Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Bombardier CSeries Has Its Engine: PW  
User currently offlineSebring From Canada, joined Jul 2004, 1663 posts, RR: 14
Posted (6 years 5 months 1 week 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 11553 times:

Although PW has seemed like the only choice for a long time, it's now seemingly official.

http://money.canoe.ca/News/Sectors/I...strials/2007/09/21/4516270-cp.html

60 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineKELPkid From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 6264 posts, RR: 4
Reply 1, posted (6 years 5 months 1 week 21 hours ago) and read 11296 times:

What's up with P&W GTF's now being the engine selection on not only one, but two Regional Jet projects? I thought P&W was holding out for the likes of Boeing and Airbus...I'm suprised the big airframers didn't demand exclusivity on the engine.

The C-series will be capable at eroding the bottom end market share of the B737NG, won't it (110 seats, a few smaller than the 736...).

[Edited 2007-11-12 17:28:31]


Celebrating the birth of KELPkidJR on August 5, 2009 :-)
User currently offlineCentrair From Japan, joined Jan 2005, 3598 posts, RR: 21
Reply 2, posted (6 years 5 months 1 week 19 hours ago) and read 11086 times:

This makes me think that NW might just use some of those options they have to get some of these babies.


Yes...I am not a KIX fan. Let's Japanese Aviation!
User currently offlineTdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80
Reply 3, posted (6 years 5 months 1 week 18 hours ago) and read 11012 times:



Quoting KELPkid (Reply 1):
I thought P&W was holding out for the likes of Boeing and Airbus...I'm suprised the big airframers didn't demand exclusivity on the engine.

Why would an engine company grant exclusivity in such a huge market? In this regard, the engine makers hold all the cards.

Quoting KELPkid (Reply 1):
The C-series will be capable at eroding the bottom end market share of the B737NG, won't it (110 seats, a few smaller than the 736...).

Technically, yes, but the 737-600 was never all that popular and Boeing doesn't even list it in their current production models anymore (although I think you could still order one if you wanted to). Boeing has apparently ceded the 100-110 seat market.

Tom.


User currently offlineJoeCanuck From Canada, joined Dec 2005, 5318 posts, RR: 30
Reply 4, posted (6 years 5 months 1 week 18 hours ago) and read 10950 times:

In my mind, this works out just fine for both Airbus and Boeing. With a couple of airframe makers going with the GTF, it gives Pratt incentive to keep proving and improving the design. Airbus and Boeing will be needing engines for their 320/737 replacements.

I think the big dogs are busy enough without worrying about the sub 130 seat market.



What the...?
User currently offlineLH452 From United States of America, joined Mar 2007, 42 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (6 years 5 months 1 week 17 hours ago) and read 10907 times:



Quoting KELPkid (Reply 1):
The C-series will be capable at eroding the bottom end market share of the B737NG, won't it (110 seats, a few smaller than the 736...).

The aircraft will apparently have stretch capability up to 149 pax so it will dent more than than the 737-600. Looks like something that Airbus and Boeing have to consider.


User currently offlineJoeCanuck From Canada, joined Dec 2005, 5318 posts, RR: 30
Reply 6, posted (6 years 5 months 1 week 17 hours ago) and read 10879 times:



Quoting LH452 (Reply 5):

The aircraft will apparently have stretch capability up to 149 pax so it will dent more than than the 737-600. Looks like something that Airbus and Boeing have to consider.

Maybe in the long run but considering EIS is forecast for 5 or so years away, and that's just for the smaller models, I think they have some breathing room.



What the...?
User currently offlinePanAm_DC10 From Australia, joined Aug 2000, 4095 posts, RR: 90
Reply 7, posted (6 years 5 months 1 week 16 hours ago) and read 10830 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
COMMUNITY MANAGER

This is indeed official and does warrant it's own thread, here is some more information;

Dubai 2007: Bombardier opts for geared turbofan for CSeries

Bombardier Aerospace is now working exclusively with Pratt & Whitney to offer the geared turbo fan (GTF) engine on its CSeries regional jet, says Gary Scott, president of new commercial aircraft programs for the Canadian airframer.

Bombardier intends to launch its CSeries aircraft in 2008 for an entry in to service in 2013. The P&W GTF is expected to feature a max thrust rating of 23,300lb to give the CSeries a range of up to 2,300nm.

Bombardier believes the GTF powerplant will offer an estimated 20% better fuel burn than the narrowbody aircraft it hopes to replace. The CSeries is being designed as a replacement for aging aircraft like the 737 classic, DC-9, MD-80, BAe-146 and Fokker 100.


http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...-opts-for-geared-turbofan-for.html

A link to the Bombardier Website

Finally, a link into the Official Dubai 2007 Airshow: Engine Thread

Thank you



Ask the impossible to achieve the best possible
User currently offlineCRJ200FAGuy From United States of America, joined May 2007, 395 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (6 years 5 months 1 week 16 hours ago) and read 10801 times:

Isn't Bombardier a little late to the dance with this airplane? Or will it be for the people who just don't want to wait their turn to get the jungle jets?

User currently offlineVonRichtofen From Canada, joined Nov 2000, 4626 posts, RR: 37
Reply 9, posted (6 years 5 months 1 week 16 hours ago) and read 10777 times:

Pardon my ignorance but what is the difference between a geared turbo fan vs. a conventional turbo fan engine?


Kris



Word
User currently offlineJoeCanuck From Canada, joined Dec 2005, 5318 posts, RR: 30
Reply 10, posted (6 years 5 months 1 week 16 hours ago) and read 10758 times:

Some might think it's the other way around; EMB might be late moving up to 5 abreast. No one manufacturer can fill all the demand so there's probably room for different options.

All BBD needs is a couple of current customers, (NWA, LH, for example), to make it all worthwhile. Since their CRJ is still selling, all it needs is a few CRJ options to turn into C-series orders. I'm sure someone would get a pretty good deal as launch customer.

Still, it's not officially launched yet but having an engine option should make the task easier.



What the...?
User currently offlineKELPkid From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 6264 posts, RR: 4
Reply 11, posted (6 years 5 months 1 week 15 hours ago) and read 10739 times:



Quoting VonRichtofen (Reply 9):
Pardon my ignorance but what is the difference between a geared turbo fan vs. a conventional turbo fan engine?


Kris

A GTF uses a gear box/gear reduction to optimize the speed of the fan section for the speed that the core is turning. In a conventional high bypass turbofan engine, the fan section is turning at the same speed as the last turbine blade in the power section of the engine, because the two are usually directly connected to each other  Smile



Celebrating the birth of KELPkidJR on August 5, 2009 :-)
User currently offlineParapente From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2006, 1509 posts, RR: 10
Reply 12, posted (6 years 5 months 1 week 9 hours ago) and read 10580 times:

I believe that these developments are quite significant. Both Boeing and Airbus are- I believe very happy with the present status quo vis a vis 737/A320. They are in a duopoly position that they are both comfortable with.
It is acting as a roadblock to progress.

If this GTF really does offer a 12% reduction in fuel burn (as they claim) and that the "new" airframe adds (what) say 5% plus?
then you are beginning to have a "game changer" . One that would attract quite a few airliners.Indeed if you wanted a short haul aircraft and wanted to look "Green" (who doesn't) -then its a "must buy". One hopes it will kick start some real work on the short haul replacements that are so necessary.

I feel that P&W have had a raw deal recently.

Boeing and GE are acting like one company these days. Exclusive (plus investment) on the 747-8. Exclusive (plus investment) on the 777 (200lr/300er) (which is to all purposes the whole 777 line.)
Exlusive (with Snemca) on the 737 range. Half (60%?) on the 787.

Boeing "said" that the GTF was "too much risk" on the 787. But then chose TWO safe bets. Why not one "safe" and one "Risk?" Indeed since (at that time) it was only going to take 30 minutes to change an engine - then why not 3 suppliers -it was fine in the past,wasn't it. -I will tell you why.

Because GE did not want them there,thats why. With Rolls they had a safe known quantity and would give up a minority share of a huge market. But what if a GTF was allowed on and it offered 12% fuel savings!! OR just say an extra 5%. They would have the whole market before you could blink. Too much of a risk to Boeings business bedfellows methinks!!


User currently offlineColumba From Germany, joined Dec 2004, 7027 posts, RR: 4
Reply 13, posted (6 years 5 months 1 week 9 hours ago) and read 10573 times:



Quoting Centrair (Reply 2):
This makes me think that NW might just use some of those options they have to get some of these babies.



Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 10):
All BBD needs is a couple of current customers, (NWA, LH, for example)

I absolutely think that LH and NW will be launch customers.



It will forever be a McDonnell Douglas MD 80 , Boeing MD 80 sounds so wrong
User currently onlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 11919 posts, RR: 25
Reply 14, posted (6 years 5 months 1 week 9 hours ago) and read 10506 times:



Quoting CRJ200FAGuy (Reply 8):
Isn't Bombardier a little late to the dance with this airplane? Or will it be for the people who just don't want to wait their turn to get the jungle jets?

This plane is bigger than the current Jungle Jets. This plane is aimed squarely at the DC9/MD80 replacement market. Think of NW/DL/AA who are running hundreds of these, with engines that are at least 2-3 generations older than the PW GTF. It won't be that hard a sell.

Quoting Parapente (Reply 12):
If this GTF really does offer a 12% reduction in fuel burn (as they claim) and that the "new" airframe adds (what) say 5% plus? then you are beginning to have a "game changer" . One that would attract quite a few airliners.Indeed if you wanted a short haul aircraft and wanted to look "Green" (who doesn't) -then its a "must buy". One hopes it will kick start some real work on the short haul replacements that are so necessary.

 checkmark 

And I think that 12% is relative to CFM56 era engines, not older engines like JT9D etc.

And I think both A and B are a bit 'distracted' right now, and may not want to launch a plane small enough to compete with this one. Boeing might be a bit 'put off' with their experience on the 717.

Quoting Parapente (Reply 12):
Boeing "said" that the GTF was "too much risk" on the 787. But then chose TWO safe bets. Why not one "safe" and one "Risk?" Indeed since (at that time) it was only going to take 30 minutes to change an engine - then why not 3 suppliers -it was fine in the past,wasn't it. -I will tell you why.

Boeing doesn't need to accept risks to succede, whereas vendors trying to break into the market, such as Bombardier and Mitsubishi, do.

Quoting Columba (Reply 13):
I absolutely think that LH and NW will be launch customers.

 checkmark 

Now, it's time for PW to hit the targets on the GTF program.



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offlineParapente From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2006, 1509 posts, RR: 10
Reply 15, posted (6 years 5 months 1 week 8 hours ago) and read 10410 times:

I really ,really ,hope this (these Mitsubishi ) initive works for all parties. Working out "planitary" gearing must have been one hell of a task for P&W they deserve success for going where others feared to tread. I also believe it will force the hands of other engine makers.


If anybody out there is reading this (probably not) I do have a question. P7W are part of the Engine Alliance. RR have not indicated any interest so far (GTF) but to my simplistic way of thinking -they should (so where have I got this wrong).

RR do tripple spool turbines.The LP thus turns at a slower (more optimal) speed. However this is still faster than the optimal speed of the Fan.The Planetary gear systen effectively is a reduction gear driven off the LP. Now (as I understand it) .It is the loading on the gearbox that is the real trouble (the loading/tourque) being enormous on a jet engine. Since the LP on a tripple spool is lower the force majeur the loading would be lower. Thus RR's technology and P&W's are complimentary -I would have thought. But it seems not -why?


User currently offlineCRJ900 From Norway, joined Jun 2004, 2152 posts, RR: 1
Reply 16, posted (6 years 5 months 1 week 6 hours ago) and read 9945 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

FlightGlobal writes that the GTF will also power the Mitsubishi RJ with 14,000-17,000lbs of thrust... Could Bombardier slap that engine on the CRJ900 and CRJ1000 as well to offer more commonality between the CRJ and CSeries?


Come, fly the prevailing winds with me
User currently offlineDEVILFISH From Philippines, joined Jan 2006, 4693 posts, RR: 1
Reply 17, posted (6 years 5 months 1 week 5 hours ago) and read 9839 times:

P&W confirms work for the CSeries.....

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...red-turbofan-to-power-cseries.html

Quote:
" 'We have reached agreement on the technical and business terms,' confirms Tom Pelland, P&W’s director, next generation products.

The GTF has already been selected to power the Mitsubishi Regional Jet, with a launch decision expected at the end of March 2008. The 70/90-seat MRJ is also scheduled to enter service in 2013.

For the CSeries, the GTF will be rated at 23,000lb thrust (102kN), compared with 14,000-17,000lb on the smaller MRJ. Both versions will use a new advanced core, 'photographically scaled up' for the larger CSeries, says Pelland."



"Everyone is entitled to my opinion." - Garfield
User currently offlineMolykote From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 1337 posts, RR: 29
Reply 18, posted (6 years 5 months 1 week 2 hours ago) and read 8610 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting Parapente (Reply 15):
RR do tripple spool turbines.The LP thus turns at a slower (more optimal) speed. However this is still faster than the optimal speed of the Fan.The Planetary gear systen effectively is a reduction gear driven off the LP. Now (as I understand it) .It is the loading on the gearbox that is the real trouble (the loading/tourque) being enormous on a jet engine.

My understanding was that the LP spool speed compromise is biased toward the fan. What I am trying to say is that the fan speed is more or less "fine". It's the LPT speed that will benefit from running faster for a given fan speed.

I've been awake for 25 hours so I'll check on this thread later.



Speedtape - The asprin of aviation!
User currently offlineLightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12414 posts, RR: 100
Reply 19, posted (6 years 5 months 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 8205 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting KELPkid (Reply 1):
What's up with P&W GTF's now being the engine selection on not only one, but two Regional Jet projects?

Lightsaber is happy!  hyper 

Ok, I'm trying to find out more. The issue of both of them using related cores is a non-issue. Pratt couldn't develop two commercial cores independently of each other. The software Pratt has will allow them to size the cores easily. Its really a plug in the desired thrust and growth thrust and 'poof', basic engine shape has already been engineered.

The fact that the two engines will have slightly different low spools makes sense. Oh, IBR and a few other tricks will be common (I'm not sure on the LPC, but the HPC). But this will give two new aircraft with coast to coast range and quite eye opening economics. (Note: The Mitsubishi will have to "grow into" its high MTOW version. Don't expect to see coast to coast MRJ's before ~2016)

Quoting Parapente (Reply 15):
Working out "planitary" gearing must have been one hell of a task for P&W they deserve success for going where others feared to tread.

They've only been working on this for 15 plus years...  Wink

Seriously though, Pratt cannot get arrogant. RR isn't that far behind them. I'm not sure how this happened, but RR has been shopping GTF's in the 25k to 35k range a bit. They aren't as ready as Pratt, per my sources, but they are doing some of the fundamental research.

Pratt had to destroy quite a few gearboxes before they could prove they could find the failure modes.  spin 


Lightsaber

Quoting PanAm_DC10 (Reply 7):

Bombardier believes the GTF powerplant will offer an estimated 20% better fuel burn than the narrowbody aircraft it hopes to replace.

Compared to the CF-34, these GTF's have a relatively easy market to enter. And yes, I'm well aware of the CF34-10.  Wink

Quoting CRJ200FAGuy (Reply 8):
Or will it be for the people who just don't want to wait their turn to get the jungle jets?

 rotfl  No. The E-jets simply do not have the range to compete with these two new products. Nor will they have the fuel efficiency. If you've followed my posts in the E-jet threads you will note that I've been very excited by the E-jets, but not their engines.  Sad That is a weak point in their design (high fuel burn compared to what could have been done). Yes, the E-jets made their choice based on time to market. Not a bad decision; but now that they cannot meet demand in their size segment, they left the market door wide open.

Quoting VonRichtofen (Reply 9):
Pardon my ignorance but what is the difference between a geared turbo fan vs. a conventional turbo fan engine?

I'll explain in a little more technical terms.

In a normal engine, even a triple spool, the fan is being turned too fast (high Mach number, you can think RPM) than is optimal. Why? The turbine powering it is turning far to slow for its optimum efficiency too. Solution? Put a fixed gearbox between the two (about a 3:1 gear ratio, I'll have to find out what these engines are being built at though). Now think about the low pressure compressor (LPC). Its turning too slow also (a smaller diameter means that the blade mach numbers are far lower then that seen by the fan). Also, recall the fan heats the air going to the LPC. RR simplified the problem by putting the LPC on its own turbine and viola! Easy fuel efficiency. Well the GTF does that without the added bearing but with the complication of the gearbox. Expect a 8% to 12% drop in fuel burn versus a twin spool. Maybe 5% to 8% versus a triple spool.

Quoting Parapente (Reply 12):
then you are beginning to have a "game changer" .

Yes, the GTF is a game changer. Once they are proven, you won't see another engine that isn't a GTF... until the next great concept.  bigthumbsup 

Quoting DEVILFISH (Reply 17):
Both versions will use a new advanced core, 'photographically scaled up' for the larger CSeries, says Pelland."

Its a little more than that... but in layman's terms, its an ok way to describe it.  Wink

I'm going to have to find out the LPC differences. I expect to see another compressor row on the 23k versus the 17k... but I cannot confirm. I was blindsided that Pratt was going to launch two GTF's in parallel! Wow!  wideeyed 

Quoting Revelation (Reply 14):
And I think that 12% is relative to CFM56 era engines

8% to 11% for the GTF. (Most likely at the 8% side for these first generation examples.) But also, there are other technologies going into these engines.

Do you know what I cannot find out, will these engines be counter-rotating or not? I'd assume counter-rotating spools, but my sources have NDA's and I cannot find any link. That's another 2% or 3% drop in fuel burn compared to the CFM-56.

Also add an "Integrated blade rotor" (IBR) High pressure compressor (HPC). We'll see a weight reduction and another ~2% drop in fuel burn there.

As someone who knows GTF's, what's not being said is driving me nuts!  hissyfit 
Which of my buddies pre-diffuser designs was selected?
What's the turbine material? (I mean exactly what alloy.)
LPC construction? (IBR or "old school") Number of LPC stages? Core to core variation?

And most importantly, will any of the Pratt projects that Lightsaber worked on be incorporated in these designs? I have reason to believe one of my contact's patents is going to be implemented.  Wink Are Lightsaber's design spreadsheets still in use at Pratt (or some evolved version)?

Most of the above is so deep in the NDA, I won't be told. But I'm so curious!  hyper 

From Devilfish's link:

Quote:
The company plans around 100h of ground runs leading up to flight tests on its Boeing 747 engine testbed. These are scheduled to begin in May 2008, and around 100h of flight tests are planned, he says.

So its not like Pratt won't have flying hours in early to optimize the design.

As I find out more, I'll share. But be warned, I'll also be telling you why the two engines vary from one to the other. In technical speak  spin 

Congrats to Pratt on these two wins!  praise 
To my Pratt contacts, I'll be buying drinks.  spit  hee hee hee...

Got popcorn?
Neil



I've posted how many times?!?
User currently onlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 11919 posts, RR: 25
Reply 20, posted (6 years 5 months 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 8168 times:



Quoting Parapente (Reply 15):
The company plans around 100h of ground runs leading up to flight tests on its Boeing 747 engine testbed.

The 28k thrust GTF demonstration engine flying this spring - awesome!

Quoting Lightsaber (Reply 19):
As I find out more, I'll share. But be warned, I'll also be telling you why the two engines vary from one to the other. In technical speak

Thanks! I've enjoyed following along to the best of my abilities. I've learned an awful lot so far. Not too bad for a BSEE/MSCS who suffered greatly through a year of statics and dynamics and avoided thermodynamics like the plague. Your explaination of GTF above is great.

I did some googling on "Integrated blade rotor" and didn't really come up with anything. I presume it is just what it suggests, blades and rotors made in one piece instead of having to attach blades to the rotors?



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 29678 posts, RR: 84
Reply 21, posted (6 years 5 months 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 8114 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting LH452 (Reply 5):
The aircraft will apparently have stretch capability up to 149 pax so it will dent more than than the 737-600. Looks like something that Airbus and Boeing have to consider.



Quoting Revelation (Reply 14):
This plane is bigger than the current Jungle Jets. This plane is aimed squarely at the DC9/MD80 replacement market. Think of NW/DL/AA who are running hundreds of these, with engines that are at least 2-3 generations older than the PW GTF. It won't be that hard a sell.

This was my thought exactly. For airlines like NW and AA holding on to their smaller DC-9s and MD-8xs because the 737-700 is too big might find the C-100's 2+3 seating to be just right.

Quoting Parapente (Reply 12):
Boeing "said" that the GTF was "too much risk" on the 787. But then chose TWO safe bets. Why not one "safe" and one "risk?" Indeed since (at that time) it was only going to take 30 minutes to change an engine - then why not 3 suppliers -it was fine in the past, wasn't it. -I will tell you why.

Because GE did not want them there,thats why. With Rolls they had a safe known quantity and would give up a minority share of a huge market. But what if a GTF was allowed on and it offered 12% fuel savings!! OR just say an extra 5%. They would have the whole market before you could blink. Too much of a risk to Boeing's business bedfellows methinks!!

A few points:

  • If Boeing could improve the fuel efficiency of the 787 by another 10% using a GTF you can bet your bum they would have bought P&W away from UT if that is what it took to get those engines on the plane because we'd be looking at 1700 sales now, not 700. That being said...
  • It is one thing to build a GTF with 20k thrust. It's another to build one with 80k.
  • As Lightsaber noted, it took P&W 15 years just to get where they are today with a "low power" unit. To think they could scale that by a factor of four in as many years strikes me as beyond wishful thinking...
  • What is the engine had not worked? Airlines that committed to the P&W option would have an airframe without an engine. And since GE or RR would already have commitments on simultaneous deliveries, those airlines would literally have a "tarmac queen" collecting mold at PAE - possibly for months or even years.
  • Three suppliers seriously dilutes the total share of the pie. The 772/77E/773 market is 578 units to date. Even if they split three ways, that is around 400 engines per manufacturer. On a multi-billion investment, that is chump change in return. Yes, Boeing feels the market for the 787 is huge, but they felt that after they sold over 500 of them in handful of years. I imagine when they were looking at the plane, they felt the market might be more like 1500-2000 units. Again, I am not sure 1000 engines would have been enough to justify the investment - heck, Pratt said as much when they bowed out of the competition.
  • And finally, the 787 had enough "new tech" as it was. To then slap a brand-new engine concept on it likely would have been too much risk...


User currently offlineBoeing7E7 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 22, posted (6 years 5 months 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 8093 times:

Quoting Tdscanuck (Reply 3):
Technically, yes, but the 737-600 was never all that popular and Boeing doesn't even list it in their current production models anymore (although I think you could still order one if you wanted to). Boeing has apparently ceded the 100-110 seat market.

The -600 was heavy, not unlike the poor selling A-318. With similar payload for the -110 to the -600/A318 and similar payload for the -130 to the -700/A319 they could be on to something, and at the same time free Airbus and Boeing to look at the meat of the market for their narrowbody replacement. A better comparison is the 717/DC-9 where this plane smokes them both.

Quoting Columba (Reply 13):
I absolutely think that LH and NW will be launch customers.

Other potentials:

SkyWest (UAX/DLC)
Frontier
Midwest (Sames 2+2 capacites as the 717 better efficiency)
Hawaiian
AirTran
American
Horizon

[Edited 2007-11-13 18:33:28]

User currently offlineLAXDESI From United States of America, joined May 2005, 5086 posts, RR: 48
Reply 23, posted (6 years 5 months 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 8029 times:

I found an interesting article about the GTF engine.
http://www.ainonline.com/news/single...e-rjs/?no_cache=1&cHash=87b94e3fe9

Quotes:
The engine for the MRJ will be delivered at a rating of 15,000 pounds thrust for the 70- to 80-seat MRJ70 and at 17,000 pounds for the larger 86- to 96-seat MRJ90. P&W is working on a family of GTF engines running up to the same 33,000 pounds thrust as the existing International Aero Engines V2500, although in testing with a PW2000 in 1998, using a slightly different design of gearbox, the engine reached 40,000 pounds thrust with no difficulty. “We’re making sure we’ve got the maximum likely thrust of the new generation of single-aisle aircraft well covered,” said Saia.

The P&W executive rebuffs critics who say the GTF is heavier than regular turbofans. “My understanding is that for the MRJ our GTF was actually lighter than the competition,” said Saia. This is because the GTF will employ an advanced core with fewer stages and blades. The low-pressure turbine, for example, under development by P&W GTF partner MTU, will have 900 fewer airfoils than the similarly sized V2500, with three stages instead of the usual five.

P&W is also working on a lightweight 18-blade wide-chord, swept tip fan, which will be driven at two thirds the speed of conventional fans via the Avio-developed gearbox. Saia declined to reveal the exact nature of the fan blade material, beyond saying, “It is metallic, it is new and we’ve had very good results to date.” An all-composite backup version is being developed with advanced propeller manufacturer Hamilton Sundstrand. The fan is the same 56-inch diameter as those of the competition, Mitsubishi having required all three contestants to come within the same engine diameter limitations because of wing and landing gear characteristics.

Next on the list of potential applications is the long-awaited Bombardier C Series, for which a larger, 23,000-pound-thrust engine is needed. This would use exactly the same core design, but scaled up to provide the extra thrust.

A decision on launching the C Series is due next year. Another victory for the GTF would secure the credibility of the geared fan concept, leaving P&W in a far stronger position to secure a place aboard the aircraft that will eventually replace the Airbus A320 and Boeing 737 families.


User currently offlineLightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12414 posts, RR: 100
Reply 24, posted (6 years 5 months 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 7957 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting Stitch (Reply 21):
# If Boeing could improve the fuel efficiency of the 787 by another 10% using a GTF you can bet your bum they would have bought P&W away from UT if that is what it took to get those engines on the plane because we'd be looking at 1700 sales now, not 700. That being said...
# It is one thing to build a GTF with 20k thrust. It's another to build one with 80k.

Pratt proposed a GTF that was a dramatic improvement for the 787.

Boeing does not want to be the GTF launch customer, period. Boeing is run by a bunch of people who recall that half the prop engine failures (on the higher horsepower units) were gearbox failures. I believe they are being too cautious.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 21):
And finally, the 787 had enough "new tech" as it was. To then slap a brand-new engine concept on it likely would have been too much risk...

Most likely why Boeing was so adamant about not launching the GTF.

As to making a larger GTF, its no harder than a small scale. I've seen Pratt concepts from 14k to 62k thrust. Even Pratt wasn't quite ready to launch at 77k (A380). Why? Cost of the test equipment, not technical challenge.

Airbus has been very excited about a GTF, but after the PW6000... not so excited on Pratt (hence another reason for the GP7200 joint-venture).

But heck, I've been very biased towards the GTF for years. Why? It is a game changer!  bigthumbsup 

Quoting LAXDESI (Reply 23):
P&W is working on a family of GTF engines running up to the same 33,000 pounds thrust as the existing International Aero Engines V2500

chuckle. I worked on this R&D design years ago.  Wink However, the current design has such a different set of compressors and turbines, I doubt if any of my work remains.

Quoting LAXDESI (Reply 23):
The low-pressure turbine, for example, under development by P&W GTF partner MTU, will have 900 fewer airfoils than the similarly sized V2500, with three stages instead of the usual five.

Pratt's partnership with MTU has worked out very well... An artifact of the PW6000 HPC debacle, that will benefit both companies for many years.  Smile I cannot help but notice that the MRJ engine has been very optimized for weight and climb efficiency at a cost to cruise efficiency. Hey, its the call I would have made.  bigthumbsup 

Now what about the C-series? I expect a low spool a little more optimized for cruise. In other words, a higher bypass fan with one or two more LPT stages to power the LPC and fan. I'd also put on one more LPC stage compared to the MRJ engine... but I haven't yet seen how it was optimized; so I'll find out as soon as I can.

Quoting LAXDESI (Reply 23):
Saia declined to reveal the exact nature of the fan blade material, beyond saying, “It is metallic, it is new and we’ve had very good results to date.” An all-composite backup version is being developed with advanced propeller manufacturer Hamilton Sundstrand. The fan is the same 56-inch diameter as those of the competition,

Interesting, interesting, interesting. A new metal... I have my guesses, but let me see if I can find out more.

Also, I worked on a project with Pratt before where we were about to launch a GTF where the customer demanded a low diameter GTF. So not only is this a drill Pratt is well practiced on, but there are quite a few benefits to an undersized GTF on the shorter missions.  spin  In this case, both the customer and Pratt were surprised on how the weight and aerodynamic pluses for a smaller nacelle outweighed the thrust efficiency of the GTF. There is a range of diameters where for each thrust of GTF, you could build the engine. Without fail, it pays to optimize at the smallest diameter.

Quoting LAXDESI (Reply 23):

A decision on launching the C Series is due next year.

aaaaaagh! I've heard that since 2001!  hissyfit 

Quoting Stitch (Reply 21):
Three suppliers seriously dilutes the total share of the pie.

Boeing made a smart business decision limiting the engine choices to two on the 787. There is still enough competition to drive optimization. The customer is less confused. (Will they pick the winner or one of the two less desirable engines for that airframe?) The resale is far better (Making a pylon compatible with three engines would have been an un-needed expense.)

With the 787, Boeing not only demanded great fuel efficiency, but they have definitive and quantitative ways to compare the risk of each and every engine proposal. Both GE and RR spent quite a bit of money to burn down risk during the bidding process. (Hey, it looks to have worked!)

But this is like the transition from centrifugal compressors to axial compressors; once the transition is complete, we'll never go back to a non-GTF for the sizes being discussed. What we will see is many flavors of GTF.

Lightsaber



I've posted how many times?!?
25 BlueSkys : Dont rule out AC, i think they will replace their jungle jets with them.
26 Post contains images Jlb : Do you think it might be lead? I do not think that has ever been used much in airplane design ever
27 BlueSky1976 : There is a new alloy that is supposedly 20% lighter than carbon fibre based composite and not as prone to corrosion as the traditional alluminum. Ther
28 Columba : Do you think so ? I believe the Ejets are fairly new and don´t need to be replaced (okay they are not as durable as Dc 9 but they should last 10-15
29 Lumberton : IMO, not at all! These two projects could leave the so-called Sukhoi "superjet" and their Chinese counterpart in the dust.
30 Post contains images Stitch : You know... If Pratt in the next five years can show the GTF design works on the C-Series, the MRJ and the A320 test-bed, not only could it have a gr
31 Parapente : This is one of the best threads that I have read here. No bickering just very solid stuff which (for me at least) stretches the little grey cells abit
32 PavlovsDog : 23,000 lb of thrust should be enough to power a C-150 if Bombardier should want to stretch it. I imagine that development would only be a matter of ti
33 Revelation : The things I've read lead me to believe that PW is not looking for a senior partner. Reading through the lines, they think they can make a go with ju
34 Post contains images Lightsaber : Maybe. However, for years Boeing didn't want to hear about GTF's while Airbus has sent engineers into Pratt's R&D departments to find out more about
35 Post contains links Pnwtraveler : There are still ongoing rumours of a partnership with a Russian aircraft manufacturer. http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/f...32a-4251-a383-29eac5792b
36 JoeCanuck : I really doubt they would take a chance on doing any of the c-series in Russia, though China is a real possibility. At the moment, at least, Russian p
37 Post contains images Stitch : Then I guess it's Y1/Y3 or bust, at least with Boeing. Always been partial to Pratt because I'm partial to UA, so I hope they get on one or the other
38 DEVILFISH : Might RR give the gearbox work then to their Marine Division supplier Kamewa or could Sumitomo Precision do it, seeing that they could no longer use
39 Bmacleod : So does this mean Bombardier is committed to building the C-Series? They're not just making an excuse to keep Mirabel in operation instead of letting
40 JoeCanuck : From the sounds of it, the engine was the last, major, piece of the puzzle...except for customers, of course. Now, we wait...again.
41 Post contains images Lightsaber : You're talking turbine materials. Yes, everyone is working hard on that. My quote was for a new fan material! Not yet. But Pratt has committed to sta
42 Post contains links and images DEVILFISH : Ah yes, 3D woven composite fan blades - I wonder what they're "composed" of?..... http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...cfm-ready-for-narrowbody-lea
43 Post contains images Rheinbote : That would require gearboxes rated in excess of 100.000shp, doesn't look feasible anytime soon.
44 BlueSkys : I wonder...... Would SAS ever buy the C-series after all they went through with the Q400?
45 Rheinbote : They have rather been promoting geared propfans lately...
46 Arrow : Ha! They certainly wouldn't be the launch customer, unless Bombardier gave them away. Even then ...
47 Connies4ever : This is a great thread ! As earlier stated, no A v B flaming, just some good technical content. As for C-series moving ahead, bring it! It flies a dif
48 Tdscanuck : The 787 already has something like 20 all-new technologies in it, any one of which could sink the program if not properly executed. Taking a flyer on
49 JoeCanuck : I reckon that work on their next generation narrow body planes is probably pretty advanced already. Both Airbus and Boeing can probably announce as so
50 Post contains images Lightsaber : The big issue is the heat removal. Under high loads there is quite the blast in the fan stream. And what do you mean not known for scaling nicely? We
51 Tdscanuck : I was thinking durability. You can't just take a 1,000 HP gearbox and make it 10 times as big and expect the same reliability/durability at 10,000 HP
52 Lightsaber : True. Pratt had GTF's planned in certain size ranges. To have a competitive engine, they only scale so much before you must make a strategic change.
53 Post contains images Lightsaber : Just a little more clarification: 787 takes 55k to 75k thrust. 1st delivery of engine 2007 A380 takes 77k but airbus required a clear plan to 84k "out
54 Revelation : Yep. We saw them bail on the wireless IFE when the risk got too large The prototype that is to be flying next spring has 28k thrust, which is similar
55 Post contains images Rheinbote : One is for sure - the GTF needs a better reliability than the PW6000 to succeed in the market.
56 Post contains images Lightsaber : Basically using the 33k gearbox too. Fuel burn. I haven't been hearing and reliability issues from my sources. The original PW6000 (not the current P
57 FTOHIST : Just curious..... After reading all the previous posts and posts in other related threads, it seems like after all the work done on UHB technology in
58 Post contains links Lightsaber : Pratt became obsessed by it. GE... never went down the GTF path: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Electric_GE-36 GE has never believed in high ho
59 Tdscanuck : So far as I know, wireless IFE was working fine but was, ironically, too heavy once they figured out the powered seat tracks. Pretty much. Pretty muc
60 Sirtoby : The main problem is noise! It is unclear if Stage 4 noise levels can be met, whereas the GTF is believed to be up to 25dB below Stage 4 (accumulated)
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...
NWA Confirms Interest In Bombardier's CSeries posted Thu Jun 21 2007 07:27:11 by KingAir200
FAA Drops Its 3 Engine 744 Case Against BA posted Sun Sep 24 2006 16:10:03 by Zeke
Northwest Is Bombardier CSeries Aircraft Hope posted Mon Oct 24 2005 13:04:10 by KarlB737
AMR's Beer: Fuel Hedging Has Its Price posted Fri Aug 19 2005 04:06:14 by TACAA320
P&W Canada To Power Bombardier's CSeries posted Tue Jun 14 2005 20:23:27 by YUL332LX
Know An Airline That Has Its Little Quirks? posted Fri Sep 3 2004 00:14:08 by Flybyguy
A345 Or 777 - Which One Has More Engine Power? posted Sun Nov 30 2003 01:40:15 by ACB777
Has The 2 Engine Design Hurt Boeing? posted Tue Oct 21 2003 00:02:30 by Gopal
728JET Has Its Gear! posted Fri Jan 18 2002 22:48:27 by Flying-Tiger
C3 737-200 That Burst Its Engine 2 Weeks Ago posted Mon Aug 20 2001 21:49:43 by Crank