Stitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 26949 posts, RR: 83 Reply 1, posted (2 years 10 months 2 weeks 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 20270 times:
Picking up from where we left off:
Quoting Baroque (): Probably not, just as it would not fit all that well under a 787-10 or 11 come to that, unless they are a "bit different" to the current manifestations! Which leave GE trying to develop a 115MkII for the 77W only or an entirely different engine that could fit stretched 787s and or 350s. And the word to Airbus was "niet" for one of those apps.
I still think Airbus' dismissal of the GEnx was more a PR move - they want a "new" engine for their "new" airplane so they can tell customers the 787 is both an "old" airframe and it's using "old" engines.
I also think GE just can't scale the GEnx to the levels needed to power the entire A350 range - or at least to a level of efficiency they feel is necessary to make such an engine competitive to the Trent XWB.
What intrigues me is can EA adapt the GP7200 for the A350? The fan diameter is within 2" of the Trent XWB and while the current GP7200 won't be competitive on an SFC basis with the Trent XWB, lightsaber believes EA has up to a 6% SFC reduction available and if they add contra-rotation, they can match the Trent XWB's SFC.
So I wonder if GE can't update the GE90-115b with contra-rotation, IBR compressors and a new fan with wide chord blades for the 777 while working with Pratt to improve the GP7200 to not only power the A350, but also improve it's position vs. the Trent 900 on the A380 program. It would also make sure that if Rolls does offer the Trent XWB for the A380-900, EA has an equal engine, as well.
Stitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 26949 posts, RR: 83 Reply 4, posted (2 years 10 months 2 weeks 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 20029 times:
Quoting keesje (Reply 3): GE doesn't have a 65-95k lbs engines in their portfolio.
Yes they do. It's called the GE90-7xb and GE90-9xb.
Admittedly, those engines are not going to be competitive on an SFC basis with the current generation, but again, GE could conceivably develop a new fan and add both IBR and contra-rotation to improve SFC by a significant amount.
The GP7200 has been tested to almost 82,000lbs of thrust, but GE found another 20,000 pounds in the GE90 family so I don't see why Engine Alliance can't do so, either. I imagine it will not be an easy or inexpensive process, but a GP7375, GP7385 and GP7395 (75k / 85k / 95k) would be enough to power the A350 family and also be adaptable to the A380 family.
EPA001 From Netherlands, joined Sep 2006, 3658 posts, RR: 36 Reply 5, posted (2 years 10 months 2 weeks 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 19962 times:
Quoting Stitch (Reply 4): I imagine it will not be an easy or inexpensive process, but a GP7375, GP7385 and GP7395 (75k / 85k / 95k) would be enough to power the A350 family and also be adaptable to the A380 family.
No doubt GE can pull this off and no doubt it will take a lot of money. But the question is: what is GE willing to do? So far they have not made a move after their "no" to the Airbus request for an all new engine for the A350-XWB.
The stakes are getting higher for Boeing and GE when it comes to this one. But no doubt they will find an answer to change the current situation. And then the competition can make their counter move a generation (or quicker then that) later. Which keeps us on our toes. .
BMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 14410 posts, RR: 26 Reply 6, posted (2 years 10 months 2 weeks 3 days ago) and read 19883 times:
Quote: Presumably that wing would then be available later for a retrofit to longer range 789s? Or is that too simple?
No I don't think that is too simple, and that is the approach I've been advocating for a while. Do a 787-10 with a modified and enlarged wing and then go back and fit that to a -9 fuselage to make a 787-9LR. The only potential catch is that the landing gear might require modification as well, which would increase the money and effort required but isn't an insurmountable obstacle.
Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
astuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 9257 posts, RR: 96 Reply 7, posted (2 years 10 months 2 weeks 3 days ago) and read 19773 times:
Quoting Stitch (Reply 1): I still think Airbus' dismissal of the GEnx was more a PR move - they want a "new" engine for their "new" airplane so they can tell customers the 787 is both an "old" airframe and it's using "old" engines
I am led to believe that RR are internally targetting Trent 1000 (or 787) spec minus 4% for the Trent XWB SFC.
I don't know if that renders the GEnx "old" or not, but it's a not insignificant gap
Quoting Stitch (Reply 1): I also think GE just can't scale the GEnx to the levels needed to power the entire A350 range
Quoting Stitch (Reply 1): What intrigues me is can EA adapt the GP7200 for the A350? The fan diameter is within 2" of the Trent XWB and while the current GP7200 won't be competitive on an SFC basis with the Trent XWB, lightsaber believes EA has up to a 6% SFC reduction available and if they add contra-rotation, they can match the Trent XWB's SFC.
The only thing that I see as an issue here is that even at 118", RR are going to have to go to a new technology level on the 93k lb Trent XWB to achieve all of the characteristics, i.e. SFC, thrust, emissions etc.
I'm pretty sure EA could develop the GP7000 for the A350-800 and -900, but I'd question whether it's capable of being developed to 93k lb and still hit ALL of the spec parameters
scbriml From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2003, 11438 posts, RR: 50 Reply 8, posted (2 years 10 months 2 weeks 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 19682 times:
Quoting astuteman (Reply 7): I'm pretty sure EA could develop the GP7000 for the A350-800 and -900, but I'd question whether it's capable of being developed to 93k lb and still hit ALL of the spec parameters
It can't even be considered unless the EU drops the stipulation that EA engines can only be used on 4-holers. Given that it would be in Airbus' interest, I don't actually see there being much resistance - except maybe from RR!
astuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 9257 posts, RR: 96 Reply 10, posted (2 years 10 months 2 weeks 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 17067 times:
Quoting Stitch (Reply 9): True, but GE will be beating spec by a couple percent with PiP2 in 2013, so they should be close to the Trent XWB when the A350 enters service.
That's as maybe, but Airbus's "dismissal" of the GEnx would surely have been based on whatever GE were prepared to contract to at the time, not "might-have-beens" that have subsequently become manifest.
Of course there's no saying the Trent XWB won't beat it's figures by 2% a couple of years after EIS either..
In truth, though, I suspect it was the size limit that really put the nails in the coffin for the GEnx..
JoeCanuck From Canada, joined Dec 2005, 5123 posts, RR: 29 Reply 11, posted (2 years 10 months 2 weeks 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 16833 times:
It still baffles me why Airbus has been so staunch in demanding any engine producer make an engine to scale all three 350 models. I can see offering exclusivity on the -1000 because GE isn't keen on making an engine of the thrust required but they wouldn't have any issues with the -800 and -900. It seems to me like they are potentially shooting some sales in the foot.
I feel they would have garnered a few more sales of the smaller models had they not been so intransigent and offered another engine.
Still, I don't run a major airline producing company so my logic may be a bit flawed.
keesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 14, posted (2 years 10 months 2 weeks 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 13961 times:
Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 11): It still baffles me why Airbus has been so staunch in demanding any engine producer make an engine to scale all three 350 models.
Offering a new type without an engine that covers all models. And that baffles you? Has it ever happened before? What about commonality.
It think there's high pressure on GE to come up with a state of the art 80-90k lbs engine from
- Boeing (787-9HGW, 787-10, 777-200NNG),
- Airbus (A350-900R, -900F, -1000) and most important :
- a dozen of major GE loyal airlines,
- GE risk sharing engine shops and subcontractors.
- the competition, RR is having a field day with the Trent XWB and probably has proposed a XWB variant to Boeing already!
GE has lost hundreds of potential orders. No doubt there are 2 camps within GE and they have already started preliminairy studies for either a lighter modified GE-11X, an enlarged GENX or something new.
Eventually it is going to have to be "something new" but so far, that school of thought does not seem to be winning. Probably a look inside the GE finances would give a clue. But lack of a new engine probably means anything but inaction, just nothing to see - yet!
PM From India, joined Feb 2005, 6747 posts, RR: 65 Reply 16, posted (2 years 10 months 2 weeks 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 13560 times:
I'm actually going to break ranks and suggest that GE means what it says. To hell with the A350!
They are already No.1 by some margin. They are winning (so far) on the 787. They have the 777 sewn up. They have exclusivity on the 747 and EA is pulling ahead on the A380.
You can't with 'em all. The A350 is juicy and they've missed the boat (to mix my metaphors) but it's hardly a life-or-death issue.
...which it was - or at least more so - to RR.
RR has the A330 nailed but T700 sales can't last forever. RR have a solid 35% of the 787 but they're lagging behind GE. RR aren't on the 777 or 747 and, after an initial lead, the EY order for 10 and EK's continuing demand for A380s has handed EA the lead.
RR need a good, solid widebody application.
And just such an application - and a gold-plated one to boot - has dropped into their lap.
Ultimately, the A350 means more to RR than it does to GE. GE can afford to sit on their hands.
JoeCanuck From Canada, joined Dec 2005, 5123 posts, RR: 29 Reply 18, posted (2 years 10 months 2 weeks 2 days ago) and read 12883 times:
Quoting keesje (Reply 14): Offering a new type without an engine that covers all models. And that baffles you? Has it ever happened before? What about commonality.
On what airliner family, previous to the 350 has there been only one engine model offered where another engine met spec on some of the models?
So yah, when they could offer a GE engine to customers as an option to improve sales on the -900 and -800, they don't, that's baffling. These two models will be out long before the -1000 which is the stick in the mud and many airlines ordering the smaller models won't order the -1000, so commonality is meaningless.
Stitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 26949 posts, RR: 83 Reply 19, posted (2 years 10 months 2 weeks 2 days ago) and read 12872 times:
I could see where Airbus might fear an airline would buy the A350-800 / A350-900 with GE power and then eschew the A350-1000 (with RR power) for the 777-300ER because it would also have GE power and they might already operate the type, so it would be an incentive to continue to add more of the same rather then start adding the A350-1000.
scbriml From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2003, 11438 posts, RR: 50 Reply 20, posted (2 years 10 months 2 weeks 2 days ago) and read 12814 times:
Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 18): So yah, when they could offer a GE engine to customers as an option to improve sales on the -900 and -800, they don't, that's baffling.
Yet you still haven't offered any evidence to support this claim. Which airlines have purchased the 787 and not the A350 becuase there was no GE offering on the A350? See reply 13 - Airbus say they've never lost a sale because of a lack of engine choice.
Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 18): These two models will be out long before the -1000 which is the stick in the mud and many airlines ordering the smaller models won't order the -1000, so commonality is meaningless.
Engine commonality might not be an issue for an airline that only ordered one model. While it is true that airlines that have ordered the -800 and -900 might never order the -1000, the reverse is far less likely. Given that 75% of current -1000 customers have also ordered the smaller A350s, I suggest engine commonality across the entire range is far from meaningless.
To come somewhat back to topic, given that CX has 30 options AND the contractual option of switching some of the order to -1000s, do you think engine commonality wouldn't be an issue for them?
BoeingVista From Australia, joined Jan 2009, 1090 posts, RR: 2 Reply 22, posted (2 years 10 months 2 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 12462 times:
Quoting PM (Reply 16): RR need a good, solid widebody application.
And just such an application - and a gold-plated one to boot - has dropped into their lap.
Ultimately, the A350 means more to RR than it does to GE. GE can afford to sit on their hands.
Absolutly, at one time it looked like RR could be locked out of future widebodies, had to fight PW to get on the 787, locked out of the A350 for at least 3 years production, 772 business dead, not on 77L/W; but they were handed a lifeline when the original A350 project collapsed and they leapt at the second chance with the XWB, they would have been happy to fight GE to 50/50 but GE didn't come back for the fight, which was a huge win for RR.
As to GE being able to sit on their hands, presuming that GE secured exclusivity on the 748 the old fashioned way, ie by taking a risk sharing stske where does that leave GE if the program is in loss?
LAXDESI From United States of America, joined May 2005, 5085 posts, RR: 48 Reply 23, posted (2 years 10 months 2 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 12337 times:
The 772 NG(10 abreast, 330 seats), depending on the extent of change, may hold some promise as a competitor to A359(9 abreast, 314 seats). Another possibility is to stretch the 772 by about 8 feet, making it a 350 seat aircraft, with 773 NG at current length coming in at 400 seats.
My calculations suggest that 773 NG will do well against A350-1000 for long/dense routes.
However, the 787-9 could hold more potential to fill the role the 777-200ER holds, says the managing director of a lessor who has reviewed detailed dimensions of both aircraft. The leasing company says that the cabin lengths of both aircraft are nearly identical at around 49m (161ft), placing the 787-9 with nine-abreast seating and a range of 8,000-8,500nm (14,800-15,800km), nearly on par with the larger -200ER.
The backlog of 80-100klbs GE90s is non existant, it's gone.
I can't decide if you are agreeing with me or arguing with me!
Quoting keesje (Reply 21): 747? A few have been sold during the last 3 years, Boeings says the program is in a loss position.
"a loss position"? Perhaps, but the -8F will surely keep selling. As of today Boeing have sold 109 747-8s (all models) so that's 450+ GEnx engines with more to come. Don't tell me that isn't good business for GE. (At worst, GE will sell as many GEnx2s as RR sold Trent 500s and no-one suggests that RR lost money on that disappointingly short production run.)
Quoting keesje (Reply 21): The most interesting part now is that Boeing also needs a state of the art 90k lbs engine from GE now, to counter the A350-900 in whatever form.
I wonder what would happen if Boeing asked RR for such an engine, explicitly to challenge the A350...
Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 18): On what airliner family, previous to the 350 has there been only one engine model offered where another engine met spec on some of the models?
But you're missing the point, I think. The days when PW could hang JT9Ds under the wings of 747s and A310s (among others) and GE could do the same with the CF6 have gone.
Each application now really demands a bespoke engine. Even the GEnx1 and GEnx2 have significant differences. (And, yes, I know that there were different versions of the CF6 but much the same engine did (does) power very different airliners.)
GE does not have - and never did - an engine they could simply take off the shelf for the A350XWB. Even a GEnx (GEnx3?) for only the -800 and -900 would have required a fair bit of work.
So, at present, there is no "other engine [that meets] spec on some of the models".
25 JoeCanuck: It's not a claim of any sort If you read my previous post you would have read, among other things this; It's an opinion. I never said there still cou
26 PM: Well, the "result" so far is that Airbus have sold getting on for 600 A350s with no engine choice. How many more sales they might have had, we'll nev
27 BMI727: But how much compared to a 787-10? The -9 can already compete from the lower end, and I can't imagine being able to squeeze enough performance out of
28 keesje: Looking at what airlines said & decided in the last 5 years, I think it has to be the 787-10 iso a reengined 777. RR would have an engine "of the
29 LAXDESI: I agree that a 787 with capacity of 330 seats would have better economics than 772NG. Anything upto 370 seats, a 9 abreast platform should outperform
30 EA772LR: Excellent post PM and well summed up. I think those on here speaking of 'dire straits' for GE forget how successful GE still is and have been. The ex
31 Stitch: Gross orders for the family this year are looking pretty solid and the cancellations are due to GFC-related issues, not dissatisfaction with the fami
32 BMI727: Honestly I think that if Boeing passes up the 787-10 in favor of a 777-200NG just to save some money by having parallel development with the -300NG,
33 LAXDESI: Ideally, Boeing should do both 77W NG(400 seats) and 787-10(310-330 seats) concurrently, but lack of resources will dictate one before the other. I f
34 BMI727: If I were them, I would reverse that with the caveat of getting weight reductions and engine improvements on the 77W as soon as possible. I think tha
35 328JET: I believe, we will not see a B787-10 soon. It is more likely that Boeing is looking at a combined replacement for both the B77E and B77L first. An upd
36 BMI727: The problem with that is that a 787-10 and 777-200NG cover the same size segments (the 787-10 would be a bit bigger and the 787-9 a bit smaller) but
37 JoeCanuck: I'm of a similar mind. I think Boeing already has the 787-9 sneaking up on the 777-200 segment. It would probably take less time and effort to make a
38 BMI727: I think that we will see quite a few 777 operators choosing the 787-9, and some choosing the A359 and 787-10. I think that it is better for everybody
39 StickShaker: I also struggle to see how a 772NG would be competitive with the A359 or 787-10. The simple stretch 787-10 would be utilising the latest technologies
40 keesje: No, I think the combined777-200ER/LR backlog stands at ~35..
41 cosmofly: The best use of resources may be to do a 77W NG and a simple stretch 787-10. Such a -10 may trade range for capacity, but with the rising traffic in
42 BMI727: They could do a 787-10 as a straight stretch, but it would have to be done with the understanding that you would build it, sell 100 or so, and then b
43 328JET: Everybody here seems so enthusiastic about a possible B787-10X, but as far as i know, Boeing has not even decided IF it will be started or not. I am n
44 JoeCanuck: The same issues you mention also effect any aircraft of that weight class. Yes, it will be heavier than a -9 but would it be heavier than a 350-1000?
45 BMI727: The weight is coming down. Or just higher thrust versions of the current engines. So? Design a new wing. Possibly, but that isn't a deal breaker. Def
46 328JET: @ BMI727 Sorry, but most of your answers are speculations. And as nobody here can provide us with more technical details for a proposed B787-10X or B7
47 BMI727: As are yours. There is no way Boeing will have either by 2013. They will have the 787-9, which should be a bit more efficient than the A350-900 on sh
48 328JET: @ BMI727 The B789 is no real competitor to the A359, it is somewhere in the middle between the A358 and A359. Boeing should really hurry about a B77E
49 BMI727: It is, and I think it is close enough to compete with both. I disagree. I think some airlines that need capacity or more range will choose the A350,
50 sunrisevalley: Apparently you did not read or alternatively comprehend what I posted in Reply 264 of the first part of this thread. Based on what is known at this t
51 328JET: @ sunrisevalley I did not read your reply, but tell your argument to SIA and the other airlines which bought both the A359 and B789... Something in yo
52 BMI727: Or, SQ believes that there are some routes that need the extra capacity and some that don't. Plus, although the nominal ranges are nearly identical,
53 Stitch: Off the top of my head, I can think of the following 777-200ER operators who have ordered the 787-9, but not the A350-900, at this time include: NZ B
54 PM: Actually, ET have ordered the A350-900: 12 of them. Of course, for what it's worth, the number of 777-200xx customers who have ordered the A350-900 i
55 StickShaker: I would be a bit more optimistic than that - the 330 has won around 600 sales in recent years due to 787 delays and other issues so I think a straigh
56 BMI727: Capacity wise, the 787-9 might be a better fit for them than the A350, but their hot and high hub in Mexico City might make the A350 more attractive.
57 astuteman: I read that also. But I'd be a bit careful of reading too much into the numbers. They were generated a long time ago, and the aircraft configurations
58 Baroque: Yes but apart from that it would be a snip - Mrs Lincoln! And so pretty, much appreciated by Dachshund fanciers I imagine, just like the 346! New eng
59 JoeCanuck: I'm not sure why the engines would be a problem. Unless RR has an exclusivity agreement to only use the xwb engines on the xwb, there shouldn't be muc
60 sunrisevalley: True, but the known detail of the evolution is at the best , I thnk , sketchy. My understanding of PIANO X is that each type of aircraft in the data
61 Baroque: You might be forgetting a.net law #5, that A350 sales are s***house due to lack of engine choice! Joking aside, you would not be able just to bolt on
62 Stitch: To start, RR would need to make a bleedless model. Personally, a straight stretch 787-10 makes sense as an A330-300 and even 777-300 replacement. But
63 BMI727: I imagine that is exactly what customers are telling them. The decision is whether to do it with one model, which is cheaper, or do it in two models
64 WarpSpeed: How? With the -9 design having been firmed up just recently and years away from significant production, a -10 variant would be hard pressed to see EI