Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
PW6000 Engines To Be Offered On The A318 Elite.  
User currently offlineWINGS From Portugal, joined May 2005, 2831 posts, RR: 68
Posted (8 years 7 months 1 week 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 8788 times:

Pratt & Whitney and Airbus have signed a Memorandum of Understanding to offer the PW6000 engine to the A318 Elite. The A318 Elite is the corporate jet version of the A318.

The PW6000 engine will be incorporating a number of new technologies and design characteristics enabling low cost of operations.

http://www.stockhouse.com/news/news.asp?tick=UTX&newsid=3403101

Some more good news for the PW6000 engine.

Regards,
Wings


Aviation Is A Passion.
25 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineOyKIE From Norway, joined Jan 2006, 2734 posts, RR: 4
Reply 1, posted (8 years 7 months 1 week 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 8762 times:

Quoting WINGS (Thread starter):
Some more good news for the PW6000 engine.

And the PW6000 needs it!! Does anyone know how it compares to the CFM56 engine on the A318? What is the main advantage of the PW?



Dream no small dream; it lacks magic. Dream large, then go make that dream real - Donald Douglas
User currently offlineA319XFW From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (8 years 7 months 1 week 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 8754 times:

Quoting OyKIE (Reply 1):
And the PW6000 needs it!! Does anyone know how it compares to the CFM56 engine on the A318? What is the main advantage of the PW?

Anyone got the s.f.c. of the CFM compared to the P&W?


User currently offlineGigneil From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 16347 posts, RR: 85
Reply 3, posted (8 years 7 months 1 week 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 8729 times:

Quoting OyKIE (Reply 1):
Does anyone know how it compares to the CFM56 engine on the A318? What is the main advantage of the PW?

Weight is the main advantage. The engine has also been optimized for high-cycle operations.

Hopefully PW got the fuel burn down.

N


User currently offlineOyKIE From Norway, joined Jan 2006, 2734 posts, RR: 4
Reply 4, posted (8 years 7 months 1 week 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 8695 times:

Quoting Gigneil (Reply 3):
Weight is the main advantage. The engine has also been optimized for high-cycle operations.

Hopefully PW got the fuel burn down.

N

Shouldn't a weight reduction help get down the fuel consumption? I know that Volvo reduced the weight of the moving parts inside their 5 cylinder engines which made the inner friction lower, and so reduced fuel consumption and increased the torque.



Dream no small dream; it lacks magic. Dream large, then go make that dream real - Donald Douglas
User currently offlineGigneil From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 16347 posts, RR: 85
Reply 5, posted (8 years 7 months 1 week 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 8688 times:

I mean, sure, weight reduction gets the fuel burn down for the whole aircraft.

But the engine was burning far too much specific fuel.

N


User currently offlineA319XFW From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (8 years 7 months 1 week 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 8679 times:

Quoting Gigneil (Reply 3):
The engine has also been optimized for high-cycle operations.

The thing is, on the A318 Elite it won't be flying many cycles - it'll be the hours that matter.

Quoting Gigneil (Reply 5):
But the engine was burning far too much specific fuel

Was? Compared to the CFM?


User currently offlineScbriml From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2003, 12509 posts, RR: 46
Reply 7, posted (8 years 7 months 1 week 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 8632 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting A319XFW (Reply 6):
Was? Compared to the CFM?

I think compared with what PW said it would.

It's a lighter, smaller engine than the CFM (which I think is really optimised for planes larger than the A318), so is somewhat heavy and thirsty (note that Airbus doesn't even offer the V2500 on the A318 because it's heavier than the CFM).

In theory, the PW6000 should have been an optimal engine for the A318. However, it has largely been another nail in the coffin of PW's civil engine future. It will be interesting to see if PW features at all in the next generation of engines for the A320/737 replacements.



Time flies like an arrow, but fruit flies like a banana!
User currently offlineA319XFW From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (8 years 7 months 1 week 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 8602 times:

Quoting Scbriml (Reply 7):

I've heard about the P&W on the A318 Elite and it wasn't too positive.


User currently offlineWINGS From Portugal, joined May 2005, 2831 posts, RR: 68
Reply 9, posted (8 years 7 months 1 week 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 8585 times:

Quoting A319XFW (Reply 8):
I've heard about the P&W on the A318 Elite and it wasn't too positive.

In what regards?

Regards,
Wings



Aviation Is A Passion.
User currently offlineA319XFW From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 10, posted (8 years 7 months 1 week 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 8566 times:

Quoting WINGS (Reply 9):
In what regards?

See Reply 2 Big grin


User currently offlineDEVILFISH From Philippines, joined Jan 2006, 4813 posts, RR: 1
Reply 11, posted (8 years 7 months 1 week 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 8566 times:

Quoting WINGS (Thread starter):

It was bound to happen sooner or later, to give operators a choice of engines. I wonder how the PW6000 would fare on long-range routes.

Quoting Scbriml (Reply 7):
In theory, the PW6000 should have been an optimal engine for the A318. However, it has largely been another nail in the coffin of PW's civil engine future. It will be interesting to see if PW features at all in the next generation of engines for the A320/737 replacements.

Remember the early teething problems when the PW6000s were first flight tested?



"Everyone is entitled to my opinion." - Garfield
User currently offlineBoeing7E7 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 12, posted (8 years 7 months 1 week 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 8465 times:

Quoting Gigneil (Reply 3):
Hopefully PW got the fuel burn down.

They did. It's also cheaper so the engine lowers the price tag by $3 million for 318 PW variants over the CFM. And as projected, a few hundred pounds lighter.

On a 500 mile stage it supposedly burns 650 GPH vs. 688 on the CFM all factors considered in the hourly consumption rate. Equal to the burn of the RR the 717.


User currently offlineLightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 13040 posts, RR: 100
Reply 13, posted (8 years 7 months 1 week 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 8371 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting A319XFW (Reply 6):
Was? Compared to the CFM?



Quoting Scbriml (Reply 7):

I think compared with what PW said it would.

The pw6000 missed initial target fuel burn by 7%. That's huge! Alas, I left Pratt before the pw6000A went to the test stands... and my sources while very positive on the engine won't tell me squat that isn't in the public domain.  Sad

Quoting Boeing7E7 (Reply 12):
They did. It's also cheaper so the engine lowers the price tag by $3 million for 318 PW variants over the CFM. And as projected, a few hundred pounds lighter.

On a 500 mile stage it supposedly burns 650 GPH vs. 688 on the CFM all factors considered in the hourly consumption rate. Equal to the burn of the RR the 717.

I can attest that the pw6000 is amazingly cheap to build and maintain. You won't believe the cycle life the engine is designed for. (It will really put the CFM-56 to shame in that regard.) The $3million cheaper sounds about right.

However, the PW6000A is the engine that the pw6000 should have been.  Sad I've posted here before how the HPC compressor engineers knew they were going to miss target and management didn't listen.  Sad If Pratt had been able to hold onto the initail A318 orders (with a PW6000A performance engine), they would have a little more life left in them.

Personally, after the pw6000 has proven itself, Pratt needs to buy its way onto the A319 (largest airframe/thrust allowed by the IAE contract). Only then will the PW6000 get enough volume to pay off the engineering. Its a great engine. Bummer that even though its derived from the F119 that we didn't keep it contra-rotating. (That would have cut the fuel burn another 3%.)

Lightsaber



Societies that achieve a critical mass of ideas achieve self sustaining growth; others stagnate.
User currently offlineWINGS From Portugal, joined May 2005, 2831 posts, RR: 68
Reply 14, posted (8 years 7 months 1 week 5 days ago) and read 8234 times:

Quoting A319XFW (Reply 10):
See Reply 2

I still don't get it.

Quoting Boeing7E7 (Reply 12):
On a 500 mile stage it supposedly burns 650 GPH vs. 688 on the CFM all factors considered in the hourly consumption rate. Equal to the burn of the RR the 717.

Well I don't know if we can come to that conclusion so easily as the B717 has a very short range while the A318 Elite will be flying missions of up to 4000nm.

Quoting Lightsaber (Reply 13):
However, the PW6000A is the engine that the pw6000 should have been.

True. I also believe that its still too little too late. I also hope that I am wrong.

Quoting Lightsaber (Reply 13):
If Pratt had been able to hold onto the initail A318 orders (with a PW6000A performance engine), they would have a little more life left in them.

The A318 project suffered a great deal due to the PW6000 issue. It will be interesting to get some feed back from LAN after its introduction into commercial service.

Regards,
Wings



Aviation Is A Passion.
User currently offlineA342 From Germany, joined Jul 2005, 4681 posts, RR: 3
Reply 15, posted (8 years 7 months 1 week 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 8094 times:

Quoting Lightsaber (Reply 13):
Bummer that even though its derived from the F119 that we didn't keep it contra-rotating. (That would have cut the fuel burn another 3%.)

Derived from the F119 ?? Are you sure about that ? Do you work for P&W (WE didn´t keep it...) ? And why wasn´t it kept contra-rotating ? Higher manufacturing/maintenance costs ?



Exceptions confirm the rule.
User currently offlineA319XFW From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 16, posted (8 years 7 months 1 week 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 8078 times:

Quoting WINGS (Reply 14):
I still don't get it.

In regards to specific fuel consumption vs the CFM.


User currently offlineWAH64D From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 966 posts, RR: 13
Reply 17, posted (8 years 7 months 1 week 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 8068 times:

I really hope this gets P&W at least some way out of the sh*t they're in. P&W have made outstanding engines for many years and I hope they continue for more years still.


I AM the No-spotalotacus.
User currently offlineLightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 13040 posts, RR: 100
Reply 18, posted (8 years 7 months 1 week 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 7979 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting A342 (Reply 15):
Derived from the F119 ?? Are you sure about that ? Do you work for P&W (WE didn´t keep it...) ? And why wasn´t it kept contra-rotating ? Higher manufacturing/maintenance costs ?

Am I sure its derived from the F119? Yes. Directly? No

Did I work at P&W during the time the PW6000 was developed? Yes. In a department called "combustors, Augmentors, and Nozzles." There I worked with the compressor guys/gals to take their rather "stired up" air flow and move it through the combustor where I then work with the turbine guys/gals as the combustor doesn't exactly deliver a constant velocity or temperature to the turbine. So I feel qualified to talk about the PW6000. As I do not currently work for P&W, there are some details of the PW6000A I feel qualified to discuss, some I do not (e.g., exact fuel burn).

Why wasn't the pw6000 kept contra rotating? When the commitment to the PW6000 was made the contra-rotation was considered high risk. The decision was made to go with standard commercial bearings to make the engine more "sellable". I disagree with that decision, but I don't have all the facts. (Just as anyone who works for a company won't know every reason a decision was made unless they make the decision.)

Contra rotation is basically free ONCE THE TECHNOLOGY IS DEVELOPED. It cost big bucks to develop bearings that could take the differential velocities. There is a reason *all* future engines will have the technology but none in service currently have it... its when the technology matures. The same was true of single crystal turbine blades, curved fan blades, impingement cooling, annular combustors, airblast fuel injectors (which are being replaced), tubine case cooling with optical sensors, etc.

Quoting WAH64D (Reply 17):
I really hope this gets P&W at least some way out of the sh*t they're in. P&W have made outstanding engines for many years and I hope they continue for more years still.

Me too. I have hope! But GE is a machine.

Lightsaber



Societies that achieve a critical mass of ideas achieve self sustaining growth; others stagnate.
User currently offlineBoeing7E7 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 19, posted (8 years 7 months 1 week 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 7960 times:

Quoting WINGS (Reply 14):
Well I don't know if we can come to that conclusion so easily as the B717 has a very short range while the A318 Elite will be flying missions of up to 4000nm.

http://www.boeing.com/commercial/717/news/2003/q2/nr_030507g.html


User currently offlineMD90fan From Bahamas, joined Jul 2005, 2931 posts, RR: 7
Reply 20, posted (8 years 7 months 1 week 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 7947 times:

I never knew Boeing made a 717BJ did it attract any costumers?


http://www.devanwells.blogspot.com/
User currently offlineBoeing7E7 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 21, posted (8 years 7 months 1 week 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 7929 times:

Quoting MD90fan (Reply 20):
I never knew Boeing made a 717BJ did it attract any costumers?

I don't believe it did.

[Edited 2006-01-26 02:24:59]

User currently offlineFlyDreamliner From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 2759 posts, RR: 15
Reply 22, posted (8 years 7 months 1 week 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 7917 times:

The RR on the 717 is a nice engine, in a lot of aspects, noise especially. The IAE V2500 is a good engine. Unquestionably however, GE/Snecma's CFM56 is the most widely proven engine in the segment, finding widespread use under the wings of both 737 and A320 aircraft. That's hard to deal with. My understanding is that Pratt and Whitney went for a greatly simplified design in PW6000, believing they could make it as efficient as more complex and sophisticated rivals, while maintaining a lower cost and weight. It seems like it took them a long time to get it right, and as a result missed making it to market on time. Moreover, Pratt and Whitney isn't offering a next generation long-haul engine for the A350/787, leaving it exclusively to RR - and to a larger extent - GE, who has been making power play after powerplay lately it seems. Too bad to see PW stumbling like this, there was a time they were the number one gold standard in aircraft engines. The era of JT8D, JT9D, and even later on with the PW4000 and PW2000 series, they had strong contenders. What's happened?


"Let the world change you, and you can change the world"
User currently offlineOyKIE From Norway, joined Jan 2006, 2734 posts, RR: 4
Reply 23, posted (8 years 7 months 1 week 4 days ago) and read 7835 times:

Quoting FlyDreamliner (Reply 22):
Pratt and Whitney isn't offering a next generation long-haul engine for the A350/787

To make that decision even more strange the PW engine was the only design to be brand new. The Trent 1000 and Genx are derivatives.

Maybe the problems with the PW6000 influenced Boeings decision?

How does the economics of the PW4000 compare to the economics of the Trent and GE engines on the 777?



Dream no small dream; it lacks magic. Dream large, then go make that dream real - Donald Douglas
User currently offlineEnginesRUs From United States of America, joined Aug 2000, 82 posts, RR: 0
Reply 24, posted (8 years 7 months 1 week 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 7745 times:

Quoting FlyDreamliner (Reply 22):
Too bad to see PW stumbling like this, there was a time they were the number one gold standard in aircraft engines. The era of JT8D, JT9D, and even later on with the PW4000 and PW2000 series, they had strong contenders. What's happened?



Quoting OyKIE (Reply 23):
Maybe the problems with the PW6000 influenced Boeings decision?

Let's be very clear - P&W made a conscious decision in the end not to offer an engine on the 787 and by extension A350. The large jet engine business, while glamorous, is a lousy business proposition, sometimes requiring decades to recoup an investment thanks to intense (and some say out of control) discounting. P&W, for better or for worse, is part of a large conglomerate that includes such famous names as Otis, Carrier, and Sikorsky. In evaluating where to invest its money, its parent company can get much higher returns much more quickly in ventures other than a billion-dollar high thrust jet engine program. P&W does not have a parent company with deep pockets and a cash cow in the form of a 737 exclusive (like GE) or patient shareholders operating under a slightly different set of rules (like RR). As such, it decided to concentrate on its strengths in military, regional, and space propulsion engines and save its energy for the next-generation 737 and A320 (ostensibly via IAE). You can debate the relative merits of that decision, but it has been made and there's a good reason why UTC continues to outperform the S&P 500 year after year. Oh - and despite conventional wisdom, P&W delivered more than 2,500 jet and turboprop engines last year (including a large number of V2500s) - the rumors of their demise are just a little premature. Its a funny thing about the engine business, though - all it takes is one small change (like, oh say getting on the 737 and/or its successor) and suddenly it's a whole new ball game.


User currently offlineOyKIE From Norway, joined Jan 2006, 2734 posts, RR: 4
Reply 25, posted (8 years 7 months 1 week 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 7665 times:

Quoting EnginesRUs (Reply 24):
Let's be very clear - P&W made a conscious decision in the end not to offer an engine on the 787 and by extension A350.

I was not aware of this. My conclusion was based on an article in ATW wher the story told that PW was odd man out, since Boeing did not want a completly new design.



Dream no small dream; it lacks magic. Dream large, then go make that dream real - Donald Douglas
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Blended Winglets To Be Offered On 767 posted Mon Jul 19 2004 02:22:33 by YUL332LX
Alcohol To Be Banned On Flights To/from The UK? posted Sun Apr 21 2002 21:33:49 by SAS23
A320-100 To Be Scrapped For The First Time (ex-BA) posted Sun Nov 12 2006 14:09:42 by PlaneHunter
CRJ700/900 To Be Offered As Bizjets posted Fri May 26 2006 09:59:15 by Flying-Tiger
14 Bis Ready To Take Off On The "Century Flight" posted Tue May 16 2006 04:35:27 by LipeGIG
So, Who Wants To Start Betting On The Weight Hits? posted Wed Mar 22 2006 22:42:42 by DLKAPA
Focus: Lufthansa To Get PTVs On The A380 posted Sun Mar 19 2006 00:24:47 by TheSonntag
Security Fees To Be Doubled On Intra-US Flights? posted Sun Feb 12 2006 10:13:45 by LH492
FI: China Set To BE Offered A320 Line posted Mon Jan 23 2006 13:01:34 by Leelaw
B6 E190 To Be Revealed On 10/11 posted Sat Oct 8 2005 00:47:11 by Werdywerd