Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
SNECMA/GE Could Have New NB Powerplant By 2015  
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30986 posts, RR: 86
Posted (6 years 7 months 2 weeks 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 7286 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

SNECMA and GE believe they can have a new narrowbody engine ready by 2015 with a 15% lower fuel burn, 25% lower maintenance costs, 50% less noise and 60% lower NOx emissions.

I am guessing this is going to be the LEAP56?

http://money.cnn.com/news/newsfeeds/...cles/newstex/AFX-0013-22713298.htm

Boeing should have the 737RS ready by then and Airbus should be able to follow within a few years with the A320RS. So they have at least one engine option, and perhaps upwards of three depending on how the RR and PW GTF programs advance - assuming they don't combine efforts within IAE to launch a single GTF.

42 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineVirgin747LGW From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2007, 225 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (6 years 7 months 2 weeks 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 7284 times:

is 15% enough for the airlines?

User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30986 posts, RR: 86
Reply 2, posted (6 years 7 months 2 weeks 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 7276 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Virgin747LGW (Reply 1):
is 15% enough for the airlines?

It's 15% better then what they have now.

Seriously, 15% is about what the 787 is expected to have on the A330 and that was worth almost 900 sales to date. It's also likely what the A350 will have on the 777 and that program is doing well.

And when you add in aerodynamic improvements and CFRP-based weight reductions, on longer (2000+ nm) missions you could see closer to 20% and that's nothing to sneeze at.

[Edited 2008-02-01 16:06:54]

User currently offlineSpeedbird2263 From Jamaica, joined Jul 2006, 470 posts, RR: 1
Reply 3, posted (6 years 7 months 2 weeks 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 7264 times:



Quoting Stitch (Thread starter):
SNECMA and GE believe they can have a new narrowbody engine ready by 2015 with a 15% lower fuel burn, 25% lower maintenance costs, 50% less noise and 60% lower NOx emissions.

Correct me If Im wrong but didn't Airbus and Boeing both state that their respective narrow-body replacements would not be initiated unless there was a suitable "break-through" engine with more than 15% lower fuel burn? Or has major improvements in the other major factors such as maintenance cost, noise and emissions outweighed fuel burn?.  scratchchin 



Straight'n Up 'N Fly Right Son ;)
User currently offlineVirgin747LGW From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2007, 225 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (6 years 7 months 2 weeks 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 7269 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 2):
It's 15% better then what they have now. Smile

agreed, its just someone posted a chart showing the major airlines requirements for the a new NB and one airline i think it was JAL wanted a 50 % fuel reduction, most were around 25%

here it is

Big version: Width: 445 Height: 288 File size: 48kb


looks like it could be enough

[Edited 2008-02-01 16:23:36]

User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30986 posts, RR: 86
Reply 5, posted (6 years 7 months 2 weeks 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 7255 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting Speedbird2263 (Reply 3):
Correct me If Im wrong but didn't Airbus and Boeing both state that their respective narrow-body replacements would not be initiated unless there was a suitable "break-through" engine with more than 15% lower fuel burn? Or has major improvements in the other major factors such as maintenance cost, noise and emissions outweighed fuel burn?.

Well, if they can hang this thing off existing 737NGs and A320Es, then Boeing and Airbus could likely just keep waiting since they'd get all the propulsion system benefits without needing to change the plane.

If RR and Pratt can get the GTF to perform better and EIS about the same time, then I expect both manufacturers will commence with their airframe RS programs.


User currently offlineKeesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (6 years 7 months 2 weeks 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 7224 times:

I wonder if it will be a conventional design an open rotor, double fan or something inbetween. That will also influence aircraft design.

Snecma counter rotating fans study


Snecma open rotor study


CFM Leap56


User currently offlineSpeedbird2263 From Jamaica, joined Jul 2006, 470 posts, RR: 1
Reply 7, posted (6 years 7 months 2 weeks 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 7201 times:



Quoting Stitch (Reply 5):
Well, if they can hang this thing off existing 737NGs and A320Es, then Boeing and Airbus could likely just keep waiting

Well that's just it, the way I see it is that it'll be 2015 before EIS of the proposed engine(7years from Now) and within that time frame there will be of course continued orders for the 73NG and A320 series. However I just don't see the airlines warming up to Massive replacement orders with just 15% lower fuel burn *given of course the same airframe design of today. With Airbus re-iterating that the A320RS has been pushed back to at least 2020, that's 5years between the proposed EIS of the engine and potential A320 replacement.

That's not to say however that Boeing wouldn't be ready until then with the 737 replacement. Even then one wonders if the airlines would prefer to wait for a little bit more in terms of engine performance. I guess what Im trying to say is that the focus is set squarely on fuel burn by the airlines. I suppose however that the 'slack' could be taken up by major improvements in other areas such as in materials(*much more extensive us of CFRP) and aerodynamics, potentially offering anything upwards of 20% savings, then I can see the windfall of orders for fleet replacement on a large scale. Future oil prices could tip the scale in any direction. Of course all IMHO.  scratchchin 



Straight'n Up 'N Fly Right Son ;)
User currently offlineN328KF From United States of America, joined May 2004, 6485 posts, RR: 3
Reply 8, posted (6 years 7 months 2 weeks 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 7128 times:



Quoting Virgin747LGW (Reply 4):
one airline i think it was JAL wanted a 50 % fuel reduction

...and a pony.

50%? Who are they kidding?



When they call the roll in the Senate, the Senators do not know whether to answer 'Present' or 'Not guilty.' T.Roosevelt
User currently offlineTangowhisky From United States of America, joined Jun 2006, 928 posts, RR: 7
Reply 9, posted (6 years 7 months 2 weeks 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 7094 times:



Quoting Stitch (Thread starter):
am guessing this is going to be the LEAP56?

Well I hope they will give a bit more depth on how they will achieve this. I am not saying they don't have a plan, but I'd like to see some more explanation. At least with Pratt's GTF there is a plan with the goal.



Only the paranoid survive
User currently offlinePlanemaker From Tuvalu, joined Aug 2003, 6186 posts, RR: 34
Reply 10, posted (6 years 7 months 2 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 7035 times:



Quoting Stitch (Thread starter):
SNECMA and GE believe they can have a new narrowbody engine ready by 2015 with a 15% lower fuel burn, 25% lower maintenance costs, 50% less noise and 60% lower NOx emissions.

The article is "regurgitation" of old news from last year that CNN Money is only just now reporting... Copyright Thomson Financial News Limited 2007  Smile

Quoting Stitch (Thread starter):
Boeing should have the 737RS ready by then

They certainly could... but they won't.  Smile

Quoting Tangowhisky (Reply 9):
Well I hope they will give a bit more depth on how they will achieve this. I am not saying they don't have a plan, but I'd like to see some more explanation.

The General Electric/Snecma joint company has set the end of the decade for a decision on the architecture of its next engine.
...

"If we go for the more radical open-rotor architecture, we will need additional time to mature the technologies," he says. "That will push things back towards the end of next decade."
...

But if customers want more than the base LEAP56 turbofan can offer, a new architecture will be required. "If they push for another 4-5% in sfc we can't find a path to that [with a turbofan]," he says. "There is so much technology pulled into LEAP56 - we're not leaving any behind."


Here is the link to the Flight International article... http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...s-will-cfm-leap-to-open-rotor.html

And the link to an earlier article... http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...cfm-ready-for-narrowbody-leap.html



Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind. - A. Einstein
User currently offlineLightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 13120 posts, RR: 100
Reply 11, posted (6 years 7 months 2 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 7025 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Ahhh... a thread after my own heart.  Wink

Quoting Virgin747LGW (Reply 1):
is 15% enough for the airlines?

Not against a GTF!  bigthumbsup 

Quoting Keesje (Reply 6):
Snecma counter rotating fans study

Potential winner!

Quoting Keesje (Reply 6):
Snecma open rotor study

Unlikely. The flight cruise mach penalty is a bit much for any distance. It would kick the 737RS airframe out of the transcon market which would give too large a market to airbus.

Ok, what can be done to reduce fuel burn versus the CFM-56 and the fuel burn advantage
1. Contra-rotating 3%
2. 2nd HPT stage 4%
3. IBR compressors (low and high) 4% (Integrated blade rotor).
4. Improved HPT material 2% to 4% (I've been hearing some interesting rumors about what GE is doing here...)

I expect all of the above to occur in *any* design by CFM. Ok, you have to multiply instead of add efficiency gains... but they could do 15% by 2015 without too radical of a fan change.

But by 2015 Pratt will have one and maybe two GTF's flying... All of the above improvements are generic to any engine design. Yes, Pratt must win back customers. But I think the GTF's will let them do it.

Lightsaber



Societies that achieve a critical mass of ideas achieve self sustaining growth; others stagnate.
User currently offlineTugger From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 5599 posts, RR: 8
Reply 12, posted (6 years 7 months 2 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 7019 times:



Quoting Keesje (Reply 6):
I wonder if it will be a conventional design an open rotor, double fan or something inbetween. That will also influence aircraft design. .......Snecma open rotor study

I can't see open rotor being possible when the following was also said:

Quoting Stitch (Thread starter):
50% less noise

Open fans are much noisier than their closed brethren.

Tug



I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. -W. Shatner
User currently offlinePlanemaker From Tuvalu, joined Aug 2003, 6186 posts, RR: 34
Reply 13, posted (6 years 7 months 2 weeks 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 6989 times:



Quoting Lightsaber (Reply 11):
Ok, what can be done to reduce fuel burn versus the CFM-56 and the fuel burn advantage
1. Contra-rotating 3%
2. 2nd HPT stage 4%
3. IBR compressors (low and high) 4% (Integrated blade rotor).
4. Improved HPT material 2% to 4% (I've been hearing some interesting rumors about what GE is doing here...)

From the article link...

To get this performance CFM has selected a higher bypass ratio of around 9:1 versus 5:1 on the current engines, as well as an ultra-high-pressure ratio core of more than 15:1 against the 11:1 of today's high-pressure spools. Although CFM studied a two-stage HP turbine to achieve this, it believes this performance can be reached more effectively with a 15% higher loaded single HPT stage and an eight-stage HP compressor.

Technology to be evaluated include a resin transfer-moulded, 3D woven composite fan blade set a composite fan case next-generation 3D aerodynamically designed HPC and HPT ceramic matrix composite turbine nozzles advanced LPT with titanium aluminide blades and a TAPS (twin-annular pre-swirled) II combustor.
 Smile




Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind. - A. Einstein
User currently offlineZeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 9101 posts, RR: 75
Reply 14, posted (6 years 7 months 2 weeks 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 6959 times:



Quoting Virgin747LGW (Reply 1):
is 15% enough for the airlines?

15% translates to a lot more than just a straight fuel burn.

I did some quick numbers for the A320, assuming that they will increase the cruise mach, and increase in aspect ration of the wing, would translate to about 8% lower airframe mass, overall the improvement on the airframe package would be in the order of 30%.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 2):
Seriously, 15% is about what the 787 is expected to have on the A330 and that was worth almost 900 sales to date. It's also likely what the A350 will have on the 777 and that program is doing well.

The 787 engine to A330 engine is about 8%, the other efficiencies are built from that.



We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
User currently offlinePavlovsDog From Norway, joined Sep 2005, 658 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (6 years 7 months 2 weeks 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 6757 times:

In Finanavisen of Oslo today page 29, February 6th, there is an interesting article about SK's narrowbody fleet upgrade. Sorry, no electronic edition that I'm aware of.

my tranlation from Norwegian

Quote:
Waiting on "new 737" in 2009

.
.
SAS is about to place the finishing touches on a new fleet strategy.

Environmental Director Niels-Eirik Nertun in SAS say that they are still considering waiting until 2015 to replace the MD-80 fleet.

The reason being that the next generation of aircraft will have much lower fuel consumption and emissions than the current 737.

Nertun refers to a meeting he had with Boeing's environmental director Bill Glower at the Nobel Peace Prize concert in Oslo in December.

SAS claims that the new 737 will have 50% lower emission than the year 2000 737's. The benchmark model is Boeings new Dreamliner.

"The new aircraft(737RS) will have new engine technology and will be build from lighter composites. In addition, the aircraft will have new aerodynamic shape and flight characteristics that will allow to to fly more efficiently. Therefore it could be a good environmental reason to wait until 2015" says Nertun.

Lot's of juicy tidbits there.

-The 737 RS will have a market launch in 2009 and will be delivered from 2015

-It will have new engine technology and be similar to the 787 buildwise.

-SAS is leaning strongly towards going with Boeing with delivery from 2015.


User currently offlineScouseflyer From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2006, 3390 posts, RR: 9
Reply 16, posted (6 years 7 months 2 weeks 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 6703 times:



Quoting PavlovsDog (Reply 15):
The 737 RS will have a market launch in 2009 and will be delivered from 2015

That's an airbusesque time gap between launch and EIS Big grin


User currently offlineKeesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 17, posted (6 years 7 months 2 weeks 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 6678 times:



Quoting PavlovsDog (Reply 15):
Lot's of juicy tidbits there.

Thnx interresting Both Airbus and Boeing are working hard on replacements.

It's in both parties intererest to keep it quiet.

They have other commitments (787, A350) to pursue
Being open on it would have important customer demending to speed things up
Is more economical to build as much from the current backlogs as possible, you don't want the big ones trying to convert orders in something better.

AA, AF/KLM, SWA are a few of the airlines that already putting pressure on A and B. The one launching something new would immediately be burried under orders that are hard to realise, putting additional pressure on already over heated engineering departments..

For Snecma, GE, PW and RR the same logic applies IMO.

What Boeing / SAS is hinting at is probably something like this with Leap56 engines..



Topic on this subject: http://www.airliners.net/discussions...eneral_aviation/read.main/3507525/


User currently offlineDAYflyer From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 3807 posts, RR: 3
Reply 18, posted (6 years 7 months 2 weeks 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 6672 times:

Wow, thats a pretty good improvement. It will be interesting to see the design. I wonder whom else is looking at this engine size and developing the CFM replacement?


One Nation Under God
User currently offlineVirgin747LGW From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2007, 225 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (6 years 7 months 2 weeks 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 6670 times:

just looking at my chart, can someone explain why delta would be happy with only 5% increase?

User currently offlineAstuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 10025 posts, RR: 96
Reply 20, posted (6 years 7 months 2 weeks 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 6652 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting Stitch (Thread starter):
Boeing should have the 737RS ready by then

What's a "green" engine? (a reference to environment, or the level of development?P

I assume that an engine ready by 2015 doesn't mean an aircraft ready by 2015.
Presumably the engines would need to be certified before they go anywhere near a test airframe.
2017 earliest for next gen narrowbodies?

Regards


User currently offlinePavlovsDog From Norway, joined Sep 2005, 658 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (6 years 7 months 2 weeks 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 6642 times:



Quoting Scouseflyer (Reply 16):
That's an airbusesque time gap between launch and EIS 

Could have something to do with the order book being full til then. 6 years is a very long time though. There must be an inaccuracy somewhere.

With AA, WN, UA and DL all looking to be ready to order 250+ narrowbodies a piece they'd probably be able to book the first three years production at launch. Now add SK to that list for another 100.


User currently onlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 12556 posts, RR: 25
Reply 22, posted (6 years 7 months 2 weeks 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 6587 times:



Quoting Virgin747LGW (Reply 19):
just looking at my chart, can someone explain why delta would be happy with only 5% increase?

The chart is talking about improvements vs current generation (e.g. 737NG). Delta is flying lots of previous generation hardware (MDxx). So they may be saying that they're wanting 15% over MDxx, 5% over 737NG, perhaps?



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offlineIkramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21529 posts, RR: 59
Reply 23, posted (6 years 7 months 2 weeks 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 6501 times:

15% from the engines, 5% from a new wing, 3% from the lighter airframe, 2% from the flight control software = 25% improvement?

Add to that a more modern design with better cargo ability and lower maintenance of the engines and airframe, and airlines will jump on it.

The in service 737NG and newer A320s have a lot of life yet though.

Quoting N328KF (Reply 8):
...and a pony.

If JL gets a pony I should get a pony!

Quoting Revelation (Reply 22):
The chart is talking about improvements vs current generation (e.g. 737NG).

Bingo. We have a winner. It'll be 25%+ more efficient than the MD80 engines.

Also, there are fleets of A320s (early models) that will need to be replaced starting soon. Plenty will be 20 years old in 2015. 737NG fleets start getting 20 years old a couple years later...



Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently onlineNYC777 From United States of America, joined Jun 2004, 5758 posts, RR: 47
Reply 24, posted (6 years 7 months 2 weeks 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 6429 times:

To add to the discussion, here's an interesting take onthe engine issues for the next gen NB:

http://fleetbuzz.wordpress.com/2008/...dy-airplanes-big-engine-challenge/



That which does not kill me makes me stronger.
25 Tdscanuck : It's mostly a parallel effort. I'm pretty sure the GEnx still isn't certified and the 787 program is merrily building test airplanes that will be fit
26 Zeke : Any idea of what the problem is ? RR had the Trent 1000 certified in August last year, GE powered test aircraft were to be flying last year under the
27 Glareskin : The engine, based on their CFM56 engine would allow a 15 pct cut in fuel consumption, 25 pct lower maintenance costs, a 60 pct cut in nitrogen oxide a
28 Post contains images Ikramerica : Nah, Boeing will just trim out insulation in the cabin...
29 Revelation : Nah, a lot of the noise especially in the front half of the plane is just the air hitting the fuse. You hear a lot of the same thing when in a car go
30 Tdscanuck : Nope. I'm not even sure there is a problem...I don't know what the original certification schedule was. I know they've had the GEnx running for quite
31 Post contains images Glareskin : And don't you think this will be reduced by better aerodynamics and new materials (ie CFRP without screws and nipples)? Also landing- and take- off-
32 XT6Wagon : Ding, punching a hole in the air is currently a prime source of noise in current aircraft. We are a LONG way from the days of the 707's and DC-8's. A
33 Revelation : Do I get a pony? Nope. I read the comment about not needing noise cancelling headphones and presumed we were talking about the noise inside the cabin
34 Ikramerica : I didn't see your post, but I estimated 25% to be conservative. 30% sounds good too. And noise also comes from the A/C system forcing all that air th
35 Planemaker : As I have been commenting... it will in all probabilities EIS more towards 2017... Boeing leans toward rate increase for 737, delay for replacement B
36 R2rho : Open rotors in 2015 is probably a bit too early... maybe more 2017 - like A&B have recently hinted as EIS of their NB replacements. No doubt they coul
37 Tdscanuck : Takeoff, yes. A big chunk of landing noise is dragging the gear and flaps through the air. Tom.
38 Glareskin : But couldn't this be reduced by deploying the landing gear later? I always wonder why we are flying so long with the landing gear out.
39 Post contains images Planemaker : Which they can get with the 737NG.
40 Thegeek : If they're sticking with a single stage HPT, wouldn't a GTF and more LPT & LPC stages make some sense to counter the problem of the different desired
41 Tdscanuck : Short final is a bad place to find out that your landing gear isn't playing nice. Tom.
42 Post contains images Astuteman : Or your engines....... Regards
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...
Emirates To Be No.1 In Passenger Load By 2015 posted Sat Nov 10 2007 08:59:03 by EK156
CA Wildfires Have New Help posted Wed Oct 24 2007 17:37:27 by Speedbrds
New MAD Flight By JJ posted Thu Oct 18 2007 12:03:45 by VbeltraJJ
New MVD Flight By JJ posted Tue Sep 18 2007 21:27:10 by VbeltraJJ
Boeing 737 Could Have Design Fault (VIDEO) posted Wed Sep 5 2007 08:21:32 by DeC
Anyone Have New Products Info ... SQ, CO, UA, BA posted Sat Aug 18 2007 12:03:22 by Amirs
Boeing Expects To Deliver 737 Replacement By 2015 posted Tue Jun 26 2007 20:10:33 by Parapente
Boeing Expects 737 Replacements By 2015 posted Mon Jun 25 2007 16:53:08 by Jimyvr
Qatar To Buy 150 Planes By 2015 posted Mon May 28 2007 12:30:15 by EI321
1590 Widebodies For 200-400 Pax By 2015 posted Thu Apr 12 2007 19:55:46 by Justloveplanes