrid electric propulsion system for US Army’s air, land fleet : A380 Flew 294 Hours With Tool Lodged in Engine : GE Aerospace, Boeing, NASA to study open fan engine design : GE Aerospace, NASA advance hybrid electric engine development : Ask Paul: What is the best EGT? Steel Company Tied to Deadly Air Force Osprey Crash Faced Defective Parts Lawsuit in 2001 A CV-22B Osprey from the 352nd Special Operations Wing conducts a flyover at a Veterans Day ceremony at Cambridge American Cemetery and Memorial, Cambridge, England, Nov. 11, 2024. (Tech. Sgt. Aaron Thomasson/U.S. Air Force photo) Military.com | By Konstantin Toropin and Thomas Novelly Published November 22, 2024 at 5:35 pm Military officials have refused to say whether they're still working with a company responsible for making the gear that failed on an Air Force V-22 Osprey aircraft and led to the deaths of eight airmen last year, despite long-running questions over the quality of the part and allegations of the manufacturer using lower-quality steel. Internal Air Force safety reports reviewed by Military.com in August found that the failure of a single high-speed planetary pinion gear -- the cause of the deadly November 2023 crash in Japan -- was "similar to those seen on seven previous failures" going back to 2013. Those earlier failures occurred in gears made of the same metal. More than a decade before those incidents, Universal Stainless, the company responsible for manufacturing the gear that fractured on the Osprey in Japan, was sued in 2001 for allegedly producing defective steel that went into civilian aircraft engine crankshafts, according to court records. "Universal falsely represented and certified its quality program so that customers would buy Universal steel," the lawsuit, filed in a Pennsylvania court, alleged. The 2001 case, which was ultimately settled out of court, is an even earlier indication that Universal Stainless had issues producing quality aircraft parts to specification. Hunterbrook, an open-source investigative journalism and financial news source, published a deep-dive into the long-ranging issues with Universal Stainless last month, including the first mention of the 2001 lawsuit. The Osprey manufacturer, Bell Flight -- the company that oversees the joint partnership of Bell and Boeing’s V-22 program -- and the military refused to tell Military.com whether Universal Stainless is still making components for the aircraft or what improvements have been made to prevent more issues, despite the 2001 lawsuit, internal knowledge of prior failures of Universal gears, and the deadly mishap that stemmed from the gear failure last year. Universal Stainless did not return a request for comment. 'That's Glaring' In the months after the deadly crash of the Air Force Osprey, which belonged to Air Force Special Operations Command and flew under the call sign Gundam 22, a pair of investigations found that the aircraft was brought down by the fracturing of the gear into five large pieces, which caused other failures in one of the two gearboxes that provide power to the Osprey's twin proprotors. One of the investigations, the internal Safety Investigation Board report, found that the failure was due to the gear being manufactured with bits of material -- non-metallic inclusions -- that aren't part of the metal alloy, which eventually formed the starting point for a crack. This mode of failure was "similar to those seen on seven previous failures in low-speed planetary pinion gears." The low-speed gears sit next to the same gear in the proprotor gearbox that failed in Gundam 22 and are made from the same alloy. The office in the Pentagon that oversees the Osprey was made aware of the issue in 2014, according to the investigation. Bell and Boeing, the two companies that work jointly to build the aircraft, sent the Osprey Joint Program Office a formal risk assessment titled "Gear Metal Raw Material Impurities" that laid out the risks but, according to the Air Force internal investigation, the notice "did not adequately assess risk of high-speed gear failure." While Universal Stainless is one of three contractors that make gears for the aircraft, the Air Force's investigation noted that it "supplied a significant proportion" of the metal that is used in the Osprey's gearboxes. Furthermore, when the Osprey Joint Program Office -- part of Naval Air Systems Command, or NAVAIR -- received that notice it did not fully process it to determine whether the risks it outlined would just be accepted by the military or somehow mitigated. It is not clear from the Air Force investigation why that did not occur, and NAVAIR refused to answer Military.com's questions on the topic in August, citing the "privileged" nature of the Air Force investigation. The Air Force investigation did say that, in the wake of that risk assessment, "NAVAIR implemented contractual financial withholds in hope the contractor would correct deficiencies in the [alloy] processing that had resulted in previous gear failures." But investigators found that the measure didn't work and the metal continued to be flawed, "suggesting contractual financial withholds did not prompt corrective actions." Retired Col. J.F. Joseph, a Marine Corps pilot and aviation expert witness, told Military.com that it would be notably concerning if the issue with the gears and alloys had been identified in the past and no action was taken. "If in the safety analysis, in the previous mishaps, a deficiency in production or quality in production or in terms of materials used were identified at some point that could contribute or cause a mishap, and there was not a remedy taken, that's glaring," Joseph said. 'Defective Steel' The 2001 lawsuit against Universal Stainless was brought by an aviation company called Teledyne Technologies that made aircraft engines for civilian aircraft. According to a Teledyne filing in the case, it brought the suit because Universal's defective steel resulted in crankshaft failures which, in turn, damaged the rest of the engine. Teledyne said in its filing that it was forced to recall the part -- more than 200 crankshafts -- and replace them at its own expense at a cost of around $1.7 million. "Of the crankshafts made from Universal steel that were returned pursuant to the recall and subsequently tested, approximately 92-93% were found to be made from defective steel," the court filing alleged. A key contention in this lawsuit was the fact that Universal not only falsely certified the alloy as meeting specifications when it didn't, but that it wasn't even conducting the checks to know itself. Teledyne lawyers said they learned through depositions that Universal had a standards manual. However, according to them, that manual laid out rules "that in reality did not exist, the regular performance of internal audits that were in reality never conducted, and purported compliance with certain military and industry specifications that were not complied with by Universal." Citing a deposition with Universal's then-director of technology, Teledyne said that "after months of continuing to produce defective steel, [Universal] 'got better' at making" the aviation-grade alloy, but "while Universal was 'getting better,' the steel it was producing was, among other things, being made into airplane engine parts." The suit said that investigations found that Universal kept this problem from its board of directors, the company's quality managers, and customers. It went on to note that this secrecy "prevented customers ... from having the opportunity to conduct appropriate tests" that would have discovered the defect and allowed them to take appropriate action. Moving forward to present day, the Air Force's internal investigation made similar allegations of shoddy and slapdash manufacturing processes against Universal. Air Force investigators said they compared the work of Universal against Carpenter Technology -- a company that made some of the other gears in the proprotor gearboxes. "Better incoming material quality and control, tighter inspection requirement, and on-site metallurgy support at Carpenter increased the likelihood of identifying and removing non-metallic inclusions from finished products more so than the process at Universal," the investigation found. Moreover, investigators noted that Carpenter had voluntarily implemented a better testing procedure to detect non-metallic inclusions in its alloy, while Universal did not. 'Very Complex System' Despite Air Force Special Operations Command's own investigative findings, Lt. Gen. Michael Conley, its top leader, told reporters at the Air and Space Forces Association's conference outside of Washington, D.C., in September that he didn't believe the November 2023 crash was caused by a bad part that Bell-Boeing should have manufactured better. "I don't think it was poor material," Conley said at the time. "I don't think it failed before its time. I think a proprotor gearbox is a very complex system with parts moving very fast." When asked this month whether Conley still stands by his statement after the issues with Universal Stainless went public, an AFSOC spokesperson said he stands by his comments. However, the command declined to answer whether Universal Stainless is still supplying parts for the V-22 program. Military.com also reached out to NAVAIR and Bell for this story with a host of questions raised by the lawsuit and its internal investigations. After more than a week, NAVAIR refused to answer a single question, including whether Universal Stainless is still making parts for the Osprey. Bell didn't address any of the questions relating to the lawsuit or the issues it raised. A spokesman argued that since the company was not involved in that litigation it wouldn't comment. "Bell Boeing work very closely with the Joint Program Office to identify and address potential future issues, and we have done so since the beginning of the program," the spokesman said. The spokesman also refused to say whether Universal Stainless is still making Osprey parts. Joseph, the former Marine Corps pilot and aviation expert witness, told Military.com that if a part was identified as not being up to standards, it's paramount that the service is transparent about how it has remedied the issue, especially on an aircraft as complicated as the Osprey. "It's like a recall on a car," Joseph said, describing his analogy as a gross oversimplification but an apt one. "It's no different than that other than this can really kill somebody with something with so many moving parts like a V-22." Flaw in Osprey Gears Was Known a Decade Prior to Deadly Japan Crash, Internal Report Shows A U.S. Air Force crew chief marshals a CV-22B Osprey after returning from a flight at Yokota Air Base, Japan, July 2, 2024. (U.S. Air Force photo by Airman 1st Class Samantha White) Military.com | By Konstantin Toropin and Thomas Novelly Published August 21, 2024 at 7:09pm ET Internal safety documents obtained by Military.com show that warnings related to a mechanical issue that caused an Air Force Osprey to crash off the coast of Japan last year, killing eight airmen, had been identified as far back as 2013 but seemingly went unaddressed. An investigation released earlier this month by the Air Force pointed to an issue in the controversial tilt-rotor aircraft's prop rotor gearbox as a cause of the Nov. 29 crash. Specifically, the service identified a single high-speed planetary pinion gear that had fractured. But an internal Safety Investigation Board report -- which has not been made public -- showed that other gears in that gearbox similarly failed in 2013 and warnings related to that part failure were brought to the Pentagon a year later. Plus, serious manufacturing issues plagued the components for years. The Osprey, call sign Gundam 22, was on an Air Force Special Operations Command training mission off the coast of Yakushima Island, Japan. As the single gear began to shred, it sent debris throughout the gearbox, which in turn began to fail and caused the left proprotor to stop operating. The aircraft then fell out of the sky. It was the deadliest CV-22B crash in the Air Force's history, claiming the lives of Maj. Jeffrey T. Hoernemann; Maj. Eric V. Spendlove; Maj. Luke A. Unrath; Capt. Terrell K. Brayman; Tech. Sgt. Zachary E. Lavoy; Staff Sgt. Jake M. Turnage; Senior Airman Brian K. Johnson; and Staff Sgt. Jake Galliher. History of Gear Defects Both the Air Force's public report, called an Accident Investigation Board, or AIB, and its internal Safety Investigation Board, or SIB, reports into the crash agree that Gundam 22 was brought down by the fracturing of a single gear -- a high-speed planetary pinion gear -- into five large pieces, which caused other failures in the proprotor gearbox. The reports also go on to fault the Air Force Special Operations Command crew for not heeding the warning lights even though, according to members of the Osprey community, the warnings the crew received were considered common and the community often saw them as just part of the aircraft's operation. However, the internal safety report found that the high-speed gear that failed on Gundam 22 because of a single crack was "similar to those seen on seven previous failures in low-speed planetary pinion gears." The two sets of gears sit next to each other in the gearbox and are made from the same alloy. It notes that in all the other instances the Ospreys landed before the gear failed completely. Later analysis showed that five of those prior failures, which go back to 2013, were caused by "non-metallic inclusions" -- a defect in the metal alloy from which the gears were made. Air Force investigators say that Gundam 22's gear also cracked "most likely due to non-metallic material inclusion." Furthermore, the report found that, given the rate at which those inclusions were making it into the alloy used in the gears, a failure such as the one Gundam 22 experienced was bound to happen. "The number of failures in low-speed planetary pinion gears will have a similar ratio to high-speed planetary pinion gears," the Air Force investigators wrote, before noting that, given "five such failures in low-speed planetary pinion gears ... one failure in the high-speed planetary pinion gear can be expected." In 2014, the Joint Program Office, which oversees the Osprey program for the Pentagon, was sent a formal risk assessment titled "Gear Metal Raw Material Impurities" by Bell Textron and Boeing, the companies that build the Osprey. But, according to the Air Force internal investigation, the notice "did not adequately assess risk of high-speed gear failure." Investigators also found that there was no testing of the high-speed gears done at the time, which meant there wasn't an "adequate understanding of the failure that occurred in this mishap." When the Osprey program office -- part of Naval Air Systems Command, or NAVAIR -- received the notice in 2014, it did not fully process it to determine whether the risks it outlined would just be accepted by the military or somehow mitigated. It is not clear from the Air Force investigation why that did not occur. Instead, the report found that "NAVAIR implemented contractual financial withholds in hope the contractor would correct deficiencies in the [alloy] processing that had resulted in previous gear failures." That contractor -- Universal Stainless -- made the alloy that later failed in Gundam 22 and since 2014 has supplied "a significant proportion" of the alloy used in the Osprey gearboxes that are now under scrutiny. Yet, since that Bell-Boeing risk assessment was issued in 2014, Air Force investigators found that "there have continued to be inclusion failures in [alloy], suggesting contractual financial withholds did not prompt corrective actions." Military.com reached out to Bell Flight, the point of contact for questions regarding the V-22, for comment but did not receive a reply in time for publication. Military.com also specifically asked the Joint Program Office whether NAVAIR still stands by its choice to use a financial approach as a way to handle substandard materials in V-22 component manufacturing or if Universal Stainless still makes parts for the aircraft. The program office declined to comment. J.J. Gertler, an aviation analyst and expert with the Teal Group, told Military.com in an interview that such an approach is "not unusual" but said ultimately the aircraft was approved to be received at the end of those negotiations. "There are progress payments that go on during the course of a contract. It's not that they get all the money at the beginning or the end, and those progress payments are often withheld or modified until certain criteria are met, like you've got to hit this standard on that part or this amount of durability," Gertler said. Ultimately, he said, somebody approved the aircraft to be received by the military. Joint Program Office Role Within the public report on the deadly crash in Japan was also a suggestion that the Joint Program Office had a role to play in the crash. Air Force investigators found "that inadequate action at the program level and inadequate coordination between the program office and the services prevented comprehensive awareness" of the risks of the failures within the gearbox, and "substantially contributed to the mishap." While the public report does not offer further detail about what actions the Osprey program office should have taken, the internal report shows that it was aware of at least five instances of gear failures on the low-speed side of the same gearbox that was at fault in the Gundam 22 crash. Military.com reached out to the Osprey program office with nearly a dozen questions stemming from our review of the internal Air Force report, but officials declined to comment specifically on the safety investigation board findings. An Air Force Safety Center spokesman declined to authenticate parts of the document, citing "the integrity of the information that may come from it." The documents obtained by Military.com are marked "Controlled Unclassified Information" -- a label used for nonsecret but internal information that the government wants to keep out of public view. "Safety investigations are highly effective because of their inward-facing, limited-use analysis and follow-up action, a product of military safety privilege," Keith Wright, a spokesman for the Air Force Safety Center, told Military.com earlier this month. "The Accident Investigation Board is the official release mechanism for accident information." The details about previous gear failures in the Osprey also cast doubt on the statements and assurances of top NAVAIR officials who claimed the issue that brought down Gundam 22 had not been encountered before or seemingly came out of left field. Vice Adm. Carl Chebi, the head of NAVAIR, which oversees all V-22 operations across the military, said during a June 12 congressional hearing on Osprey safety "that data was presented to myself that indicated that the platform had experienced a catastrophic material failure that we have never seen before in the V-22 program." NAVAIR and the V-22's Joint Program Office did not return a request for comment asking them to clarify Chebi's comments. Past indications about possible safety issues with the gearbox were also not fully communicated to those flying and maintaining the aircraft. Rebecca Heyse, a spokeswoman for the Air Force's Special Operations Command, told Military.com -- citing the public accident report findings -- that NAVAIR has done safety assessments on the gearbox and said those analyses found "failure to be remote or improbable, but also indicated that total loss of aircraft and crew were possible." Heyse added that program-wide changes, such as advising less risky responses in certain situations, "were not always implemented, or were implemented in a manner that did not stress the severity of the risk." She noted that aircrew training on how to react to gearbox indications wasn't modified and that the findings "were not always communicated to the military services, limiting opportunities for service-specific changes." Military.com reported earlier this month that AFSOC has now changed some of its protocol for aircrews in the wake of the crash. Chebi has previously said that he doesn't expect the V-22 to be fully operational again until at least "mid-2025." But Lt. Gen. Michael Conley, the head of Air Force Special Operations Command, told reporters earlier this month he hopes to be supporting combatant commanders with the Air Force's Osprey by the end of the calendar year. The revelations about the history of the gear problems come as family members from the Japan crash, as well as families of Marines who died in a 2022 V-22 Osprey training crash in California, are seeking legal representation. Family members of the Marines filed a wrongful death lawsuit in May against Bell Textron and Boeing, which oversee the aircraft design, and Rolls-Royce, which manufactures the engines. It was not yet clear whether the families of the Japan crash victims are seeking a similar lawsuit. Magnetic North Pole is moving and changing faster than ever, surprising scientists By Eric Ralls Earth.com staff writer The magnetic North Pole, a vital navigational anchor for our planet, is far from stationary. Most of us remain blissfully unaware that it shifts constantly under the influence of dynamic forces beneath the Earth’s crust. However, recent movements have been more extreme than usual, making people take notice. Once steady, this silent sentinel has recently been speeding erratically toward Russia at an unprecedented pace. Such rapid shifts could have dramatic consequences, disrupting modern navigation systems and, by extension, the way we navigate our daily lives. What exactly is the magnetic North Pole? First, let’s make it clear what exactly we’re talking about. The magnetic North Pole is the point on Earth where the planet’s magnetic field points directly downward. This is the direction that your compass needle aligns with when you’re navigating outdoors. Unlike the geographic North Pole, which is fixed in the Arctic, the magnetic north pole is constantly on the move, drifting several kilometers each year due to changes in Earth’s molten core. This movement can sometimes throw off navigation systems, requiring updates to maps and compasses to stay accurate. What makes the magnetic North Pole even more interesting is how it affects both technology and nature. For example, airplanes and ships rely on accurate magnetic readings for safe travel, while some animals use Earth’s magnetic field to migrate across vast distances. The northern odyssey: From Canada to Siberia Ever since we started tracking it, the magnetic North Pole has been on the move. However, its recent behavior is quite out of the ordinary. Once comfortably located in northern Canada, the pole kicked into high gear in the late 20th century, making its way across the Arctic Ocean by the 1990s. From there, the pace has increased progressively , peaking at an astonishing 55 kilometers per year during the 2010s. Presently, it’s hurtling at a slightly reduced but still impressive speed of 25 kilometers per year towards Siberia. What’s steering the magnetic North Pole? Intellectually stimulating debates have arisen among scientists trying to decipher the underlying cause of this unusual phenomenon. Dr. William Brown, a renowned geomagnetic field analyst, identifies three possible culprits behind the magnetic North Pole’s unusual behavior. First, changes in the flow of molten iron beneath the Earth’s crust could be altering the magnetic field’s strength and direction, as the planet’s outer core dynamics play a crucial role in generating the field in the first place. Second, high-energy solar particles interacting with the Earth’s magnetosphere, such as during solar storms and winds, might be causing fluctuations in the magnetic field. Finally, the phenomenon may be linked to the Earth’s history of magnetic pole reversals, which have occurred nearly 200 times over the past 100 million years. The most recent of these reversals occurred approximately 800,000 years ago. Navigating without a North Star The potential chaos that the moving magnetic pole can cause is not abstract or confined to scholarly concern. Our technology is deeply intertwined with magnetic orientations, and any abrupt changes can cause significant turmoil. Devices like smartphones, cars, and military equipment rely on the World Magnetic Model (WMM), which is designed by the British Geological Survey and NOAA. This model tracks the pole’s movements and ensures accurate navigation. If the pole’s movement outpaces updates to the WMM, our devices could miscalculate locations and throw our wayfinding abilities into disarray. Preparing for the polar paradox Mitigating the potential risks of such a change involves a three-pronged approach: frequent updates to the WMM, expanding research to continue monitoring the Earth’s core dynamics, and raising public awareness. Through these efforts, industries that rely heavily on magnetic field-based navigation are being prepped for any potential upcoming disruptions. Gearing up for a world upside down? While the pole’s movement is no longer as rapid, it remains a crucial area of research. Scientists from NOAA and other organizations are keeping a close eye on its shifting trajectory, ensuring our technological world is prepared for any seismic shifts in Earth’s magnetic nature. In the face of a potential world where the poles flip, these insights and precautionary measures could prove indispensable. So, the magnetic North Pole’s flight towards Russia isn’t just an intriguing natural occurrence. Its implications for our global navigation systems and technologies could be profound and far-reaching. Magnetic North Pole and Earth’s future Rapid movement of the magnetic North Pole is not just an issue for technology and navigation but also offers insight into the inner workings of the Earth. The erratic behavior of the pole reflects what is happening in the dynamic processes deep within our outer core, where molten iron generates a magnetic field. By studying this phenomenon, scientists can gain a better understanding of Earth’s geodynamo, which is the engine behind the magnetic field that shields us from harmful solar radiation. The shifting pole also raises questions over the possibility of a full magnetic reversal – a natural process in which the North and South magnetic poles swap places. While such reversals have happened thousands of times in the Earth’s history, their effects cannot be predicted. A reversal could temporarily weaken Earth’s magnetic field, meaning that the planet would be exposed to more intense and damaging cosmic radiation, which would affect living organisms, ecosystems and infrastructure. Monitoring changes in this manner helps researchers keep an eye on the Earth’s interior and also prepares humanity for potential future challenges. Magnetic North Pole is moving and changing faster than ever, surprising scientists The 'Son of Blackbird' Takes Shape: Lockheed's Hypersonic SR-72 Unveiled Story by Mike Brown t has been over two decades since the legacy SR-71 Blackbird was retired, and with it, enthusiasts have been awaiting its replacement from Lockheed Martin’s fabled Skunk Works. Whispers from defense circles now point to a highly classified SR-72 in the works, an unmanned hypersonic reconnaissance vehicle promising speeds above Mach 6 as the “Son of Blackbird.” While details remain scarce, the SR-72 is believed to be a reconnaissance and strike platform building on the foundations laid by the HTV-2 hypersonic project. “It is rumored that the SR-72 hypersonic aircraft will possess superior capabilities compared to its predecessors, the X-43 and X-51 ‘WaveRider,'” said aerospace analyst Dr. John Doe. Editor: See more at Wikipedia. GE Aerospace Develops AI Maintenance Records Tool Lindsay Bjerregaard November 19, 2024 Credit: GE Aerospace GE Aerospace has developed a new tool that uses generative artificial intelligence to allow airlines and lessors to access critical maintenance records of assets faster. The company is hoping the technology could reduce hours of work searching maintenance records into minutes. Developed in partnership with Microsoft and Accenture, the proof of concept—currently called GenAI Assistant—can be used to inform customers about leasing details, gaps in documents and technical status of leased aircraft. According to GE Aerospace, this critical information helps airlines and lessors protect asset value and proactively identify contractual compliance concerns, but it has traditionally involved a time-intensive manual collection process since it requires combing through multiple physical documents and data sets. “We are told the current process of compiling asset and project data for transition status reporting can take up to a full day,” says a representative for GE Aerospace. “Our aim is to simplify that down to minutes by enabling advanced queries and generative AI to compile necessary asset and documentation data from multiple sources.” Over the summer, lessor Carlyle Aviation Partners tested GenAI Assistant in a private preview, with initial results showing that the tool could save what GE says is multiple hours of work. “This has the potential to open so many opportunities to actively manage our fleet, giving us instant access to data and information that would normally take hours, days or even weeks to find,” says Donal Mc Gowan, Carlyle’s senior vice president of technical management. According to a representative for GE Aerospace, one example of how the tool could be used is for users to ask it about a specific airworthiness directive. “Our solution will tell them a summary of the requirement, corresponding work orders, completion status or the repeat inspection interval,” he says. “We see this capability as enabling a fundamentally different way of interacting with technical records and data, enabling customers to identify and interact with documentation without manual document indexing processes.” GE, Accenture and Microsoft are working to add mobile capability to GenAI Assistant and to enable Azure AI and chat functionality within the production environment. The companies are targeting readiness in 2025. GE Aerospace has developed a variety of other AI innovations across its businesses, many of which have specific MRO use cases. The company has developed AI-powered blade inspection tools for GEnx, GE9X and CFM International Leap engines, and it is working with Waygate Technologies to provide AI-assisted borescope inspections. It is also using AI to monitor engine performance for predictive maintenance, to track fuel usage and optimize fuel efficiency, and to forecast engine work scopes and parts required for repairs prior to engine induction. GE Aerospace demos 1MW hybrid electric propulsion system for US Army’s air, land fleet This work aimed to identify and enhance technologies applicable to future Army air vehicle propulsion systems and military electrified ground vehicles. Updated: Nov 22, 2024 03:34 PM EST Kapil Kajal GE Aerospace GE Aerospace has successfully demonstrated a one-megawatt hybrid electric propulsion system as part of a $5.1 million research and development contract with the US Army Combat Capabilities Development Command (DEVCOM) Army Research Laboratory (ARL). Under the Applied Research Collaborative Systematic Turboshaft Electrification Project (ARC-STEP) contract, GE Aerospace researched, developed, tested, and evaluated a megawatt (MW) class electrified power plant. This work aimed to identify and enhance technologies applicable to future Army air vehicle propulsion systems and military electrified ground vehicles. “GE Aerospace has a nearly 50-year legacy as the powerplant for Army Aviation from the proven T700 engine to the new revolutionary T901 engine,” said John Martin, Director of Turboshaft Advanced Programs at GE Aerospace. “ARC-STEP builds on that legacy and refines technologies along a path for hybrid electric propulsion for both the US Army and the world.” Hybrid electric propulsion system The successful demonstration featured a CT7 turboshaft engine paired with an electric machine and power electronics produced by GE Aerospace. During the testing conducted at the GE Aerospace Research Center in Niskayuna, New York, experts from both the US Army and GE Aerospace collaborated to investigate and integrate technologies that enable the development of lightweight, efficient, reliable, and safe hybrid-electric propulsion systems. The effects of hybrid electric propulsion on the efficiency and effectiveness of different platform types were also analyzed during the demonstration. “It’s exciting to see the successful demonstration of ARC-STEP, which has enhanced our understanding of the potential for MW-class series hybrid systems to power future Army air and ground vehicles,” Dr. Mike Kweon, program manager of DEVCOM ARL’s Versatile Tactical Power and Propulsion Essential Research Program (VICTOR ERP), said. “Often, power and propulsion systems are significant bottlenecks in advancing transformational capabilities. I look forward to seeing how ARC-STEP will shape the direction of power systems for the Army’s future air and ground vehicles.” The efforts associated with this Army contract support GE Aerospace’s work in hybrid electric propulsion. This includes the Hybrid Electric Experiment (HEX) program in collaboration with Sikorsky and the NASA Electric Powertrain Flight Demonstration (EPFD) project. The goal is to develop a megawatt-class integrated hybrid electric powertrain and demonstrate its flight readiness for single-aisle aircraft. ARC-STEP, HEX, and EPFD are helping GE Aerospace continue building extensive experience with hybrid electric systems and power generation. CT7 turboshaft engine GE Aerospace has highlighted the operational versatility of its CT7 family of turboshaft and turboprop engines, which are utilized globally in various aviation environments. The company notes that the CT7-2 engine, offering 2,000 shaft horsepower, is recognized for its durability, fuel efficiency, and adaptability. It serves helicopters in multiple roles, including executive transport, firefighting, and rescue missions. Additionally, the CT7-8 engine family, with shaft horsepower ranging from 2,500 to 3,000, is tailored to meet the rigorous demands of modern medium-lift helicopters. This engine suits executive transport, search and rescue, passenger transport, and the oil and gas sectors. The efforts associated with this Army contract support GE Aerospace’s work in hybrid electric propulsion. This includes the Hybrid Electric Experiment (HEX) program in collaboration with Sikorsky and the NASA Electric Powertrain Flight Demonstration (EPFD) project. The goal is to develop a megawatt-class integrated hybrid electric powertrain and demonstrate its flight readiness for single-aisle aircraft. To date, GE Aerospace has delivered over 1,500 CT7 engines, collectively accumulating 30 million flight hours, underscoring their reliability and performance in the field. A380 Flew 294 Hours With Tool Lodged in Engine Investigators said the missing tool wasn’t found for nearly a month. A Qantas A380 in the carrier’s Los Angeles maintenance facility (Photo: Qantas) [ Planes ] November 14, 2024 10:07 am ET By Ryan Ewing A Qantas Airbus A380 operated 34 flights with a nylon tool stuck in one of its engines, Australian Transport Safety Bureau investigators said. The jet – registered as VH-OQL – was not damaged. The over 4-foot-long tool was found on Jan. 1, 2024, stuck in the outboard left engine’s inlet. Nearly a month prior, on Dec. 6, 2023, the engine underwent a scheduled borescope inspection, which is when the tool was left behind, investigators stated. On Dec. 8, the A380 was released from maintenance and placed into revenue service on a flight from Los Angeles to Melbourne. Tool left in Qantas A380 engine (Photo: ATSB) Roughly 24 days later, the superjumbo aircraft returned to Los Angeles for more scheduled maintenance. Maintenance staff found the missing tool in the engine’s low pressure compressor. The ATSB said the aircraft had operated 294 flight hours with the tool lodged in the engine. While no damage was reported to the engine itself, the tool was “deformed by high energy airflow.” “The ATSB investigation found that maintenance engineers did not notice the tool had been left in the engine’s low-pressure compressor case when conducting checks for foreign objects at the completion of the borescope inspection task,” ATSB Chief Commissioner Angus Mitchell said in a news release. Mitchell adds that maintenance staff knew the tool was missing but dispatched the aircraft anyway. According to the ATSB, Qantas has since reminded staff of the “importance of ensuring all tooling is returned and actioned by tool store personnel.” GE Aerospace, Boeing, NASA to study open fan engine design Aviation News Posted By: Haley Davoren, GlobalAir.com Published: Nov. 20, 2024 at 09:42 AM EST Updated: Nov. 20, 2024 at 09:50 AM EST GE Aerospace will work with Boeing, NASA and Oak Ridge National Laboratory on a new project, modeling the integration of an Open Fan engine design with an airplane in support of the industry’s efforts to develop more energy-efficient technology. GE shared news about the project on Tuesday, revealing that the U.S. Department of Energy awarded the effort 840,000 supercomputing hours through the INCITE program. INCITE is a competitive program supporting the world’s most computationally intensive projects. GE Aerospace engineers previously used exascale computing to model the performance and noise levels of Open Fan engine components. Open Fan architecture involves a new design of jet engines By removing the traditional casing to allow for larger fan sizes with less drag, the open fan can improve fuel efficiency. Engineers will be able to study the aerodynamics of an Open Fan mounted on an aircraft wing under simulated flight conditions. This format allows the engine design to be optimized for additional efficiency, noise and performance benefits. Without the computational power of the newest supercomputing machines, it would be impossible to replicate a full-size integrated engine and airplane during the design phase. “Advanced supercomputing capability is a key breakthrough enabling the revolutionary Open Fan engine design,” said Arjan Hegeman, GM for future of flight technology at GE Aerospace. “Airplane integration is critical. Today’s announcement with Boeing, NASA, and Oak Ridge National Laboratory to simulate the latest airplane and engine designs continues a longstanding legacy of world-leading innovation in the aviation industry,” The team will have access to the Aurora supercomputer at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory. Frontier and Aurora are the world’s second and third-fastest supercomputers and are both capable of crunching data at more than a quintillion calculations per second. CFM RISE program Open Fan is a suite of technologies being developed through CFM International’s Revolutionary Innovation for Sustainable Engines program. CFM International is a 50-50 joint company between GE Aerospace and Safran Aircraft Engines. The program was unveiled in 2021 and is one of the industry’s most comprehensive technology demonstrators to show real progress after over 250 completed tests. Through this program, CFM is developing advanced engine architectures such as Open Fan, compact core and hybrid electric systems to be compatible with 100 percent or unblended SAF. The CFM RISE program is aiming for over 20 percent better fuel efficiency with 20 percent lower CO2 emissions compared to the most efficient commercial engines in service today. Learn more about the CFM RISE program “We aim to do something our company has never achieved before — introduce a new jet engine that is 20 percent more fuel efficient than our most advanced commercial engines today,” Hegeman said. “This represents a jump in technology development that usually takes multiple generations to achieve. Supercomputing helps make it possible.” GE is planning to hire over 900 engineers in 2024 as part of a continued focus on innovation in support of current aircraft engine programs and to develop new technologies for the future of flight. GE Aerospace, NASA advance hybrid electric engine development Aviation News Posted By: Haley Davoren, GlobalAir.com Published: Jun. 19, 2024 at 04:54 PM EST Updated: Jun. 19, 2024 at 05:09 PM EST GE Aerospace is developing a hybrid electric demonstrator engine with NASA to embed electric motor/generators in a high-bypass commercial turbofan which will supplement power during different phases of operation. The work includes modifying a Passport engine with hybrid electric components for testing through NASA’s Hybrid Thermally Efficient Core project. The Passport engine powers aircraft like the Bombardier Global 7500 and 8000. The HyTEC project is one of many efforts to mature technologies for the eventual integration of electric aircraft engines and is advanced as part of the CFM International Revolutionary Innovation for Sustainable Engines program. The embedded electric motor/generators will optimize engine performance through the creation of a system to work with or without energy storage, like a battery. Systems like these can help to accelerate the introduction of hybrid electric technologies for commercial aviation before energy storage solutions are fully matured. “Together with NASA, GE Aerospace is doing critical research and development that could help make hybrid electric commercial flight possible,” said Arjan Hegeman, general manager of future of flight technologies at GE Aerospace. A rendering of a hybrid electric testbed. Through NASA’s Electrified Powertrain Flight Demonstration (EPFD) project The early component-level testing of the electric motor/generators and power electronics has been completed for the HyTEC Turbofan Engine Power Extraction Demonstration. The systems testing took place at GE Aerospace’s EPISCenter in Dayton, Ohio. A baseline test of the Passport engine to characterize performance before the hybrid electric components were added was completed at the Peebles Test Operation in Ohio. The results of hybrid electric component and baseline engine tests will be used to evaluate and update models ahead of ground testing. “We’re advancing state-of-the-art propulsion systems for next-generation commercial aircraft with an important aim — to drive industry efforts to improve efficiency and reduce emissions compared to today’s aircraft engines,” Hegeman said. GE Aerospace was recently awarded the NASA contract for Phase 2 of the HyTEC project to continue developing technologies for an engine core demonstrator test within this decade. Phase 2 will build upon work completed in Phase 1 of HyTEC for high-pressure compressor and high-pressure turbine advanced aerodynamics and the combustor. The RISE program was unveiled in 2021 and covers a range of pioneering technologies including advanced engine architectures like Open Fan, compact core, new combustor designs and hybrid electric systems to be compatible with SAF The CFM RISE program targets a more than 20 percent increase in fuel efficiency with 20 percent lower CO2 emissions when compared to other efficient engines in service today. RISE open fan “Our collaborations with industry partners like GE Aerospace are paving the way for U.S. leadership in hybrid electric commercial transport aircraft,” said Anthony Nerone, HyTEC project manager, NASA’s Glenn Research Center. “Single-aisle aircraft are the biggest contributors to aviation carbon emissions. That’s why we’re focusing on key technologies that will enable next-generation single-aisle aircraft with much greater efficiency and reduced emissions than the current fleet.” Additionally, GE Aerospace is developing an integrated, megawatt-class hybrid electric propulsion system as part of the Electrified Powertrain Flight Demonstration program. The plans for the EPFD program require ground and flight testing of hybrid electric systems in this decade, in collaboration with Boeing, using a modified Saab 340B aircraft and GE Aerospace’s CT7 engines. The company has achieved several milestones in the development of a hybrid electric propulsion system in the last 10 years, including a 2016 ground test of an electric motor-driven propeller. In 2022, GE Aerospace finished the world’s first test of a MW-class and multi-kilovolt hybrid electric propulsion system in altitude conditions up to 45,000 feet to simulate single-aisle commercial flight at NASA’s Electric Aircraft Testbed. GE Aerospace plans to hire more than 900 engineers this year as part of a continued focus on innovation that will support current aircraft engine programs and develop new technologies for future flight. Ask Paul: What is the best EGT? By Paul McBride November 10, 2024 A 1964 Mooney M20C. (Photo by Tomas Del Coro) Question for Paul McBride, the General Aviation News engines expert: Hey Paul, I have a 1964 Mooney M20C carbureted. What is the best EGT on my cruise at 24 inches times 2400 RPM prop? David Woodall Paul’s Answer: I will begin by throwing out another reminder to our readers that it really helps if more specific information is provided with all of your questions. I took a wild guess that the engine in your 1964 Mooney M20C is a Lycoming O-360-A1D and I’ve based my response to your question on that guess. Yours is not an easy question to answer because of the distribution of fuel on an engine using a float-type carburetor, but hopefully I can offer some thoughts on the subject that will assist you in operating your engine. Let me begin by telling you a very simple rule when it comes to leaning. It’s important to remember that Lycoming recommends that you should only lean the engine when you are at 75% power or less. Leaning an engine that incorporates a carburetor is pretty straight forward, but you must keep in mind that the Lycoming recommendations with regard to leaning are based on calibrated instrumentation. I think we can all agree that the accuracy of instruments has been known to decline over time. This not only goes for the instrument, but also the EGT probe. If you’re confident in the accuracy of your instrumentation, then we can move forward. Once you’ve established your cruise altitude and are not exceeding 75% power, you may begin to lean. Slowly leaning, at some point, will cause a slight engine roughness that indicates the leanest cylinder has become so lean that it’s beginning to miss. This is also a good indicator that you are near the peak EGT point. No damage will occur to the engine provided you are at the recommended cruise power setting. Keep in mind that this is typical of an engine with a float-type carburetor. At this point you should enrich the mixture for smooth engine operation. You must remember that the peak EGT on the gauge will also vary with different power settings, changes in altitude, and ambient temperature. David, I think you’ll probably notice by now that I haven’t provided you with a “best EGT temperature” which you requested. I’m going to let you do some experimenting on your own, using the information mentioned here, but I think you’ll find that your engine will probably operate smoother at +25 to +50 degrees rich of peak EGT. This is fairly common with engines using a float-type carburetor. Curt Lewis