WINGS From Portugal, joined May 2005, 2737 posts, RR: 71 Posted (1 year 2 months 2 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 12292 times:
I find this particular news very ironic. For those that remember the original A340 program was to come equipped with the PW Geared Turbofan. Its good to see that after nearly 20 years PW has come back to demonstrate its long awaited dream of demonstrating to the world the advantage of the Geared Turbofan.
Airbus to test-fly P&W geared turbofan on A340 this year
Airbus is to perform test flights of the Pratt & Whitney geared turbofan engine later this year with the powerplant fitted to an A340 aircraft.
The airframer will fit a demonstrator version of the engine to the jet and perform a series of flights in the fourth quarter.
Pratt & Whitney's geared turbofan is designed to allow the low-pressure section of the engine to rotate at a different frequency to that of the fan, enabling both components to operate at their most efficient speeds.
Asturias From Spain, joined Apr 2006, 1169 posts, RR: 7 Reply 1, posted (1 year 2 months 2 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 12234 times:
Better late than never
I do hope the geared turbofan will bring P&W back into the civil power-plant business.. Duopoly is better than nothing but I think there is room for three to compete.
Parapente From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2006, 383 posts, RR: 0 Reply 4, posted (1 year 2 months 2 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 11736 times:
Wow they are not hanging around! It has just started phase 2 and not yet on the P&W 747 test frame yet! We know they are producing it in 2 sizes. The larger using a low pressure modified version of their A318 engine core (in itself state of the art). It could not stretch to the A320 but could make the 319. With stated 12% efficiency gain (thats 12% less fuel the 319 needs to carry) and fourthcoming 320 family improvements this could proove nasty for Boeing. The 319 market (inc 737n gen) is Huge and a stand alone model could easily survive. As I understand it you can hang 2 of these GTF's under a 320 series aircraft -not so a 737.Hmmmm
Parapente From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2006, 383 posts, RR: 0 Reply 6, posted (1 year 2 months 2 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 11526 times:
P& W have publically stated that they will be putting it on their 747 mule very shortly. This is new and additional. There is no reason for Airbus to go to this additional expense unless they are very interested. The P&W 747 would give them all the performance results - for free. No this is something very different.....Like installing it where a CFM 56 goes normally. Understanding the pilon changes necessary. But I really do not believe this is for A340 (with the A350 around the corner) no this is for the "other" aircraft that uses the same engine -where Boeing cannot follow.
Sirtoby From Germany, joined Nov 2007, 95 posts, RR: 15 Reply 7, posted (1 year 2 months 2 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 11530 times:
Quoting Parapente (Reply 4): The larger using a low pressure modified version of their A318 engine core
This is not true! Only the demo engine uses the PW6000 core, both the MRJ and the CSeries engine will use a complete new core. The CSeries engine would be able to power a A318 and maybe also a A319, but it will not...
Revelation From United States, joined Feb 2005, 3392 posts, RR: 2 Reply 8, posted (1 year 2 months 2 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 11477 times:
Quoting Sirtoby (Reply 7): This is not true! Only the demo engine uses the PW6000 core, both the MRJ and the CSeries engine will use a complete new core. The CSeries engine would be able to power a A318 and maybe also a A319, but it will not...
I'm not sure where you are going with this? Will the A340 be getting four new hair dryers installed on its wings?
Sirtoby From Germany, joined Nov 2007, 95 posts, RR: 15 Reply 9, posted (1 year 2 months 2 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 11455 times:
Quoting Revelation (Reply 8): Will the A340 be getting four new hair dryers installed on its wings?
No - all I want to say is that the demo engine (on the 747SP/A340) is JUST a demo engine and has nothing to do with the two engines for the MRJ and CSeries. And that Airbus will not use the CSeries engine to an A319 upgrade.
Parapente From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2006, 383 posts, RR: 0 Reply 11, posted (1 year 2 months 2 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 11180 times:
I stand corrected. There is only one production core. It is to be rated at 23,000 lbs thrust (for c series). The 319 Cfm is rated (I believe) at 26,000 lbs. But if P&W are to believed the former - on a 319 would need to carry 12%less fuel (and associated harware). There is also the 320 range improvement programme coming on line. It is well publicised the P&W are running their own "on wing" tests. Who do you think is paying for it? Have a sensible guess. So then why?
I am suggesting -as others have done- that you can fit these engines on a 319 where Cfm's usually go. What -if they did would Boeings response be? Note how many airline companies have been screaming for something new in this sector.
IF - but they won't do it, because Pratt can't do it because of legal terms (IAE!). But there are also other reasons - unfortunately I cannot go into much more detail - sorry!
Flyglobal From Germany, joined Mar 2008, 185 posts, RR: 0 Reply 13, posted (1 year 2 months 2 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 11020 times:
I asked some time ago a question if the 4 holers come back, which was moved to the Tech section.
I have some stomach feeling that there could be a A360 (=A350 , but 4 holer) around the corner and that LH could be a potential Launch customer. They like 4 holers as we can see that they take a significant portion of the A340-600 production.
Parapente From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2006, 383 posts, RR: 0 Reply 14, posted (1 year 2 months 2 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 10805 times:
Good point Sirtoby.
Stupid me. But you are also teasing.Have read you're and Lightsabers previous posts on this subject. There is more to this than meets the eye. A different GTF perhaps? I still do not believe its for a 340 (or a 350). Perhaps for some - reason??? RR do not "mind" this "test" taking place. Youre ( and lighsabers) conversations have hinted at such.
A342 From Germany, joined Jul 2005, 3720 posts, RR: 1 Reply 16, posted (1 year 2 months 2 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 10033 times:
Well, IIRC the GTF demonstrator they're flight-testing uses the PW6000's high pressure section.Low pressure is entirely new. At 30,000lbf, the engine produces significantly more thrust than the PW6000, and it could easily power the A319/320.
SEPilot From United States, joined Dec 2006, 3730 posts, RR: 17 Reply 17, posted (1 year 2 months 2 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 9960 times:
Quoting Flyglobal (Reply 13): I asked some time ago a question if the 4 holers come back, which was moved to the Tech section.
I doubt very much that anyone will build another 4-holer unless it is another Whalejet where two engines are not enough. Whatever engine technology you use if you can do it with 2 engines it will ALWAYS be more efficient and cheaper than 4. As to reengining the A340, there aren't enough of them out there to make it worth while. I expect that these tests are for the A320RS/737RS engine, not for any retrofits.
The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
As I said, the demo engine is purely a demo - built with the 6000 core as it was available. You will never see this configuration in production.
Quoting A342 (Reply 16): At 30,000lbf, the engine produces significantly more thrust than the PW6000
True, but compare the fan dia...and then compare the thrust to the thrust of the Trentt500, as the diameter is comparable and you will see what a bypass ratio of 15 is doing with your engine sizewise.
SEPilot From United States, joined Dec 2006, 3730 posts, RR: 17 Reply 25, posted (1 year 2 months 2 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 7079 times:
Quoting CEO@AFG (Reply 24):
239 x 4 = 956 possible engine sales, + after sales support and spare engines. Might be worth P&W while.
But when you consider the cost per plane vs. the fuel savings and expected lifetime, and compare it to the cost of a new generation plane (787 or A350) and its cost savings and expected lifetime, it becomes much less attractive, and you are assuming that ALL A340's will be converted (won't happen). Bear in mind that everyone is assuming that $100+/bbl oil is here to stay, but that is not guaranteed. The current price is being set by speculation, not supply and demand, and any price due to speculation is going to crash at some point. What's more, we are hearing of tremendous new oil finds that will have significant impact (Bakken formation, Arctic ocean, off Brazil). Therefore if P&W were to invest a couple of billion in an engine upgrade for the A340 based on the expectation of $100+/bbl oil they may well find themselves sitting on something for which there is no market. I would expect that all of the engine manufacturers are going to concentrate their new engine efforts on engines for new planes, period. They may well upgrade existing engines, but making a whole new engine for a plane that is obsolete (the A340 WILL be discontinued once the A350 is flying, even if the A330 survives) just is not going to happen.
[Edited 2008-04-21 14:23:58]
The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
CEO@AFG From Norway, joined Jan 2001, 201 posts, RR: 3 Reply 26, posted (1 year 2 months 2 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 7231 times:
Given that we're sucking up more oil than ever, and most major oil fields are in decline with massive demand driven by the Asian upturn and really not a lot more oil fields being discovered, I don't really see how the oil price will drop significantly.
Financial Analysts in Norway are commenting that the usual drop in oil prices as the Northen hemisphere moves from winter to summer, isn't showing in the markets, and we might not see this usual drop this year.
Conservation and smarter methods of saving fuel is ever more present with APBs blended winglets selling like never before and the more drastic move of re-engining aircraft to conserve fuel and save money is more likely with the current market than ever.
The fact that Airbus is testing the GTF when the project is still in its "infancy", at least when looking at actual test engines being run, shows me that the scenario I present, might not be as far fetched as we think!
"Looks like I picked the wrong week to quit sniffing glue." Steven McCroskey, Airplane!
R2rho From France, joined Feb 2007, 786 posts, RR: 7 Reply 28, posted (1 year 2 months 2 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 7217 times:
Reat assured that Airbus will be taking a VERY close look at the GTF during these tests. If they like what they see, and PW can develop a growth version, it could be a serious candidate for the A320 family or its successor. And of course, these tests are interesting for PW too, because it allows them to "show off" their GTF to Airbus on their very own FTB.
P.S. Don't think that the GTF is meant for the A340 because they are testing on the A346 FTB. It's just used as an FTB, that's all. The A340 is dead and Airbus knows it, and the A350 will be better than any A340 retrofits. These tests are aimed at the narrowbody family.
WingedMigrator From United States, joined Oct 2005, 1611 posts, RR: 50 Reply 29, posted (1 year 2 months 2 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 6466 times:
Quoting R2rho (Reply 28): If they like what they see, and PW can develop a growth version, it could be a serious candidate for the A320 family or its successor.
and one could even conceive of a scenario where the same engine powers both airframes. It's an interesting strategic possibility, since most of the improvements in the efficiency of next-generation narrowbodies will come from the engines.
Lightsaber From United States, joined Jan 2005, 4423 posts, RR: 83 Reply 30, posted (1 year 2 months 2 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 5452 times:
Airbus has always been a big supporter of the GTF even after the superfan fiasco. So kudos to them for loaning the test airframe!
Actually, I do not know if PWC's 720 test airframe could handle the drag of the demonstration engine when off. The 720 could not handle full thrust. So Pratt needed a different test bed and the A340 makes sense!
Quoting KL808 (Reply 3):
Any hope to see the GTF on the A350?
Not at launch. Pratt's civilian engineering group is pretty maxed out. But as soon as the MRJ engine hits the fleet... they could get developing another design.
Quoting Sirtoby (Reply 7):
This is not true! Only the demo engine uses the PW6000 core, both the MRJ and the CSeries engine will use a complete new core.
Folks, this is a "stunt" engine. Its not designed for years of service. It will prove the GTF concept, but is not suitable for re-engining service A340's in its current configuration. Partially as a geared PW6000 is *not* an optimal design for a GTF. The only reason Pratt went down this path is the *decade* of engineering on the design. Pratt had always considered a GTF PW6000 from the engine's conception. However, it doesn't take much engineering to realize that a dedicated GTF design is quite a bit more efficient.
Ok, enough engineering! This has me excited! Its going to prove the GTF concept to quite a few customers.
Pratt is still hoping that a GP7XWB finds it's way on the A350 and Finger stated last year that PW will not enter the widebody market on their own for a longer time. But in the long run we could see a split-up of engine concepts: open rotors for narrowbodies and GTF's for widebodies, or, to be more exact, for long range flights, as the open rotors are most efficient at lower cruising speeds and you probably do not want to fly even longer on long hauls...
Crank From Canada, joined May 2001, 1552 posts, RR: 3 Reply 33, posted (1 year 2 months 2 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 4392 times:
P&W has (had) 2 720s, C-FETB the YHU based one and N720PW which I haven't seen in a very long time on flight trackers. The 747SP is registered as N747UT (21934/467) and is based in Plattsburgh like N720PW.
Rheinwaldner From Switzerland, joined Jan 2008, 620 posts, RR: 2 Reply 35, posted (1 year 2 months 2 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 4000 times:
Quoting Flyglobal (Reply 13): I asked some time ago a question if the 4 holers come back
Me too. The GTF is a technology that could ignite the revival of quads!
Quoting SEPilot (Reply 17): Whatever engine technology you use if you can do it with 2 engines it will ALWAYS be more efficient
One had to assume so far. But what when a new technology allows quantum heaps in efficiency but can not be easily scaled up to big engines? The GTF qualifies for exactly these characteristics.
Thus I am quite sure the A330/A340 story will repeat itself again. This time on the A350 platform.
In the long term the quad will be an A350 engine option.
Another benefit of the quad-A350: Ultimative performance. Twins are MTOW restricted compared to quads (if everything else is equal just see A333/A343). Why? Because in case of one-egine-off the quad offers for free significant more thrust. The remaining thrust after one-engine off is the main MTOW limiting criteria. More thrust -> more MTOW -> more range. If it goes even with more efficiency it will be the winner !
Columba From Germany, joined Dec 2004, 5479 posts, RR: 4 Reply 37, posted (1 year 2 months 2 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 3663 times:
Quoting R2rho (Reply 28): P.S. Don't think that the GTF is meant for the A340 because they are testing on the A346 FTB. It's just used as an FTB, that's all. The A340 is dead and Airbus knows it, and the A350 will be better than any A340 retrofits. These tests are aimed at the narrowbody family.
Agreed but would have been nice
Life is what happens to you while you're busy making other plans - John Lennon
Parapente From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2006, 383 posts, RR: 0 Reply 38, posted (1 year 2 months 2 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 3384 times:
It is a fact that P&W are testing this engine on their 747.They have stated as such. It is a fact that of course they would share this information with the airframe manufactures -just as they are doing now. It is a fact that results to date have exceeded projections.It is a fact that they are stating a 12% reduction in fuel burn as well as less NO2 and less noise.
There is no reason for Airbus to replicate these tests and all the associated costs.And in any case why now (so early) why the rush? I feel certain that there is a "practical" purpose. Airbus have stated that they are not even close to a decision on the 320 replacement project yet and would no doubt wait in any case to see where the 2 major engine players are going to place their bets first. So then what is it?
1.A318. The engine that has been selected by Bombardier would fit here. Not a big market I grant but Airbus must want to respond to the raft (5?) of manufactures around the World producing 90 -100 seater jets. Such a re engined aircraft would stop any "leakage" into the new entrants. There is no conflict with RR on the 318.
2.A340 re-engine (existing aircraft). Why not. It may not be a huge market (but not small either) the engine will exist and the airframes certainly do. It should be remembered that the Cfm was launched on a simple re engine of US Airforce 707's.The rest is history.So from little acorns.....
3. A340 NG. Is it so far fetched? There are instant upgrades to the wing available from the Awaitor programme now completed (on the very same aircraft that they are proposing to mount the engine if I am not mistaken). Much work was done on "the tube" with the ill fated A330-aka 350 first attempt. The wing (same as 330) is very good in any case.
It should be remembered that much has changed in the last 2 months. Boeing have announced another delay on the 787. Rumour has it that there is another comming soon. Production rates have also been slashed. Boeing have made it clear that all work is being focused on the dash 8 with the dash 3 and 9 being put even further to the right.
Much has been spoken of the compensation bill for these delays. But the Airlines do in fact have 2 options. This is a broken contract. They can cancel -!! But only if there is a viable alternative. The 787 dash 9 will be 3 plus years late. Could a 12% plus more efficient A340 fit the bill??
Baroque From Australia, joined Apr 2006, 9872 posts, RR: 46 Reply 39, posted (1 year 2 months 2 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 3149 times:
Quoting SEPilot (Reply 25): tremendous new oil finds that will have significant impact (Bakken formation
A find that is not tremendous and not new. Do you have some Bakken acreage up for sale. Brazil finds are nice, Arctic????
Quoting CEO@AFG (Reply 26): Financial Analysts in Norway are commenting that the usual drop in oil prices as the Northern hemisphere moves from winter to summer, isn't showing in the markets, and we might not see this usual drop this year.
The "blue eyed Arabs of the North" have a history of being much more realistic about oil than most others!!
Sirtoby From Germany, joined Nov 2007, 95 posts, RR: 15 Reply 40, posted (1 year 2 months 2 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 3080 times:
Quoting Parapente (Reply 38): I feel certain that there is a "practical" purpose.
I will only say it once more: FORGET IT! The demo is a demo, nothing more. There is none - with maybe the exception of Lightsaber - who would love to see this GTF with that very core on whatever airframe, but is just will not happen.
I do not recall exactly where I saw it, but I believe there is a large deposit north of Prudhoe Bay in the Arctic Ocean. The point is, the more the price goes up the more previously uneconomic fields suddenly become economic. I am convinced that there is far, far more oil available than we have believed. I do believe in keeping the environment clean, but I am not willing to trade one human life for every polar bear on the planet, and the simple fact is that oil is life to millions. We are already seeing people starving because of the insane idea of converting food crops to fuel; the same will happen, and even more so, if we refuse to explore for oil where we know that it is. $100+/bbl oil is not only causing massive economic problems, it is killing people.
The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
Parapente From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2006, 383 posts, RR: 0 Reply 42, posted (1 year 2 months 2 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 3020 times:
Sirtoby I did not say "this core". Indeed I refer to the Bombardier engine -which will have the new core. Which is why I refer to the 318.
I agree it is unlikely that the larger core will be used comercially. But they could. Note the 12% results have come from this engine. I agree the likleyhood is no. But NEVER? You are not in a position to say this. I also put down a reasoning based on the recent 787 developments that may (just may) have created an opportunity that did not exist earlier.I also wonder -if I am incorrect- why they would duplicate work being paid for by the engine manufacturer on their own 747 test bed. If they were not going to publish the results to airframe manufacturers what would be the point?
Baroque From Australia, joined Apr 2006, 9872 posts, RR: 46 Reply 44, posted (1 year 2 months 2 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 2945 times:
Quoting SEPilot (Reply 41): Quoting Baroque (Reply 39):
A find that is not tremendous and not new.
The extent of it is new, and we now have the technology to extract it, which is also relatively new.
Sorry to be having a negative night SEP! No, the extent was evident when it was realised that most of the Bakken was overpressured, and the huge RESOURCE figures go back to Price in the mid 90s. Might even be earlier. Not sure when the first horizontal completion well was drilled in the Bakken, but Wytch Farm (UK) horizontals were being drilled in the 80s IIRC.
Here is a link to a 1993 history of horizontal completions. http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/ftproot/petroleum/tr0565.pdf
This gives, first horizontal completion 1929 in Texas. Major developments by Elf Aquitaine (bloody hell the French were at it) at Lacq in 1980 to 83. I think BP "practiced" in easier terrain before their horizontal completions at Prudhoe Bay, reported in 1987.
USGS will opine some Bakken resources fairly soon, my guess is they will be (much) closer to their previous 150 million barrels than Price's 200+ Billion barrels. And basically no, there is technology to extract some oil from the Bakken, but even if the Price numbers were correct for oil from the Bakken there is no way to extract that "oil".
What Price did was to calculate the amount of oil that THEORETICALLY had been generated from the Bakken (while not giving his basic data!) and to assume that none had escaped from the Bakken. Others have then assumed that this can be recovered. Basically, 'ta'int so.
The Arctic oil is again a RESOURCE estimate. Unless there has been a new discovery that I missed, no new discoveries have been made. You really cannot plan an energy future on resource estimates.
GTFs are probably a great deal more reliable than resource estimates!
Interesting comments about what PW are NOT going to do with the GTFs on the A340 but not a great deal that they ARE going to do. As the old saying goes, "they must be up to something" where they are PW and Airbus.
A342 From Germany, joined Jul 2005, 3720 posts, RR: 1 Reply 45, posted (1 year 2 months 2 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 2725 times:
A production engine which is in the same class as the demo could be used to re-engine the IL-86. A 40% reduction in fuel burn could be expected.
Please note that I didn't check the ground clearance.
Parapente From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2006, 383 posts, RR: 0 Reply 47, posted (1 year 2 months 2 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 2493 times:
Revelation. Well like so many things it could be no more than that. But it does seem unnecessary expense. When you have Boeing actively stating that they are willing to reopen the 767-300 line -just for leasing!! I think it shows that "the product gap" for many airlines is very serious. Is it unreasonable for Airbus to try and exploit this. They can and are with the 330. They cannot with the existing 340 range. Could this not be a move -who knows!
Sponsor Message: 
From Portugal, joined May 2005, 2737 posts, 
Its good to see that after nearly 20 years PW has come back to demonstrate its long awaited dream of demonstrating to the world the advantage of the Geared Turbofan. 
From Spain, joined Apr 2006, 1169 posts, 
From Germany, joined Nov 2006, 1275 posts, 
From United States, joined May 1999, 1545 posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2006, 383 posts, 
From Hong Kong SAR, PRC, joined Dec 2006, 4359 posts, 
From France, joined May 2001, 432 posts, 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
From Norway, joined Jan 2001, 201 posts, 
and one could even conceive of a scenario where the same engine powers both airframes. It's an interesting strategic possibility, since most of the improvements in the efficiency of next-generation narrowbodies will come from the engines.
So Pratt needed a different test bed and the A340 makes sense!
Its going to prove the GTF concept to quite a few customers. 
From Canada, joined May 2001, 1552 posts, 
From Switzerland, joined Jan 2008, 620 posts, 
From Australia, joined Apr 2006, 9872 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
