Leelaw From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Posted (6 years 11 months 5 days ago) and read 2362 times:
...GE continues its research and development of engines for next-generation narrowbody planes. Donnelly said GE's corporate research team has been looking at powerplant advances for about five years, and a team on the company's aviation business side has been devoted to systems and architecture for about two years.
GE has no plans to scale down the GEnx to create a new narrowbody engine, noting the GEnx's two-stage, high-pressure turbine (HPT) would result in more parts and higher maintenance costs than the single-stage HPTs on narrowbody powerplants. Donnelly explained that GE would take some of the composite technology used in the GEnx's fan blades and fan case and apply that to the new narrowbody design...
Apparently, Mr. Donnelly didn't make a projection as to when a sufficiently advanced powerplant would be available for the OEM's to go forward with the next generation of narrowbodies.
DEVILFISH From Philippines, joined Jan 2006, 4427 posts, RR: 1 Reply 1, posted (6 years 11 months 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 2191 times:
With the huge capital outlays necessary to launch a new engine program, powerplant manufacturers would be naturally restrained until airframers are more definite with their designs and timetables. They would be looking at the acceptability and projected market share of the new narrowbody designs, and how much exclusivity they could enjoy. So for the moment, they are just stocking up on knowledge and technology. The big airframers must be the driving force as the engine providers would not commit to a half-baked proposal. On the other hand, the latter could lose big if they hedge their bets too much.
Leelaw From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 2, posted (6 years 11 months 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 2167 times:
Quoting DEVILFISH (Reply 1): The big airframers must be the driving force as the engine providers would not commit to a half-baked proposal. On the other hand, the latter could lose big if they hedge their bets too much.
You seem to be describing a Catch-22, Chicken/Egg type of situation. Haven't the airframers been consistently saying that they won't move quickly on next-generation narrowbody development until the powerplant technology advances significantly? Mr. Leahy of Airbus repeated such remarks yet again this week when he advanced the notion of an A320 "enhanced:"
Airbus chief operating officer customers John Leahy does not believe that a quantum leap in single-aisle aircraft efficiency will be possible until the arrival of new engine technology in middle of the next decade, and in the meantime Airbus is working on the Enhanced models...
KC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 11708 posts, RR: 52 Reply 3, posted (6 years 11 months 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 2092 times:
GE has been looking at a follow-on engine to eventually replace their co-op engine, the very successful CFM-56, for years.
Keesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 4, posted (6 years 11 months 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 2063 times:
Reading GE comments a quick win scenario to be used on the succesful CFM56-5/7, put a slightly biggerprofiled carbon fan on it (& required adjustment coming with it) doesn´t seem unlike afterall.
I suggested a CFM56"-9" incorporating GEnx's like fan blades and fan case afew months ago. It is a significant weight / maintenance win to start & higher BPR resulting in lower fuel consumption. (my estimation on this were
a bit optimistic as Lightsaber showed..)
1337Delta764 From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 5761 posts, RR: 2 Reply 5, posted (6 years 11 months 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 2044 times:
I personally think the new engines for the 737RS should be offered by CFM and IAE. Both engines should have fewer parts than the GEnx and Trent 1000. They should be as large as, or slightly larger than those on the 757.
And BTW the 737RS should be a 2-2-2 widebody IMO, not a 3-3 narrowbody.
The Pink Delta 767-400ER - The most beautiful aircraft in the sky
Ken777 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 7455 posts, RR: 5 Reply 6, posted (6 years 11 months 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 2029 times:
Quoting Leelaw (Thread starter): and a team on the company's aviation business side has been devoted to systems and architecture for about two years.
Is this due to how well the 787 has been doing and the fact that 787 development is under a joint 787/Y1 technology pool? I'm assuming that GE is fully aware of what Boeing is doing these days with Y1 and has increased its efforts to ensure that they get a large chunk of the potential Y1 sales.
In terms of allocating resources, especially engineers, it appears that GE might be forced to choose between the 370 and Y1 in terms of which is the priority project. Given that choice I think Y1 has the advantage.
Hopefully there will be a lot of progress between now and when the 787 takes its maiden flight as my bet is an announcement of Y1 soon after that flight.
DEVILFISH From Philippines, joined Jan 2006, 4427 posts, RR: 1 Reply 7, posted (6 years 11 months 4 days ago) and read 1886 times:
Quoting Leelaw (Reply 2): You seem to be describing a Catch-22, Chicken/Egg type of situation. Haven't the airframers been consistently saying that they won't move quickly on next-generation narrowbody development until the powerplant technology advances significantly? Mr. Leahy of Airbus repeated such remarks yet again this week when he advanced the notion of an A320 "enhanced:"
It's really a damned if you do and don't situation. Note that GE was non-commital on the 10% larger engine for the A3?? which they project to cost them US$1B. What if the NG turns out to be another A350? Boeing may be "quietly" progressing its 73RS program in parallel with GE's R&D efforts, and could just ask GE to come up with the engine when they'll have had substantially firmed up the narrowbody's specs. As I see it, Mr. Leahy's downplaying of the need for a next generation narrowbody is reflective of the tough demand on resources his company would be faced with should it go ahead with the development of an entirely new plane so soon after the challenges of the A380 and A350. So they're settling for a warmed-over A320. He asks who would refleet for just a 5% gain in efficiency, but are we sure that it would only be 5%? They have moved quickly with the A3?? when the market demanded it, why should the NG narrowbody be different? As indicated, GE had been into its studies for 5 years already, and by the middle of next decade, current fleets would be too long in the tooth.
Quoting Ken777 (Reply 6): I'm assuming that GE is fully aware of what Boeing is doing these days with Y1 and has increased its efforts to ensure that they get a large chunk of the potential Y1 sales.
In terms of allocating resources, especially engineers, it appears that GE might be forced to choose between the 370 and Y1 in terms of which is the priority project. Given that choice I think Y1 has the advantage.
Sponsor Message: 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
From Philippines, joined Jan 2006, 4427 posts, 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2005, 81 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
