OyKIE From Norway, joined Jan 2006, 2494 posts, RR: 3 Posted (2 years 11 months 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 4429 times:
At Paris Airshow Boeing confirmed that their new KC-X offering might include the GEnx as propulsion. I guess that the GEnx will be offered on the 767 platform as the engine would be too small for the 777. Currently Boeing has not decided if they will offer the 767 or the 777. But if they find out that the 767 fitted with GEnx engines would be the best option, what is the changes of Boeing selling this plane to airlines?
Stitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 23614 posts, RR: 79 Reply 1, posted (2 years 11 months 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 4312 times:
Quoting OyKIE (Thread starter): But if they find out that the 767 fitted with GEnx engines would be the best option, what is the changes of Boeing selling this plane to airlines?
In theory the KC-767 Advanced is based on the un-launched 767-200LRF freighter so if Boeing can find commercial customers who want such a plane, it could happen.
That being said, I have my doubts about how popular a plane it would be. It would certainly lift more payload weight and/or fly farther than a 767-200SF passenger-to-freighter conversion, but it would also remain the second-smallest-sized (in terms of volume) widebody freighter behind the A310-300F.
KC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 11025 posts, RR: 53 Reply 2, posted (2 years 11 months 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 4262 times:
Quoting Stitch (Reply 1): In theory the KC-767 Advanced is based on the un-launched 767-200LRF freighter
But, Boeing has offered the version to customers, outside of the USAF. The advantages a B-767-200LRF has over the A-310-300F would be weight lifting capability and more range. But both airplanes offer about the same volume.
If Boeing, or Airbus offered the GEnx engine on their currently produced B-767s and A-330s, there could be customers for it. But, the GEnx engine would benifit the B-767-300ERF and A-330-200F versions the most. I am not sure if the passenger versions would benifit very much, except for a lower fuel burn rate per hour, carrying less fuel and more cargo. How much more range would you want for the B-767-300ER/-400ER or A-330-200/-300?
Stitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 23614 posts, RR: 79 Reply 3, posted (2 years 11 months 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 4172 times:
Lightsaber has noted that if the KC-30A re-wins the second KC-45 RFP and goes into production, GE has stated they will perform a not-insignificant upgrade to the CF6-80 engine which would benefit not just the KC-30A, but also the A330-200F and the 767-300F. The guaranteed minimum sales on the KC-45 would justify the work with the 767-300F and A330-200F sales just being "cream".
I do not believe this would be a direct adaption of the GEnx with a fan shrink to 93-96", but more an incorporation of GEnx technologies and systems were appropriate to lower the SFC by a good bit and improve high-thrust reliability.
OyKIE From Norway, joined Jan 2006, 2494 posts, RR: 3 Reply 4, posted (2 years 11 months 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 4129 times:
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 2): But, the GEnx engine would benifit the B-767-300ERF and A-330-200F versions the most.
It would. With Boeing considering that their new KC-X plane could be fitted with the GEnx, I start to wonder if their new strategy would be to base the platform on either the 767-300ER or the 767-400ER.
Quoting Stitch (Reply 3): Lightsaber has noted that if the KC-30A re-wins the second KC-45 RFP and goes into production, GE has stated they will perform a not-insignificant upgrade to the CF6-80 engine which would benefit not just the KC-30A, but also the A330-200F and the 767-300F.
I fail to see why Airbus would not consider a more major upgrade and fit on the GEnx on the KC-45 as well.
Dream no small dream; it lacks magic. Dream large, then go make that dream real - Donald Douglas
Stitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 23614 posts, RR: 79 Reply 5, posted (2 years 11 months 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 4033 times:
Quoting OyKIE (Reply 4): I fail to see why Airbus would not consider a more major upgrade and fit on the GEnx on the KC-45 as well.
Boeing and Airbus can't make the decision on their own - they must have GE's support to adapt the GEnx to either model. At the time the KC-767 Advanced was submitted, Pratt would have provided the power, but it now appears Boeing is ready to drop them if GE can make their RFP look better.
There appears to be a three inch difference in fan diameter between the CF6-80s mounted on the 767 and the A330. I expect the 767 could take the larger fan which would improve performance and efficiency and allow GE to only have to develop one model to cover both families.
GE has noted in the past they felt the GEnx could become an option for existing CF6-80 operators who wish to re-engine. However, Pratt has noted when it comes to new engine models, they prefer to go with a airframe family still in production because it's easier to sell an engine for an airframe that doesn't already have them and I would not be surprised if GE didn't feel the same.
So I think GE would have to win the powerplant RFP for KC-X in order to either build a new GEnx sized to the 767/A330 or significantly improve the CF6-80 with GEnx technologies and systems.
Keesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 6, posted (2 years 10 months 4 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 3739 times:
Apart from new engines a new style cabin, winglets, lighter galleys and wing-bodies aerodynamics could prove a very low low CASM platform. And Airbus production capasity 'supply chain is already pushing 8.5 aircraft out a month as we speak.
Gigneil From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 15616 posts, RR: 90 Reply 7, posted (2 years 10 months 4 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 3643 times:
Quoting Stitch (Reply 5): I expect the 767 could take the larger fan which would improve performance and efficiency and allow GE to only have to develop one model to cover both families.
This was a major sticking point with the 767-400ER. It was going to need all new gear, not to mention significant wing strengthening, to get an improved engine.
That being said, they could have been targeting an even larger fan at that time - so a 100" GEnx might well fit on the 767, it would certainly fit under the A330.
Zeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 6800 posts, RR: 74 Reply 8, posted (2 years 10 months 4 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 3604 times:
Quoting OyKIE (Thread starter): At Paris Airshow Boeing confirmed that their new KC-X offering might include the GEnx as propulsion.
Boeing have no agreement with GE for the KC-X, GE signed up with NG.
From the article "Meanwhile, GE confirms that GEnx-1B and -2B are in the correct size class for the tanker competition, but adds that there has been no official agreement with a manufacturer."
If the politics do not get in the way, and the KC-30 is selected on merit like it had been previously by the USAF and many other air-forces, I am sure the A330-200F will feature GE engines, no GE engine is offered on the A332F.
Stitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 23614 posts, RR: 79 Reply 9, posted (2 years 10 months 4 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 3567 times:
The 767-400ERX was going to have the Trent 600 and GP7172 engines being designed for the 747-500X (and MD-11, in the case of the Trent 600). The Trent 600 had a fan diameter of 97.4" which matches the Trent 700.
So if GE can scale the GEnx2B series fan down from 105" to around 100", it should in theory work for the A330 and 767, though the 767 would likely need the mounting modifications planned for the 767-400ERX.
Lightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 8534 posts, RR: 100 Reply 10, posted (2 years 10 months 4 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 3534 times:
Quoting Stitch (Reply 3): Lightsaber has noted that if the KC-30A re-wins the second KC-45 RFP and goes into production, GE has stated they will perform a not-insignificant upgrade to the CF6-80 engine which would benefit not just the KC-30A, but also the A330-200F
If the Northrop tanker wins, GE would upgrade the CF6-80E1A3 that would also be offered for commercial A330's!
Oh, I truncated your post as last I looked, Pratt has won the engine contract for the 767 based Boeing tanker. So this press release is interesting... I assume it means that the engine choice for either tanker is back up in the air? If GE can compete on the 767 tanker... obviously Pratt should sharpen their pencil for the A330 tanker too (as well as the 767 tanker).
I'm confused by this PR announcement. The GEnX is not the right engine for either the 767 or the 777. Could this be a GE rewrite of the proposal to re-wing the 777 and upgrade the GE-90-115 for lower fuel burn? But wait... it specifically says the 77E! So it could be GEnX. But if it is the 77E, it would require the new wing (to meet 'buy America' guidelines).
Quoting Zeke (Reply 8): From the article "Meanwhile, GE confirms that GEnx-1B and -2B are in the correct size class for the tanker competition, but adds that there has been no official agreement with a manufacturer."
Part of why I'm confused. I'm not certain its left up to the manufacturer completely. There was a competition for each tanker proposal where the Air Force put in their input. Pratt ran the 767 competition as if it was like an F-16 build competition (all out as if Boeing had zero say in the engine). I'm not saying Boeing doesn't have a say... But since the tanker bid has been thrown out so many times... I have no idea if any part of the engine partnerships is still valid. This is as much political as technical and I have little insight into the political.
Stitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 23614 posts, RR: 79 Reply 11, posted (2 years 10 months 4 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 3533 times:
I know on some projects. like the ATF (which became the F-22), airframe and propulsion contracts were awarded separately. The United States commercial SST program also awarded separate airframe (Boeing 2707) and propulsion (GE) contracts.
Keesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 12, posted (2 years 10 months 4 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 3391 times:
I think the major candidates for a re engining of the A330 series are RR and GE.
RR is market leader at this moment. They'll eat from the 787, A350 and A380 ramp ups.
GE CF6-80E1 is weaker on the A330. For GE maybe an opportunity to get additional sales. The 787 must be a dissapointment sofar in term of production and GE90 (except 11x versions) production has winded down rapidly. The hot selling A350 is off and the 747-8i hasn't sold in 18 months and is delayed too.
All depends on how the engine OEMS see the market and what agreements they have with Airbus and boeing.
Maybe a suprise is imminent. What about the french Air Force ordering 12 GENX powered MRTT's ..
Phollingsworth From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2004, 825 posts, RR: 7 Reply 13, posted (2 years 10 months 4 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 3346 times:
Quoting Gigneil (Reply 7): This was a major sticking point with the 767-400ER. It was going to need all new gear, not to mention significant wing strengthening, to get an improved engine.
The main issue with the strengthening was the increase in MTOW. The increased engine weight will have a small scale-up through the pylon, but should not dictate the changes that were necessary for the -400ERX, that is unless Boeing are aiming for an increase in MTOW for the new tanker. Do you remember if the redesign of the landing gear was specifically to lengthen it, because of fan diameter constraints, or primarily to increase the load capability? Also do you remember what the planned fan diameter was supposed to have been for the GP7172
Quoting Zeke (Reply 8): Boeing have no agreement with GE for the KC-X, GE signed up with NG.
Quoting Lightsaber (Reply 10): Oh, I truncated your post as last I looked, Pratt has won the engine contract for the 767 based Boeing tanker. So this press release is interesting... I assume it means that the engine choice for either tanker is back up in the air?
My guess since the original competition has been officially cancelled, that the agreements that were entered into are no longer strictly enforceable. Also the requirements for the new competition are not guaranteed, nor even likely, to match those from the previous competition.
Quoting Zeke (Reply 8): f the politics do not get in the way, and the KC-30 is selected on merit like it had been previously by the USAF and many other air-forces, I am sure the A330-200F will feature GE engines, no GE engine is offered on the A332F.
The KC-30 did not win on merit. That was the point of the GAO report. The process the USAF used was so flawed there was no way to decide a winner based upon merit or any reproducible process. While there were a lot of politics involved, the decision was so flawed that it would have been nearly impossible to issue and sustain a procurement contract without explicit legislation by Congress, which was never going to be forthcoming.
Burkhard From Germany, joined Nov 2006, 3977 posts, RR: 2 Reply 14, posted (2 years 10 months 4 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 3305 times:
Airbus has estimated that the A330NG would cost about 4 billion, my estimate would be that a 767 update would cost 3 billions at least. Any such announcement now by Boeing would signal that the 787 program is terminated, they cannot do so before 787 EIS. And why invest 3 Bio into the 767 once you have a 787 operating?
As much as I can say, adding a new engine to a frame is not a small and cheap job.
Keesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 15, posted (2 years 10 months 4 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 3288 times:
Quoting Phollingsworth (Reply 13): The KC-30 did not win on merit. That was the point of the GAO report.
The USAF decided they wanted a more powerful platform for added flexibility in cargo, range and passenger transport. I think few discussed the difference in capabilities but more if it was needed. And more importantly if it must be build in America. So they send in an army of lawyers suggesting hundreds of deficiencies. Boeing offering the KC777 means they finally got the message the USAF wants a more modern capable flexible platform.
Phollingsworth From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2004, 825 posts, RR: 7 Reply 16, posted (2 years 10 months 4 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 3265 times:
Quoting Keesje (Reply 15): The USAF decided they wanted a more powerful platform for added flexibility in cargo, range and passenger transport. I think few discussed the difference in capabilities but more if it was needed. And more importantly if it must be build in America. So they send in an army of lawyers suggesting hundreds of deficiencies. Boeing offering the KC777 means they finally got the message the USAF wants a more modern capable flexible platform.
The USAF also made a decision based upon unpublished measures of merit and capabilities that were not communicated to both of the companies. The USAF also used a different means of scoring R&D, acquisition, and O&S costs between the two aircraft. I am not saying that the KC-30 (which is a stupid name, but so is KC-767, the name should follow the C numbering scheme which is already above 40) was not the most appropriate aircraft. The problem is that there is no real way to know. I am going to assume that you did not read the GAO report, or any of the other GAO reports in the last couple of years that concern the USAF procurement processes. Lets just say that the USAF has so miss-handled procurement that they are at risk of loosing all of their authority.
Now as to Boeing offering a 777 based design. The mission of the new competition has changed, even since the previous competition, as such Boeing right to consider which is the best platform to base a new tanker on, Boeing played the previous competition fairly stupidly and effectively got lucky when the GAO did a comprehensive review. It also shifts the baseline technology point, if for no other reason than some systems which were relatively unproven 24 months ago have more data.
The really silly thing about all of this is that the USAF would have spent far more on either of the two designs in the previous competition, than they would have on the original (and also flawed) single source idea.
KC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 11025 posts, RR: 53 Reply 17, posted (2 years 10 months 4 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 3216 times:
Quoting Zeke (Reply 8): Quoting OyKIE (Thread starter):
At Paris Airshow Boeing confirmed that their new KC-X offering might include the GEnx as propulsion.
Boeing have no agreement with GE for the KC-X, GE signed up with NG.
From the article "Meanwhile, GE confirms that GEnx-1B and -2B are in the correct size class for the tanker competition, but adds that there has been no official agreement with a manufacturer."
As you know, the GE CF-6 on the KC-30 offer, and P&W PW-4062 offer on the KC-767AT was last year. This will be a new program. I am sure some RFP requirements will be from the 2006 RFP, but some may be new requirements, too. None of us know for sure, other than if the GEnx-1B were offered on an A-330F, or A-330MRTT, tanker, and a GEnx-2B offered on a BH-767-200LRF, or B-767-300ERF tanker, it would increase the risk factors the USAF wanted to avoid. The GEnx engines are not certified for either the A-330 or B-767, at this point, although none of us think that is a real problem, other than the USAF paying for a FAA and EASA certification program they don't want to pay for.
Quoting Lightsaber (Reply 10): The GEnX is not the right engine for either the 767 or the 777
No one is suggesting the GEnx on a tanker version of the B-777-200LRF. For one thing, it needs about 40K lbs more thrust as a KC-777F would need a minimum of 110K lbs of thrust in each engine.
Quoting Keesje (Reply 12): GE CF6-80E1 is weaker on the A330. For GE maybe an opportunity to get additional sales. The 787 must be a dissapointment sofar in term of production and GE90 (except 11x versions) production has winded down rapidly. The hot selling A350 is off and the 747-8i hasn't sold in 18 months and is delayed too.
Quoting Keesje (Reply 12): What about the french Air Force ordering 12 GENX powered MRTT's ..
1. The GE CF-6 equipped A-330s are selling just fine, but a GEnx equipped A-330 may, or may not increase sales. GE has not offered the GEnx to Airbus for any product they build.
2. Both the GEnx program and the B-787 program are still in their infancy, neither are disappointing, except for the engineering problems on the B-787, and even it still has a back order of over 800 airplanes, more than enough to recover developement costs and break even. Can the A-380 program say that?
3. The GE90 engine program is not "winding down".
4. The "hot selling" A-350 hasn't sold an airplane recently, either.
5. The French Air Force has not announced a program to replace their C-135FRs, yet. Perhaps they are shell shocked over their 50 airplane order for the A-400M?
Quoting Keesje (Reply 15): The USAF decided they wanted a more powerful platform for added flexibility in cargo, range and passenger transport. I think few discussed the difference in capabilities but more if it was needed. And more importantly if it must be build in America. So they send in an army of lawyers suggesting hundreds of deficiencies. Boeing offering the KC777 means they finally got the message the USAF wants a more modern capable flexible platform.
Quoting Phollingsworth (Reply 13): The KC-30 did not win on merit. That was the point of the GAO report. The process the USAF used was so flawed there was no way to decide a winner based upon merit or any reproducible process. While there were a lot of politics involved, the decision was so flawed that it would have been nearly impossible to issue and sustain a procurement contract without explicit legislation by Congress, which was never going to be forthcoming.
No, the KC-30 did not win on merit, as Phollingsworth has said. The USAF violated the KC-X selection process by giving extra credit to NG, using questionable numbers for Boeing, even though they were not suppoose to do either. The GAO caught them with their pants down while they were grabbing their ankles standing in front of NG.
Boeing did not send in an Army of lawyers, nor did they suggest "hundreds of deficiencies". They sent in 16 lawyers, and protested 100 defiencies, of which they won on the 8 most important ones.
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 17): 2. Both the GEnx program and the B-787 program are still in their infancy, neither are disappointing
As I said : "The 787 must be a dissapointment sofar in term of production". The plan was to produce more then 100 shipsets in 2009. Now they are firing people. That's a dissapointment.
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 17): 3. The GE90 engine program is not "winding down".
Selective quoting again KC135TopBoom, I said "GE90 (except 11x versions) production has winded down rapidly." They have because 777-200, -300, -200ER sales have collapsed.
IMO GE will come up with a new 90Klbs engine soon. For A350, 787-10, 777 upgrade, A380 and / or Y3. They have all the technology in house, certified. It's a question of consolidating market share & matching the RR Trent XWB.
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 17): 4. The "hot selling" A-350 hasn't sold an airplane recently, either.
Personally I think KC-X will have new gen engines. Noise, fuel consumption, and polution are on the agenda more prominent then under GWB. Previous generation :"dirty" "fuel guzzling" engines for the next 40 yrs while better ones are available sets an example Obama is probably not willing to defend in public.
Gigneil From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 15616 posts, RR: 90 Reply 19, posted (2 years 10 months 4 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 3006 times:
Quoting Phollingsworth (Reply 13): Do you remember if the redesign of the landing gear was specifically to lengthen it, because of fan diameter constraints, or primarily to increase the load capability? Also do you remember what the planned fan diameter was supposed to have been for the GP7172
I remember it being a combination of the two, but I can't find credible documentation of that so I insist it be taken with a grain of salt.
Certainly with a fan size of 97-100 inches the current gear was PROBABLY ok, but they were definitely lengthening it as well. It may have only provided breathing room and not be a requirement.
KC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 11025 posts, RR: 53 Reply 20, posted (2 years 10 months 4 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 2976 times:
Quoting Keesje (Reply 18): Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 17):
GE has not offered the GEnx to Airbus for any product they build.
Read that stiory again. It says GE was "floating the idea" of offering the GEnx to Airbus for the A-330, A-330F and Airbus tanker.
I guess they decided against that, as they never did formally offer the GEnx engine, except for the A-350 Mk IV version.
Quoting Keesje (Reply 18): Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 17):
2. Both the GEnx program and the B-787 program are still in their infancy, neither are disappointing
As I said : "The 787 must be a dissapointment sofar in term of production". The plan was to produce more then 100 shipsets in 2009. Now they are firing people. That's a dissapointment.
That was the orgiinal schedule. According to the original A-380 schedule, how many should be in airline service now? The original schedule (before the first 6 month slip announced in 2005) was to have 120 A-380s delivered by the end of 2009. I believe they have about 15 delivered by now, and will be around 18 by the end of the year, less than 10% of the original schedule.
Keesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 21, posted (2 years 10 months 4 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 2934 times:
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 20): Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 17):
2. Both the GEnx program and the B-787 program are still in their infancy, neither are disappointing
As I said : "The 787 must be a dissapointment sofar in term of production". The plan was to produce more then 100 shipsets in 2009. Now they are firing people. That's a dissapointment.
That was the orgiinal schedule. According to the original A-380 schedule, how many should be in airline service now? The original schedule (before the first 6 month slip announced in 2005) was to have 120 A-380s delivered by the end of 2009. I believe they have about 15 delivered by now, and will be around 18 by the end of the year, less than 10% of the original schedule.
So the stalled production of the A380 makes the stalled production of the 787 not a dissapointment for GE? I don't understand.
KC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 11025 posts, RR: 53 Reply 22, posted (2 years 10 months 4 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 2909 times:
Quoting Keesje (Reply 21): So the stalled production of the A380 makes the stalled production of the 787 not a dissapointment for GE?
No, you said, replying to my post:
Quoting Keesje (Reply 18): Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 17):
2. Both the GEnx program and the B-787 program are still in their infancy, neither are disappointing
As I said : "The 787 must be a dissapointment sofar in term of production". The plan was to produce more then 100 shipsets in 2009. Now they are firing people. That's a dissapointment.
I don't think GE had planned on shipping 100 engine sets to Boeing, for the only the B-787 program. I believe some of those 200, or so engines were to go to the B-747-8 program.
My point was, the B-787 is not the only troubled program in town. Boeing has announced program delays on both the B-787 and B-747-8. Airbus is struggling to get ahead of the A-380 program, while the A-400M program is in the worst shape of any airplane program.
I look for delays to be announced, sometime in the next two years, in the A-350 program.
Keesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 23, posted (2 years 10 months 4 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 2887 times:
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 22): I don't think GE had planned on shipping 100 engine sets to Boeing, for the only the B-787 program. I believe some of those 200, or so engines were to go to the B-747-8 program.
The original planning (even after first delay) was to deliver 109-112 Dreamliners by the end of 2009.
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 22): while the A-400M program is in the worst shape of any airplane program.
I notice this sentiment building up here on airliners.net since a few months. There was an engine certification issue and probably some other issue, but nothing like a wing(box) broke, orders were cancelled, fuselages didn't fit, empty frames were presented, wrong fasteners installed or the supply chain stalling. Tough negotiation are ongoing between all A400M stakeholders as we speak on who has to pay additional billions, so the press is used too. For the rest it seems lots of sentiments. Maybe even a decoy that is needed.
Sponsor Message: 
From Norway, joined Jan 2006, 2494 posts, 
From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 23614 posts, 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 6800 posts, 
If the Northrop tanker wins, GE would upgrade the CF6-80E1A3 that would also be offered for commercial A330's!
From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2004, 825 posts, 
From Germany, joined Nov 2006, 3977 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
