Keesje From Netherlands, joined Apr 2001, 10190 posts, RR: 52 Posted (4 years 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 16445 times:
It seems both Airbus and Boeing aren't wildly enthousiastic about the gains of new materials & technologies on Boeing 737NG and A320 replacements.
Airbus NSR Phase 1 results are believed to have indicated that if all the advanced technology was poured into the aircraft, the best specific fuel consumption reduction would be 4%, operating cost 3%, emissions reduction 5%.
The numbers are also said to be within 0.5-1% for all parameters for the initial phases of Boeing’s RS/Y1.
Boeing Commercial Airplanes vice-president sales Scott Carson : “To build a 737 replacement without a next-generation engine would be a dreadful mistake for us to make.”
Airbus chief executive Gustav Humbert : “Both Boeing and Airbus will need an all-new engine, which the engine manufacturers say will not be ready until 2013-14, so the possible entry into service of such an aircraft could be possible around the middle of the next decade,”
RedFlyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 3613 posts, RR: 30 Reply 2, posted (4 years 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 16409 times:
Quoting Keesje (Thread starter): Will the GE/Snecma and PW/RR alliances remain intact?
My initial thought is the alliances would stay intact simply because the market potential is incredibly huge, especially if it's a winner-take-all (e.g., exclusive engine) for each model.
N328KF From United States of America, joined May 2004, 5753 posts, RR: 7 Reply 3, posted (4 years 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 16228 times:
Quoting Atmx2000 (Reply 1): Aren't RR&PW contractually bound together to IAE along with other partners?
Possibly, but GE and SNECMA are definitely bound together by contract. The contract is still in force, because it affected the PowerJet deal.
Quoting RedFlyer (Reply 2): My initial thought is the alliances would stay intact simply because the market potential is incredibly huge, especially if it's a winner-take-all (e.g., exclusive engine) for each model.
Indeed. SNECMA has half of the CFM56 production to keep them busy, and GE Aviation (no longer called GEAE) has the other half of CFM production as well as the related F101 and F108.
When they call the roll in the Senate, the Senators do not know whether to answer 'Present' or 'Not guilty.' T.Roosevelt
Planemaker From Tuvalu, joined Aug 2003, 3969 posts, RR: 23 Reply 4, posted (4 years 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 16189 times:
Quoting Keesje (Thread starter): Airbus NSR Phase 1 results are believed to have indicated that if all the advanced technology was poured into the aircraft, the best specific fuel consumption reduction would be 4%, operating cost 3%, emissions reduction 5%.
The numbers are also said to be within 0.5-1% for all parameters for the initial phases of Boeing’s RS/Y1.
The above is the main reason why the CSeries was never going to fly... the CSeries' 15% improvement claim over the A320 and 73G was not at all credible from the start.
C680 From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 375 posts, RR: 0 Reply 5, posted (4 years 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 16167 times:
This is one of the most intelligent threads I have seen on A.Net in a log time. Its a heck of a lot better than a bunch of folks screaming that Boeing is better than Airbus or vice versa.
The premise is also 100% correct: almost every major advance in aviation has been preceded by an advance in engine technology.
The question is, what key technology will allow engines to make the next big leap forward? Sometimes it is a design change (Pure Jets to Fan Jets to Hi-Bypass to Bleedless) sometimes it is a material change.
Does anyone have any ideas as to the next big thing for propellants?
A342 From Germany, joined Jul 2005, 3952 posts, RR: 1 Reply 7, posted (4 years 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 16014 times:
AERO International reports that MTU, together with P&W, will start testing of a new transsonic high-pressure compressor in autumn. The technology could be used in both geared and conventional turbofans, it is optimized for the next generation of engines for midsized aircraft.
Planemaker From Tuvalu, joined Aug 2003, 3969 posts, RR: 23 Reply 8, posted (4 years 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 15952 times:
Quoting A342 (Reply 7): AERO International reports that MTU, together with P&W, will start testing of a new transsonic high-pressure compressor in autumn.
Here is a bit more details from FI...
- Integrally bladed compressor rotor
- 8-stage, 17-to-1 pressure ratio compressor module
Scbriml From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2003, 9016 posts, RR: 51 Reply 9, posted (4 years 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 15946 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW FORUM MODERATOR
Quoting RedFlyer (Reply 2): My initial thought is the alliances would stay intact simply because the market potential is incredibly huge, especially if it's a winner-take-all (e.g., exclusive engine) for each model.
For me this is an interesting situation. Are the current players in CFM and IAE contractually bound not to produce a competing engine. If such a clause does exist, I would imagine it would be time limited and that the limit has probably been passed by now (certainly for CFM).
As to exclusivity - it's interesting that Boeing doesn't seem to have shown any significant interest in offering an engine choice on the 737. I always believed the airlines benefited from having an engine choice as it gives them a little more leverage to reduce purchase price somewhat.
My personal opinion is that not having a choice of engine might be a disadvantage. I will predict boldly that both Airbus and Boeing will offer a choice of engine on their next generation of narrowbody planes.
N328KF From United States of America, joined May 2004, 5753 posts, RR: 7 Reply 10, posted (4 years 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 15870 times:
Quoting Scbriml (Reply 9): For me this is an interesting situation. Are the current players in CFM and IAE contractually bound not to produce a competing engine. If such a clause does exist, I would imagine it would be time limited and that the limit has probably been passed by now (certainly for CFM).
I reiterate:
Quoting N328KF (Reply 3): Possibly, but GE and SNECMA are definitely bound together by contract. The contract is still in force, because it affected the PowerJet deal.
This deal was very recently.
When they call the roll in the Senate, the Senators do not know whether to answer 'Present' or 'Not guilty.' T.Roosevelt
Blue_Angel From France, joined Jun 1999, 75 posts, RR: 0 Reply 11, posted (4 years 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 15856 times:
Quoting Scbriml (Reply 9): I always believed the airlines benefited from having an engine choice as it gives them a little more leverage to reduce purchase price somewhat
But it allows airlines to buy or sell planes more easily in the second hand market, right ?
They do, but Snecma didn't bid on a large components of the GEnx as they have historically done on other GE engines. Their share of the Ge90 was also down from the CF6.
Quoting N328KF (Reply 3): Possibly, but GE and SNECMA are definitely bound together by contract.
They are bound on the CFM56, but IIRC, there is nothing to the extent that GE couldn't develop an in-house engine in the 20-35,000 lbf range.
Quoting Scbriml (Reply 9): I will predict boldly that both Airbus and Boeing will offer a choice of engine on their next generation of narrowbody planes.
If Boeing implements the common pylon philosophy from the 787, it will be a non-issue.
The only reason Boeing kept the 737 to a single engine supplier was to boost resale value. One engine option greatly improves the aftermarket sale flexibility of an aircraft. If the engine can be changed, the same result is accomplished.
N328KF From United States of America, joined May 2004, 5753 posts, RR: 7 Reply 13, posted (4 years 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 15782 times:
Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 12): They are bound on the CFM56, but IIRC, there is nothing to the extent that GE couldn't develop an in-house engine in the 20-35,000 lbf range.
Well, think what you like, but:
The Franco-Russian protocol governing the venture covers turbofans up to 18,500 lb. thrust and would not grow further to avoid interfering with CFM International's product range. CFMI, a subsidiary of General Electric and Snecma, produces CFM56-series turbofans.
Keesje From Netherlands, joined Apr 2001, 10190 posts, RR: 52 Reply 14, posted (4 years 3 days ago) and read 15737 times:
It seems Pratt is willing to keep working with RR in IAE, but not at all costs.
Although Chenevert says the company?s main route to market remains through International Aero Engines (IAE), he warns that ?if for whatever reason it was decided it was not the way of the future we?d be ready to go it alone. We believe we have the processes in plan to shorten the time to market considerably, and be in-service within 36 months of launch.? http://www.flightinternational.com/A...ed+fan+for+next+narrowbodies+.html
GE & Snecma & partners launched the Leap56 program
The leap56 seems a technology development program including more reliable lightweight accessories and gearbox and next-generation controls.
Basic engine design technologies being considered include lightweight structures; advanced composite fan blade technology; power generation; and advanced 3-D compressor and turbine technology.
Speed for Fuel
I think if necessary (further exploding oil prices) airlines would be willing to trade fleet utilization for lower operating costs. In that case new engine core technology combined with higher BPR could lead to e.g. 10% lower cruise speed but also >20% lower fuel costs.
Aircraft structure, wings and controls could be dimensioned lighter.
Looking at the current "come back" of props like the Q400´s and ATR at the cost of RJ´s, IMO it wouldn´t be very surprising if the balance between speeds & operating economics is changing.
In Western Europe most flights are <1.5 hour anyway. Perhaps a 5 minute longer flight time isn´t too shocking. ~20% fuel cost reduction is.
Planemaker From Tuvalu, joined Aug 2003, 3969 posts, RR: 23 Reply 16, posted (4 years 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 15638 times:
Quoting Keesje (Reply 14): In Western Europe most flights are <1.5 hour anyway. Perhaps a 5 minute longer flight time isn´t too shocking. ~20% fuel cost reduction is.
Considering the padding that goes into block times due to ATC congestion, variable taxi times, airspeed limits at lower altitudes, etc. or aircraft having to wait for a gate to clear, enroute speed difference really isn't much of an issue on most regional flights... as you say.
Quoting Keesje (Reply 14): Looking at the current "come back" of props like the Q400´s and ATR at the cost of RJ´s, IMO it wouldn´t be very surprising if the balance between speeds & operating economics is changing.
I wouldn't say that there has really been any sort of "come back" for turbo props. Sales had dropped off so low that the current percentage increase in sales looks encouragingly large.
DfwRevolution From United States of America, joined Jan 2010, 39 posts, RR: 54 Reply 17, posted (4 years 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 15574 times:
Quoting Keesje (Reply 14): I think if necessary (further exploding oil prices) airlines would be willing to trade fleet utilization for lower operating costs.
In Western Europe most flights are <1.5 hour anyway. Perhaps a 5 minute longer flight time isn´t too shocking. ~20% fuel cost reduction is.
What's a 90 minute flight on a 737/A320 won't exactly work out to 95 minutes in a turboprop. The analogy, however, is a good one: if a minor trade-off in cruise speed translates into a major SFC reduction, it might be viable.
The key is how much utilization. If the cruise mach must be reduced to the point where 1-2 daily utilizations are lost, the economics will not likely compute. Labor is just as important as fuel, and paying crews the same hours to move 16% fewer customers (5/6 daily) doesn't help the bottom line.
You must also consider that the 737/A320 replacement is going to cover a whole spectrum of aircraft, including 757, so the average stage length may be well over 90 minutes. WN is legendary for their "short hops" and their system wide average is 105 minutes and only going up.
Joni From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 18, posted (4 years 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 15413 times:
Does anyone know, how well current engines work if jet fuel is mixed with, say, bioethanol? Car engines work pretty well when mixed with up to 10-30% ethanol, and somehow common sense would imply to me that jet engines should at least match this mix rate.
If we were able to, say, mix jet fuel with 50% bioethanol then we'd cut fossil-fuel consumption and CO2 emissions by half in aviation at one stroke. There are two obvious ways to make that happen:
1) Levy a tax the fossil quotient, but not the biofuel part
2) Just make it mandatory to have 50/50.
Trex8 From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 3077 posts, RR: 19 Reply 19, posted (4 years 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 15373 times:
any ethanol based fuel like gasohol mixtures has less energy than a 100% oil based fuel, leaving aside whether present turbofans can use such fuels, the reduced energy value may actually increase the amount of fuel you need.
OyKIE From Norway, joined Jan 2006, 1714 posts, RR: 3 Reply 20, posted (4 years 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 14563 times:
Quoting Keesje (Thread starter): They are adding new technology to the CFM56-5 and CFM56-7 under the tech 56 program.
I am disappointed that the Tech56 did not give an even lower fuel consumption.
Quoting Keesje (Reply 14): The leap56 seems a technology development program including more reliable lightweight accessories and gearbox and next-generation controls.
Does anybody know what the anticipated redutcion in fuel consumption in the LEAP56 program are compared to todays CFM56 engine? Will some of the technology from this program see the daylight on the current CFM56 engine or just the next generation?
Quoting Keesje (Reply 14): I think if necessary (further exploding oil prices) airlines would be willing to trade fleet utilization for lower operating costs.
The oil barrel price has dropped 2 dollars yesterday, and continued to decline today.
Dream no small dream; it lacks magic. Dream large, then go make that dream real - Donald Douglas
Lightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 5512 posts, RR: 87 Reply 21, posted (4 years 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 14504 times:
Quoting Atmx2000 (Reply 1): Aren't RR&PW contractually bound together to IAE along with other partners?
Yes. It covers 27k on up. I forget the exact upper bound, but its around 33k. (e.g., why the designed top thrust of the pw6000 is 26.8k.) However, if IAE fails to offer an engine for *any* market, either party could enter said market. (e.g., if Boeing allowed the PW6000A onto the 737, Pratt could do it as IAE hasn't offered an engine yet. Note: Boeing won't do this, I need more coffee to come up with better ideas...)
Quoting Scbriml (Reply 9): My personal opinion is that not having a choice of engine might be a disadvantage. I will predict boldly that both Airbus and Boeing will offer a choice of engine on their next generation of narrowbody planes.
I wonder if they will do a shared nacelle a la 787. Lessors want to place aircraft fast. If the engine and nacelle must be replaced, that gets pricey fast. If its only the engine... That will only be $3 or $4million per airframe for this size class.
Pratt is very exited about offering a GTF. I should know, I've worked on paper engines like the 8163, 8133, and others. I belive IAE might morph into a Pratt/RR/MTU joint venture, but will continue on.
Quoting Keesje (Reply 14): I think this puts RR in an interesting position.
There are buyout positions for Pratt to get out of the IAE contract, but it won't be free. IAE has morphed into its own entity that wants to survive (read, executives want their bonuses as they're paid by IAE).
Quoting Joni (Reply 18): Does anyone know, how well current engines work if jet fuel is mixed with, say, bioethanol?
The problem with ethanol is its much lower energy content per volume and weight than Jet-A. Using lower heating value:
ethanol: 75,700 Btu/US gallon or 11,500 Btu/lbm
Jet-A/diesel: 130,500 Btu/US gallon (about 18,400 Btu/lbm)
gasoline: 115,000 Btu/US gallon (about 18,700 Btu/lbm) http://bioenergy.ornl.gov/papers/misc/energy_conv.html
One will not be able to do LAX/JFK-SIN with Jet-A diluted with ethanol. Jet engines run off of the fuel's energy and having less energy per pound will dramatically reduce a plane's range. I couldn't imagine a A345 or B772LR trying to carry another 50% more in fuel weight and still be able to do any attractive mission. A better solution is to use Bio-diesel oils into Jet-A which will have an energy density only about 3% to 5% less per pound.
You need a subsription to view; however, some highlights:
After missing out on making engines for Boeing Co.'s (BA) new 787 Dreamliner, United Technologies' (UTX) Pratt & Whitney division is vying for future replacement work for Boeing's popular 737 jet, an executive said Wednesday.
While it is not yet clear when Boeing will replace the single-aisle 737, the strong-selling plane will be a highly sought-after project for any aerospace contractor.
"We spent money in 2005 at Pratt & Whitney to develop narrow-body technology," said United Technologies' vice president of finance, Jim Geisler, at the SG Cowen Aerospace/Defense Conference in New York.
Areopagus From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 1288 posts, RR: 1 Reply 24, posted (4 years 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 14124 times:
Quoting Scbriml (Reply 9): As to exclusivity - it's interesting that Boeing doesn't seem to have shown any significant interest in offering an engine choice on the 737.
IIRC, when Boeing developed the 737-300, they signed an agreement with CFM to only offer the CFM56 on the 737 henceforth. I believe (but don't know for sure) that exclusivity agreement carried over to the NG. But it doesn't apply to a clean-sheet 737 successor, and I'm sure Pratt and Whitney are salivating. I'd like to see three engines on offer for the 737/320 replacements. The market is big enough.
25 Areopagus: I recently flew in a CRJ SLC-SJC in about 1:40 in the air, which surprised me, because it takes about 1:24 in a 737. I expect a turboprop to be much
26 Atmx2000: Common sense would tell you that any partially oxygenated hydrocarbon like ethanol is going to have less energy content per unit mass. There is energ
27 Shenzhen: I think PW would be more then happy to get out of the IAE deal, simply because they were basically left out of the service side on these engines. What
28 FlyDreamliner: Airbus never wants to develop anything it doesn't absolutely have to. I wouldn't be surprised if they just try to warm over the A320. It might work, A
29 Joni: However you don't increase the amount of -fossil- fuel you use, which is relevant for the CO2 emission rate. As someone noted, biodiesel would probab
31 Keesje: Another press release from PW on the narrowbody new engine field. Pratt & Whitney eyes 737 replacement http://www.marketwatch.com/news/stor...96D7-E1E
32 Lightsaber: ??? P&W makes good money servicing these engines. So does RR, MTU, and a few other shops. This is typical. (e.g., Pratt even maintains CFM-56's). Pra
33 Mrocktor: Except you increase the CO2 emission rate. Not that it matters when volcanoes, animals, plankton, swamps and the rest of nature emits a hundred times
34 Revelation: Wow, that's the first time I've seen anyone refer to organic chemistry as common sense!
35 A342: Very true. I could even imagine a new big turboprop with the A400M´s engines which are going to be certified by civilian agencies.
36 Joni: You don't in fact increase it, since growing the energy crops binds the same amount of CO2 that is released when you burn the biofuel. It's basically
37 Keesje: Boeing still up in air about successor to 737 Confirmation that Boeing studies have so far failed to produce a decisive reason to launch a replacement
38 OyKIE: Now this is interesting. If Boeing RS/Y1 comes in three different fuselage sizes it could offer seating capacity from 75 to 250 seats. But wouldn't d
39 Keesje: Implementing new technology in existing engines looks to be smarter at this moment then coming up with something completely new. This programme for t
40 OyKIE: Agree with that, but I hope they continue to keep the 737 on a diet. The CFM engine in the picture seems like a misfit
41 Kappel: Are these improvements only intended for the 737 CFM engines, or also the a32x CFM's? Would be weird if it wasn't wouldn't it?
Sponsor Message: 
From Netherlands, joined Apr 2001, 10190 posts, 
From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 4576 posts, 
From Tuvalu, joined Aug 2003, 3969 posts, 
From Finland, joined Dec 1999, 646 posts, 
From Germany, joined Jul 2005, 3952 posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2003, 9016 posts, 
From France, joined Jun 1999, 75 posts, 
From Norway, joined Jan 2006, 1714 posts, 
I wonder if they will do a shared nacelle a la 787. Lessors want to place aircraft fast. If the engine and nacelle must be replaced, that gets pricey fast. If its only the engine... That will only be $3 or $4million per airframe for this size class. 
Printer friendly format 
