Parapente From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2006, 1320 posts, RR: 10 Posted (5 years 3 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 3850 times:
It has been discussed many times recently but this ILA 2008 statement (see flight global) adds more weight and depth. It is interesting to see/hear Rolls coming off the fence finally (open rotor). So 12 years to wait. Will Airbus be tempted with a GTF "stop gap" or not? Indeed will Airlines/Environmentally aware consumers force them to do it? You can bet P&W will attempt to push the arguement their way after the Rolls comments!
Parapente From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2006, 1320 posts, RR: 10 Reply 2, posted (5 years 3 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 3354 times:
Sorry about the confusion guys,but yes that was thr article.
It seems that the EIS for the new generation of narrow bodies is being put further and further back. I must accept their wisdom that an open rotor solution will take this long (with the associated airframe) to develop.
It is certainly the first time I have read Rolls (or GE) poo poo the GTF in such strong language -cards are being placed firmly on the table now. So its makes the Airbus decision to test the GTF themselves all the more interesting -they are not doing it for the A340 ('cos of the A350) so it can only be for an intrim 320 advanced -no?
Personally I would love to see such a development as the industry as a whole needs to be seen doing all that they can in these days of oil shortage and climate change.
Ikramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21043 posts, RR: 60 Reply 3, posted (5 years 3 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 3319 times:
RR has their theories, GE does, PW does, etc. That's their business.
Airbus's only window would have been 2012, as the A350 will take up a huge amount of their time from 2013-2016.
Boeing looked to be set for 2012-2013, but now the 787 is leaking into 2013 with the 787-10 in 2014, and there is pressing need to enhance the 77W, which might be 2015-2016.
So that means both companies are looking at 2017 at the earliest based on resources. But again, if one company starts to see orders erode while the other has strong orders, this can all change. If Boeing sees DL/NW go to A320s, for example, and ME carriers all choose A320s, they might see a pressing need for the 737RS sooner in stop the bleeding and to win A320/737NG fleet replacement orders.
Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
Stitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 26961 posts, RR: 83 Reply 5, posted (5 years 3 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 3164 times:
My (and the airline's, I imagine) money is moving to CFM LEAP-56 engines for new-build 737NGs and A320's coming down the line.
I believe P&W will see strong interest in their GTF, but I expect airlines are going to want to see both hard-data from it's in-service use on the Mitsubishi RJ program as well as a whole lot of testing on the A320 platform before they commit. So it could be many years until the P&W model sees revenue airline service.
Ikramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21043 posts, RR: 60 Reply 6, posted (5 years 3 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 2991 times:
Quoting Stitch (Reply 7): My (and the airline's, I imagine) money is moving to CFM LEAP-56 engines for new-build 737NGs and A320's coming down the line.
Well, absolutely. If they have to postpone for 12 years, they will certainly look to an incremental improvement in the near term. Engines, lightening and simplification of systems, etc. Sitting still for 12 years would not only make little sense, but would be unprecedented in the history of aviation.
Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
Fruitbat From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2006, 547 posts, RR: 6 Reply 7, posted (5 years 3 weeks 1 day ago) and read 2738 times:
Quoting Stitch (Reply 7): My (and the airline's, I imagine) money is moving to CFM LEAP-56 engines for new-build 737NGs and A320's coming down the line.
What will IAE respond with in that case? Would P&W delay any development of the V2500 to improve the chances of a A320 re-engine with a GTF?
Weaseling out of things is important to learn. It's what separates us from the animals ... except the weasel.
Stitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 26961 posts, RR: 83 Reply 8, posted (5 years 3 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 2594 times:
Quoting Fruitbat (Reply 9): What will IAE respond with in that case?
I would imagine something like CFM is doing with the LEAP-56.
Quoting Fruitbat (Reply 9): Would P&W delay any development of the V2500 to improve the chances of a A320 re-engine with a GTF?
Unlikely, since P&W would hate to see everyone buy LEAP-56s instead of V2500s while they wait for the industry to gain sufficient confidence in the GTF. So P&W would work to improve the V2500, secure in the knowledge the GTF will be even better when it is finally accepted and therefore should sell very strong on new-builds.
Parapente From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2006, 1320 posts, RR: 10 Reply 9, posted (5 years 3 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 2120 times:
Quoting Ikramerica
RR has their theories, GE does, PW does, etc. That's their business
Well you don,t say. Thats a real revelation. And since its their business I guess we should all shut uo and stop speculating!
This subject will be discussed I am sure on a much better thread than mine (not difficult) in the very near future.
The "standard" turbofan has been around for 40 years so has the overall design of aircraft (put a high pressure hose in a 707 and you get a 380!). For the first time since then something big is about to happen and the major players are (rightly) nervous.
But people are beginning to come off the fence.
P&W are making their big play and will hang tough on this one -they have to.
Rolls have stated that their route is a "dead end". You can therefore bet that GE is also going open rotor. This route requires "force majeur" a completely new aerodynamic route for the airframe -hence 2020.
But....If P&W can get the GTF on the improved 320 could it be enough to stop the open rotor camp?
Astuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 9261 posts, RR: 96 Reply 10, posted (5 years 3 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 2044 times:
Quoting Parapente (Reply 11): The "standard" turbofan has been around for 40 years
I'm pretty sure I read a quote recently from one of the big 3 that "standard" turbofan technology still may have a long way to go, like 25%.....
I'll try and find it.
Jdevora From Spain, joined Aug 2006, 351 posts, RR: 7 Reply 11, posted (5 years 3 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 1876 times:
Quote from the linked article
Quote: Airbus’ president and CEO Tom Enders said yesterday he agreed with Boeing that the earliest timeframe was “the end of the 2019/2020 period”
Been not native speaker, I'm not sure if I should interpret that phrase as that Boeing and Airbus have and agreement to not launch that NG planes before that or that the AB guys agrees with Boeing expectations.
SEPilot From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 6306 posts, RR: 39 Reply 12, posted (5 years 3 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 1803 times:
Quoting Jdevora (Reply 11):
Been not native speaker, I'm not sure if I should interpret that phrase as that Boeing and Airbus have and agreement to not launch that NG planes before that or that the AB guys agrees with Boeing expectations.
My interpretation is that both have independently decided that they will not be able to launch before them, not that they have agreed together not to.
As to the open rotor/GTF debate, I do not understand how Rolls and GE feel that the open rotor is the only way to meet noise requirements. As I understand it, it was the noise problem that caused abandonment of the open rotor in the 80's, Have the rules of acoustics (specifically those surrounding supersonic blade tips) been changed? Personally, I think the GTF is a more promising approach, as it does not have the noise problems of the open rotor, and making the fan larger (and slower turning) offers big opportunities for efficiency. Imagine a 737 sized plane with 777 sized engines! It will require creative engineering for engine placement.....
The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
Parapente From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2006, 1320 posts, RR: 10 Reply 14, posted (5 years 3 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 1561 times:
Quoting SE Pilot.
Have the rules of acoustics (specifically those surrounding supersonic blade tips) been changed?
My views too. You can shape blades (scimitar shape) to delay sopersonic shock/drag/noise a little. But there comes a point where the laws of physics become a reality.
If this is so then either take off lift is provided more by the wings than the thrust (drag at cruising altitude though?) OR That the engines are integrated into the airframe in such a way that the shock wave is deflected upwards. But all this is beyond my knowledge.
Quoting Astuteman
I'm pretty sure I read a quote recently from one of the big 3 that "standard" turbofan technology still may have a long way to go, like 25%.....
Again this appears to be true. The new joint NASA programme with GE and Rolls is going to look at massively increasing turbine temperature and pressure -but within a standard configuration.It seems that this is where they are heading for large engines. This seems logical for 2 reasons.1.Because gearing becomes increasingly difficult as power levels are increased.2.The Top cruising speed of a log range jet is important. In 2-3 hour routes it is less so.
So look out for the GTF. Lets get some healthy competition going.Perhaps it's P&W's time again!
Sponsor Message: 
From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2006, 1320 posts, 
From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21043 posts, 
From Spain, joined Aug 2006, 351 posts, 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
Printer friendly format 
