United Airline From Hong Kong, joined Jan 2001, 9292 posts, RR: 14 Posted (12 years 1 week 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 3186 times:
According to Flight International, Boeing plans to build the B 747-800, which is 50 seats more than the current B 747-400. Also, earlier they stated that they want to build the B 747-400QLR. There are some airlines that are interested.
Who will power these new proposed B 747s? Pratt and Whitney, Rolls Royce, GE all three???????? Just like the B 747-400?
Aloges From Germany, joined Jan 2006, 8956 posts, RR: 41
Reply 1, posted (12 years 1 week 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 3108 times:
Does QLR mean Quiet Long Range?
Anyway, I assume that not "all three" will place high bets on the 747 programme for much longer, meaning that they will hardly develop entirely new engines for that aircraft. New Trent derivatives instead of the RB211 might however be viable, for example.
Walk together, talk together all ye peoples of the earth. Then, and only then, shall ye have peace.
MD-11 forever From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (12 years 1 week 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 3078 times:
"New Trent derivatives instead of the RB211 might however be viable, for example."
I'm sure that Rolls still has the drawings for the Trent600 (was planned for the 747 X or whatever the designator was) in the drawer, ready to pull them out when there's a need for a new 747 engine.....
B747Skipper From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (12 years 1 week 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 2952 times:
Likely that the new generation 747s (if any) will still be powered with derivatives of current JT9, CF6 or RB211 type engines, these all have potential of thrust well into (I think) some 65,000 lbs thrust ratings, to power 747s into or near 1 million lbs (450 metric tons) takeoff weights... and they are proven engine technology...
...five derivatives proposed in 2 years, and yet the pax model line is still going nowhere.
While I think there is some bastion of hope remaining for the pax-747 (i.e., Boeing waiting for the A388 to take flight and then reacting to its weaknesses); it seems Boeing has lost the affection they once had for the 747.
AussiePete From Australia, joined May 2003, 72 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (12 years 1 week 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 2721 times:
With the demand for 744 Pax variants reducing (the 777 offers much of what a 744 offered 10 years ago) there are doubts that the costs of offering numerous engine types is viable. The 744SQLR involved many changes to wing, strut and nacelles and was offered (I believe) only with GE power (sole source). Given the current split of orders/deliveries for 744 pax and to some extent F GE is leading the way. For this sort of airplane program some rationalisation is inevitable so I would expect GE to be sole source on future variants until a customer comes along who is willing to back orders for other engine types (say for example NWA ordered many airplanes with PW).
Looking at A380 and its weight issues, its low speed (to make range and payload targets), and its less than target overall performance (recognising there is still time to go) future variants of the 744 platform may become more attractive. Time will tell.
DfwRevolution From United States of America, joined Jan 2010, 1053 posts, RR: 51
Reply 11, posted (10 years 9 months 4 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 2393 times:
At Aircraft info i saw that there will be 2 engines available for A380: The RR and the Engine Alliance PW+GE. Is this only for the A380 or also for boeing in the future?
The Engine Alliance GP7000 can be used for 747 derrivatives and the A380 only. That was the cachet of the EU agreement for the General Electric/Pratt Whittney partnership. Boeing wanted to use the GP7000 for the 767-400ERX, but after the concept was dropped, Boeing stopped lobying for its use in this way.
Or maybe a new Russian engine could be given a chance?
Nope, not a snowball's chance in hell. Perm and others build some decent engines, but I doubt they could throw their best against the might of GE or Rolls Royce. Where would they have maintenance bases, where is their support infastructure, how would they distribute spares?
Looking at A380 and its weight issues, its low speed (to make range and payload targets), and its less than target overall performance (recognising there is still time to go) future variants of the 744 platform may become more attractive
A direct 1:1 or slight growth of the 744 might please many of the airlines who are hesitant to replace a 744 with another 744 and are worried about the risk of moving up to the A380-800. Also, a 747-Adv would look much better (on paper) than a A380-700.
Klaus From Germany, joined Jul 2001, 21592 posts, RR: 53
Reply 14, posted (10 years 9 months 4 weeks ago) and read 2216 times:
HAWK21M: Why 747-800 & not call it 747-500.Any reason.
The -500 and -600 were "burned" by the earlier failed proposals. I´m not certain, but I guess that the XQLR was supposed to be the -700, so that one was consumed as well.
Airbus probably won´t use the A330-500, as it was the proposed version number of the (earlier) proposed short-range derivative as far as I know. So a new potential counter-proposal to be pitched against the 7E7 would probably have to get a different number if it would still be declared a member of the A330 family...