Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
P&W Says GTF Ready By 2012  
User currently offlineNoWorries From United States of America, joined Oct 2006, 539 posts, RR: 1
Posted (7 years 5 months 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 4264 times:

I know this has been discussed a lot in various threads -- but this seems like new news -- P&W is saying that they can have the GTF ready by 2012. ATWOnline article:

http://atwonline.com/news/story.html?storyID=8389

18 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlinePM From Germany, joined Feb 2005, 6892 posts, RR: 63
Reply 1, posted (7 years 5 months 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 4253 times:

But according to FLIGHT INTERNATIONAL a week or two ago a 12% reduction in fuel consumption won't be enough to interest airlines. The collective opinion quoted by FLIGHT was that it must be "at least 15%". (JAL was even asking for 50%!)

User currently offlineNoWorries From United States of America, joined Oct 2006, 539 posts, RR: 1
Reply 2, posted (7 years 5 months 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 4224 times:

Quoting PM (Reply 1):
The collective opinion quoted by FLIGHT was that it must be "at least 15%".

This article recognizes that as well, stating that manufacturers are looking for a 20% improvement in performance. So I'm wondering why make a point of saying that it could be available by 2012. Perhaps Boeing is closer to launching Y1 than previously thought.

[Edited 2007-03-29 15:05:49]

User currently offlineNijltje From Belgium, joined Aug 2005, 241 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (7 years 5 months 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 4224 times:

Ok but 12% is coming from the engine only...so 8% has to come from the airframe itself sounds possible if Airbus is looking at 5% improvement based on the same frame...

User currently offlineEI321 From Iraq, joined Jul 2009, 0 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (7 years 5 months 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 4147 times:

If teh A320E can get a 6-7% improvement, then 20% must be achievable.

User currently offlineNoWorries From United States of America, joined Oct 2006, 539 posts, RR: 1
Reply 5, posted (7 years 5 months 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 4132 times:

Quoting EI321 (Reply 4):
If teh A320E can get a 6-7% improvement, then 20% must be achievable.

If the A320E + GTF can get close to a 20% improvement then Boeing will have no choice but to launch Y1 in order to stay competitive, whereas I think Airbus can get by with a revised A320 since it has the needed clearance under the wings for the new engine.


User currently offlineScouseflyer From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2006, 3389 posts, RR: 9
Reply 6, posted (7 years 5 months 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 4132 times:

Quoting EI321 (Reply 4):
If teh A320E can get a 6-7% improvement, then 20% must be achievable.

Hasn't the A320E been quietly dropped as they found that fitting the winglets (that gave much of the aero gain) meant that the wings needed to be strengthened which meant more weight which cancelled out much of the aero gain?


User currently offlineNoWorries From United States of America, joined Oct 2006, 539 posts, RR: 1
Reply 7, posted (7 years 5 months 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 4109 times:

Quoting Scouseflyer (Reply 6):
Hasn't the A320E been quietly dropped as they found that fitting the winglets (that gave much of the aero gain) meant that the wings needed to be strengthened which meant more weight which cancelled out much of the aero gain?

I had heard about the winglet issue and knew that it had to be dropped -- weren't there other aspects to the A320E program that still had some benefit?


User currently offlineDfwRevolution From United States of America, joined Jan 2010, 970 posts, RR: 51
Reply 8, posted (7 years 5 months 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 4008 times:

Quoting Scouseflyer (Reply 6):

Hasn't the A320E been quietly dropped as they found that fitting the winglets (that gave much of the aero gain) meant that the wings needed to be strengthened which meant more weight which cancelled out much of the aero gain?

The A320E was to gain fuel burn reduction through several other improvements including a revised wing/body fairing and improved engines, but I suspect it will be difficult to realize their initial goal now that the winglets have been kiboshed. It doesn't mean we won't see the remaining features implemented for a less dramatic improvement.

There was some speculation that PW might offer the GTF on the A320 series as part of the "Enhanced" program, but if the engine won't be ready by 2012, I can't see how that would happen...

Quoting PM (Reply 1):
JAL was even asking for 50%!

Then JAL can have fun flying kites because that really isn't going to happen anytime soon!  Wink

Quoting Nijltje (Reply 3):
Ok but 12% is coming from the engine only...so 8% has to come from the airframe itself sounds possible if Airbus is looking at 5% improvement based on the same frame...

But Airbus was counting on propulsion upgrades to provide a significant portion of those fuel burn savings. Since the new winglets have been aborted, what sort of airframe improvements Airbus has to offer? There's just no way the wing/body fairing alone will reduce fuel burn that greatly. An OEW reduction would be beneficial, but would likely carry too great a cost given the scope of the Enhanced program.

The implications are different if Airbus and Boeing would consider applying this engine to an all-new aircraft that could benefit from the latest aerodynamics, materials, and systems.


User currently offlineScouseflyer From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2006, 3389 posts, RR: 9
Reply 9, posted (7 years 5 months 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 3956 times:

How about a concorde style pointy nose to cut through the air more cleanly?  Big grin

User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30910 posts, RR: 87
Reply 10, posted (7 years 5 months 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 3936 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Even if it won't be "perfect", an A320E with GTFs offering even 15% (which I think Airbus can get 3% out of the airframe with tweaks) would keep her relevant (i.e. - selling) in the face of Y1, just as the A330 continues to hold her own even with the 787 now months away from First Flight.

Yes, Y1 with a 20% reduction in fuel burn will be a massive seller (easily four digits before roll-out) just as that performance has secured ~500 sales for the 787 before her roll-out, but again, that doesn't mean every airline in the world will buy Y1 for the same reasons every airline in the world has not bought Y2 (the 787).


User currently offlineEI321 From Iraq, joined Jul 2009, 0 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (7 years 5 months 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 3884 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 10):
Even if it won't be "perfect", an A320E with GTFs offering even 15% (which I think Airbus can get 3% out of the airframe with tweaks) would keep her relevant (i.e. - selling) in the face of Y1, just as the A330 continues to hold her own even with the 787 now months away from First Flight.

Yeah but most of the current A330 sales account for delivery slots when there are no 787s or A350s availaible (ie before 2013). The A330 is not winning RFPs against the 787, as airlines are comparing the A350XWB against the 787 now.

The issue with the A320 is odd, as the fuselage is a good size for short haul. So airbus has two choices, either do an all new design, or keep the A320 fuselage and change almost everything else (new engines; new cabin; A350 cockpit; composite wings, floor, stabilisers, tail, etc).

Airbus has said last year that they will do a composite A320 successor around 2015.

[Edited 2007-03-29 17:30:05]

User currently offlineNoWorries From United States of America, joined Oct 2006, 539 posts, RR: 1
Reply 12, posted (7 years 5 months 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 3856 times:

I think it makes good sense for Airbus to pursue A320E - winglets + GTF. It won't be best in class compared to Y1 -- but Boeing and Airbus don't have to walk in lock-step here. At any point in time, one builder is going to better than the other -- as long as they're close, there's a huge market to share. They (Airbus and Boeing) need to push sooner rather than later -- the Chineese, Japanesse, Russians, Indians, et al (or some combination of them) will be on their heels -- they can't wait around and play it safe.

User currently offlineScouseflyer From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2006, 3389 posts, RR: 9
Reply 13, posted (7 years 5 months 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 3833 times:

Quoting EI321 (Reply 11):
The issue with the A320 is odd, as the fuselage is a good size for short haul. So airbus has two choices, either do an all new design, or keep the A320 fuselage and change almost everything else (new engines; new cabin; A350 cockpit; composite wings, floor, stabilisers, tail, etc).

I would expect that it may well cope with a A320NG approach unless the composite fuse of Y1 is such a weight and cost saving that the NSR has to be an entirely new design


User currently offlineEI321 From Iraq, joined Jul 2009, 0 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (7 years 5 months 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 3832 times:

Quoting NoWorries (Reply 12):
I think it makes good sense for Airbus to pursue A320E

Remember that the A320E is not a Y1 competitor, its just an A320 upgrade. Airbus have said that they are doing a composite A320 replacement.

Looking at this picture, theres not exactly a huge amount of work going onto the A320 Enhanced.



[Edited 2007-03-29 17:55:41]

User currently offlineDEVILFISH From Philippines, joined Jan 2006, 4810 posts, RR: 1
Reply 15, posted (7 years 5 months 6 days ago) and read 3617 times:

Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 8):
The implications are different if Airbus and Boeing would consider applying this engine to an all-new aircraft that could benefit from the latest aerodynamics, materials, and systems.

If A and B are not satisfied with just a 12% savings, would Embraer be happy enough with it to launch a completely new E-200+GTF? And could Bombardier follow suit with their again-deferred C-Series?



"Everyone is entitled to my opinion." - Garfield
User currently offlineLemurs From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 1439 posts, RR: 4
Reply 16, posted (7 years 5 months 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 3569 times:

The thing an A320E program would have to content with re:Y1 is what the maintnance needs of a CFRP short-haul jet would mean versus a traditional Al plane. While the costs in the air might be within a few percentage points of each other, Boeing could still take a huge chunk out of Airbuses customer base if they can show a much lower ground cost and maintnace interval for heavy cycle airframes...and that could all be wiped out by an immature powerplant with a tweaky gearbox. It's a big set of variables.

If I'm not mistaken, this is part of the sales success of the 787 versus the 350 to begin with. As proposed by Airbus, they could get the operating efficiency of all the various 350 designs they've pushed near that of the 787, but as long as that aluminum skin was there, they were losing out on the total operating costs picture which drove the A350XWB proposal. Airplane efficency isn't entirely measured in the air afterall. Crew, maint, etc...all have to compete.



There are 10 kinds of people in the world; those who understand binary, and those that don't.
User currently offlineDEVILFISH From Philippines, joined Jan 2006, 4810 posts, RR: 1
Reply 17, posted (7 years 5 months 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 3379 times:

Update:

P&W has begun assembly of its GTF engine demonstrator built around the PW6000 core.....

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...y-plan-as-pw9000-goes-on-line.html

Quote:
"This initiative, provisionally dubbed the PW9000, forms the basis for a range of new engines to tackle everything from the 10,000lb-thrust (45kN) range new business jet engine to the 30,000lb- class next-generation Airbus and Boeing single-aisle products. P&W hopes the plan will form the platform for generations of engines.

Using a baseline high-pressure core design, the company plans to develop a "flexible scaling strategy" to suit varying thrust requirements, including Bombardier's proposed CSeries airliner. 'We're looking at defining a scaleable core. So what that says is within a range of core sizes we will have the capability of scaling it up and scaling it down,' says engineering senior vice-president Paul Adams."


Could this prompt Bombardier's decision on the C-Series.....

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...on-cseries-is-still-up-in-air.html

.....or might Embraer be the first to jump the gun?

Absent preliminary PW9000 range test results, it's unlikely that A or B would blink first.



"Everyone is entitled to my opinion." - Garfield
User currently offlineRheinbote From Germany, joined May 2006, 1968 posts, RR: 52
Reply 18, posted (7 years 5 months 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 3347 times:

Could be a viable replacement for the CF34 in the lower end of the advertised 10-35klbs thrust bracket. Maybe such an engine could provide a new lease of life to the CRJ? Its tail-mounted engines may prove to be less constraining to larger diameter engines than the ERJ's under-wing pod-mounted design. I guess engine weight would be critical though.
A 25-35klbs engine by 2012 would provide Boeing with an option for another 3+ years headstart on Airbus's, this time in the new single-aisle market.
In any case, this would require something like a somersault backwards for both A's and B's communications departments
"There will be no engine available before 2015"  liar 


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...
Quito's New Airport Ready By 2010 posted Tue Jul 25 2006 17:13:24 by MaverickM11
YYZ To Be A380 Ready By January '07 posted Thu Apr 6 2006 06:56:01 by RicardoFG
Delta & Alaska Getting Ready To Sign Deal! posted Mon Oct 20 2003 07:34:01 by Tu154m
TG Says It’s Ready For New Routes, More Plane posted Mon Aug 12 2002 08:26:01 by Magicalchaz
UA Says E-Tickets Only By 2004 posted Tue Jul 30 2002 04:38:58 by Sleekjet
Delta & Air France Ready, Alliance Announcement! posted Wed May 17 2000 22:35:02 by DeltaAir
Stick & Rudder vs Fly-By-Wire posted Tue Dec 29 1998 20:01:56 by Night_Flight
Aeropostal & Aserca Punished By Inac posted Wed Jan 17 2007 04:46:04 by 797
New P&W(GTF) Engine To Power Updated 320 In 2011 posted Wed Dec 6 2006 09:20:44 by AirbusCanada
SIA & JetBlue Honoured By Conde Nast Traveler USA posted Tue Oct 17 2006 15:33:53 by Singapore_Air