Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Any PW4168 Customers Upgrading To PW4170?  
User currently offlineEA772LR From United States of America, joined Mar 2007, 2836 posts, RR: 10
Posted (4 years 11 months 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 5725 times:

I was just wondering are any of the current PW4168/A A330 customers planning on upgrading theirs to the PW4170 standard?? Airlines like US, DL/NW, KE, and possibly AB, as well as some others I've missed, could probably benefit from the extra thrust, reduced fuel burn, and lengthened time on wing. I know KE ordered their new A332HGW with PW4170, but am talking about an upgraded PW4168/A.


We often judge others by their actions, but ourselves by our intentions.
20 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineLightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 13163 posts, RR: 100
Reply 1, posted (4 years 11 months 22 hours ago) and read 5616 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

China Southern, Flyington freighters, TAM, Air Comet, Air Caraibas(PW4168A-1D, not full 70k thrust), and KE are currently PW4170 customers. (There are probably more, I'm going from memory.)

As to actually buying the 'upgrade kit' for an existing engine, I do not know. The fuel savings, per Pratt, is $140k per year (per aircraft, or for two engines). So it is not worth accelerating the overhaul timeline.

Lightsaber



Societies that achieve a critical mass of ideas achieve self sustaining growth; others stagnate.
User currently offlineEA772LR From United States of America, joined Mar 2007, 2836 posts, RR: 10
Reply 2, posted (4 years 11 months 22 hours ago) and read 5584 times:



Quoting Lightsaber (Reply 1):
As to actually buying the 'upgrade kit' for an existing engine, I do not know. The fuel savings, per Pratt, is $140k per year (per aircraft, or for two engines). So it is not worth accelerating the overhaul timeline.

Hmm I see. As a PW fan (no pun intended), I have to say I will forever wonder how PW would have fared against RR had PW actually went through with their PW4173. It'd have provided the most thrust, and lowest fuel burn for the A330...dang it!  Embarrassment



We often judge others by their actions, but ourselves by our intentions.
User currently offlineLightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 13163 posts, RR: 100
Reply 3, posted (4 years 11 months 22 hours ago) and read 5553 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting EA772LR (Reply 2):
I have to say I will forever wonder how PW would have fared against RR had PW actually went through with their PW4173. It'd have provided the most thrust, and lowest fuel burn for the A330...dang it!

You would have a case where Pratt and RR orders would be very similar on that airframe. LZ almost certainly would have stuck with Pratt and quite a few Pratt customers would have been quicker to order new airframes.

But that didn't happen. RR is winning orders for a reason.

Oh, if Pratt had delivered the PW4173 as promised (it was designed for 75k of thrust, or the first 2k of 'lost thrust' would have been invisible to the customer), it would have had the best hot/high performance on the A330 too!  bigthumbsup  But as there is a compressor vent temperature issue... that is holding back thrust and hot/high performance.  Sad

Lightsaber



Societies that achieve a critical mass of ideas achieve self sustaining growth; others stagnate.
User currently offlinePresRDC From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 662 posts, RR: 1
Reply 4, posted (4 years 11 months 21 hours ago) and read 5534 times:



Quoting Lightsaber (Reply 3):
But that didn't happen. RR is winning orders for a reason.

Yes, because they are able to put more $ on the nose of the aircraft than P&W is able to.

Engine decisions are driven by $, not technical considerations.


User currently offlineLightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 13163 posts, RR: 100
Reply 5, posted (4 years 11 months 20 hours ago) and read 5461 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting PresRDC (Reply 4):
Engine decisions are driven by $, not technical considerations.

Unless those technical considerations effect the $$$.  Wink

Burning more fuel=$$$, but it is a technical consideration.

Hot/high performance is payload at range. $$$, but a technical consideration.

What do you mean by:

Quoting PresRDC (Reply 4):
Yes, because they are able to put more $ on the nose of the aircraft than P&W is able to.

I'm confussed by the implication. Right now, I see RR winning orders based on their fuel burn, hot/high performance, and lower maintenance costs. Because of that, RR sells engines for more than Pratt or GE on the A330. All of those effect the $$$ for the airline customers. For example, the GE CF6 on the A330 has poor hot/high performance. Thus, for most operators, that is removing weight (payload) from too many flights. Due to that lost $$$$, GE is the slowest selling A330 powerplant. It is why they do not even offer an A330F engine.

Back when the A330 only had engines with 68k of thrust, Pratt was doing really well! But the latest A332's and A333's demand more thrust for excellent hot/high performance. There RR is winning the orders.

It doesn't take much investigation to realize the orders from India and the middle-east are from operators who need excellent hot/high performance. For example, until the latest MTOW increase, the A332 could not take advantage of the fuel volume of the airframe due to MTOW limits! Even now, it cannot carry even full passengers and full tanks. Add in any hot/high limitations and that is a severe cut to the operating range of the A332.

I love the PW4173. I worked on the engine and I'm very sad the compressor surge vents had a bad interaction with the nacelle and thus compromises in the design were required.  Sad Pratt was going all out to provide an engine with 2nd to none hot/high performance to win those India and mid-east engine orders. They really missed the target. By having to limit compressor outlet temperatures... (to protect the nacelle), the hot/high performance of the original PW4168A was not good enough.

Let us take an example of an operator that *should* upgrade immediately. DL and their SLC-NRT flight. The plane has to depart with about two dozen empty seats on the SLC-NRT leg. Why? Insufficient hot/high performance limits the MTOW from that high altitude airport. Increasing thrust by 2% and decreasing fuel burn by 1% would really help that particular mission. The fuel burn decrease alone would allow another 7 or 8 passengers onto the flight. Combined with the thrust increase, the upgrade kit might *just* be enough to allow DL to book full passenger loads on the flight. This is an example of where the original PW4173, if it had met promise, would have shinned.

Empty seats is lost $$$$. So technical reasons drive the $$$$ and thus the engine sales. It might have persuaded DL to buy a few more A332/A333. (Might not.) I know US cut back on A330 deliveries due to Pratt's hot/high performance miss.  Sad Their executive screamed at the poor test engineers in frustration at the missed promises.

After that toungue lashing, my fellow engineers returned from the test stand and took sharpies to their PW4173 stickers that were all over the engineering office area. They lined out the 73 and wrote in 68.  cry  Oh, they made sure, as per ISO 9001, that you could still read the lined out text. (Pratt had just completed ISO 9001 training then.)

Ligthsaber



Societies that achieve a critical mass of ideas achieve self sustaining growth; others stagnate.
User currently offlinePresRDC From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 662 posts, RR: 1
Reply 6, posted (4 years 11 months 20 hours ago) and read 5455 times:

You can give customers money in the form of performance guarantees to make up for performance shortfalls. I wouldn't say performance is not a factor, but in those final crazy hours of engine selection campaigns, it all comes down to the financial package being offered.

Money on the nose of the aircraft refers to IAC and other credits offered to the customer. Recall that the engines are sold to Airbus at list and then a separate check is cut to the airline for the percentage of the engine price that was agreed-to. Current market for 100" engines is somewhere between 50-75% (can't get more specific). As a result, engines are most always sold at a net loss, which has to be reflected on the books as such, which has a negative impact on quarterly and yearly financial performance.

RR has been more willing than Pratt to offer higher levels of IAC. UTC keeps Pratt on a tight leash w/r/t affordability of deals and Pratt has to pick and chose which deals to compete aggressivley on. A lot of the deals that look like a loss to outsiders are more often the result of a decision to not compete agressively.


User currently offlineLightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 13163 posts, RR: 100
Reply 7, posted (4 years 11 months 19 hours ago) and read 5443 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting PresRDC (Reply 6):
RR has been more willing than Pratt to offer higher levels of IAC. UTC keeps Pratt on a tight leash w/r/t affordability of deals and Pratt has to pick and chose which deals to compete aggressivley on. A lot of the deals that look like a loss to outsiders are more often the result of a decision to not compete agressively.

That has been the case with RR vs. Pratt since 1998 (or earlier). It might imply that RR has their production costs better in hand. I know Pratt believes RR targets a lower ROI per engine.

But eventually, volume reduces costs and helps up the ROI.

Pratt's problem is their high overhead costs.  Sad Seriously. Per engine the highest of the three engine vendors.

But the reality is, the performance difference is worth millions to the airlines (net present value). If Pratt had a better technically performing engine, customers would see the cost savings (or revenue enhancement) and pay accordingly.

I do not doubt financing is an issue. I've always wondered why UTC didn't get more into the leasing business.

Lightsaber



Societies that achieve a critical mass of ideas achieve self sustaining growth; others stagnate.
User currently offlinePresRDC From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 662 posts, RR: 1
Reply 8, posted (4 years 11 months 19 hours ago) and read 5403 times:



Quoting Lightsaber (Reply 7):
That has been the case with RR vs. Pratt since 1998 (or earlier). It might imply that RR has their production costs better in hand. I know Pratt believes RR targets a lower ROI per engine.

Pratt is given strict performance targets from UTC which limit its ability to discount engines. Both Pratt and RR sell their engines at a loss. RR is willing to take a bigger loss up front.

Quote:

But eventually, volume reduces costs and helps up the ROI.

Pratt's problem is their high overhead costs. Seriously. Per engine the highest of the three engine vendors.

May be the case. Closing Cheshire and CARO will help, if the lawsuit goes P&W's way.

Quote:

But the reality is, the performance difference is worth millions to the airlines (net present value). If Pratt had a better technically performing engine, customers would see the cost savings (or revenue enhancement) and pay accordingly.

I just don't see this a driver of customer decision making from where I sit.

Quote:

I do not doubt financing is an issue. I've always wondered why UTC didn't get more into the leasing business.

Giving away money is not financing. I think UTC's wisdom of largely (but not entirely) staying out of financing has been proven over the past 14 months.


User currently offlineWAH64D From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 966 posts, RR: 13
Reply 9, posted (4 years 11 months 18 hours ago) and read 5347 times:

I'm not too sure about RR dominance due to technical levity in this area. Am I right in thinking that the PW engine is a 3 spool beast too?

Surely climb performance must be better than GE? I would really expect/hope to see more PW on the A333 at least. Shorter segment length X lower climb/descent fuel burn over GE on those legs sounds like a winner to me. Unless RR is significantly better of course.



I AM the No-spotalotacus.
User currently offlineTrex8 From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 4774 posts, RR: 14
Reply 10, posted (4 years 11 months 17 hours ago) and read 5331 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting WAH64D (Reply 9):
Am I right in thinking that the PW engine is a 3 spool beast too?

only Rollers are 3 spool


User currently offlineFruitbat From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2006, 551 posts, RR: 6
Reply 11, posted (4 years 11 months 16 hours ago) and read 5293 times:



Quoting PresRDC (Reply 8):
Quote:

But the reality is, the performance difference is worth millions to the airlines (net present value). If Pratt had a better technically performing engine, customers would see the cost savings (or revenue enhancement) and pay accordingly.

I just don't see this a driver of customer decision making from where I sit.

I see it as a massive driver - for example latest P&W publicity for the GTF talks about $1.5m saving per a/c per annum in fuel burn alone (from memory - adverts in recent FI and AW&ST issues) - add to that additional revenue from carrying more pax/cargo and less fuel - multiply by a fleet of 100 a/c for a large US carrier / Euro LCC - and then if you can get the new technology for the same price as the old......  scratchchin 



Weaseling out of things is important to learn. It's what separates us from the animals ... except the weasel.
User currently offlineWAH64D From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 966 posts, RR: 13
Reply 12, posted (4 years 11 months 16 hours ago) and read 5269 times:



Quoting Trex8 (Reply 10):
only Rollers are 3 spool

I stand corrected, thanks for the enlightenment sir. I'm fairly sure I've seen EPR readings from a Pratt before though.



I AM the No-spotalotacus.
User currently offlineLightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 13163 posts, RR: 100
Reply 13, posted (4 years 11 months 14 hours ago) and read 5178 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting PresRDC (Reply 8):

May be the case. Closing Cheshire and CARO will help, if the lawsuit goes P&W's way.

I was thinking more executive compensation. But you are right, they need to cut overhead. I still remember reading an annual report having GE and UTX pay for the same corporate executive overhead... even though GE has multiples more revenue!

Quoting PresRDC (Reply 8):

Pratt is given strict performance targets from UTC which limit its ability to discount engines.

No doubt. But a better performing engine needs to discount less. Pratt makes a good engine for the A330. But RR has certain performance advantages that are worth money to customers. I don't disagree RR pursues a lower ROI.

Lightsaber



Societies that achieve a critical mass of ideas achieve self sustaining growth; others stagnate.
User currently offlineJambrain From United Kingdom, joined Sep 2008, 251 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (4 years 11 months 5 hours ago) and read 5059 times:



Quoting Trex8 (Reply 10):
only Rollers are 3 spool

Ivchenko-Progress would have something to say about that!

Quote:

Progress D-18T (or Lotarev D-18T) is a three-shaft high by-pass turbofan engine rated at more than 50,000 pounds of thrust

also D-436
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progress_D-436#cite_note-14
but not on a 330 of course!



Jambrain
User currently offlineLightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 13163 posts, RR: 100
Reply 15, posted (4 years 11 months 3 hours ago) and read 4993 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting Jambrain (Reply 14):

Ivchenko-Progress would have something to say about that!

First, thank you for the link. I didn't know about that engine (and I'm an engine nut).

The overall pressure ratio (OPR) is far too low to be competitive in any Western application. (Too high of a fuel burn, even with a triple's climb advantage.)

Lightsaber



Societies that achieve a critical mass of ideas achieve self sustaining growth; others stagnate.
User currently offlineA342 From Germany, joined Jul 2005, 4683 posts, RR: 3
Reply 16, posted (4 years 11 months 2 hours ago) and read 4960 times:



Quoting Lightsaber (Reply 15):
First, thank you for the link. I didn't know about that engine (and I'm an engine nut).

Apart from the D-18T and D-436, the D-36 (powering the Yak-42 and An-72/74) also has a three-spool layout.
Just interested, how does the D-18T's max. cruise specific fuel comsumption of 0.561 kg/kgf x h compare to contemporary western engines such as the CF6-80A?

http://www.ivchenko-progress.com/welcome.do?id=32

Also, a little known-fact is that the Tornado's RB.199 engine is triple spool. Might this be related to the treetop-level ops the Tornado was designed for?

The NK-321 powering the Tu-160 is another three-spool design.


A342



Exceptions confirm the rule.
User currently offlineLightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 13163 posts, RR: 100
Reply 17, posted (4 years 10 months 4 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 4858 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting A342 (Reply 16):

Apart from the D-18T and D-436, the D-36 (powering the Yak-42 and An-72/74) also has a three-spool layout.
Just interested, how does the D-18T's max. cruise specific fuel comsumption of 0.561 kg/kgf x h compare to contemporary western engines such as the CF6-80A?

Apples and oranges as the D-18T's TSFC is at a lower Mach # than the Western engine is rated at. What would the engines TSFC be at the higher cruise speed of the A330? Less as there are more losses at a higher flight mach number (but that is usually gained back by cruising at a higher altitude).

Here are a few other engine TSFC

Trent 500 0.562
GE-90 0.530

So at first glance the D-18T looks great (for a 767 application). But how would it perform at Mach .78 to .82? (The AN-124 is slower during cruise, so one cannot directly compare the D018T TSFC to a western design's published numbers. I suspect the D-18T would be ~5% worse at 744 cruising speeds) Also, the D-18T requires much more tender loving. I've been amazed at how much weight Russian engines save by their fuel injector designs. I've also been horrified at the thought of having to repair a Russian fuel injector. On a CF6 of PW6000... that is a sub half hour repair. Anyone know how long on a D-18T?  pessimist 

My experience has been that Russian engines match their Western counterparts in performance by making design decisions that cost in maintenance hours. That an superb titanium work. We in the West still have much to learn from the Russians in Titanium design. But those design compromises are one reason why Russian airframes an not capable of doing 20 minute turns for 10+ flights per day.

Quoting A342 (Reply 16):
Also, a little known-fact is that the Tornado's RB.199 engine is triple spool. Might this be related to the treetop-level ops the Tornado was designed for?

I am not familiar enough with that engine to speak with certainty. However, I speculate it was done as a triple to 1) help RR develop their bearings for the commercial triple spools, and 2) allow for fast thrust transients (something a fighter needs).

A triple spool would have an advantage for low and fast flying over a twin. But the thrust of the RB199 is too low to really benefit from being a triple spool (in the 1970's). So I suspect it was more a design decision of what could be adapted 'cheaply enough'.

Lightsaber



Societies that achieve a critical mass of ideas achieve self sustaining growth; others stagnate.
User currently offlineA342 From Germany, joined Jul 2005, 4683 posts, RR: 3
Reply 18, posted (4 years 10 months 4 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 4844 times:



Quoting Lightsaber (Reply 17):
and 2) allow for fast thrust transients (something a fighter needs).

Thanks, that makes sense. The RB.199 was developed after the RB.211-22 which powers early L1011s.

A342



Exceptions confirm the rule.
User currently offlinePresRDC From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 662 posts, RR: 1
Reply 19, posted (4 years 10 months 4 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 4744 times:



Quoting Lightsaber (Reply 13):
I was thinking more executive compensation. But you are right, they need to cut overhead. I still remember reading an annual report having GE and UTX pay for the same corporate executive overhead... even though GE has multiples more revenue!

UTC's compensation is not very generous. It frankly lags behind its peer companies by quite a wide margin. In any event, UTX has outperformed GE by a wide margin over the past 18 months,

Quote:

No doubt. But a better performing engine needs to discount less. Pratt makes a good engine for the A330. But RR has certain performance advantages that are worth money to customers. I don't disagree RR pursues a lower ROI.

IME, RR often offers higher levels of FIA than P&W. P&W often has a scramble to come up with additional value from other sources to try and make up the gap between its FIA level and that offered by RR.


User currently offlineB727LVR From United States of America, joined Jul 2008, 630 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (4 years 10 months 4 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 4674 times:



Quoting WAH64D (Reply 12):
I'm fairly sure I've seen EPR readings from a Pratt before though.

True. The PW I have come across use the EPR to achieve max thrust. These include the JT8 and PW4060 and to the best of my knowledge both of these are dual-spool.

Also the RR Spey and Tay engines are dual-spool, they also use EPR ratings to achieve their max thrust.

Lightsaber can probally best descibe EPR and how it works, being the avionics guy I'm best with changing the indicator.  Wink

On a side note: The RR Spey is a very awesome engine in how it operates. Going throught my Flight Saftey class for the GIII I was taken by it.



I'm like a kid in a candy store when it comes to planes!
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...
Can AA (or Any Airline) Do This To Pax?! posted Fri Dec 19 2008 01:59:35 by Ayubogg
Any Airlines That Fly To Antarctica? posted Sun Oct 5 2008 17:10:33 by Bbinn333
Any Possibility For TG To Pick Up SQ's TPE-LAX? posted Sat Apr 5 2008 11:00:34 by FAH345
Upgrading To Econ+ On BA posted Sun Mar 2 2008 16:26:49 by Vingt20cent
Any SAV A.Netters Up To Meet 1-14/2008? posted Fri Jan 11 2008 12:54:57 by CVG2LGA
Any More Trial Flights To Suvarnabhumi? posted Fri Aug 18 2006 15:40:49 by Ammunition
Any New International Ailines To IAD? posted Mon Jul 24 2006 03:21:32 by Eastern023
Upgrading To First Class posted Thu May 11 2006 15:20:42 by Osubuckeyes
Any Glider Pilots Been To Amlikon? posted Tue Apr 18 2006 10:56:14 by LSPA
Any Chances KLM Returns To CCS Or MIA? posted Tue Dec 20 2005 21:58:01 by Checo77