OyKIE From Norway, joined Jan 2006, 1677 posts, RR: 4 Posted (1 year 5 months 1 day ago) and read 6488 times:
According to ATW online
Quote: The GTF, which has completed 250 hr. of bench testing, has achieved a 15% improvement in fuel burn compared to the initial target of 12% over comparable 737/A320 powerplants. The new engine will commence flight tests next week on Pratt's 747SP before heading to Toulouse for testing on an A340-600 later this summer.
Pratt VP-Technology and Environment Alan Epstein said testing has been "unusually boring" and that it simulated the engine's 30,000-hp gears to 40,000 takeoffs with no significant wear (ATWOnline, April 22). He told attendees that the GTF will deliver a 50% reduction in NOx and a saving in CO2 emissions equal to 1,500 tonnes per aircraft per year. The area affected by noise will be reduced a massive 72%.
This must be good news for the Mitsubishi RJ and Bombardiers C-Series. Is this results enough for Airbus to put it on the current generation A320 and perhaps the A340-300?
Dream no small dream; it lacks magic. Dream large, then go make that dream real - Donald Douglas
Swallow From Uganda, joined Jul 2007, 376 posts, RR: 0 Reply 1, posted (1 year 5 months 1 day ago) and read 6431 times:
Interesting data, especially that on engine wear which may help allay concerns about MX costs. The summer tests on the 346 test bed will be closely watched. If these data are borne out, it may allow Airbus to hang the GTF on the 320 wing and move the goal posts in the 737/320 rivalry.
Question is whether the GTF can hang on long enough before the open rotor engine hits the market.
TwinOtter4Ever From Canada, joined Feb 2008, 199 posts, RR: 0 Reply 2, posted (1 year 5 months 23 hours ago) and read 6341 times:
This is a good sign...Hopefully this successful testing will carry over into the real world. This would really put P&W back on the map, especially if they get it on the 320s and 737s....would be interesting
WINGS From Portugal, joined May 2005, 2781 posts, RR: 75 Reply 3, posted (1 year 5 months 22 hours ago) and read 6258 times:
Quoting TwinOtter4Ever (Reply 2): This is a good sign...Hopefully this successful testing will carry over into the real world. This would really put P&W back on the map, especially if they get it on the 320s and 737s....would be interesting
It is my understanding that the proposed GTF will not have enough ground clearance to be hung underneath the 737NG. This basically gives Airbus a HUGE advantage in offering the next A32X family derivative, while at the same time extending the life on the current A32X frame. It would also most likely pressure Boeing into launching a ''new'' Narrow Body first and play the wait and see game.
A318-200
A319-200
A320-300
A321-300
or just might as well be know as the A32X-300 in general to keep a better track of the program.
WINGS From Portugal, joined May 2005, 2781 posts, RR: 75 Reply 5, posted (1 year 5 months 21 hours ago) and read 6169 times:
Quoting Keesje (Reply 4): Good news. I still wonder why Airbus don't send a team to Pratt to monitot the tests on the 747.. why the second test?
I think that Airbus can a get better information and experience hand on. Since PW is willing to provide Airbus with the GTF engine, I think its a win - win situation for both parties.
I would be more excited if the PW was to be used on the A343 frame instead of the A346.
OyKIE From Norway, joined Jan 2006, 1677 posts, RR: 4 Reply 6, posted (1 year 5 months 20 hours ago) and read 6086 times:
Quoting Swallow (Reply 1): Question is whether the GTF can hang on long enough before the open rotor engine hits the market
How much efficiency gain will there be between the new results of the GTF and the open rotor? The GTF offers much better noise levels.
Quoting WINGS (Reply 3): It is my understanding that the proposed GTF will not have enough ground clearance to be hung underneath the 737NG.
That and the fact that CFM has the exclusivity deal. It is my understanding that Boeing cannot brake this on the 737-600-737-900ER, so either way Boeing would have to launch a new series name if it were to be based on the 737 platform?
Quoting WINGS (Reply 3): It would also most likely pressure Boeing into launching a ''new'' Narrow Body first and play the wait and see game
or just might as well be know as the A32X-300 in general to keep a better track of the program
If Airbus will launch a A320NG program should they stretch the A320 to be a direct competitor against the 737-800, and then the A321 to be a true 757 replacement plane with a higher MTOW in order to match the range of the 757?
How does this affect P&W's contract with the V2500 engine?
Quoting WINGS (Reply 5): I would be more excited if the PW was to be used on the A343 frame instead of the A346
That would be really exciting. Think about 15% better fuel consumption on the A340. Would that be better than the 777-200ER?
Dream no small dream; it lacks magic. Dream large, then go make that dream real - Donald Douglas
Well, since the A320 family still sells like hot cakes, I doubt Airbus will invest lots of money in an updated version with the GTF. Especially if an engine design with 20% improvement in fuel consumption over current engines (open rotor?) could be available 5 years after EIS of the GTF version.
Quoting OyKIE (Reply 6): Think about 15% better fuel consumption on the A340. Would that be better than the 777-200ER?
Most definitely. But not better than the A350-900 I don't think
flown on: 146,318,319,320,321,AB6,332,343,722,732/3/4/5/G/8,742,74E,744,752,762,763,772,77E,773,77W,E90,F50,M11,M82
OyKIE From Norway, joined Jan 2006, 1677 posts, RR: 4 Reply 8, posted (1 year 5 months 19 hours ago) and read 5991 times:
Quoting Frigatebird (Reply 7): Well, since the A320 family still sells like hot cakes, I doubt Airbus will invest lots of money in an updated version with the GTF. Especially if an engine design with 20% improvement in fuel consumption over current engines (open rotor?) could be available 5 years after EIS of the GTF version.
IIRC P&W says the GTF will offer 12% better fuel consumption now, but expects it to offer 20% better fuel consumption in 2020 as the technology matures. Since P&W says 15% now, how much could they gain by 2020? The geared turbofan might kill the Open Rotor concept, which makes allot of noise.
Quoting Frigatebird (Reply 7): Most definitely. But not better than the A350-900 I don't think
You are right in that regard, but isnt't that plane even larger than the A340-300?
Dream no small dream; it lacks magic. Dream large, then go make that dream real - Donald Douglas
Naritaflyer From Japan, joined Apr 2006, 502 posts, RR: 0 Reply 9, posted (1 year 5 months 19 hours ago) and read 5978 times:
Quoting Frigatebird (Reply 7): Well, since the A320 family still sells like hot cakes, I doubt Airbus will invest lots of money in an updated version with the GTF. Especially if an engine design with 20% improvement in fuel consumption over current engines (open rotor?) could be available 5 years after EIS of the GTF version.
People still say this but it will change. The A320 "was selling" like hot cakes when oil prices were much lower. It is "no longer" selling like hot cakes. Any airline manufacturer would be stupid to ignore the economics of a more fuel-efficient engine. Just because your planes were selling well doesn't mean you should not innovate.
Moo From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 10, posted (1 year 5 months 19 hours ago) and read 5973 times:
Quoting Frigatebird (Reply 7): Well, since the A320 family still sells like hot cakes, I doubt Airbus will invest lots of money in an updated version with the GTF. Especially if an engine design with 20% improvement in fuel consumption over current engines (open rotor?) could be available 5 years after EIS of the GTF version.
If an incremental investment now can stave off a massive investment for another decade or more, it would be good business to make that incremental investment.
5 years of 12% savings is still 5 years of 12% savings for the operators.
Keesje From Netherlands, joined Apr 2001, 9843 posts, RR: 51 Reply 11, posted (1 year 5 months 19 hours ago) and read 5953 times:
GTF
I think the current V2500/CFM56 generation has a BPR of about 5. Which pretty normal 25 years ago, But questionable to sell for another 12 years as best we can do.
I think indeed the A320 has room left when wing pylon is modified like 737, A380 and 787, the fan sitting in front of the wing leading edge and accessories being moved.
JoeCanuck From Canada, joined Dec 2005, 1601 posts, RR: 1 Reply 12, posted (1 year 5 months 19 hours ago) and read 5884 times:
What's stopping the idea of part of the fan above the wing? Prop planes push power over and under the main wing without issue...why not jets? Bypass isn't much different than propwash. The hot air can stay below the wing as it is now.
Scbriml From United Kingdom (England), joined Jul 2003, 8906 posts, RR: 50 Reply 13, posted (1 year 5 months 19 hours ago) and read 5856 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW FORUM MODERATOR
Quoting Naritaflyer (Reply 9): The A320 "was selling" like hot cakes when oil prices were much lower. It is "no longer" selling like hot cakes.
This year's sales numbers don't really support your argument - 324 in five months is hardly indicative of a slump in sales is it? The 737 sold nearly 300 in the same time-frame.
You can argue which term to use to describe sales in excess of 300 in 5 months, but "hot cakes" would seem to be a perfectly reasonable one to me.
Naritaflyer From Japan, joined Apr 2006, 502 posts, RR: 0 Reply 14, posted (1 year 5 months 18 hours ago) and read 5811 times:
Quoting Scbriml (Reply 13): This year's sales numbers don't really support your argument - 324 in five months is hardly indicative of a slump in sales is it? The 737 sold nearly 300 in the same time-frame.
You can argue which term to use to describe sales in excess of 300 in 5 months, but "hot cakes" would seem to be a perfectly reasonable one to me.
Well, if you could see me I would say "read my lips" and speak very slowly so you can follow the logic. I don't really care how many A320s Airbus has "sold". All I know is that since oil hit over $100 no one really has sold many aircraft. The A320 "was selling" like hotcakes. No one is arguing that point. But from today onward, it will sell like "'rancid tuna".
Scbriml From United Kingdom (England), joined Jul 2003, 8906 posts, RR: 50 Reply 15, posted (1 year 5 months 18 hours ago) and read 5750 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW FORUM MODERATOR
Quoting Naritaflyer (Reply 14): Well, if you could see me I would say "read my lips" and speak very slowly so you can follow the logic.
I see disagreeing with your "logic" results in a personal attack.
It seems your "logic" is, because the A320 hasn't sold 100 today or tomorrow, it's now "rancid tuna". Let's see how much "rancid tuna" Airbus can sell at Farnborough.
Art From Lebanon, joined Feb 2005, 2273 posts, RR: 0 Reply 16, posted (1 year 5 months 18 hours ago) and read 5717 times:
Quoting Naritaflyer (Reply 14): Well, if you could see me I would say "read my lips" and speak very slowly so you can follow the logic. I don't really care how many A320s Airbus has "sold". All I know is that since oil hit over $100 no one really has sold many aircraft. The A320 "was selling" like hotcakes. No one is arguing that point. But from today onward, it will sell like "'rancid tuna".
I don't really see that NB sales have slowed so dramatically since oil reached $100 about 6 months ago. So far this year they have been selling faster than the manufacturers produce them.
Moo From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 17, posted (1 year 5 months 18 hours ago) and read 5668 times:
Quoting Naritaflyer (Reply 14):
Well, if you could see me I would say "read my lips" and speak very slowly so you can follow the logic. I don't really care how many A320s Airbus has "sold". All I know is that since oil hit over $100 no one really has sold many aircraft. The A320 "was selling" like hotcakes. No one is arguing that point. But from today onward, it will sell like "'rancid tuna".
You are relying on such a short sales period that your math is essentially bordering on complete margin of error.
Lets see what the end of the year brings, potentially giving us 11 months of > $100 BBL oil, before we pass judgement. At the moment, you are just scaremongering.
Keesje From Netherlands, joined Apr 2001, 9843 posts, RR: 51 Reply 18, posted (1 year 5 months 18 hours ago) and read 5669 times:
Fact is airlines like KLM/AF, AA and SW are urging Boeing and Airbus to come up with something better quick. They think a320 and 737 in its current form are not good enough to get in 2012 and then start using them for 25 years.
Re de Geared Turbo Fan of Pratt, I think it is interesting to consider that Pratt gambled the wrong way with the PW6000/PW8000 on which the current, soon to be tested inflight GTF is based.
As can be seen from the picture in reply 12, this engine has a limited number of compressor stages (12) . New engines have more (20) to boost the pressure ration to 25 (e.g. GENX, TP400, Trents, CFM56) to boost efficiency.
Pratt made the choice to create a light, compact engine.. Now it will probably take them extra time to combine the GTF technology with a more efficiency core engine / overall pressure ration close to 25.
Airbus knows and is mainly interested in the performance of the GTF technology. Boeing dismissed the technology a few years back for the 7e7. Nobody like likes the idea of a hot rotating collection of gears and bearings in front of the engine, so Pratt will have to prove a lot.
The question is whether the current oil prizes will remain at the very high level in the future. Many people believe it will fall again, albeit not under $100 a barrel. Should it stay at $150 or more, and operators will ground even their A320's or 737NG's or cancel their orders in mass as a result, things could be different. I agree we could then see a GTF powered A320 launched. Not sure how Boeing would react, can't see a GTF under the wings of a 737 without major redesign...
flown on: 146,318,319,320,321,AB6,332,343,722,732/3/4/5/G/8,742,74E,744,752,762,763,772,77E,773,77W,E90,F50,M11,M82
Moo From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 21, posted (1 year 5 months 17 hours ago) and read 5610 times:
Quoting Frigatebird (Reply 19): The question is whether the current oil prizes will remain at the very high level in the future. Many people believe it will fall again, albeit not under $100 a barrel. Should it stay at $150 or more, and operators will ground even their A320's or 737NG's or cancel their orders in mass as a result, things could be different.
The 787 was viable with 20% fuel savings when oil was $50 BBL, I think a GTF narrowbody will certainly be viable at 12% saving with oil anywhere over $50 BBL.
WINGS From Portugal, joined May 2005, 2781 posts, RR: 75 Reply 22, posted (1 year 5 months 17 hours ago) and read 5556 times:
Quoting Frigatebird (Reply 7): Well, since the A320 family still sells like hot cakes, I doubt Airbus will invest lots of money in an updated version with the GTF. Especially if an engine design with 20% improvement in fuel consumption over current engines (open rotor?) could be available 5 years after EIS of the GTF version.
A 12%-15% fuel improvement is not enough? That is a big improvement and should not be ignored. I still do not see how Airbus would have to invest lots of money to equip the A32X family with the GTF. The main issue would be with a stregthend wing and undercarriage. Considering that Airbus is constantly working on improving the current A32X, I would not be at all surprised to see a 15% improvement with the launch of the GTF on the A32X.
Frigatebird From Netherlands, joined Jun 2008, 402 posts, RR: 0 Reply 23, posted (1 year 5 months 17 hours ago) and read 5520 times:
Quoting Moo (Reply 21): The 787 was viable with 20% fuel savings when oil was $50 BBL, I think a GTF narrowbody will certainly be viable at 12% saving with oil anywhere over $50 BBL.
Oh, I agree with you that it would be viable in a sense that customers would certainly order it. But the situation with the 787 had some other aspects as well:
- The 767 couldn't compete with its Airbus rival (A332) anymore;
- The 787 had quite a bit extra range in comparison with the 767 and A330.
So certainly as a result of the first, Boeing was more or less forced to develop the 787 to regain market share in the small WB segment. Currently the 130-190 seat NB segment is evenly divided between A & B, and there is no sign orders are drying up yet.
So, it's not that airlines are not interested - there is not enough impetus for Airbus or Boeing to allocate resources. When their backlogs start to dwindle they will reconsider, not before I'm afraid...
flown on: 146,318,319,320,321,AB6,332,343,722,732/3/4/5/G/8,742,74E,744,752,762,763,772,77E,773,77W,E90,F50,M11,M82
I believe Airbus wants to see what Boeing does and vice versa... With Airbus having the advantage, because they can put a GTF under the A320 easier than Boeing would with the 737. But if Airbus decides to launch a GTF-powered A320 and Boeing responds a few years later with an open rotor design, which could be 5% more fuel efficient than the GTF? Of course, they could gamble that the GTF will improve another 5% as well, and in that case they will have made the smartest decision. But, as I said, I don't think that's going to happen. They enough on their hands with the A350 and (hopefully!!!) the A389...
flown on: 146,318,319,320,321,AB6,332,343,722,732/3/4/5/G/8,742,74E,744,752,762,763,772,77E,773,77W,E90,F50,M11,M82
Quote:
The GTF, which has completed 250 hr. of bench testing, has achieved a 15% improvement in fuel burn compared to the initial target of 12% over comparable 737/A320 powerplants.
Quoting WINGS (Reply 3): It is my understanding that the proposed GTF will not have enough ground clearance to be hung underneath the 737NG. This basically gives Airbus a HUGE advantage in offering the next A32X family derivative, while at the same time extending the life on the current A32X frame. It would also most likely pressure Boeing into launching a ''new'' Narrow Body first and play the wait and see game.
Quoting OyKIE (Reply 6): Quoting WINGS (Reply 3):
... the fact that CFM has the exclusivity deal. It is my understanding that Boeing cannot brake this on the 737-600-737-900ER, so either way Boeing would have to launch a new series name if it were to be based on the 737 platform?
If Airbus launched a GTF engined A320 with 15% lower fuel consumption than the 737, I guess Boeing would be forced to respond with a GTF 737RS to avoid Airbus (presumably) gaining a dramatically larger slice of the NB market. However, how much could Boeing improve on A320 GTF fuel consumption if forced to launch a 737RS earlier than they would have liked? If the A320 GTF could live with the competition provided by a "premature" 737RS GTF, Airbus might be able to wait several years before launching an A320RS.
A danger I could see for Boeing would be if Airbus then launched an open rotor A320RS with signicantly better fuel consumption than Boeing's GTF orientated design. Am I wrong in thinking that a GTF would sit under the wing whereas an open rotor would not, thereby forcing Boeing into a major redesign if they chose to use it too?
26 Revelation: It seems all your questions are answered in the article: Airbus plays down chances of A340 flight-tests leading to GTF-powered A320: Some facts that
27 Naritaflyer: Very good points. By the way, is A320 better positioned than the 737-700 given the A320 can seat up to 170 while the -700 can seat only 140 people? T
28 NorCal: Compare the -700 with the A319 and the -800 with the A320
29 JRadier: The 2 engine aspect does not really matter. After all, the 777-300 carries far more people than the ERJ-135, both with 2 engines.
30 OyKIE: The reason why the current generation of narrow-bodies continue to sell well is because airlines desperately needs to replace their MD-80's and class
31 Naritaflyer: I knew that someone would nitpick on that point. Only smart people need replying please.
32 Scbriml: The problem is, you're not comparing like-for-like. A better comparison would be A319 = 737-700 or A320 = 737-800. If all you can do is post a "smart
33 JerseyFlyer: Airlines seem to like the payload / range performance of the current A320 series, except perhaps A318. Can someone please calculate how much each cur
34 Revelation: It's not a unanimous opinion: B6 would like a bit more range out of their A320s so they can do US transcons without fuel stops in the case of unfavor
35 Columba: Impossible, the A340 is a quad and the 777-200ER a twin a quad can never have a better fuel consumption than a twin. It is just not possible Okay I a
36 JRadier: If you know it's going to be a critical point why not rewrite it in clear wording. Yes, the A320 can carry more people than the 737-700 with the same
37 ClassicLover: Hell, Boeing got a CFM56 under the wing of the 737 if you recall... Is the fan diameter just too big on the GTF? Nothing says it can't be resized for
38 R2rho: That's the key point here, which in my opinion proves that Airbus is very interested in the GTF and wants to consider all options for an A320NG or th
39 Jdevora: The problem is that the total fuel advantage is much lower (around 7-8%). From an old article P&W touts geared turbofan version of Airbus A320 as ear
40 Keesje: The article also mentions: "P&W previously said the advantage would be up to 12% in an all-new design." The article quotes in the header says: "The G
41 VHHYI: Will the GTF in present (PW6000-retrofit) or future form fit under an A318? Maybe BA wouldn't mind a bit more range for New York-London? Assuming it b
42 Astuteman: Sweep, possibly? I don't read the article as being quite that conclusive. He says "There's a business case to be made" which sort of sounds like ther
43 PW100: Well, it seems that the gap to the open rotor technology has widened, since Boeing has put the 737RS on ice for the time being, as they could not get
44 Revelation: Thanks for the interesting post, PW100!
45 Nomadd22: There seems to be some confusion between SFC and fuel consumption. Is there a general rule of how SFC coverts to fuel consumption on the same route wi
46 Sirtoby: Sorry, but this is completely false: MRJ GTF: 1F-G-2LPC-8HPC-2HPT-3LPT CSeries GTF: 1F-G-3LPC-8HPC-2HPT-3LPT And the GTF is of course a 2 spool engin
47 PW100: Sorry fot not being more clear, but obviously I was referring to picture provided by Keesje in reply 18. Not to any production GTF you listed. Of cou
48 PW100: And here's another bombshell . . . . : Link Regards, PW100
49 Sirtoby: Even not completely true - the originla PWA HPC had 5 stages, the production HPC from MTU has 6 stages. Correct! Bombshell? Well, let's wait and see:
Sponsor Message: 
From Norway, joined Jan 2006, 1677 posts, 
From Uganda, joined Jul 2007, 376 posts, 
From Canada, joined Feb 2008, 199 posts, 
From Portugal, joined May 2005, 2781 posts, 
From Netherlands, joined Apr 2001, 9843 posts, 
From Japan, joined Apr 2006, 502 posts, 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
.gif){kind=small}
From United Kingdom (England), joined Jul 2003, 8906 posts, 
From Lebanon, joined Feb 2005, 2273 posts, 
From Switzerland, joined Jan 2008, 796 posts, 
That is a big improvement and should not be ignored. I still do not see how Airbus would have to invest lots of money to equip the A32X family with the GTF. The main issue would be with a stregthend wing and undercarriage. Considering that Airbus is constantly working on improving the current A32X, I would not be at all surprised to see a 15% improvement with the launch of the GTF on the A32X.
Printer friendly format 
