Keesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Posted (7 years 7 months 3 weeks 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 7425 times:
The Engine Alliance (EA) has reached a major milestone in the development of its GP7200 engine with delivery of the first four compliance/flight test engines for the Airbus A380.
Airbus will install nacelle and airplane system components on these engines starting in October to support the upcoming A380/GP7200 flight test program.
"Everyone on the Engine Alliance team is very proud today," said Bruce Hughes, EA president. "This is a goal we have been working towards since GE and Pratt & Whitney formed the Engine Alliance in 1996 -- to give airlines the best performing, most reliable engine for new, super jumbo aircraft such as the A380.
We are particularly pleased because our compliance engines are right on the Airbus fuel burn specification."
Sq212 From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 272 posts, RR: 0 Reply 1, posted (7 years 7 months 3 weeks 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 7370 times:
So we will know by year end which engines will out perform the other?
Lufthansa, Virgin, SIA, Malaysia, Etihad and QANTAS have chosen the RR Trent. The EA have 46% (4 customers) of confirmed sales so far (largely thanks to EK), RR have 36% (6 customers) and 19% (5 customers) are undecided. That's 'end users'; I'm not counting ILFC.
KC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 11708 posts, RR: 52 Reply 3, posted (7 years 7 months 3 weeks 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 7350 times:
Do we know which test airframe these engines will be installed on? For an engine installation on a 4 engine jet, usually they will ship 5+ engines, so there are spares available. This will prevent any delays in the test program should an engine change be required, like for a bird injestion.
PM From India, joined Feb 2005, 6715 posts, RR: 65 Reply 4, posted (7 years 7 months 3 weeks 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 7338 times:
Quoting Sq212 (Reply 1): So we will know by year end which engines will out perform the other?
I very much doubt if it will be that clear cut. Engines don't compete on only one criterion but on many. One will do better than the other on X but less well on Y. Think of the PW2000 vs. RB211-535 on the 757. Each had strengths and weaknesses. Each airline had to decide what was more important for them. There's unlikely to be a "better" engine on the A380.
Jush From Germany, joined Apr 2005, 1636 posts, RR: 4 Reply 8, posted (7 years 7 months 3 weeks 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 6916 times:
Quoting PM (Reply 4): I very much doubt if it will be that clear cut. Engines don't compete on only one criterion but on many. One will do better than the other on X but less well on Y. Think of the PW2000 vs. RB211-535 on the 757. Each had strengths and weaknesses. Each airline had to decide what was more important for them. There's unlikely to be a "better" engine on the A380.
True words my friend.
It's not that easy to tell. And they're all very good manufacturers so i doubt that any engine will do "much" better than another one.
Regards
jush
There is one problem with airbus. Though their products are engineering marvels they lack passion, completely.
Lono From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 1321 posts, RR: 1 Reply 10, posted (7 years 7 months 3 weeks 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 6311 times:
Quoting HanginOut (Reply 9): Could someone tell me what the strengths and weaknesses between the two engines are?
Lightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 10671 posts, RR: 100 Reply 11, posted (7 years 7 months 3 weeks 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 6236 times:
Quoting Keesje (Thread starter): We are particularly pleased because our compliance engines are right on the Airbus fuel burn specification."
That's huge. At this point, engines are usually 1 or 2% below spec. Therefore, I would *guess* that there still can be another 1% of fuel burn cut out. However, for the Alliance to get any orders I know they had to promise a big improvement in fuel burn... so it might not be the case this time around.
Quoting Sq212 (Reply 1): So we will know by year end which engines will out perform the other?
Quoting PM (Reply 4): There's unlikely to be a "better" engine on the A380.
Well said, unless one is a dog (e.g., the JT8D on the 727 couldn't be kicked off. The pw4098 was a black eye for Pratt...) How are you doing?
Quoting PM (Reply 2): and 19% (5 customers) are undecided.
How these customers go will show you which engine has the lead. I know the alliance had to work very hard to match RR...
MarshalN From Hong Kong, joined Sep 2005, 1521 posts, RR: 0 Reply 12, posted (7 years 7 months 3 weeks 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 6157 times:
Quoting PM (Reply 4): I very much doubt if it will be that clear cut. Engines don't compete on only one criterion but on many. One will do better than the other on X but less well on Y. Think of the PW2000 vs. RB211-535 on the 757. Each had strengths and weaknesses. Each airline had to decide what was more important for them. There's unlikely to be a "better" engine on the A380.
Very true, although on the other hand, many airlines have a long term working relationship with one engine maker, and they practically don't order the other. CX comes to mind with their RR only policy, at least when RR is a choice I think (except those ex-SQ 747s).
SparkingWave From South Korea, joined Jun 2005, 668 posts, RR: 0 Reply 13, posted (7 years 7 months 3 weeks 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 6105 times:
Quoting Lono (Reply 10): One is stronger than the weaker one
That's too simple. One will be stronger, but one will cost less to maintain. One will be quieter, and one will be more fuel efficient. Mechanics of an airline will like one engine over the other because of how similar they are to other engines in that airline's fleet, and so on...
I'd love to be the exec that gets to select the powerplant for her/his airline!
SparkingWave
Flights to the moon and all major space stations. At Pan Am, the sky is no longer the limit!
Dynkrisolo From United States of America, joined Feb 2001, 1834 posts, RR: 7 Reply 14, posted (7 years 7 months 3 weeks 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 6077 times:
Quoting MarshalN (Reply 12): CX comes to mind with their RR only policy, at least when RR is a choice I think (except those ex-SQ 747s).
You forgot that they have a big 343 fleet which is powered by the CFM56.
Lono From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 1321 posts, RR: 1 Reply 15, posted (7 years 7 months 3 weeks 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 5945 times:
Kaitak744 From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 2208 posts, RR: 3 Reply 16, posted (7 years 7 months 3 weeks 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 5129 times:
Quoting Zeke (Reply 6): Would imagine that picture was taken on the GEAE 747 classic.
Yes, an ex PanAm 747-100, previously named Clipper Juan T. Trippe. Line number 25. In the background, you can see the old PW JT9.
PM From India, joined Feb 2005, 6715 posts, RR: 65 Reply 17, posted (7 years 7 months 3 weeks 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 4389 times:
Quoting HanginOut (Reply 9): Could someone tell me what the strengths and weaknesses between the two engines are?
My friend Lightsaber can tell you much more but, as I understand it, the PW2000 on the 757 used far less fuel ( ) but required far more maintenance ( ) than the RB211. So, you're buying a fleet of 757s. Do you go for a more economical engine that needs to be taken off the wing (relatively) frequently or one that uses more fuel but will fly for twice as long between visits to the doctor? And that was just two factors out of many.
N328KF From United States of America, joined May 2004, 6222 posts, RR: 3 Reply 18, posted (7 years 7 months 3 weeks 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 4224 times:
So one question that I've always been curious of — why did RR and GE/PW develop new engines for a power range that is already covered well by the 777 engines?
When they call the roll in the Senate, the Senators do not know whether to answer 'Present' or 'Not guilty.' T.Roosevelt
WhiteHatter From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 19, posted (7 years 7 months 3 weeks 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 4128 times:
Quoting N328KF (Reply 18): So one question that I've always been curious of — why did RR and GE/PW develop new engines for a power range that is already covered well by the 777 engines?
Many reasons including ancillary requirements and fan diameter.
The GP 7200 is a risk sharing project between GE and PW using elements of both companies engines, as neither company wanted to finance the project or work it up alone. Take the best parts of the PW4000 and GE90 family and build an engine...saves on development costs as well. Each company had existing technology to bring to the deal, which would mean lower development cost.
The GE90 family is too big and the PW4000 has its weaknesses. The GP7200 is a hybrid which eliminates both factors.
Quoting Lightsaber (Reply 11): How these customers go will show you which engine has the lead. I know the alliance had to work very hard to match RR...
The EK deal alone (plus Air France) was a major coup for GP. FedEx have also specified the GP7200 on theirs.
PM From India, joined Feb 2005, 6715 posts, RR: 65 Reply 20, posted (7 years 7 months 3 weeks 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 4040 times:
Quoting WhiteHatter (Reply 19): The EK deal alone (plus Air France) was a major coup for GP. FedEx have also specified the GP7200 on theirs.
Korean have too, making the customer base four.
I'm still convinced that the Emirates deal went to the EA at least partly because of RR's success on other EK types. When they ordered their A380s EK had RR A330s, RR 777s and had RR A340s on order. Choosing RR for their A380s would have put all their eggs in one basket. (This was prior to the 777ER order and before they leased CFM A343s.) Their earlier success may have cost RR this huge order.
Widebodyphotog From United States of America, joined Jun 1999, 917 posts, RR: 68 Reply 21, posted (7 years 7 months 3 weeks 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 3797 times:
Quoting Sq212 (Reply 1): So we will know by year end which engines will out perform the other?
Put together some data from both engines. Installed SFC numbers are still yet to be finalized, but there is not much either of the engines give away to the other.
-widebodyphotog
If you know what's really going on then you'll know what to do
Lightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 10671 posts, RR: 100 Reply 22, posted (7 years 7 months 3 weeks 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 3764 times:
Quoting PM (Reply 17):
My friend Lightsaber can tell you much more but, as I understand it, the PW2000 on the 757 used far less fuel ( Smile ) but required far more maintenance ( Sad ) than the RB211.
I wish I could tell you more about the two A380 engines but intead I point you to post 21. You have the important part of the RB211 vs pw2000 argument in that nice concise statement.
Quoting Widebodyphotog (Reply 21): Put together some data from both engines. Installed SFC numbers are still yet to be finalized, but there is not much either of the engines give away to the other.
Nice data!
Oh, One correction. I should have written "normally at this point an engine is about 1% ABOVE its target TSFC." oops. So i do expect the vendors to improve their TSFC just a tad before entry into service. (Mostly by final tuning of the stators and other control loops.)
Ikramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21027 posts, RR: 60 Reply 23, posted (7 years 7 months 3 weeks 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 3710 times:
Those are some LOOOOOOOOONG engines at 180+ feet.
Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
Sponsor Message: 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 272 posts, 
From India, joined Feb 2005, 6715 posts, 
From France, joined May 2005, 211 posts, 
From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 7725 posts, 
From Germany, joined Apr 2005, 1636 posts, 
From Austria, joined May 2005, 545 posts, 
From South Korea, joined Jun 2005, 668 posts, 
) but required far more maintenance ( 
) than the RB211. So, you're buying a fleet of 757s. Do you go for a more economical engine that needs to be taken off the wing (relatively) frequently or one that uses more fuel but will fly for twice as long between visits to the doctor? And that was just two factors out of many.
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
Printer friendly format 
