KL911 From Hungary, joined Jul 2003, 4439 posts, RR: 17 Reply 1, posted (2 years 4 months 2 weeks 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 14540 times:
Well, that's a nice start for the year 2010! It's just a small step, but I can see them go ahead with the program. What will Boeings answer be? A 737NG-NG?
OyKIE From Norway, joined Jan 2006, 2494 posts, RR: 3 Reply 3, posted (2 years 4 months 2 weeks 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 13977 times:
Quoting KL911 (Reply 1): Well, that's a nice start for the year 2010! It's just a small step, but I can see them go ahead with the program.
i believe this is the way to go. Airbus is too tied up to the A400 and A350 now, but to make the the plane competitive against the Cseries and C919 this might be the best option for now. I wonder how much they can improve the efficiency of the airframe in terms upgrading more systems inside the plane?
Quoting BlueSky1976 (Reply 2): More than likely a 737 with Leap-X instead of CFMs.
Although personally, I'd much rather like to see an all-new airframe, the 787 "Mini-Me"
I believe Boeing will honor their agreement with the CFM partners and go ahead with the Leap-X. I would also like for Boeing to go for a 787 "mini-me" project. But how much resources do Boeing have at the moment? They have the 787 and 747-8, and have to make a desicion about what they will do with the 777. I believe we will see either:
A brand new 737 replacement with an updated 777NG or super stretched 787 with a new wing.
OR
A modified 737NNG with a plastic 777.
Third option
A modified 737 as well as a an updated 777NG.
Dream no small dream; it lacks magic. Dream large, then go make that dream real - Donald Douglas
OyKIE From Norway, joined Jan 2006, 2494 posts, RR: 3 Reply 5, posted (2 years 4 months 2 weeks 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 13715 times:
Quoting Burkhard (Reply 4): And I expect they go the third option. Lowest risk, lowest cost, safe profit.
If the economics can be competitive against the Cseries and A350 I believe you are right. But it will not be able to offe the same pressure and humidity as the A350 and 787. I wonder how that will affect Boeings decision?
Dream no small dream; it lacks magic. Dream large, then go make that dream real - Donald Douglas
Scbriml From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2003, 10517 posts, RR: 51 Reply 6, posted (2 years 4 months 2 weeks 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 13610 times:
I'd be very surprised if Airbus dealt only with PW. Leahy said that they would only look at a GTF if it came from IAE (presumably for contractual reasons).
You're only supposed to blow the bloody doors off!
Parapente From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2006, 1209 posts, RR: 10 Reply 8, posted (2 years 4 months 2 weeks 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 13466 times:
Just a thought.
We all accept that Boeings response will be to use the LEAP-X engine.They (Cfm) have stated that it will be ready to go on the 919 wing for aircraft certification work in 2014.As such it could be on the wing of an already certified aircraft (737) to the same timetable - Say EIS 2015.
I note that Ryanair's publicised tactic the last time they "raped" Boeing was to spot a production gap 3/4 years into the future and offer to fill it in one go.(It also helped that Airbus pitched as well though).This time it was (publicised) as a 2014/16 timeframe.But this time Boeing would not play ball.
Is this the reason? They know they will be able to very happily fill these slots as they will be offering a "new" aircraft with 16% (Cfm) low fuel consumption?
Keesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 9, posted (2 years 4 months 2 weeks 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 13389 times:
Quoting Parapente (Reply 8): We all accept that Boeings response will be to use the LEAP-X engine
I wonder if it would be a compromised LEAPX / GTF fitted to the 737. The CFM56 has Bypass ratio of about 5.3, versus e.g. CSeries will have a BPR twice as high.
The A320 also seems to have room for higher BPR's. Airbus will have to redesign the wing pylon. But not as dramatic as Boeing did for the 737 in the eighties.
Maybe Boeing will end up joining up with Embraer that seems to have bigger ambitions. Sharing risk's / investments, engineering resources, same time zones, cheaper but skilled labor..
Tom355uk From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2007, 246 posts, RR: 3 Reply 10, posted (2 years 4 months 2 weeks 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 13094 times:
True, the A320 does have greater ground clearance than the 737, but the NG models have longer gear legs than the Classic 734 pictured so the Nacelles are less 'hamsterized'. I believe the Classics' ground clearance is ~45cm - feel free to correct me if i'm wrong!
Manfredj From United States of America, joined Mar 2007, 1132 posts, RR: 0 Reply 11, posted (2 years 4 months 2 weeks 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 12347 times:
I've always wondered why they haven't just given the 737 a new undercarriage to cope with the engine issues. I know the NG's sat a bit higher but why not raise it even more. Won't this open up more possibilites engine wise?
Tom355uk From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2007, 246 posts, RR: 3 Reply 12, posted (2 years 4 months 2 weeks 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 12249 times:
[quote=Manfredj,reply=11]
Again, feel free to correct me if i'm wrong, but if they extended the gear legs on the 737NG anymore, I don't think they would be able to fold into their existing stowed position (they would clash) and so an expensive and costly redesign involving either rearward retracting gear or some form of staggered retract (one in front of the other).
Stitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 23614 posts, RR: 79 Reply 13, posted (2 years 4 months 2 weeks 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 12084 times:
LEAP-X has to have been designed with the 737NG in mind, so I can't see it being significantly "compromised". Boeing and CFM have been flight-testing a new nacelle style on a 737-900ER which will be used with the LEAP-X engine, after all. And Pratt swears they can get a GTF with an 80" fan on the 737NG.
Both Pratt and CFM want their engine to work with new-builds as well as future refits of in-service aircraft so it is in their financial interests to have Boeing stay with the 737NG and Airbus stay with the A320 so they can get a decade of new sales to create a market for decades of re-engine deals.
Aerdingus From Ireland, joined Dec 2006, 2245 posts, RR: 20 Reply 14, posted (2 years 4 months 2 weeks 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 11230 times:
I think it's crazy that the 737 has gone so long with the same engine. But whatever works. Will be interesting to see the new engines for the A320. With more options available on the Airbus, are 737s, even NGS, in danger? Hate to sound so dramatic, but just wondering. Then again, the 737 has suffered much adversity to be king of the narrow bodies.
BA EI FH FR TS ZB 3K 5G A306 A313 A320 A321 A333 B738 B744 B772 BCN CRL DUB FRA FUE GRO HEL HER HKG JFK LHR LIN MAD MXP
0NEWAIR0 From United States of America, joined May 2007, 762 posts, RR: 0 Reply 15, posted (2 years 4 months 2 weeks 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 11143 times:
Quoting Tom355uk (Reply 10): True, the A320 does have greater ground clearance than the 737, but the NG models have longer gear legs than the Classic 734 pictured so the Nacelles are less 'hamsterized'.
Cba From United States of America, joined Jul 2000, 4530 posts, RR: 4 Reply 16, posted (2 years 4 months 2 weeks 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 10769 times:
Makes sense... the A320 family is still a relatively young design in terms of narrow bodies.
From Boeing's stand point, it makes more sense to come out with a totally new product, rather than producing a fourth generation of the 737. Boeing's product will likely be more of a cross between the 737NG and the 757... covering the 150-200 seat market.
Aircraft such as the A319 and 73G are great for long and thin routes (CO's EWR-SNA comes to mind), however they are too heavy for shorter flights. Their trip costs almost equals that of a 738/A320. Notice how Boeing's best 737s of late have been the 738 and 739ER models.
Stitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 23614 posts, RR: 79 Reply 17, posted (2 years 4 months 2 weeks 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 10771 times:
Quoting Aerdingus (Reply 14): I think it's crazy that the 737 has gone so long with the same engine. But whatever works.
And that is the key, isn't it?
As "superior" as the A320 is said to be by the Airbus Aficionados, it has not been able to break away from the 737NG in terms of orders. Boeing, whether by plan or sheer blind luck, successfully developed the third generation 737 into a serious competitor to the A320. And part of that success has to be extended to CFM and their CFM56-7 series of engines, so as they improve that family with LEAP-X, it should only help the 737NG...
Tdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 11034 posts, RR: 72 Reply 19, posted (2 years 4 months 2 weeks 2 days ago) and read 8534 times:
Quoting Keesje (Reply 9): wonder if it would be a compromised LEAPX / GTF fitted to the 737. The CFM56 has Bypass ratio of about 5.3, versus e.g. CSeries will have a BPR twice as high.
The BPR on a GTF gets bigger primarily by having a smaller core, not a bigger fan. The fan is somewhat bigger, but the big gain is that you can spin that fan with a smaller core.
Quoting Manfredj (Reply 11): I've always wondered why they haven't just given the 737 a new undercarriage to cope with the engine issues.
Any longer, and they'd hit in the middle. The only way to go longer now is, as Tom355uk said, retractable oleos, stagger, or moving the mounting point outboard (major structural change).
Quoting Aerdingus (Reply 14): I think it's crazy that the 737 has gone so long with the same engine.
The 737 has had its engine for less time than the A320 has had it's engine...why is it crazy?
Aeolus From Mexico, joined Aug 2007, 370 posts, RR: 0 Reply 20, posted (2 years 4 months 2 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 8431 times:
What improvements to the fuel consumption (efficiency) and range would the re-engining process make?
I'm hoping it to improve considerably, but that's just my wish. I'd like to see the new wingtips being put into use soon if they are approved by the corresponding authorities. That'd be so sexy and nice !!!
Golli From Iceland, joined May 2007, 149 posts, RR: 0 Reply 22, posted (2 years 4 months 2 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 8287 times:
Quoting Tdscanuck (Reply 21): A whole new engine can, based on precedent, get about 5-10% fuel burn improvement. For equal fuel load, that should give you about 6-11% more range
Astuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 8610 posts, RR: 96 Reply 23, posted (2 years 4 months 2 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 8072 times:
Quoting Tdscanuck (Reply 19): The BPR on a GTF gets bigger primarily by having a smaller core, not a bigger fan. The fan is somewhat bigger, but the big gain is that you can spin that fan with a smaller core.
This begs the question as to why CFM can get up to 27 000lb thrust out of the CFM56-7B at only 61" fan diameter, whereas the PW1000G with its 73" fan only makes 23 000lb?
I agree that the gearbox helps reduce the core size and improve the bypass ratio, but as far as I can see, most of the improvement will come from a bigger fan, certainly when comparing a 5:1 ratio existing engine to a 10:1 ratio GTF. I'd defer to the engine specialists of course..
I would guess that applying GTF technology to a 9:1/10:1 ratio engine like the GEnx migt indeed yield an incremental improvement in BPR without a commensurate increase in fan diameter, but I'm only guessing
Aeolus From Mexico, joined Aug 2007, 370 posts, RR: 0 Reply 24, posted (2 years 4 months 2 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 7768 times:
Quoting Golli (Reply 22): Quoting Tdscanuck (Reply 21):
A whole new engine can, based on precedent, get about 5-10% fuel burn improvement. For equal fuel load, that should give you about 6-11% more range
We might see Airbus get an hours worth of extra range from the A321??
Am I dreaming??
Golli
Would this mean a close substitute for the B752?
-Aeolus
Flying under the clouds above!
25 Tdscanuck: Lower disk loading (and probably lower RPM). A 73" fan is capable of producing quite a lot more thrust than a 61" (at equal technology), but it'll be
26 Lightsaber: I'm confused by one thing, Airbus told Pratt (per link) that they wanted to see the GTF through IAE. But Pratt isn't that interested in sharing their
27 Golli: I was hoping to hear something like this from a reliable engine man, such as yourself. Ok then, 12% from engines and 2-3% from the sharklets. We'll s
28 Lightsaber: Possibly. The reason I state that is Pratt *might* be able to do a GTF by then, but I do not see much interest in an IAE partnership for the A321. I
29 BoeingVista: I think that this is an interesting quote from the Fight blogger article We know that Pratt have the GTF, what are RR proposing? A while back RR were
30 Lightsaber: Triple spool RR has had a breakthrough in packaging a 'small' triple spool. The economics on short missions (climb) will be excellent. Now, the GTF w
31 BoeingVista: OK, but are they actually proposing it for an A320 re-engining project? If so they are keeping pretty quiet about it, I cant find any public referenc
32 Keesje: RR proposed the RB285 for the COMAC C919, that went with the LeapX. I guess the LeapX is the lower risk option from market leader CFM (GE/Safran 50/5
33 Baroque: Help!! Lightsaber!! http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...285-study-for-150-seat-market.html R-R believes that as an advanced turbofan the three-sha
34 Parapente: The RR question.Have they or have they not decised to go 3 or 2 shaft??? www.istat.org/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=S47LkLQWJ2s%3D This link is the most
35 Stitch: A triple spool should have lower maintenance costs than a twin spool since the triple spool is much easier on the LPC and turbine during climb and yo
36 Lightsaber: RR doesn't tend to make as much noise in the popular press. Instead, they design and sell engines. Pratt has no choice but to run an all out PR campa
37 DocLightning: The 733-5 have the same gear as the 73G. It had to be extended from the Jurassics to the Classics to fit the new engines, but the 73G has the same na
38 A342: Don't want to split hairs, but I don't think the PW4000 (all series combined) is nowadays selling in higher numbers than the GP7200. And the PW6000 i
39 R2rho: CFM has an easier job as improving the CFM56 with the latest GenX technology should be a more straightforward task than introducing a new architecture
40 Baroque: I see, had not realised that idling config would be so important. After a couple of decades of joint venture you would think they would have got past
41 Lightsaber: Sadly, the medium and large helicopter market generates far more revenue, in particular support revenue, than the light helicopter market. That might
42 Parapente: I noticed that recently Dassault withdrew their agteement to use RR's new 2 spool engine (suggesting that - after 2 years work,they needed somethng wi
43 Lightsaber: First a note: RR can build triple spools down to ~27k of thrust. So any smaller engine should be a twin spool. Pratt has GTF concepts down to 16K and
44 Parapente: Thanks for the above Lightsaber.Perhaps this is their "breakthrough" for their new triple design.However from what you have said it has got to be 2 or
45 Jambrain: Which is presumably why RR now have 2 IP turbine stages on Trent XWB But the booster stage would be running a very low mach no and the lp turbine wou
46 AirbusA6: After the PW6000 debacle, would Airbus (and the market) trust Pratt to do an engine on their own, as a number of A318 customers got their fingers bur
47 A342: True, and I guess the utilization rate of oil helos is much higher than other commercial segments, so more mx must be performed and aircraft might be
48 Stitch: The PW1000G is going to literally make or break Pratt in the commercial airliner market. To use a US baseball analogy, after the PW6000 and PW4000 mi
49 Lightsaber: Naaa... Obviously my back of the envelope calculations are more accurate. Seriously, I missed the XWB had a twin stage turbine on the intermediate. A
50 PW100: Why not solve that with a GTF? I would also expect that an added advantage of a tripple spool is that both take-off performance and cruise performanc
51 Sirtoby: Because of a low fan pressure ratio, which on the other hand provides extremely good propulsive efficiency - and low noise.
52 Baroque: Sounds as if not only is school still in, but they are still firing ink bombs at each other - or whatever the equivalent is in the era of the ballpoi
53 Stitch: If any engine is "juicing", it's the GE90-115B.
54 Aircellist: I agree. Some very good threads, recently on A.net... Back to topic, it seems it is Airbus pushing on IAE to incorporate PW's geared fan! http://www.
55 AirbusA6: " target=_blank>http://www.flightglobal.com/articles....html Pressure on PW to stay in IAE, and pressure on RR to not go off by themselves on their t
56 Lightsaber: 1. Requires developing a high thrust GTF. The risk above 62k of thrust grows exponentially. My opinion is the limit is 75k today. (But with far more
57 BoeingVista: I guess thats the question, but if Airbus went that way or with the PW1000G it would probably be the end of IAE and that is not in Airbusses interest
58 Revelation: I can see why Airbus would not want/allow 3 different engines (CFM, RR, PW) on the A320, but I can't see why they insist on an IAE offering. It seems
59 Keesje: After being market leader for decades I think PW lost it clinging to the JT9's and not performing as good as GE//RR with the PW4000. PW and Airbus ha
Sponsor Message: 
From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2007, 225 posts, 
From Hungary, joined Jul 2003, 4439 posts, 
From Poland, joined Jul 2004, 1497 posts, 
From Norway, joined Jan 2006, 2494 posts, 
From Germany, joined Nov 2006, 3977 posts, 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
From United States of America, joined Mar 2007, 1132 posts, 
From Ireland, joined Dec 2006, 2245 posts, 
From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 11034 posts, 
From Mexico, joined Aug 2007, 370 posts, 
From Iceland, joined May 2007, 149 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
