In two years, Airbus has signed 54 contracts for 1,864 A320neo-family aircraft. Each deal is another opportunity for a referendum on the different engine options. So far, the orders almost evenly split between the Leap-1A (35%), the PW1100G (31%) or a selection yet to be made (33%). The CFM option enjoys a clear lead on the smaller of the two variants, including by far the most popular version with the A320neo. P&W is the strong favourite so far on the A321neo, but the number of undecided customers remains strong enough on the A320neo and A321neo to easily tip the lead towards either side.
This on its own would suggest that the PW has favorable characteristics for the A321 and its missions, but is that the case or is it a statistical quirk that will change once the 33% of undecided customers decide?
The article also goes on to point out that airlines face a problem dealing with unknown future maintenance costs with either product, either with PW the unknown cost of maintaining the additional gearing, and with CFM the unknown cost of how durable the new CMC materials will be and the fact that they are using an additional turbine stage that will increase maintenance costs.
It mentions that P&W has recently received Transport Canada certification for a smaller variant of the PW1100G which powers the Bombardier CSeries. Has this resulted in any data that could help us figure out if the PW1100G is meeting its performance targets?
Edit to add that I like the idea that Airbus is adding what I think is "disruptive technology" to the market with the PW GTF. It's not clear if this the reason why RR sold its share of IAE to PW and is now partnering with PW on some future GTF type projects, but still, it's mighty disruptive, especially if the GTF ends up with better performance on the 'neo' than the LeapX.
lightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 14052 posts, RR: 100
Reply 1, posted (2 years 2 months 1 week 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 10424 times:
Quoting Revelation (Thread starter): Has this resulted in any data that could help us figure out if the PW1100G is meeting its performance targets?
Pratt has hinted they're doing 3% better than promise. The NEO engine has a higher pressure ratio and the variable fan nozzle which will both improve TSFC.
But don't write off the GE. I'm a Pratt fan and twice as much a GTF fan. I think the GTF is disruptive technology (I worked on it a decade ago), but that doesn't mean GE doesn't have some of the same in terms of several technologoes:
1. The CMC high turbine. A risk, but that has been a goal of gas turbines since the 1980s...
2. A series of other improvements that improve fuel burn (scalloped compressor).
Quoting Revelation (Thread starter): I like the idea that Airbus is adding what I think is "disruptive technology" to the market with the PW GTF.
Airbus adding? The GTF is on the:
strfyr51 From United States of America, joined Apr 2012, 1861 posts, RR: 1
Reply 2, posted (2 years 2 months 1 week 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 9681 times:
The Gearing for the turbofan is right behind the fan disk and will allow the gearbox can be repaired or replaced without removing the engine. The gearing is same principle as Pratt's PW120 series Turboprop engines and a variation of the Rolls T56 engine. It remains to be seen whether the maintenance costs and repair costs are lower as the engine yet in commercial service. but with a Bypass of 12:1?? what's pretty hard to BEAT if it's efficient as they claim. What remains to be seen is whether Pratt up gages the GTF to Large airframe Installation as they have a number of very excellent Cores to draw from in their Fighter engines. and even the PW 2000 and 4000 series cores, This will get interesting pretty quickly.
GE is trying to reduce the weight 1,000lbm, which should give them the advantage, but Pratt will reduce weight to stay competitive. But the LEAP's low turbine has a tremendous number of stages which is going to make it tough to reduce down to the PW1400G's weight.
The LEAP-X and PW1400G had to promise the same fuel burn to enter onto the NEO. Pratt is attempting to beat promise. So is GE.
Quoting strfyr51 (Reply 2): What remains to be seen is whether Pratt up gages the GTF to Large airframe Installation
Pratt recently has started dropping hints the next GTF family will have a gear ratio of 4.5:1 (up from 3:1 of the current GTFs). The only reason to do so is for a larger/slower fan with a tremendous bypass ratio. That only makes economic sense on a widebody. But it also implies Pratt is 3 years from announcing an engine and thus 7 to 10 from entry into service.
GTF cores scale well to non-geared twin spools, but dedicated twin spool cores are not ready for the compressor pattern factor a GTF produces nor the end of climb heat put onto the high turbine. Those cores are out of date anyway. They would burn another 5% more fuel. Pratt would design a custom core with MTU doing quite a bit on the compressors.
PW100 From Netherlands, joined Jan 2002, 2801 posts, RR: 17
Reply 5, posted (2 years 2 months 1 week 2 days ago) and read 8687 times:
Quoting lightsaber (Reply 1): The CMC high turbine. A risk, but that has been a goal of gas turbines since the 1980s...
I'm very much intrigued by the CMC. However I'm quite sceptical on CMC rotating HP Blades. As I understand it, GE expects to have CMC HP Shrouds ready for LeapX, but I'm not seeing anything on the Blades. Given the relative huge increase in ITT, they will also have to something on the Blades. That is the real holy grail . . . do you have any insight to share?
Not quite correct. The PW120 (and every PW100 series, including PW150A for that matter), has a relatively simple and straight forward two stage Reduction Gearbox (RGB), with stage 1 having around 5:1 reduction, and stage 2 around 3:1, combing in around 16:1 total reduction. The Power Turbine spins at 20000 rpm, with the RGB output (= prop rpm) at 1050 - 1200 rpm.
The GTF will have a single stage planetary system, pretty much like a PT6A reduction gearbox.
Immigration officer: "What's the purpose of your visit to the USA?" Spotter: "Shooting airliners with my Canon!"
Revelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 13697 posts, RR: 25
Reply 8, posted (2 years 2 months 1 week 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 7502 times:
Quoting lightsaber (Reply 1): Quoting Revelation (Thread starter):
I like the idea that Airbus is adding what I think is "disruptive technology" to the market with the PW GTF.
I think the disruption will be felt most keenly in the A320 market as opposed to the others, especially given the dollar value of that market. Look what we've already seen, RR selling off its share of IAE and not having any skin in the narrowbody game, Airbus bringing the NEO to market years earlier and forcing Boeing's hand on the MAX, CFM having to come up with a competitive answer years earlier than they would have liked to thus taking on more risk than they would like to, etc. The other markets are important but in my mind they are precursors to the big shootout over the narrowbody market, IMHO.
If Pratt should over-deliver and CFM should under-deliver in terms of efficiency and maintenance costs, there could be even more disruption.
Lufthansa From Christmas Island, joined May 1999, 3246 posts, RR: 10
Reply 9, posted (2 years 2 months 1 week 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 6755 times:
Quoting Revelation (Reply 8): f Pratt should over-deliver and CFM should under-deliver in terms of efficiency and maintenance costs, there could be even more disruption.
Good time to make the popcorn!
I'm waiting for this too! Now if pratt succeed (fingers crossed) and manage to significantly outperform the CFM engine
it's going to be ganbusters time for the A320. I'd look for both the US and chinese lines to be expanded in that case. It does sound like CFM are taking the risker option technology wise?