Enginefan From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2013, 4 posts, RR: 0 Posted (2 years 9 months 1 week 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 3927 times:
Having "lurked" on Airliners.net for many years and have (usually!) been very impressed by the standard of discussion - and have expanded my understanding of the airline/airliner industry very significantly as a result - I noticed that no-one has picked up on this and thought it was significant - hence a first post:
"Pratt & Whitney unit said it remains committed to developing a version of its newest engine for wide-body jets even after opting not to compete on Boeing Co.’s latest 777 model".
it appears that PW have opted out of the 777X competition - is this a resource issue for PW in that they are currently developing GFTs for a number of small/med frames or is it a size issue: that the scale up to 100k from the current contracted max for the GTF (I believe c 35k) is too big a step to be realistic in the development time frame?
As this leaves the field clear for GE and RR, will Boeing go for both or will they take the single supplier route? (presumably GE as RR are already on the competition...)
Stitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 33437 posts, RR: 85
Reply 2, posted (2 years 9 months 1 week 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 3871 times:
Pratt says they can scale the GTF to 100,000 pounds of thrust, but I don't believe they could get such an engine ready in time for the 777X.
Boeing might want to sole-source the engine contract depending on how many they think they can sell, which would ensure a GE win (since GE is on the LR777 family), but if also having a Rolls-Royce offering wins them orders they wouldn't get, then I think they'd go both.
817Dreamliiner From Montserrat, joined Jul 2008, 3136 posts, RR: 2
Reply 3, posted (2 years 9 months 1 week 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 3846 times:
At the moment it seems GE and RR are the only ones who have anything to offer for the 777X in the 100K thrust range. I think PW needs to develop something in the 50-80K thurst range with the GTF before they tackle the 100K range, I think its too big a leap from their current 35K range. Im not saying it wont happen, just not right now...
Enginefan From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2013, 4 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (2 years 9 months 1 week 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 3686 times:
It seems that PW are trying to re-invent themselves from the ground up with the GTF - starting small etc. I guess they need to "prove" the GTF in a 30k application before anyone will commit to a big GTF. The problem I see is that the offerings from Airbus and Boeing in the size range mean that the new five "big engine" applications (A380, A350, B787, B747 and B777X) have now been fixed without PW and there is now little on the horizon until post 2020+. Good for RR and GE though.
scbriml From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2003, 14421 posts, RR: 45
Reply 5, posted (2 years 9 months 1 week 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 3636 times:
Personally, I don't see that RR's position on the A350 will make any difference to Boeing. If Boeing does go for a single engine supplier, I'm sure they'll chose whichever offering they think is the best one for their plane.
[Edited 2013-02-19 15:02:42]
[Edited 2013-02-19 15:03:11]
Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana!
SCAT15F From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 402 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (2 years 9 months 1 week 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 3371 times:
I am really hoping this is a dual source contract, as I would like to see the Rolls Royce RB3025 on the 777X. From what I have been reading, the RB3025 has a larger Fan than the GE9X (132.5" in vs 128-129") and is aiming for slightly higher efficiency (12% vs 10%). Its also got a really good head start with the Trent XWB, which technology wise is ahead of the GEnx, whereas GE is going from the GEnx right to the GE9X... Seems to me that the RB3025 has the edge, at least performance-potential wise at this point.
Plus, it would be nice to see another triple shaft engine on the 777 again...