Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Airbus Says 24-30 Months To Put GTF On A320  
User currently offlineTangowhisky From United States of America, joined Jun 2006, 931 posts, RR: 7
Posted (6 years 5 months 1 week 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 13374 times:

Airbus executives have been voicing their positions lately that if the CSeries becomes a serious threat with the benefits of the GTF engine, they can re-engine the A320 using the GTF within 24-30 months from go ahead to narrow the gap against the Cseries.

I realize that testing will start on the A340 with the GTF, and getting more life out of the A340 is more of a priority, but how much of this is hot air to refresh the A320 with the GTF? I thought that the IAE deal ties Pratt's hands from going at it alone on the A320, but not the A319 and A318 (please correct me if I am wrong on this).


Only the paranoid survive
74 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineTdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80
Reply 1, posted (6 years 5 months 1 week 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 13321 times:



Quoting Tangowhisky (Thread starter):
but how much of this is hot air to refresh the A320 with the GTF?

I expect there's a lot of reality behind it. Re-engined single-aisles would let the OEM's offer some improvement to airlines who are desperate for it without sinking the money to start whole new programs, which both A & B agree they don't have the technology to make pay off. It's a nice compromise.

Tom.


User currently offlineTangowhisky From United States of America, joined Jun 2006, 931 posts, RR: 7
Reply 2, posted (6 years 5 months 1 week 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 13274 times:

I agree Tom. I think a lot depends on how the trials will go on the A340 testbed for both the A340 and A320 families going in to the future.

Also if Airbus goes ahead with the GTF A320, it will put Boeing in a difficult position as the engine will not fit (due to ground clearance) on the 737. Boeing can only respond with an all new design, which is something they want to avoid doing for another 8 to 10 years for revenue entry.



Only the paranoid survive
User currently offlineMoo From Falkland Islands, joined May 2007, 4093 posts, RR: 4
Reply 3, posted (6 years 5 months 1 week 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 13230 times:



Quoting Tangowhisky (Thread starter):
? I thought that the IAE deal ties Pratt's hands from going at it alone on the A320, but not the A319 and A318 (please correct me if I am wrong on this).

I'd say that there would be an sales figure below which none of the partners could go it alone - none of hte main partners would lock themselves into the partnership forever.


User currently offlineDfwRevolution From United States of America, joined Jan 2010, 1001 posts, RR: 51
Reply 4, posted (6 years 5 months 1 week 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 13177 times:

Quoting Tangowhisky (Reply 2):
Also if Airbus goes ahead with the GTF A320, it will put Boeing in a difficult position as the engine will not fit (due to ground clearance) on the 737. Boeing can only respond with an all new design, which is something they want to avoid doing for another 8 to 10 years for revenue entry.

Will the C-Series and A320 use the same GTF? The answer must be no, because the two aircraft have different thrust requirements and ground clearances.

How will this situation be fixed? Pratt will offer different engine variants for two aircraft.

I've asked this question a number of times, and I have yet to get an answer: Why is it possible to build a smaller GTF for the C-Series and a larger GTF for the A320, but not a variant in-between for the 737NG? Scaling an engine in diameter is not particularly challenging and there are dozens of examples. The most popular engines today all come with different sizes for different airframes: CFM56-5/7, Trent 500/700/800, PW4000-94/100/112

So of course the A320 engine wouldn't fit on the 737NG. The CFM56-5 doesn't, but that didn't stop CFMI from offering a modern replacement to the CFM56-3 in the form of the -7.

[Edited 2008-07-23 13:51:32]

User currently onlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 12981 posts, RR: 25
Reply 5, posted (6 years 5 months 1 week 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 13162 times:



Quoting Tangowhisky (Reply 2):
Also if Airbus goes ahead with the GTF A320, it will put Boeing in a difficult position as the engine will not fit (due to ground clearance) on the 737. Boeing can only respond with an all new design, which is something they want to avoid doing for another 8 to 10 years for revenue entry.

And that's one reason why Airbus probably won't do it: it'll disturb the status quo (a healthy backlog of profitable narrowbodies) for both vendors. If Airbus releases something that causes the B737s backlog to be threatened, Boeing will have to launch an all-new B737 replacement, and then Airbus will have to launch an all-new A320 replacement, and each vendor will be trading a tidy, profitable backlog for $10B+ of new investment and several years of stress. Both vendors don't want to kill the goose laying the golden eggs, they want it to die of old age.



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offlineLAXDESI From United States of America, joined May 2005, 5086 posts, RR: 47
Reply 6, posted (6 years 5 months 1 week 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 13071 times:



Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 4):
I've asked this question a number of times, and I have yet to get an answer: Why is it possible to build a smaller GTF for the C-Series and a larger GTF for the A320, but not a variant in-between for the 737NG?

Good question.

I have a thread on Cseries 130(130 seats) versus B737(140 seats) in the technical forum in which I show the C130ER to be an efficient airraft that is likely to hurt B737-700's prospects, and by extension A319 too. Note below a post from my thread:
http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/tech_ops/read.main/233398/

Note below an updated summary of estimated technical specifications:
C130ER B737-700
OEW 81,600 83,000
MTOW 139,000 153,000
MZFW 118,100 120,500
MSP 36,500 37,500 (Max. Structural Payload)
Range 2,950 3,000 (Max. Design Range in nm at 225 lb./passenger)

Let me present each aircraft under the assumption of a 1500 nm (LAX-ORD) mission:
C130ER cargo 7,250 lbs, trip fuel burned 2,150 gallons.
B737 cargo 8,100 lbs, trip fuel burned 2,960 gallons.

C130ER burns less fuel for the trip, saving about $3,200 in fuel cost. This saving may be offset by the potential of additional passenger (10 Y seats) and cargo revenue (850 lbs.) of 737-700 for this mission length. It seems unlikely that the B737 can overcome the fuel savings of C130ER with additional seats/cargo.

Let me present each aircraft under the assumption of a 2,200 nm (LAX-JFK) mission:
C130ER cargo 6,297 lbs, trip fuel burned 2,942 gallons.
B737 cargo 8,100 lbs, trip fuel burned 4,129 gallons.

C130ER burns less fuel for the trip, saving about $4,700 in fuel cost. This saving may be offset by the potential of additional passenger (10 Y seats) and cargo revenue (1,803 lbs) of 737-700 for this mission length. Again, it seems unlikely that the B737 can overcome the fuel savings of C130ER with additional seats/cargo.

The C130ER should save about $3.5 million in fuel costs over the B737-700.


Now if the GTF engine can be scaled for the B737 yielding a 20% reduction in fuel burn, then then my model suggests that the B737-700 will close the gap significantly.

For a 2,200 nm trip(LAX-JFK),
C130ER cargo 6,297 lbs, trip fuel burned 2,942 gallons.
B737 GTF cargo 8,100 lbs, trip fuel burned 3,517 gallons

The B737-GTF will burn about 600 gallons less than the current B737. The GTM (gallon ton mile) of C130ER will be at 93% of the B737 GTF, and the GSM will be at 90%. The C130ER will still dominate the B737 GTF.


User currently offlineColumba From Germany, joined Dec 2004, 7091 posts, RR: 4
Reply 7, posted (6 years 5 months 1 week 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 13033 times:

Hopefully the P&W GTF will do the same for the A340 what the CFM 56 did to the Dc 8 !!!


It will forever be a McDonnell Douglas MD 80 , Boeing MD 80 sounds so wrong
User currently offlineLH452 From United States of America, joined Mar 2007, 42 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (6 years 5 months 1 week 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 12980 times:



Quoting Revelation (Reply 5):
And that's one reason why Airbus probably won't do it: it'll disturb the status quo (a healthy backlog of profitable narrowbodies) for both vendors.

By offering a re-engined version of the A320, Boeing will face the difficult choice of either protecting the 777 (A350 XWB competition) or the 737 market. I doubt that Boeing has the financial and engineering capacity to run two new programs in parallel.

LH452


User currently onlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 12981 posts, RR: 25
Reply 9, posted (6 years 5 months 1 week 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 12738 times:



Quoting LH452 (Reply 8):

By offering a re-engined version of the A320, Boeing will face the difficult choice of either protecting the 777 (A350 XWB competition) or the 737 market. I doubt that Boeing has the financial and engineering capacity to run two new programs in parallel.

So, why would Airbus take the risk of finding out that Boeing could indeed run two programs at once? Boeing will be winding down engineering and financial resources on B787 and B747-8i in a few years and seeing strong revenue from B787. It could easily choose to extend B787 to address higher seatcounts, and could decide it's time to replace the 737 with an all-composite plane with next gen engines, almost certainly wiping out a large part of Airbus's A320 backlog. In the same time frame, Airbus will be pouring resources into A350 and deciding what if anything to do to upgrade A380 to try to get some real ROI from that program.

IMHO from what I read, both companies are happy to keep collecting the eggs the golden goose is laying.



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offlineADent From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 1407 posts, RR: 2
Reply 10, posted (6 years 5 months 1 week 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 12649 times:

Most likely Boeing would lose out on a A320NG, but have to respond with a new plane - I would guess with a new GE engine.

If they really didn't want to do 737RS now, Boeing could bring back 757 with GTF.

GE says their new core is as efficient as a GTF, so some sort of CFM gap filler would be possible - but the fan size is really maxed out on the current 737NG, so I don't see that kind of efficiency jump.


User currently offlineTdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80
Reply 11, posted (6 years 5 months 1 week 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 12564 times:



Quoting Tangowhisky (Reply 2):
Also if Airbus goes ahead with the GTF A320, it will put Boeing in a difficult position as the engine will not fit (due to ground clearance) on the 737.

I keep seeing this written, but I'm not sure I believe it. You don't have to make the fan on a GTF bigger, that's just an option. You can make the core smaller and keep the fan diameter. It also assumes that they don't raise the strut...they've already changed the 737 strut twice, I don't think a third change is unreasonable. With 10+ more years of CFD under their belt, I'm not willing to say there's no solution.

Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 4):
Why is it possible to build a smaller GTF for the C-Series and a larger GTF for the A320, but not a variant in-between for the 737NG?

It's absolutely possible to build the engine, it's fitting it under the 737NG wing that makes for an interesting problem.

Quoting LH452 (Reply 8):
I doubt that Boeing has the financial and engineering capacity to run two new programs in parallel.

Engineering capacity, maybe not, but I'm pretty sure they're OK financially. They've got big cash reserves (yes, even after the 787 delays), a very comfortable backlog, healthy businesses, and a new narrow-body is almost guaranteed to be a sales success so the risk is low.

Quoting ADent (Reply 10):
I would guess with a new GE engine.

I'd be shocked. CFM, sure, but not GE alone.

Quoting ADent (Reply 10):
If they really didn't want to do 737RS now, Boeing could bring back 757 with GTF.

I'm not going to hold my breath on that...bringing the 757 back with a GTF would be virtually as much work as an all new aircraft but with worse performance gains. Doesn't sound like a good plan to me.

Tom.


User currently offlineTangowhisky From United States of America, joined Jun 2006, 931 posts, RR: 7
Reply 12, posted (6 years 5 months 1 week 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 12545 times:



Quoting Revelation (Reply 5):
If Airbus releases something that causes the B737s backlog to be threatened, Boeing will have to launch an all-new B737 replacement, and then Airbus will have to launch an all-new A320 replacement, and each vendor will be trading a tidy, profitable backlog for $10B+ of new investment and several years of stress. Both vendors don't want to kill the goose laying the golden eggs, they want it to die of old age.

Yes I agree. The Airbus reaction on threatening to re-engine the A320 IMO is just hot air and typical of A and B like their similar reactio9ns in the past with respect to the CSeries. Everytime there is a positive outlook on the Cseries, A and B have thrown all kinds of spins to the media.

When the Cseries went quiet in 2006 as Bombardier had decided to put off the launch, the A and B spins went silent with it for 2 years. Now they are back. They will continue with such tactics to buy time and ensure the healthy backlog. That is all they will do for the next while until they are in a position to replace their 737 and A320.



Only the paranoid survive
User currently offlineFlighty From United States of America, joined Apr 2007, 8777 posts, RR: 3
Reply 13, posted (6 years 5 months 1 week 2 days ago) and read 12468 times:



Quoting Tangowhisky (Reply 12):
Everytime there is a positive outlook on the Cseries, A and B have thrown all kinds of spins to the media.

Yes I agree. As many people know, the cheapest product an aircraft manufacturer can create is a fake product to play with our minds.


User currently offlineIkramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21590 posts, RR: 59
Reply 14, posted (6 years 5 months 1 week 2 days ago) and read 12428 times:



Quoting LH452 (Reply 8):
By offering a re-engined version of the A320, Boeing will face the difficult choice of either protecting the 777 (A350 XWB competition) or the 737 market. I doubt that Boeing has the financial and engineering capacity to run two new programs in parallel.

The news of the last two months leads me to believe that decision has already been made. 777NG, not a completely new design, + 737RS, a new design. The 777NG would come out first in 2015, with the 737RS in 2016.

If Boeing can do the 777F, 748 and 787 all at the same time in 4-5 years, they can surely handle the 777NG and 737RS programs in 7+ years. Especially because the 787, 748F and 777F will be creating major positive cash flow during this period no matter what the world economy looks like. The market needs all 3, no matter what…

Quoting Flighty (Reply 13):
Yes I agree. As many people know, the cheapest product an aircraft manufacturer can create is a fake product to play with our minds.

And the most expensive is when you build or design a product that doesn't work because someone called your bluff. The original A350 was one of those designs, arguably the 748I is turning out to be one of those designs (though it keeps the 747F in play and hurts the A380, so it's some benefit).

The real question is, if the C130 can hurt Airbus, it can hurt Boeing just as easily. So, why would Boeing wait for Airbus to respond before it decides to respond?



Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offlineLAXDESI From United States of America, joined May 2005, 5086 posts, RR: 47
Reply 15, posted (6 years 5 months 1 week 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 12311 times:



Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 14):
The real question is, if the C130 can hurt Airbus, it can hurt Boeing just as easily. So, why would Boeing wait for Airbus to respond before it decides to respond?

 checkmark 
I wonder if Airbus would consider fitting the 23,300 lbs. thrust GTF engine(C130ER engine) on its A319. It would help significantly close the expected large advantage of C130ER over A319.
With this engine, the A319 may be able to offer a range of 2,400 nm--about 500 nm less than the C130ER.


User currently offlineRheinwaldner From Switzerland, joined Jan 2008, 2289 posts, RR: 5
Reply 16, posted (6 years 5 months 1 week 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 12230 times:



Quoting LH452 (Reply 8):
By offering a re-engined version of the A320, Boeing will face the difficult choice of either protecting the 777 (A350 XWB competition) or the 737 market. I doubt that Boeing has the financial and engineering capacity to run two new programs in parallel.

Thats what I said for some time. After the table is cleared with present tasks Boeing has to stem two new "Big Programs" and Airbus one. Only after this there is parity between their models.

Why is there no parity before Boeing really takes a big step and offers Y3?
- Because for passenger VLA the 748 fails to attract enough already today.
- Because the 777 already now starts to loose some terrain (and for sizes below 773ER interest has stopped completely). The prospects of a 777NG aren't much brighter than the ones of the first A350 proposals. If the A350 is able to realize the planned OEW reduction there is no way the 777 can stay in business. With each A350 slot that becomes available the 777 line will experience relaxation. Regarding "payload per OEW" the A330 is closer to the 787 than the 777 to the A350. Thus the present A330 boom may not be projected on future 777 sales.


User currently offlineSirtoby From Germany, joined Nov 2007, 386 posts, RR: 22
Reply 17, posted (6 years 5 months 1 week 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 12094 times:



Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 4):
've asked this question a number of times, and I have yet to get an answer: Why is it possible to build a smaller GTF for the C-Series and a larger GTF for the A320, but not a variant in-between for the 737NG?

The truth is, that the GTF for the CSeries is even larger than todays engine on the A320. So GTF with the right thrust for the A320 would be about 78" in fan diameter, where a CFM56-5 has a 68" fan. The CFM56-7 has a fan dia of 61" - that would take all the benefits from the GTF concept.
So:
1. No GTF for B737NG
2. CSeries GTF only possible for A318/A319 of A320 with lower range (restricted to ca. 68t MTOW)
3. A GTF "right-thrusted" for the A320/A321 would require major changes at the airframe. very costly.
4. Expect manpower shortages at PW and their partners. Currently PWA/PWC are working on 3 new engines: PW810C (Cessna Columbus), PW1317G (MRJ) and PW1524G (CSeries). A 4th engine for Airbus in parallel would be a stretch...


User currently offlineADent From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 1407 posts, RR: 2
Reply 18, posted (6 years 5 months 1 week 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 12052 times:

P&W is keeping its options open for larger engines. The have said they plan on getting 1%/year more efficiency thru 2020 and their testbed with PW6000 core would seem to play into something a little bigger then PW1524G, plus they are doing those A340 test flights

Agree though 30 months would be tough, esp since there are no GTFs in service today. A lot of work to do to get the two existing designs out the door and certified.

I think they really want to be on next narrow body, either A or B, and will do what it takes to get there.

Quoting Tangowhisky (Reply 12):
I'm not going to hold my breath on that...bringing the 757 back with a GTF would be virtually as much work as an all new aircraft but with worse performance gains. Doesn't sound like a good plan to me.

Better than a MD-99 (aka 717-800) with GTF on pylons! Agree that 757 GTF is not going to happen, but presumably the 737 replacement is going to sit much higher than it does now.


User currently offlineSirtoby From Germany, joined Nov 2007, 386 posts, RR: 22
Reply 19, posted (6 years 5 months 1 week 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 11971 times:



Quoting ADent (Reply 18):
The have said they plan on getting 1%/year more efficiency thru 2020 and their testbed with PW6000 core would seem to play into something a little bigger then PW1524G

Of course they are looking for the next gen narrowbodies, but this engine will have a scaled core from the PW1524G, not the 6000 core.


User currently offlineCaspritz78 From Germany, joined Aug 2007, 518 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (6 years 5 months 1 week 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 11940 times:



Quoting LAXDESI (Reply 6):
The B737-GTF will burn about 600 gallons less than the current B737. The GTM (gallon ton mile) of C130ER will be at 93% of the B737 GTF, and the GSM will be at 90%. The C130ER will still dominate the B737 GTF.

Thanks for the calculations. Anyway the cost structure of aircraft utilization is not only the fuel burned. The cost for oil is just the one that had the highest increase. This hurts especially airlines which don't have their other costs under control and benefited from payed off planes. I would like to know if this is especially true for all the old 737s, MD80s and 320s. So by using the GTF engine it is maybe possible that the overall operation costs gets competitive with the for example the CSeries Jet again.


User currently offlineCarls From United States of America, joined Aug 2007, 522 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (6 years 5 months 1 week 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 11725 times:



Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 14):
If Boeing can do the 777F, 748 and 787 all at the same time in 4-5 years

Oh yes?, and what is happening with the 748? late, 787? late...... I think they won't make the same mistake twice.


User currently offlineLH452 From United States of America, joined Mar 2007, 42 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (6 years 5 months 1 week 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 11590 times:



Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 14):
The news of the last two months leads me to believe that decision has already been made. 777NG, not a completely new design, + 737RS, a new design. The 777NG would come out first in 2015, with the 737RS in 2016.

A 777NG will not be able to compete with the A350 XWB, it would be a waste of money. Based on Boeing's current situation, with the 777F, 747-8 and 787, I believe one could argue that two new programs in parallel would be a stretch.

LH452


User currently offlineTangowhisky From United States of America, joined Jun 2006, 931 posts, RR: 7
Reply 23, posted (6 years 5 months 1 week 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 11456 times:

Quoting LH452 (Reply 22):
A 777NG will not be able to compete with the A350 XWB,

It all depends on the spread between the current 777 and the promised A350XWB. If the spread is small enough for Boeing to respons to with a 777NG, then that is all they need to do. This is exactly what Boeing did when the 737 Classics were getting hammered against the A320. The 737NG without an all new design closed the gap.

Quoting Carls (Reply 21):
Oh yes?, and what is happening with the 748? late, 787? late...... I think they won't make the same mistake twice.

True but they are also going through a lessons learned to accomplish such ambitions. Parallel programs need to happen when market drivers are changing faster than in the past and your customers are warning you with resentment about their needs.

Quoting Rheinwaldner (Reply 16):
After the table is cleared with present tasks Boeing has to stem two new "Big Programs" and Airbus one.

True but Boeing is addressing the 240 to 380 long range market (787 and 777RS) with two models (therefore less compromise) while Airbus is addressing it with one fuselage. I don't think the A330 will continue to be a strong competitor once the 787 hits the air. So Airbus will need to address that. This is all in addition to their narrowbody replacements as each will have to address no matter what. Therefore if Airbus realize that the A350XWB is too much of a compromise, then they will have two programs as well: A330 and A320 replacement.

Quoting LAXDESI (Reply 15):
I wonder if Airbus would consider fitting the 23,300 lbs. thrust GTF engine(C130ER engine) on its A319. It would help significantly close the expected large advantage of C130ER over A319.

I think if Airbus takes Pratt's bait, then they will get Boeing to play in their hands with serious discussions. I am quite confident that Pratt is trying every way possible to get Airbus make the first move in an effort to force Boeing to play its hand. It would be best for Airbus to talk about GTF but find ways to delay it.

[Edited 2008-07-24 06:49:09]


Only the paranoid survive
User currently offlineIkramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21590 posts, RR: 59
Reply 24, posted (6 years 5 months 1 week 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 11442 times:



Quoting Carls (Reply 21):
Oh yes?, and what is happening with the 748? late, 787? late...... I think they won't make the same mistake twice.

This is why I said 5 years, my friend. It was originally scheduled for under 4 years.

But doing simple math (or maths, for non-americans), 2009-2004 = 5 years.

So again, if they can do three planes in 4-5 years (the 748 wasn't launched at the same time as the 777F and 787), why can't they do a 777NG and 737RS in 7 years? Neither the 737RS nor the 777NG would be as ambitious or difficult program to complete as the 787.

And if one questions if Boeing can handle the 777NG and 737RS at once, why can Airbus handle the A350 and A320NG at once? Same basic premise (one new model, one updated model), same or less of a timeframe (A350 EIS in 2013, but already started, A320NG 24-30 months from 2009-2010 launch means 2012-2013). That's less time to accomplish both.

Late 2009 is going to be the time when Boeing really decides what they can do and when. 787 should EIS around that time (even if more late, shouldn't be more than a couple additional months), 777F will be in service already, 748 will be entering service (even if late, only again by a couple of months).



Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
25 SeaBosDca : I don't know that this is true of the 737RS. Achieving the performance objectives for it will require a lot of new ideas. Also, don't forget that Boe
26 Revelation : Time will tell. Another way of looking at things is: how much better will an enhanced 777-300ER have to be to hold market share? On another thread, w
27 AlanUK : Ok, from reading this thread, I reckon a GTF is some kind of new engine with more fuel efficiencies... What does GTF stand for (cause I'm sure it's no
28 Ikramerica : This thread is supposed to be about the A320 with GTF, but has veared toward what Boeing can't or can't do, so I do want to respond, but hopefully we
29 Lightsaber : Hmmm... That one VP who's been trying to get a PW6000 based GTF on the A320 might get his wish! Note: This, due to the IAE contract, would have to be
30 Revelation : And, as some are suggesting in other threads, A330NG on top of A380-800R/A380-800F/A380-900/A380-SUH, A400M, KC45, and on, and on, and on... All this
31 ZRH : Geared Turbo Fan
32 EA772LR : Sirtoby beat me to it. But the fact is the GTF's fan diameter for the CSeries is already larger than the current CFM56-5B, which is 68". The CFM56-7B
33 Post contains images Tangowhisky : That is true. Here is why, and also explains they need a larger fan diameter as being discussed. The green line on the chart below is how the GTF ach
34 Kaneporta1 : Never underestimate the industrialization challenges of a small airplane. Design may be not as challenging as a larger airplane, but if current produ
35 DfwRevolution : Well, I'm glad to get a definitive answer That the C-Series would be packing a larger engine diameter than the A320 series is news to me.
36 LAXDESI : A quick comparison of A388 to B797 (9-abreast Y, 417 total seats) still leaves the A388 with a 20% GSM (gallon seat mile) advantage, and about 7% GTM
37 Sirtoby : The 6000 core is not in the game for the production GTF - unfortunately for me, personally (and for Lightsaber, too). Please, let us take the Demo as
38 EA772LR : Could this combined with improved aerodynamics/engines work for a stretched 777??I know Boeing mentioned that the current wing is pretty much maxed o
39 Ikramerica : Boeing's hand will be forced. While Airbus may be able to wedge a 12-18" larger fan under an A320 (using some 737NG tricks), Boeing won't be able to
40 AlanUK : Thank you, this is fascinating... Can someone direct me to a link that explains more about this technology?
41 Revelation : Sure, but the question is when. From what I've read (mostly in FlightGlobal.com), neither vendor is anxious to replace their narrowbodies any earlier
42 LAXDESI : Airbus can respond with 3-5-3 Y seats on A388. I recently flew UA 777 configured with 2-5-2 Y configuration. And it is OK for you to imply that 777-9
43 Panais : Not really. Look at the mess that A and B are right now. Both are struggling with the A350 and the B787. The reason is simply that they are trying to
44 Carls : Hi Laxdesi, I don't wantcan you give us some numbers if Airbus decide to hang the GTF in the A346 wing?? Could this make the A346 competitive against
45 Revelation : Probably not another Euro more than they already making. They have a backlog of 425 A330s to make, not counting the 179 tankers they presumably are g
46 SeaBosDca : I'm not LAXDESI, but I'll give you an answer anyway... First, no one is yet proposing a GTF big enough to power an A346. That's another couple techno
47 PW100 : What is the additional benefit of a two stage HPT, considering adding parts count and complexity? Am I close that it will help to increase overall en
48 A342 : With fuel prices reaching record levels, wouldn't it make sense to build the MRJ/CSeries engines with such an architecture? The additional maintenanc
49 Post contains images LAXDESI : The lowest thrust engine offered on A343 is 31,000 lbs; the largest GTF engine under development is about 26,300 lbs. thrust for the C130ER. It may b
50 LAXDESI : I couldn't resist comparing the A343 GTF to A358. I chose not to compare it to B789 as my model indicates A358 to be more efficient than the B789. I w
51 LAXDESI : In this post I will compare the A342 GTF against B788. The current A342 has a range of 8,000 nm; assuming 20% reduction in fuel burn with GTF engines
52 SeaBosDca : Interesting idea. We tend to forget about the A342 entirely. I see two potential problems with it, though: 1) the horse has already bolted from the b
53 Carls : Danke!! Thank you and your explanation is very welcome!!
54 LAXDESI : You are welcome. All fair points.
55 Tangowhisky : I was wondering if there is any merit to re-engine older A340s with the GTF, kind of similar to how the DC-8s got a new life going with the CFM56 a w
56 Rheinwaldner : IMO next thing for Airbus would only be the narrowbodies. GTF asap. Only 5..10% better efficiency IMO would guarantee that any available A320 product
57 Lightsaber : Long work hours, so I wasn't able to reply for a while. Mea Culpa. Yes and no. The current engine is a Demo. But then again, there is a lot of UG mode
58 Sirtoby : MRJ and CSeries ARE to be build with a two stage HPT! It is JUST the demo that has the 1 stage HPT, as it has the PW6000 core. But this core will nev
59 AirbusA6 : The right size for the A318 though
60 Sirtoby : Yes, and even for a 68t MTOW restricted A319. But even with the CSeries engine the A318/A319 would not be a viable competitor to the CSeries, as they
61 AirbusA6 : It would make a more competitive add on purchase for a major A320 user, who needed a few A318s for a specific role (e.g. LCY). Whether it would be wo
62 Post contains images Keesje : I wonder if in the 120-150 segment even higher BPR (>30) and gearboxes would take away market from the likes of super, Cseries, A318 and 737-700. Mos
63 Rheinbote : I think neither A nor B can afford to run two full development programs in parallel, simply because it's beyond the capacity of their engineering sta
64 A342 : Thanks for the answers.
65 LAXDESI : Thanks for the correction. I hope they have enough left in the engine to power a hypothetical C150(150 seat), which does very well against the 738 as
66 LH452 : Before shutting down this thread, I would like to add a thought, that perhaps the customers may have some input as to what he next new aircraft will b
67 Sirtoby : Would be hard to squeeze 2000lbf more out of that design. The C150 would probably have to live either with longer TOFL or less range. This is what my
68 Astuteman : Can't see that somehow. The A350 will beat the A340's so comprehensively anyway, that it will surely make an A340 re-engine superfluous............sa
69 XT6Wagon : The A330 re-engine would make alot of sense if it was entering service as I type this. It makes less sense as each day goes by. The 777 has an intere
70 Astuteman : Not saying you're wrong, but "why"? Rgds
71 Keesje : I think the basic "problem"with the 777 is that is has a lot of flexibility engineered in. The flexibility weighs a lot and is hard to remove.
72 Tangowhisky : True, but you are only looking at A340 successor perspective. As I mentioned above, there is also the issue that old A340s that are really not that o
73 Post contains links and images Keesje : A search on this forum and tech-ops will learn you that the A340 isn't that bad. e.g. it can lift a lot of cargo from hot airports, has a very silent
74 Tdscanuck : Come again? The 787 is terrifically delayed but it's performance hasn't changed *that* much. The original A350 wasn't competitive against the 787 and
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...
Airbus Says UK May Not Get Some Work On A350 posted Wed Jan 17 2007 21:13:47 by BoomBoom
Airbus Says 2005 Orders Similar To Boeing posted Fri Jan 6 2006 16:42:19 by Kalakaua
CO To Put ERJ's On EWR-MSY (and Other Info) posted Fri Nov 18 2005 00:26:36 by MSYtristar
Next To Put Winglets On Their 737NG Or 752's? posted Sun Oct 30 2005 07:21:30 by Adipasqu
CO To Put Winglets On 737-700's posted Wed Mar 23 2005 22:53:15 by PHLapproach
WestJet To Put TVs On Planes posted Tue Jul 8 2003 18:09:26 by Chock head
AN Administrators Force ANstaff To Put Bid On Hold posted Thu Nov 8 2001 10:15:30 by United Airline
To Much Weight On A320? posted Thu Mar 9 2000 18:27:36 by Bicoastal
Hawaiian Air To Spend $4.4B On 24 New Airbus Jets posted Wed Nov 28 2007 14:56:01 by Pohakuloa
Pressure On Boeing & Airbus To Improve 737&A320? posted Sat Nov 5 2005 01:14:35 by Keesje
CO To Put ERJ's On EWR-MSY (and Other Info) posted Fri Nov 18 2005 00:26:36 by MSYtristar
Next To Put Winglets On Their 737NG Or 752's? posted Sun Oct 30 2005 07:21:30 by Adipasqu
CO To Put Winglets On 737-700's posted Wed Mar 23 2005 22:53:15 by PHLapproach
WestJet To Put TVs On Planes posted Tue Jul 8 2003 18:09:26 by Chock head
AN Administrators Force ANstaff To Put Bid On Hold posted Thu Nov 8 2001 10:15:30 by United Airline
To Much Weight On A320? posted Thu Mar 9 2000 18:27:36 by Bicoastal
Hawaiian Air To Spend $4.4B On 24 New Airbus Jets posted Wed Nov 28 2007 14:56:01 by Pohakuloa
Pressure On Boeing & Airbus To Improve 737&A320? posted Sat Nov 5 2005 01:14:35 by Keesje