Ikramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21314 posts, RR: 60 Reply 10, posted (8 years 6 months 1 week 19 hours ago) and read 5010 times:
Quoting Boeing7E7 (Reply 1): My hunch is Rolls and GE will have an engine and it will be interchangeable.
Quoting OptionsCLE (Reply 8): I'd be very surprised to see a T-tail. Look at the A320 family, longer landing gear than the 737 yet I'm sure they still handle fine on the ground.
not handling like a car, handling for baggage, etc. The DC9/727/737 etc. design is such that you can load baggage standing on the ground, for more rural areas (very important in the 60s/70s). The A320 is designed higher off the ground for more "improved" airports and terminals.
But I would also be surprised by a T-Tail. B will find a solution that keeps the plane low (though it will be taller than now) but doesn't require a squat engine. A new wing will help.
Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
Srbmod From United States of America, joined Mar 2001, 17294 posts, RR: 51 Reply 11, posted (8 years 6 months 1 week 18 hours ago) and read 4944 times:
I wonder if an engine based on the BR-700 family could potentially be that engine. I would love to see them develop a more powerful version of the BR-715, perhaps a BR-720? Or could it be a new version of the Tay?
PM From India, joined Feb 2005, 6818 posts, RR: 65 Reply 14, posted (8 years 6 months 1 week 9 hours ago) and read 4512 times:
If you read the article it's nothing new. Boeing are going to replace the 737 one day. (Hardly news.) When they do, they'll probably offer two engine types. (Not unexpected.) Those types are likely to be from CFM and IAE. (No surprises there.) RR have a stake in IAE.
I don't see it suggesting that Rolls-Royce will have an engine on the next 737 so let's not get too carried away. It just says that both CFM and IAE will be offered. Good news for RR (and PW) but not quite what the title of this thread implies.
What is more interesting is that the source (though not one noted for its insight into the world of aerospace) repeats the rumour that RR may yet end up on the 747ADV.
Revelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 11467 posts, RR: 24 Reply 15, posted (8 years 6 months 1 week 4 hours ago) and read 4204 times:
I haven't thought about it much, but why is mounting the wing on top of the fuselage out of favor for commercial aircraft? I imagine it makes supporting the landing gear more difficult and so may lead to a heavier aircraft, but I'm just guessing.
FlyBoy84 From United States of America, joined May 2005, 366 posts, RR: 4 Reply 16, posted (8 years 6 months 1 week 3 hours ago) and read 4061 times:
From what I've heard, the 737 replacement will be built in three versions (120, 150, and 190 pax). Therefore, larger and more powerful engines might be fitted to match the planes characteristics since it appears that the engine will be used on a plane with a high degree of variation in lowest to highest capacity (even though composites will probably be extensively used). The 190 pax narrowbody would be about the size of the 757. Wouldn't a larger, more powerful engine and a slightly longer wingspan give the largest narrowbody greater "hot-and-high" performance?
I would think the new plane would stand taller for better engine clearance. I'd like to see this as the 757 is my favorite Boeing. Leave the low riders to the RJs.
Srbmod From United States of America, joined Mar 2001, 17294 posts, RR: 51 Reply 17, posted (8 years 6 months 1 week 2 hours ago) and read 3997 times:
Quoting Revelation (Reply 15): I haven't thought about it much, but why is mounting the wing on top of the fuselage out of favor for commercial aircraft? I imagine it makes supporting the landing gear more difficult and so may lead to a heavier aircraft, but I'm just guessing.
It really only makes sense when the operational profile for the a/c requires good short field performance, which is why the C-130, C-141, C-5, C-17, Do-228/328/328Jet, ATR-42/72, DHC Dash 7/8, Shorts 330/360, Fokker F-27, and Bae-146/Avro RJ for example have high mounted wings. In most of these a/c the landing gear are located in the fuselage like on any other a/c, with the exceptions being the DHC Dash 7 and Dash 8 (Which have main gear mounted in the engine nacelles) and the F-27 (Nacelle mounted engines).
PW is going nowhere on the commercial side anytime soon. They are going to slowly become a strictly millitary provider eventually since they lost out on A-350/787 and A-380/747 Adv. The only thing they have left is narrowbody and millitary applications. What would be interesting is if they can get the engine contract for the new USAF tanker.....
PM From India, joined Feb 2005, 6818 posts, RR: 65 Reply 22, posted (8 years 6 months 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 3585 times:
Quoting AirframeAS (Reply 21): What happens to CFM in all of this? I think CFM should pitch into the deal with GE and RR to give even more of an option...
Er, you know of course that CFM is 50% owned by GE? Just as there is very little chance of an "RR" engine on the next 737 because RR's involvement will be through IAE, there won't a "GE" engine there either because it'll be CFM.
Lightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 11951 posts, RR: 100 Reply 25, posted (8 years 6 months 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 3396 times:
Quoting PM (Reply 20):
They did. Boeing selected them for the now defunct 100 767 deal. Might that give them an edge in the next version of this deal?
Yes. Pratt didn't get "slapped" like Boeing did. But then again, its politics.
Quoting PM (Reply 22): because RR's involvement will be through IAE,
By contract, neither RR nor Pratt can build an engine in the 27k to 35k range nor offer an de-rage/enhanced version of an existing engine *without* IAE first declining to build/offer an engine for an airframe. So RR on its own is very unlikely. All reports are IAE. GE wouldn't want to piss of AF, so they'll probably do a CFM engine; but I'm not sure on the details there.