Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
A350XBW Key To Success : GE Engine Necessary?  
User currently offlineAutoThrust From Switzerland, joined Jun 2006, 1596 posts, RR: 9
Posted (7 years 10 months 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 4940 times:

I'm asking me if the A350XBW will have success if only RR would supply Engines? As much as i like RR, didn't AF buy the 777 because the GE-90?
In my opinion a GE engine is a must for the A350XBW variants to get a fair amount of the market.

In other post there are discussions that GE rather would supply smaller Models but not the -1000.
What do you think about this issue? Would maybe PW jump in, if GE doesn't support the A350XBW? Would the proposed Trents be efficient enough?


Please no A. vs B. no hyperbole and no bashing.

Any thoughts?

[Edited 2006-11-21 12:24:16]


“Faliure is not an option.”
40 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineAstuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 10038 posts, RR: 96
Reply 1, posted (7 years 10 months 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 4906 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting AutoThrust (Thread starter):
Would maybe PW jump in, if GE doesn't support the A350XBW?

I think you're right - an alternative engine is a "must-have" in this class of aircraft (IIRC GE WILL offer the GEnx or derivative for the -800 and -900, but not the -1000).

FWIW, I think the most likely solution for the -1000 is the Engine Alliance offering a "development" of the GP7000. GE have themselves suggested this as a possible route.

How competitive would this be against a "Trent 1900" (my terminology) employing the very latest technology from the Trent 1000?
Don't know
How much work will Airbus have to do to convince the EA to sign up?
A fair bit, I suspect.
How important is not having a "common" engine choice across the entire A350 range?
Don't know again, but it's not very tidy, is it?

Regards


User currently offlineLumberton From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 4708 posts, RR: 20
Reply 2, posted (7 years 10 months 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 4836 times:

Quoting AutoThrust (Thread starter):
What do you think about this issue? Would maybe PW jump in, if GE doesn't support the A350XBW? Would the proposed Trents be efficient enough?

IMO, a choice of two engines are very important to an aircraft in this large market segment. Customers prefer a choice, if for nothing else than the absolutely cut throat price competition it affords when making a choice!



"When all is said and done, more will be said than done".
User currently offlineRJ111 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (7 years 10 months 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 4774 times:

Getting two engines on board is essential for competition in both design efficiency and pricing.

I'm sure GE will join in but may not be on the -1000.

PW i belive offered the most efficient engine for the 787 but Boeing probably favoured the proven derivatives. Maybe Airbus should give them a second chance to develop the GTF.


User currently offlineKappel From Suriname, joined Jul 2005, 3533 posts, RR: 17
Reply 4, posted (7 years 10 months 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 4642 times:

Quoting AutoThrust (Thread starter):
'm asking me if the A350XBW will have success if only RR would supply Engines? As much as i like RR, didn't AF buy the 777 because the GE-90?
In my opinion a GE engine is a must for the A350XBW variants to get a fair amount of the market.

Not to nitpick, but it's the a350XWB (eXtra Wide Body), not XBW.
You are absolutely right however that an engine choice is a must. GE has not signed on yet, but they have stated that they are willing to power the -800 and the -900, but not the -1000, as it competes with the 77W, which they exclusively power.

http://www.flightglobal.com/Articles...+but+entry+into+service+slips.html

This could change of course if the -1000 proves that the 77W is hopelessy outclassed by the -1000, unless RR signs an exclusivity agreement with airbus for this variant.

Quoting RJ111 (Reply 3):
Maybe Airbus should give them a second chance to develop the GTF.

I am also hoping that PW will make a comeback in the widebody segment with their own engine, but IIRC they are developing the GTF firstly for the narrowbody market.



L1011,733,734,73G,738,743,744,752,763,772,77W,DC855,DC863,DC930,DC950,MD11,MD88,306,319,320,321,343,346,ARJ85,CR7,E195
User currently offlineSolnabo From Sweden, joined Jan 2008, 852 posts, RR: 2
Reply 5, posted (7 years 10 months 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 4574 times:

According to The Times UK Airbus gets the green light for the 350 program.

Micke//  bigthumbsup 



Airbus SAS - Love them both
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31003 posts, RR: 86
Reply 6, posted (7 years 10 months 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 4528 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Astuteman (Reply 1):
FWIW, I think the most likely solution for the -1000 is the Engine Alliance offering a "development" of the GP7000. GE have themselves suggested this as a possible route.

And I am sure the EU will be happy to lift their restriction requiring EA powerplants to be installed in sets of four.  Wink

But yes, an EA powerplant could be a viable option to help GE spread the costs a bit, though they may decide to just do it themselves since they will need higher-thrust variants of the GEnx to power the 787-10 and any larger and heavier variants Boeing wishes to consider launching, anyway.


User currently offlineAutoThrust From Switzerland, joined Jun 2006, 1596 posts, RR: 9
Reply 7, posted (7 years 10 months 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 4403 times:

Quoting Astuteman (Reply 1):
How much work will Airbus have to do to convince the EA to sign up?
A fair bit, I suspect.

Thats the question. I really hope GE jumps aboard.  crossfingers  Would be nice a bigger Ge-90 style for the A350

Quoting RJ111 (Reply 3):
Maybe Airbus should give them a second chance to develop the GTF.

Dont think so because they failed with the Superfan, the whole A340 program ended almost in a disaster. Thats a risk Airbus cant afford.

Quoting Kappel (Reply 4):
Not to nitpick, but it's the a350XWB (eXtra Wide Body), not XBW.

Ok thanks for correction.

Quoting Kappel (Reply 4):
http://www.flightglobal.com/Articles...+but+entry+into+service+slips.html

This could change of course if the -1000 proves that the 77W is hopelessy outclassed by the -1000, unless RR signs an exclusivity agreement with airbus for this variant.

Yes indeed, if Airbus can make the A350 much more efficient the 777 would get obsolete and GE could make a good deal and maybe change their mind.
Boeing would be forced to launch the Y3. Thanks for link.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 6):
And I am sure the EU will be happy to lift their restriction requiring EA powerplants to be installed in sets of four

Sorry for my ignorance but wich restrictions?



“Faliure is not an option.”
User currently offlineTrex8 From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 4769 posts, RR: 14
Reply 8, posted (7 years 10 months 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 4204 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting AutoThrust (Reply 7):
Quoting Stitch (Reply 6):And I am sure the EU will be happy to lift their restriction requiring EA powerplants to be installed in sets of four
Sorry for my ignorance but wich restrictions?

http://www.worldlii.org/eu/cases/ECComm/1999/81.html
see section C, para 89 and preceeding few paras.


User currently offlineZRH From Switzerland, joined Nov 1999, 5568 posts, RR: 35
Reply 9, posted (7 years 10 months 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 4198 times:

As I know you also have no engine choice at the 787, only GE? Is this right?

User currently offlineBrendows From Norway, joined Apr 2006, 1020 posts, RR: 4
Reply 10, posted (7 years 10 months 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 4187 times:

Quoting ZRH (Reply 9):
As I know you also have no engine choice at the 787, only GE? Is this right?

No, you have the GEnX and the RR Trent 1000 as alternatives for the 787.


User currently offlineNYC777 From United States of America, joined Jun 2004, 5762 posts, RR: 47
Reply 11, posted (7 years 10 months 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 4187 times:

Quoting ZRH (Reply 9):
As I know you also have no engine choice at the 787, only GE? Is this right?

For the 787 you have a choice between Rolls and GE.



That which does not kill me makes me stronger.
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31003 posts, RR: 86
Reply 12, posted (7 years 10 months 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 4188 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting ZRH (Reply 9):
As I know you also have no engine choice at the 787, only GE? Is this right?

Incorrect. The 787 is offered with Rolls-Royce Trent 1000 power or GEnx power.

The 747-8 is only available with GEnx power.


User currently offlineImiakhtar From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 13, posted (7 years 10 months 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 4164 times:

Quoting AutoThrust (Thread starter):
As much as i like RR, didn't AF buy the 777 because the GE-90?

is there any particular reason why AF has never selected RR engines?


User currently offlineTrex8 From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 4769 posts, RR: 14
Reply 14, posted (7 years 10 months 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 4122 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Imiakhtar (Reply 13):
is there any particular reason why AF has never selected RR engines?

they had no choice with their Caravelles!
but yes in recent years they have not been big fans


User currently offlineRJ111 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 15, posted (7 years 10 months 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 4065 times:

Quoting Imiakhtar (Reply 13):
is there any particular reason why AF has never selected RR engines?

France based Snecma have had a mentionable involvement in a lot of GE products including the Ge90, CF6 and of course a 50% share of the CFM56.

If there's a GE option going, AF will take it.


User currently offlineGlideslope From United States of America, joined May 2004, 1617 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (7 years 10 months 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 4065 times:

Yes, GE is a Must-Have.


To know your Enemy, you must become your Enemy.” Sun Tzu
User currently offlineDAYflyer From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 3807 posts, RR: 3
Reply 17, posted (7 years 10 months 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 3992 times:

Quoting RJ111 (Reply 3):

PW i belive offered the most efficient engine for the 787 but Boeing probably favoured the proven derivatives. Maybe Airbus should give them a second chance to develop the GTF.

Thats the first information I have heard of this PW engine offering. DO you have any other info on it?



One Nation Under God
User currently offlineTrex8 From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 4769 posts, RR: 14
Reply 18, posted (7 years 10 months 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 3943 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting DAYflyer (Reply 17):
Thats the first information I have heard of this PW engine offering. DO you have any other info on it?

some tidbits

http://www.ainonline.com/Publication.../asian/asian_06/d1PWprepares16.htm

http://www.flightglobal.com/Articles...n/183/203078/Back+in+the+game.html

http://www.flightglobal.com/Articles...engine+technical+requirements.html

http://www.flightglobal.com/Articles...ts+rule+PW+out+of+7E7+contest.html


User currently offlineImiakhtar From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 19, posted (7 years 10 months 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 3840 times:

Quoting RJ111 (Reply 15):
France based Snecma have had a mentionable involvement in a lot of GE products including the Ge90, CF6 and of course a 50% share of the CFM56.

Thanks for clearing that one up!  bigthumbsup 


User currently offlinePM From Germany, joined Feb 2005, 6920 posts, RR: 63
Reply 20, posted (7 years 10 months 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 3765 times:

Quoting AutoThrust (Thread starter):
Would the proposed Trents be efficient enough?

Why would a Trent not be efficient? The Trent is the most popular engine on the A330 and for many years outsold both GE and PW on the 777. Why do you assume or imply that GE would make a more efficient engine?

Quoting AutoThrust (Thread starter):
didn't AF buy the 777 because the GE-90?

I hope and believe they chose the 777 for more than just the engine.

Quoting Lumberton (Reply 2):
Customers prefer a choice, if for nothing else than the absolutely cut throat price competition it affords when making a choice!

It doesn't seem to have harmed the 777W.

Quoting Trex8 (Reply 14):
they had no choice with their Caravelles!

Some Caravelles had PW JT8s, didn't they?

Quoting RJ111 (Reply 15):
If there's a GE option going, AF will take it.

 checkmark 

Quoting Glideslope (Reply 16):
Yes, GE is a Must-Have.

The 757 seemed to manage without it.


User currently offlineTrex8 From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 4769 posts, RR: 14
Reply 21, posted (7 years 10 months 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 3750 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting PM (Reply 20):
Quoting AutoThrust (Thread starter):didn't AF buy the 777 because the GE-90?
I hope and believe they chose the 777 for more than just the engine.

true but then they chose GE when they had a choice with the 772Ers!

Quoting PM (Reply 20):
Quoting Trex8 (Reply 14):they had no choice with their Caravelles!
Some Caravelles had PW JT8s, didn't they?

yes but not the early ones where Avons were the only choice

Quoting PM (Reply 20):
Quoting Glideslope (Reply 16):Yes, GE is a Must-Have.
The 757 seemed to manage without it.

I think the point was GE is a must have for AF


User currently offlineBoeing767-300 From Australia, joined Sep 2001, 659 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (7 years 10 months 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 3711 times:

Quoting PM (Reply 20):
Why would a Trent not be efficient? The Trent is the most popular engine on the A330 and for many years outsold both GE and PW on the 777. Why do you assume or imply that GE would make a more efficient engine?

The Trent 500 is at the heart of A346 problems (fuel burn) when compared to the GE 90-115B on 77W.

Therefore that comparison is only a natural progression but as you say the Trents fitted to A330 models are far better than the Trent 500 fitted to A346.

I don't believe we have ever seen a new engine outdated so quickly as the Trent 500 on the A346. With A346 sales almost dead one wonders if Rolls Royce will ever recover the development costs and turn a profit for the programme??


User currently offlineBrendows From Norway, joined Apr 2006, 1020 posts, RR: 4
Reply 23, posted (7 years 10 months 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 3677 times:

Quoting Boeing767-300 (Reply 22):
The Trent 500 is at the heart of A346 problems (fuel burn) when compared to the GE 90-115B on 77W.

Therefore that comparison is only a natural progression but as you say the Trents fitted to A330 models are far better than the Trent 500 fitted to A346.

I don't believe we have ever seen a new engine outdated so quickly as the Trent 500 on the A346. With A346 sales almost dead one wonders if Rolls Royce will ever recover the development costs and turn a profit for the programme??

It's not only the engine, but the combination of the engine and airframe. The Trent 500s is running at a higher cruise thrust than the GE 90-115B does (compared to maximum available thrust,) and the higher drag and weight of the A346 airframe is the reason behind the higher thrust.
But yes, in addition, the lower BPR on the Trent 500s, and some other parts of the engines, makes them more inefficient than the GE 90.


User currently offlineDfwRevolution From United States of America, joined Jan 2010, 977 posts, RR: 51
Reply 24, posted (7 years 10 months 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 3675 times:

Quoting Boeing767-300 (Reply 22):
The Trent 500 is at the heart of A346 problems (fuel burn) when compared to the GE 90-115B on 77W.

I respectfully disagree.

If anything has killed the A340-500/600, structural weight is more to blame than the engine option. The A345 is roughly 50,000 lbs heavier than the 772LR when both aircraft are empty of passengers, fuel, and cargo. That's more than a Citation X business jet in dead weight. The A346 vs. 773ER is less dramatic, but you see the point.

The Trent 500 has faced some minor issues of blade rubbing that has forced airlines to perform maintenance on engines with low wing-time, but I wouldn't blame the A345/A346 "failure" on Rolls Royce. It's unreasonable to expect a powerplant to overcome such an inefficient structural design.


25 AADC10 : GE and sit back and wait to see if the A350XWB is going to proceed or go the way of the original A350 or Sonic Cruiser before they commit any resource
26 Post contains images Lightsaber : I have to agree. Due to RR having such a good relationship with most of their customers, they are more required than GE. Why I'm a Pratt fan.. I know
27 PM : I wonder if they will. It seems unlikely that there would be any other applications for such a PW engine in the forseeable future. So they'd be swall
28 Stitch : Do you think both "views" might change for the Y1 program?
29 Atmx2000 : If you go back and look at what you wrote, it sounds like both the Trent and A340NG itself are problems.
30 RJ111 : According to delivery books there will be 560 T500s in the air one day. That's marginally behind the T800 and ahead of the T700.
31 Post contains images Lightsaber : For Y1? No doubt. Pratt is hungry to get back into the single isle market. However, as to Boeing's dislike of the GTF... that might not change. Boein
32 Brenintw : I'm displaying my ignorance again, but what is "GTF?"
33 Post contains images AutoThrust : Very interesting Post Lightsaber, i also would like to see PW back on the Market. The question still remains if Airbus can afford such a risk, when e
34 Trex8 : Lightsaber, thanks for your great contributions again. Had a few questions. Was the Pratt offering for the 787 also a GTF or a more conventional desig
35 Trex8 : haha, best argument for quads there ever was!
36 Stitch : Geared TurboFan. Lightsaber wrote an excellent treatise on it so a search of that term and their handle should return the post.
37 Post contains images Lightsaber : Unfortunately, you are correct. Can Airbus afford such a risk... If there are two engines available, yes. But not as the sole engine (a la 77W). This
38 Post contains images Prebennorholm : Are you sure that an alternative is that important? For instance the B737 never offered an alternative, and I can mention a few planes which have sol
39 Post contains images AutoThrust : Thanks a lot Lightsaber for your very nice explanation of the GTF concepts, welcome on my RU -List. The GTF design is really compromising,in my opinio
40 Post contains images Imiakhtar : Thanks for the explanation!
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...
A350XBW Key To Success : GE Engine Necessary? posted Tue Nov 21 2006 12:22:31 by AutoThrust
NOC Closed Due To Overturned Fire Engine posted Wed Sep 13 2006 20:25:03 by GWYIRE
SQ A345 Turned Back To EWR After Engine Problem posted Mon Aug 21 2006 04:47:05 by GneissGuy
AF A340 Diverts To YYT With Engine Trouble posted Fri Apr 28 2006 22:36:11 by BMIFlyer
The Extent To Which GE Dominates At Boeing posted Sat Jan 21 2006 14:30:13 by PM
FI: Bumper December Key To Airbus Orders Victory posted Wed Jan 18 2006 16:12:59 by Leelaw
BA 747 Returns To JFK After Engine Sparks posted Sun Jan 1 2006 01:50:34 by AerospaceFan
Emirates Key To Airbus Fortunes posted Sat Jun 4 2005 07:54:29 by EK156
15 Dec '02: 744 Returns To LAX After Engine Prob. posted Wed Mar 9 2005 01:39:11 by AMSSpotter
UAL On The Road To Success W/ $114M Loss? posted Wed Dec 1 2004 00:08:36 by Jmc1975