sebring
Posts: 1319
Joined: Sat Jul 24, 2004 12:08 am

Bombardier CSeries Has Its Engine: PW

Mon Nov 12, 2007 9:22 pm

Although PW has seemed like the only choice for a long time, it's now seemingly official.

http://money.canoe.ca/News/Sectors/I...strials/2007/09/21/4516270-cp.html
 
KELPkid
Posts: 5247
Joined: Wed Nov 02, 2005 5:33 am

RE: Bombardier CSeries Has Its Engine: PW

Tue Nov 13, 2007 1:26 am

What's up with P&W GTF's now being the engine selection on not only one, but two Regional Jet projects? I thought P&W was holding out for the likes of Boeing and Airbus...I'm suprised the big airframers didn't demand exclusivity on the engine.

The C-series will be capable at eroding the bottom end market share of the B737NG, won't it (110 seats, a few smaller than the 736...).

[Edited 2007-11-12 17:28:31]
Celebrating the birth of KELPkidJR on August 5, 2009 :-)
 
centrair
Posts: 2845
Joined: Thu Jan 13, 2005 3:44 pm

RE: Bombardier CSeries Has Its Engine: PW

Tue Nov 13, 2007 3:38 am

This makes me think that NW might just use some of those options they have to get some of these babies.
Yes...I am not a KIX fan. Let's Japanese Aviation!
 
tdscanuck
Posts: 8572
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 7:25 am

RE: Bombardier CSeries Has Its Engine: PW

Tue Nov 13, 2007 4:17 am



Quoting KELPkid (Reply 1):
I thought P&W was holding out for the likes of Boeing and Airbus...I'm suprised the big airframers didn't demand exclusivity on the engine.

Why would an engine company grant exclusivity in such a huge market? In this regard, the engine makers hold all the cards.

Quoting KELPkid (Reply 1):
The C-series will be capable at eroding the bottom end market share of the B737NG, won't it (110 seats, a few smaller than the 736...).

Technically, yes, but the 737-600 was never all that popular and Boeing doesn't even list it in their current production models anymore (although I think you could still order one if you wanted to). Boeing has apparently ceded the 100-110 seat market.

Tom.
 
JoeCanuck
Posts: 3939
Joined: Mon Dec 19, 2005 3:30 am

RE: Bombardier CSeries Has Its Engine: PW

Tue Nov 13, 2007 4:54 am

In my mind, this works out just fine for both Airbus and Boeing. With a couple of airframe makers going with the GTF, it gives Pratt incentive to keep proving and improving the design. Airbus and Boeing will be needing engines for their 320/737 replacements.

I think the big dogs are busy enough without worrying about the sub 130 seat market.
What the...?
 
LH452
Posts: 19
Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2007 5:20 pm

RE: Bombardier CSeries Has Its Engine: PW

Tue Nov 13, 2007 5:22 am



Quoting KELPkid (Reply 1):
The C-series will be capable at eroding the bottom end market share of the B737NG, won't it (110 seats, a few smaller than the 736...).

The aircraft will apparently have stretch capability up to 149 pax so it will dent more than than the 737-600. Looks like something that Airbus and Boeing have to consider.
 
JoeCanuck
Posts: 3939
Joined: Mon Dec 19, 2005 3:30 am

RE: Bombardier CSeries Has Its Engine: PW

Tue Nov 13, 2007 5:35 am



Quoting LH452 (Reply 5):

The aircraft will apparently have stretch capability up to 149 pax so it will dent more than than the 737-600. Looks like something that Airbus and Boeing have to consider.

Maybe in the long run but considering EIS is forecast for 5 or so years away, and that's just for the smaller models, I think they have some breathing room.
What the...?
 
User avatar
PanAm_DC10
Crew
Posts: 3795
Joined: Wed Aug 23, 2000 7:37 am

RE: Bombardier CSeries Has Its Engine: PW

Tue Nov 13, 2007 6:08 am

This is indeed official and does warrant it's own thread, here is some more information;

Dubai 2007: Bombardier opts for geared turbofan for CSeries

Bombardier Aerospace is now working exclusively with Pratt & Whitney to offer the geared turbo fan (GTF) engine on its CSeries regional jet, says Gary Scott, president of new commercial aircraft programs for the Canadian airframer.

Bombardier intends to launch its CSeries aircraft in 2008 for an entry in to service in 2013. The P&W GTF is expected to feature a max thrust rating of 23,300lb to give the CSeries a range of up to 2,300nm.

Bombardier believes the GTF powerplant will offer an estimated 20% better fuel burn than the narrowbody aircraft it hopes to replace. The CSeries is being designed as a replacement for aging aircraft like the 737 classic, DC-9, MD-80, BAe-146 and Fokker 100.


http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...-opts-for-geared-turbofan-for.html

A link to the Bombardier Website

Finally, a link into the Official Dubai 2007 Airshow: Engine Thread

Thank you
Ask the impossible to achieve the best possible
 
crj200faguy
Posts: 180
Joined: Wed May 30, 2007 12:07 pm

RE: Bombardier CSeries Has Its Engine: PW

Tue Nov 13, 2007 6:27 am

Isn't Bombardier a little late to the dance with this airplane? Or will it be for the people who just don't want to wait their turn to get the jungle jets?
 
VonRichtofen
Posts: 4260
Joined: Sun Nov 05, 2000 3:10 am

RE: Bombardier CSeries Has Its Engine: PW

Tue Nov 13, 2007 6:37 am

Pardon my ignorance but what is the difference between a geared turbo fan vs. a conventional turbo fan engine?


Kris
 
JoeCanuck
Posts: 3939
Joined: Mon Dec 19, 2005 3:30 am

RE: Bombardier CSeries Has Its Engine: PW

Tue Nov 13, 2007 6:46 am

Some might think it's the other way around; EMB might be late moving up to 5 abreast. No one manufacturer can fill all the demand so there's probably room for different options.

All BBD needs is a couple of current customers, (NWA, LH, for example), to make it all worthwhile. Since their CRJ is still selling, all it needs is a few CRJ options to turn into C-series orders. I'm sure someone would get a pretty good deal as launch customer.

Still, it's not officially launched yet but having an engine option should make the task easier.
What the...?
 
KELPkid
Posts: 5247
Joined: Wed Nov 02, 2005 5:33 am

RE: Bombardier CSeries Has Its Engine: PW

Tue Nov 13, 2007 7:01 am



Quoting VonRichtofen (Reply 9):
Pardon my ignorance but what is the difference between a geared turbo fan vs. a conventional turbo fan engine?


Kris

A GTF uses a gear box/gear reduction to optimize the speed of the fan section for the speed that the core is turning. In a conventional high bypass turbofan engine, the fan section is turning at the same speed as the last turbine blade in the power section of the engine, because the two are usually directly connected to each other  Smile
Celebrating the birth of KELPkidJR on August 5, 2009 :-)
 
parapente
Posts: 1278
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2006 10:42 pm

RE: Bombardier CSeries Has Its Engine: PW

Tue Nov 13, 2007 1:22 pm

I believe that these developments are quite significant. Both Boeing and Airbus are- I believe very happy with the present status quo vis a vis 737/A320. They are in a duopoly position that they are both comfortable with.
It is acting as a roadblock to progress.

If this GTF really does offer a 12% reduction in fuel burn (as they claim) and that the "new" airframe adds (what) say 5% plus?
then you are beginning to have a "game changer" . One that would attract quite a few airliners.Indeed if you wanted a short haul aircraft and wanted to look "Green" (who doesn't) -then its a "must buy". One hopes it will kick start some real work on the short haul replacements that are so necessary.

I feel that P&W have had a raw deal recently.

Boeing and GE are acting like one company these days. Exclusive (plus investment) on the 747-8. Exclusive (plus investment) on the 777 (200lr/300er) (which is to all purposes the whole 777 line.)
Exlusive (with Snemca) on the 737 range. Half (60%?) on the 787.

Boeing "said" that the GTF was "too much risk" on the 787. But then chose TWO safe bets. Why not one "safe" and one "Risk?" Indeed since (at that time) it was only going to take 30 minutes to change an engine - then why not 3 suppliers -it was fine in the past,wasn't it. -I will tell you why.

Because GE did not want them there,thats why. With Rolls they had a safe known quantity and would give up a minority share of a huge market. But what if a GTF was allowed on and it offered 12% fuel savings!! OR just say an extra 5%. They would have the whole market before you could blink. Too much of a risk to Boeings business bedfellows methinks!!
 
columba
Posts: 5043
Joined: Fri Dec 10, 2004 10:12 pm

RE: Bombardier CSeries Has Its Engine: PW

Tue Nov 13, 2007 1:27 pm



Quoting Centrair (Reply 2):
This makes me think that NW might just use some of those options they have to get some of these babies.



Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 10):
All BBD needs is a couple of current customers, (NWA, LH, for example)

I absolutely think that LH and NW will be launch customers.
It will forever be a McDonnell Douglas MD 80 , Boeing MD 80 sounds so wrong
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 13757
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

RE: Bombardier CSeries Has Its Engine: PW

Tue Nov 13, 2007 1:56 pm



Quoting CRJ200FAGuy (Reply 8):
Isn't Bombardier a little late to the dance with this airplane? Or will it be for the people who just don't want to wait their turn to get the jungle jets?

This plane is bigger than the current Jungle Jets. This plane is aimed squarely at the DC9/MD80 replacement market. Think of NW/DL/AA who are running hundreds of these, with engines that are at least 2-3 generations older than the PW GTF. It won't be that hard a sell.

Quoting Parapente (Reply 12):
If this GTF really does offer a 12% reduction in fuel burn (as they claim) and that the "new" airframe adds (what) say 5% plus? then you are beginning to have a "game changer" . One that would attract quite a few airliners.Indeed if you wanted a short haul aircraft and wanted to look "Green" (who doesn't) -then its a "must buy". One hopes it will kick start some real work on the short haul replacements that are so necessary.

 checkmark 

And I think that 12% is relative to CFM56 era engines, not older engines like JT9D etc.

And I think both A and B are a bit 'distracted' right now, and may not want to launch a plane small enough to compete with this one. Boeing might be a bit 'put off' with their experience on the 717.

Quoting Parapente (Reply 12):
Boeing "said" that the GTF was "too much risk" on the 787. But then chose TWO safe bets. Why not one "safe" and one "Risk?" Indeed since (at that time) it was only going to take 30 minutes to change an engine - then why not 3 suppliers -it was fine in the past,wasn't it. -I will tell you why.

Boeing doesn't need to accept risks to succede, whereas vendors trying to break into the market, such as Bombardier and Mitsubishi, do.

Quoting Columba (Reply 13):
I absolutely think that LH and NW will be launch customers.

 checkmark 

Now, it's time for PW to hit the targets on the GTF program.
Inspiration, move me brightly!
 
parapente
Posts: 1278
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2006 10:42 pm

RE: Bombardier CSeries Has Its Engine: PW

Tue Nov 13, 2007 2:38 pm

I really ,really ,hope this (these Mitsubishi ) initive works for all parties. Working out "planitary" gearing must have been one hell of a task for P&W they deserve success for going where others feared to tread. I also believe it will force the hands of other engine makers.


If anybody out there is reading this (probably not) I do have a question. P7W are part of the Engine Alliance. RR have not indicated any interest so far (GTF) but to my simplistic way of thinking -they should (so where have I got this wrong).

RR do tripple spool turbines.The LP thus turns at a slower (more optimal) speed. However this is still faster than the optimal speed of the Fan.The Planetary gear systen effectively is a reduction gear driven off the LP. Now (as I understand it) .It is the loading on the gearbox that is the real trouble (the loading/tourque) being enormous on a jet engine. Since the LP on a tripple spool is lower the force majeur the loading would be lower. Thus RR's technology and P&W's are complimentary -I would have thought. But it seems not -why?
 
CRJ900
Posts: 1937
Joined: Wed Jun 02, 2004 2:48 am

RE: Bombardier CSeries Has Its Engine: PW

Tue Nov 13, 2007 4:48 pm

FlightGlobal writes that the GTF will also power the Mitsubishi RJ with 14,000-17,000lbs of thrust... Could Bombardier slap that engine on the CRJ900 and CRJ1000 as well to offer more commonality between the CRJ and CSeries?
Come, fly the prevailing winds with me
 
Devilfish
Posts: 5181
Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2006 7:52 am

RE: Bombardier CSeries Has Its Engine: PW

Tue Nov 13, 2007 5:03 pm

P&W confirms work for the CSeries.....

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...red-turbofan-to-power-cseries.html

Quote:
" 'We have reached agreement on the technical and business terms,' confirms Tom Pelland, P&W’s director, next generation products.

The GTF has already been selected to power the Mitsubishi Regional Jet, with a launch decision expected at the end of March 2008. The 70/90-seat MRJ is also scheduled to enter service in 2013.

For the CSeries, the GTF will be rated at 23,000lb thrust (102kN), compared with 14,000-17,000lb on the smaller MRJ. Both versions will use a new advanced core, 'photographically scaled up' for the larger CSeries, says Pelland."
"Everyone is entitled to my opinion." - Garfield
 
Molykote
Posts: 1237
Joined: Tue Aug 23, 2005 8:21 pm

RE: Bombardier CSeries Has Its Engine: PW

Tue Nov 13, 2007 8:42 pm



Quoting Parapente (Reply 15):
RR do tripple spool turbines.The LP thus turns at a slower (more optimal) speed. However this is still faster than the optimal speed of the Fan.The Planetary gear systen effectively is a reduction gear driven off the LP. Now (as I understand it) .It is the loading on the gearbox that is the real trouble (the loading/tourque) being enormous on a jet engine.

My understanding was that the LP spool speed compromise is biased toward the fan. What I am trying to say is that the fan speed is more or less "fine". It's the LPT speed that will benefit from running faster for a given fan speed.

I've been awake for 25 hours so I'll check on this thread later.
Speedtape - The aspirin of aviation!
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Crew
Posts: 11737
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

RE: Bombardier CSeries Has Its Engine: PW

Wed Nov 14, 2007 12:54 am



Quoting KELPkid (Reply 1):
What's up with P&W GTF's now being the engine selection on not only one, but two Regional Jet projects?

Lightsaber is happy!  hyper 

Ok, I'm trying to find out more. The issue of both of them using related cores is a non-issue. Pratt couldn't develop two commercial cores independently of each other. The software Pratt has will allow them to size the cores easily. Its really a plug in the desired thrust and growth thrust and 'poof', basic engine shape has already been engineered.

The fact that the two engines will have slightly different low spools makes sense. Oh, IBR and a few other tricks will be common (I'm not sure on the LPC, but the HPC). But this will give two new aircraft with coast to coast range and quite eye opening economics. (Note: The Mitsubishi will have to "grow into" its high MTOW version. Don't expect to see coast to coast MRJ's before ~2016)

Quoting Parapente (Reply 15):
Working out "planitary" gearing must have been one hell of a task for P&W they deserve success for going where others feared to tread.

They've only been working on this for 15 plus years...  Wink

Seriously though, Pratt cannot get arrogant. RR isn't that far behind them. I'm not sure how this happened, but RR has been shopping GTF's in the 25k to 35k range a bit. They aren't as ready as Pratt, per my sources, but they are doing some of the fundamental research.

Pratt had to destroy quite a few gearboxes before they could prove they could find the failure modes.  spin 


Lightsaber

Quoting PanAm_DC10 (Reply 7):

Bombardier believes the GTF powerplant will offer an estimated 20% better fuel burn than the narrowbody aircraft it hopes to replace.

Compared to the CF-34, these GTF's have a relatively easy market to enter. And yes, I'm well aware of the CF34-10.  Wink

Quoting CRJ200FAGuy (Reply 8):
Or will it be for the people who just don't want to wait their turn to get the jungle jets?

 rotfl  No. The E-jets simply do not have the range to compete with these two new products. Nor will they have the fuel efficiency. If you've followed my posts in the E-jet threads you will note that I've been very excited by the E-jets, but not their engines.  Sad That is a weak point in their design (high fuel burn compared to what could have been done). Yes, the E-jets made their choice based on time to market. Not a bad decision; but now that they cannot meet demand in their size segment, they left the market door wide open.

Quoting VonRichtofen (Reply 9):
Pardon my ignorance but what is the difference between a geared turbo fan vs. a conventional turbo fan engine?

I'll explain in a little more technical terms.

In a normal engine, even a triple spool, the fan is being turned too fast (high Mach number, you can think RPM) than is optimal. Why? The turbine powering it is turning far to slow for its optimum efficiency too. Solution? Put a fixed gearbox between the two (about a 3:1 gear ratio, I'll have to find out what these engines are being built at though). Now think about the low pressure compressor (LPC). Its turning too slow also (a smaller diameter means that the blade mach numbers are far lower then that seen by the fan). Also, recall the fan heats the air going to the LPC. RR simplified the problem by putting the LPC on its own turbine and viola! Easy fuel efficiency. Well the GTF does that without the added bearing but with the complication of the gearbox. Expect a 8% to 12% drop in fuel burn versus a twin spool. Maybe 5% to 8% versus a triple spool.

Quoting Parapente (Reply 12):
then you are beginning to have a "game changer" .

Yes, the GTF is a game changer. Once they are proven, you won't see another engine that isn't a GTF... until the next great concept.  bigthumbsup 

Quoting DEVILFISH (Reply 17):
Both versions will use a new advanced core, 'photographically scaled up' for the larger CSeries, says Pelland."

Its a little more than that... but in layman's terms, its an ok way to describe it.  Wink

I'm going to have to find out the LPC differences. I expect to see another compressor row on the 23k versus the 17k... but I cannot confirm. I was blindsided that Pratt was going to launch two GTF's in parallel! Wow!  wideeyed 

Quoting Revelation (Reply 14):
And I think that 12% is relative to CFM56 era engines

8% to 11% for the GTF. (Most likely at the 8% side for these first generation examples.) But also, there are other technologies going into these engines.

Do you know what I cannot find out, will these engines be counter-rotating or not? I'd assume counter-rotating spools, but my sources have NDA's and I cannot find any link. That's another 2% or 3% drop in fuel burn compared to the CFM-56.

Also add an "Integrated blade rotor" (IBR) High pressure compressor (HPC). We'll see a weight reduction and another ~2% drop in fuel burn there.

As someone who knows GTF's, what's not being said is driving me nuts!  hissyfit 
Which of my buddies pre-diffuser designs was selected?
What's the turbine material? (I mean exactly what alloy.)
LPC construction? (IBR or "old school") Number of LPC stages? Core to core variation?

And most importantly, will any of the Pratt projects that Lightsaber worked on be incorporated in these designs? I have reason to believe one of my contact's patents is going to be implemented.  Wink Are Lightsaber's design spreadsheets still in use at Pratt (or some evolved version)?

Most of the above is so deep in the NDA, I won't be told. But I'm so curious!  hyper 

From Devilfish's link:

Quote:
The company plans around 100h of ground runs leading up to flight tests on its Boeing 747 engine testbed. These are scheduled to begin in May 2008, and around 100h of flight tests are planned, he says.

So its not like Pratt won't have flying hours in early to optimize the design.

As I find out more, I'll share. But be warned, I'll also be telling you why the two engines vary from one to the other. In technical speak  spin 

Congrats to Pratt on these two wins!  praise 
To my Pratt contacts, I'll be buying drinks.  spit  hee hee hee...

Got popcorn?
Neil
"They did not know it was impossible, so they did it!" - Mark Twain
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 13757
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

RE: Bombardier CSeries Has Its Engine: PW

Wed Nov 14, 2007 1:25 am



Quoting Parapente (Reply 15):
The company plans around 100h of ground runs leading up to flight tests on its Boeing 747 engine testbed.

The 28k thrust GTF demonstration engine flying this spring - awesome!

Quoting Lightsaber (Reply 19):
As I find out more, I'll share. But be warned, I'll also be telling you why the two engines vary from one to the other. In technical speak

Thanks! I've enjoyed following along to the best of my abilities. I've learned an awful lot so far. Not too bad for a BSEE/MSCS who suffered greatly through a year of statics and dynamics and avoided thermodynamics like the plague. Your explaination of GTF above is great.

I did some googling on "Integrated blade rotor" and didn't really come up with anything. I presume it is just what it suggests, blades and rotors made in one piece instead of having to attach blades to the rotors?
Inspiration, move me brightly!
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 22937
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: Bombardier CSeries Has Its Engine: PW

Wed Nov 14, 2007 2:09 am



Quoting LH452 (Reply 5):
The aircraft will apparently have stretch capability up to 149 pax so it will dent more than than the 737-600. Looks like something that Airbus and Boeing have to consider.



Quoting Revelation (Reply 14):
This plane is bigger than the current Jungle Jets. This plane is aimed squarely at the DC9/MD80 replacement market. Think of NW/DL/AA who are running hundreds of these, with engines that are at least 2-3 generations older than the PW GTF. It won't be that hard a sell.

This was my thought exactly. For airlines like NW and AA holding on to their smaller DC-9s and MD-8xs because the 737-700 is too big might find the C-100's 2+3 seating to be just right.

Quoting Parapente (Reply 12):
Boeing "said" that the GTF was "too much risk" on the 787. But then chose TWO safe bets. Why not one "safe" and one "risk?" Indeed since (at that time) it was only going to take 30 minutes to change an engine - then why not 3 suppliers -it was fine in the past, wasn't it. -I will tell you why.

Because GE did not want them there,thats why. With Rolls they had a safe known quantity and would give up a minority share of a huge market. But what if a GTF was allowed on and it offered 12% fuel savings!! OR just say an extra 5%. They would have the whole market before you could blink. Too much of a risk to Boeing's business bedfellows methinks!!

A few points:

  • If Boeing could improve the fuel efficiency of the 787 by another 10% using a GTF you can bet your bum they would have bought P&W away from UT if that is what it took to get those engines on the plane because we'd be looking at 1700 sales now, not 700. That being said...
  • It is one thing to build a GTF with 20k thrust. It's another to build one with 80k.
  • As Lightsaber noted, it took P&W 15 years just to get where they are today with a "low power" unit. To think they could scale that by a factor of four in as many years strikes me as beyond wishful thinking...
  • What is the engine had not worked? Airlines that committed to the P&W option would have an airframe without an engine. And since GE or RR would already have commitments on simultaneous deliveries, those airlines would literally have a "tarmac queen" collecting mold at PAE - possibly for months or even years.
  • Three suppliers seriously dilutes the total share of the pie. The 772/77E/773 market is 578 units to date. Even if they split three ways, that is around 400 engines per manufacturer. On a multi-billion investment, that is chump change in return. Yes, Boeing feels the market for the 787 is huge, but they felt that after they sold over 500 of them in handful of years. I imagine when they were looking at the plane, they felt the market might be more like 1500-2000 units. Again, I am not sure 1000 engines would have been enough to justify the investment - heck, Pratt said as much when they bowed out of the competition.
  • And finally, the 787 had enough "new tech" as it was. To then slap a brand-new engine concept on it likely would have been too much risk...
 
Boeing7E7
Posts: 5512
Joined: Sat Jul 31, 2004 9:35 pm

RE: Bombardier CSeries Has Its Engine: PW

Wed Nov 14, 2007 2:24 am

Quoting Tdscanuck (Reply 3):
Technically, yes, but the 737-600 was never all that popular and Boeing doesn't even list it in their current production models anymore (although I think you could still order one if you wanted to). Boeing has apparently ceded the 100-110 seat market.

The -600 was heavy, not unlike the poor selling A-318. With similar payload for the -110 to the -600/A318 and similar payload for the -130 to the -700/A319 they could be on to something, and at the same time free Airbus and Boeing to look at the meat of the market for their narrowbody replacement. A better comparison is the 717/DC-9 where this plane smokes them both.

Quoting Columba (Reply 13):
I absolutely think that LH and NW will be launch customers.

Other potentials:

SkyWest (UAX/DLC)
Frontier
Midwest (Sames 2+2 capacites as the 717 better efficiency)
Hawaiian
AirTran
American
Horizon

[Edited 2007-11-13 18:33:28]
 
LAXDESI
Posts: 2775
Joined: Sat May 14, 2005 8:13 am

RE: Bombardier CSeries Has Its Engine: PW

Wed Nov 14, 2007 3:36 am

I found an interesting article about the GTF engine.
http://www.ainonline.com/news/single...e-rjs/?no_cache=1&cHash=87b94e3fe9

Quotes:
The engine for the MRJ will be delivered at a rating of 15,000 pounds thrust for the 70- to 80-seat MRJ70 and at 17,000 pounds for the larger 86- to 96-seat MRJ90. P&W is working on a family of GTF engines running up to the same 33,000 pounds thrust as the existing International Aero Engines V2500, although in testing with a PW2000 in 1998, using a slightly different design of gearbox, the engine reached 40,000 pounds thrust with no difficulty. “We’re making sure we’ve got the maximum likely thrust of the new generation of single-aisle aircraft well covered,” said Saia.

The P&W executive rebuffs critics who say the GTF is heavier than regular turbofans. “My understanding is that for the MRJ our GTF was actually lighter than the competition,” said Saia. This is because the GTF will employ an advanced core with fewer stages and blades. The low-pressure turbine, for example, under development by P&W GTF partner MTU, will have 900 fewer airfoils than the similarly sized V2500, with three stages instead of the usual five.

P&W is also working on a lightweight 18-blade wide-chord, swept tip fan, which will be driven at two thirds the speed of conventional fans via the Avio-developed gearbox. Saia declined to reveal the exact nature of the fan blade material, beyond saying, “It is metallic, it is new and we’ve had very good results to date.” An all-composite backup version is being developed with advanced propeller manufacturer Hamilton Sundstrand. The fan is the same 56-inch diameter as those of the competition, Mitsubishi having required all three contestants to come within the same engine diameter limitations because of wing and landing gear characteristics.

Next on the list of potential applications is the long-awaited Bombardier C Series, for which a larger, 23,000-pound-thrust engine is needed. This would use exactly the same core design, but scaled up to provide the extra thrust.

A decision on launching the C Series is due next year. Another victory for the GTF would secure the credibility of the geared fan concept, leaving P&W in a far stronger position to secure a place aboard the aircraft that will eventually replace the Airbus A320 and Boeing 737 families.
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Crew
Posts: 11737
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

RE: Bombardier CSeries Has Its Engine: PW

Wed Nov 14, 2007 5:55 am



Quoting Stitch (Reply 21):
# If Boeing could improve the fuel efficiency of the 787 by another 10% using a GTF you can bet your bum they would have bought P&W away from UT if that is what it took to get those engines on the plane because we'd be looking at 1700 sales now, not 700. That being said...
# It is one thing to build a GTF with 20k thrust. It's another to build one with 80k.

Pratt proposed a GTF that was a dramatic improvement for the 787.

Boeing does not want to be the GTF launch customer, period. Boeing is run by a bunch of people who recall that half the prop engine failures (on the higher horsepower units) were gearbox failures. I believe they are being too cautious.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 21):
And finally, the 787 had enough "new tech" as it was. To then slap a brand-new engine concept on it likely would have been too much risk...

Most likely why Boeing was so adamant about not launching the GTF.

As to making a larger GTF, its no harder than a small scale. I've seen Pratt concepts from 14k to 62k thrust. Even Pratt wasn't quite ready to launch at 77k (A380). Why? Cost of the test equipment, not technical challenge.

Airbus has been very excited about a GTF, but after the PW6000... not so excited on Pratt (hence another reason for the GP7200 joint-venture).

But heck, I've been very biased towards the GTF for years. Why? It is a game changer!  bigthumbsup 

Quoting LAXDESI (Reply 23):
P&W is working on a family of GTF engines running up to the same 33,000 pounds thrust as the existing International Aero Engines V2500

chuckle. I worked on this R&D design years ago.  Wink However, the current design has such a different set of compressors and turbines, I doubt if any of my work remains.

Quoting LAXDESI (Reply 23):
The low-pressure turbine, for example, under development by P&W GTF partner MTU, will have 900 fewer airfoils than the similarly sized V2500, with three stages instead of the usual five.

Pratt's partnership with MTU has worked out very well... An artifact of the PW6000 HPC debacle, that will benefit both companies for many years.  Smile I cannot help but notice that the MRJ engine has been very optimized for weight and climb efficiency at a cost to cruise efficiency. Hey, its the call I would have made.  bigthumbsup 

Now what about the C-series? I expect a low spool a little more optimized for cruise. In other words, a higher bypass fan with one or two more LPT stages to power the LPC and fan. I'd also put on one more LPC stage compared to the MRJ engine... but I haven't yet seen how it was optimized; so I'll find out as soon as I can.

Quoting LAXDESI (Reply 23):
Saia declined to reveal the exact nature of the fan blade material, beyond saying, “It is metallic, it is new and we’ve had very good results to date.” An all-composite backup version is being developed with advanced propeller manufacturer Hamilton Sundstrand. The fan is the same 56-inch diameter as those of the competition,

Interesting, interesting, interesting. A new metal... I have my guesses, but let me see if I can find out more.

Also, I worked on a project with Pratt before where we were about to launch a GTF where the customer demanded a low diameter GTF. So not only is this a drill Pratt is well practiced on, but there are quite a few benefits to an undersized GTF on the shorter missions.  spin  In this case, both the customer and Pratt were surprised on how the weight and aerodynamic pluses for a smaller nacelle outweighed the thrust efficiency of the GTF. There is a range of diameters where for each thrust of GTF, you could build the engine. Without fail, it pays to optimize at the smallest diameter.

Quoting LAXDESI (Reply 23):

A decision on launching the C Series is due next year.

aaaaaagh! I've heard that since 2001!  hissyfit 

Quoting Stitch (Reply 21):
Three suppliers seriously dilutes the total share of the pie.

Boeing made a smart business decision limiting the engine choices to two on the 787. There is still enough competition to drive optimization. The customer is less confused. (Will they pick the winner or one of the two less desirable engines for that airframe?) The resale is far better (Making a pylon compatible with three engines would have been an un-needed expense.)

With the 787, Boeing not only demanded great fuel efficiency, but they have definitive and quantitative ways to compare the risk of each and every engine proposal. Both GE and RR spent quite a bit of money to burn down risk during the bidding process. (Hey, it looks to have worked!)

But this is like the transition from centrifugal compressors to axial compressors; once the transition is complete, we'll never go back to a non-GTF for the sizes being discussed. What we will see is many flavors of GTF.

Lightsaber
"They did not know it was impossible, so they did it!" - Mark Twain
 
BlueSkys
Posts: 286
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2007 2:58 am

RE: Bombardier CSeries Has Its Engine: PW

Wed Nov 14, 2007 7:51 am



Quoting Revelation (Reply 14):
Quoting Columba (Reply 13):
I absolutely think that LH and NW will be launch customers.


Dont rule out AC, i think they will replace their jungle jets with them.
 
jlb
Posts: 66
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 1999 1:01 am

RE: Bombardier CSeries Has Its Engine: PW

Wed Nov 14, 2007 12:20 pm



Quoting Lightsaber (Reply 24):
Interesting, interesting, interesting. A new metal... I have my guesses, but let me see if I can find out more.

Do you think it might be lead? I do not think that has ever been used much in airplane design ever  Smile
 
BlueSky1976
Posts: 1604
Joined: Tue Jul 20, 2004 9:18 am

RE: Bombardier CSeries Has Its Engine: PW

Wed Nov 14, 2007 12:49 pm

There is a new alloy that is supposedly 20% lighter than carbon fibre based composite and not as prone to corrosion as the traditional alluminum. There was a thread about it a few weeks ago.
POLAND IS UNDER DICTATORSHIP. PLEASE SUPPORT COMMITTEE FOR DEFENSE OF DEMOCRACY, K.O.D.
 
columba
Posts: 5043
Joined: Fri Dec 10, 2004 10:12 pm

RE: Bombardier CSeries Has Its Engine: PW

Wed Nov 14, 2007 12:54 pm



Quoting BlueSkys (Reply 25):
Dont rule out AC, i think they will replace their jungle jets with them.

Do you think so ? I believe the Ejets are fairly new and don´t need to be replaced (okay they are not as durable as Dc 9 but they should last 10-15 years). Maybe AC will replace their A319s with the CSeries, it seems that AC is not that crazy about Airbus anymore.
It will forever be a McDonnell Douglas MD 80 , Boeing MD 80 sounds so wrong
 
Lumberton
Posts: 4176
Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2005 7:34 am

RE: Bombardier CSeries Has Its Engine: PW

Wed Nov 14, 2007 12:55 pm



Quoting CRJ200FAGuy (Reply 8):
sn't Bombardier a little late to the dance with this airplane?

IMO, not at all! These two projects could leave the so-called Sukhoi "superjet" and their Chinese counterpart in the dust.
"When all is said and done, more will be said than done".
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 22937
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: Bombardier CSeries Has Its Engine: PW

Wed Nov 14, 2007 1:02 pm



Quoting Lightsaber (Reply 24):
Pratt proposed a GTF that was a dramatic improvement for the 787.

Boeing does not want to be the GTF launch customer, period. Boeing is run by a bunch of people who recall that half the prop engine failures (on the higher horsepower units) were gearbox failures. I believe they are being too cautious.

You know...

If Pratt in the next five years can show the GTF design works on the C-Series, the MRJ and the A320 test-bed, not only could it have a great shot to power the Y1/737RS, but I wonder if it might just become Boeing's "ace in the hole" for the 787HGW or Y3, which would be about when Boeing was ready to go forward with either?  scratchchin 

It may not just be the Trent XWB that GE is trying to benchmark...
 
parapente
Posts: 1278
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2006 10:42 pm

RE: Bombardier CSeries Has Its Engine: PW

Wed Nov 14, 2007 1:16 pm

This is one of the best threads that I have read here. No bickering just very solid stuff which (for me at least) stretches the little grey cells abit!

Both Boeing and Airbus have said that their computer studies do not give a big enough advantage to develop new Y1 type aircraft. Well that excuse is gone now (as I believe it is an excuse) - they are both happy with the present business status quo see Quantas order today-whilst watching the CO2 levels rise (Oh and the noise).

Thanks for the replies to my questions. But I am surprised and interested about the strong rumours of RR having a GTF under development. Why not partner P&W it is a woring relationship and neither Boeing or Airbus is offering 3 engines any more. Its a big risk. (Don't tell me GE will not be on board with Boeing at the very least).If two out of 3 now are saying that GTF is the way forward then (other than contrarotation -see GE's French "partner") which is a "noisy" way to go,it seems that this is the future (Question -Geared contrarotation anybody?)
I guess all this GTF information should be on another thread really. There will be much more coming now from Rolls and GE I suspect. I for one will leave thread starting to the (obvious) guys here that really understand what's going down in this game changing area. Carbon aircraft are now a given. GTF is the new "black" (art)
 
PavlovsDog
Posts: 534
Joined: Wed Sep 14, 2005 3:28 am

RE: Bombardier CSeries Has Its Engine: PW

Wed Nov 14, 2007 1:55 pm

23,000 lb of thrust should be enough to power a C-150 if Bombardier should want to stretch it. I imagine that development would only be a matter of time.

Is the 5000 km ranger for the ER versions sufficient for reliable transcontinental operations in the US?
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 13757
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

RE: Bombardier CSeries Has Its Engine: PW

Wed Nov 14, 2007 3:11 pm



Quoting Parapente (Reply 31):
Why not partner P&W it is a woring relationship and neither Boeing or Airbus is offering 3 engines any more.

The things I've read lead me to believe that PW is not looking for a senior partner. Reading through the lines, they think they can make a go with junior partners and keep more of the cash for themselves.

Pratt certainly has been putting money into GTF forever it seems, with the intent of getting back into the low end of the commercial airliner business. It seems that story is on track, and that makes me wonder why they'd take on a senior partner at this point in time.
Inspiration, move me brightly!
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Crew
Posts: 11737
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

RE: Bombardier CSeries Has Its Engine: PW

Wed Nov 14, 2007 4:50 pm



Quoting Stitch (Reply 30):
but I wonder if it might just become Boeing's "ace in the hole"

Maybe. However, for years Boeing didn't want to hear about GTF's while Airbus has sent engineers into Pratt's R&D departments to find out more about the new designs. Airbus has designed 'paper airframes' around GTFs. Heck, Pratt was working to re-engine the A346. I still remember the day I typed in the new weight goals into the model and saw the A346 economics costs rise above Pratt's projections for the 77W.  cry  That was a week before Pratt found out that RR had an exclusive on the A345/A346 until (IIRC) 2008. Oh boy were the Pratt engineers/management mad. {Grumpy} Airbus at the time was debating a GTF powered mid-size long range plane and an A320 upgrade (with a GTF) or the A380.

Without the four engine airframe to prove out the engine, Pratt became much less excited about the PW8162 GTF with Airbus. (It was a little more advanced than the first A350 proposals. Much smaller than the current A350). Pratt still wanted to do a PW8133, but as history has shown, the A380 consumed a lot of engineering talent and Airbus had to drop the 'side projects.'

Quoting Stitch (Reply 30):
787HGW

Only if GE or RR refuses to develop a higher thrust model. (They will). At this point, due to the risk sharing partnership, Pratt is locked out unless GE or RR backs out of the 787. Since neither will back out, Pratt is locked out of the 787.  Sad

Quoting Revelation (Reply 33):
Reading through the lines, they think they can make a go with junior partners and keep more of the cash for themselves.

Yep. They'll restart IAE if they must, but Pratt really wants to get back into ownership of their engine lines.

Lightsaber
"They did not know it was impossible, so they did it!" - Mark Twain
 
pnwtraveler
Posts: 1064
Joined: Wed Jun 13, 2007 2:12 am

RE: Bombardier CSeries Has Its Engine: PW

Wed Nov 14, 2007 4:58 pm

There are still ongoing rumours of a partnership with a Russian aircraft manufacturer.

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/f...32a-4251-a383-29eac5792b2f&k=35206

Undoubtedly this would help close the wage gap between Embraer and Bombardier and give an advantage that A and B don't have as well. There are also still rumours of talks still taking place with China.

With so many people getting into the regional/small airliner market there will have to be some shake ups again in a few years. And of course there is still the potential for A or B to get in bed with one of them.
 
JoeCanuck
Posts: 3939
Joined: Mon Dec 19, 2005 3:30 am

RE: Bombardier CSeries Has Its Engine: PW

Wed Nov 14, 2007 5:30 pm

I really doubt they would take a chance on doing any of the c-series in Russia, though China is a real possibility.

At the moment, at least, Russian politics are quite unstable. I don't think very many people in the west trust Putin, considering his track record. He's proven much too volatile.

China, on the other hand, has a great track record of dealing with the west. China is open for business. The problems there are about idea/design theft. At least those problems are about business, not politics.
What the...?
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 22937
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: Bombardier CSeries Has Its Engine: PW

Wed Nov 14, 2007 5:31 pm



Quoting Lightsaber (Reply 34):
Only if GE or RR refuses to develop a higher thrust model. (They will). At this point, due to the risk sharing partnership, Pratt is locked out unless GE or RR backs out of the 787. Since neither will back out, Pratt is locked out of the 787.  Sad

Then I guess it's Y1/Y3 or bust, at least with Boeing.

Always been partial to Pratt because I'm partial to UA, so I hope they get on one or the other or both.
 
Devilfish
Posts: 5181
Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2006 7:52 am

RE: Bombardier CSeries Has Its Engine: PW

Wed Nov 14, 2007 5:47 pm



Quoting LAXDESI (Reply 23):
via the Avio-developed gearbox

Might RR give the gearbox work then to their Marine Division supplier Kamewa or could Sumitomo Precision do it, seeing that they could no longer use their Tay and Trent 900 partner Avio?

Quoting Lightsaber (Reply 24):
Interesting, interesting, interesting. A new metal... I have my guesses, but let me see if I can find out more.

No doubt RR's agreements with Japan's NIMS and South Africa's Avalloy for development and commercialisation of new super alloys would play a part here - given the nickel and chrome needs of their suppliers Anglo Platinum and Impala Platinum. As well as their opening of the UTCC at Bristol University
"Everyone is entitled to my opinion." - Garfield
 
bmacleod
Posts: 2447
Joined: Sat Aug 25, 2001 3:10 am

RE: Bombardier CSeries Has Its Engine: PW

Wed Nov 14, 2007 6:53 pm

So does this mean Bombardier is committed to building the C-Series?

They're not just making an excuse to keep Mirabel in operation instead of letting the surrounding community bulldoze the place and redevelop it for residential property.
The engine is the heart of an airplane, but the pilot is its soul.
 
JoeCanuck
Posts: 3939
Joined: Mon Dec 19, 2005 3:30 am

RE: Bombardier CSeries Has Its Engine: PW

Wed Nov 14, 2007 7:05 pm

From the sounds of it, the engine was the last, major, piece of the puzzle...except for customers, of course. Now, we wait...again.
What the...?
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Crew
Posts: 11737
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

RE: Bombardier CSeries Has Its Engine: PW

Wed Nov 14, 2007 9:09 pm



Quoting DEVILFISH (Reply 38):
No doubt RR's agreements with Japan's NIMS and South Africa's Avalloy for development and commercialisation of new super alloys would play a part here - given the nickel and chrome needs of their suppliers Anglo Platinum and Impala Platinum. As well as their opening of the UTCC at Bristol University

You're talking turbine materials.  Wink Yes, everyone is working hard on that. My quote was for a new fan material!  bigthumbsup 

Quoting Bmacleod (Reply 39):
So does this mean Bombardier is committed to building the C-Series?

Not yet. But Pratt has committed to start engine development (which takes about a year longer than the airframe development).

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 40):
From the sounds of it, the engine was the last, major, piece of the puzzle...except for customers, of course. Now, we wait...again.

Sigh... I must agree.  hissyfit 

Lightsaber
"They did not know it was impossible, so they did it!" - Mark Twain
 
Devilfish
Posts: 5181
Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2006 7:52 am

RE: Bombardier CSeries Has Its Engine: PW

Wed Nov 14, 2007 9:56 pm



Quoting Lightsaber (Reply 41):
My quote was for a new fan material!

Ah yes, 3D woven composite fan blades - I wonder what they're "composed" of?.....

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...cfm-ready-for-narrowbody-leap.html

Quote:
"Technology to be evaluated include a resin transfer-moulded, 3D woven composite fan blade set a composite fan case next-generation 3D aerodynamically designed HPC and HPT ceramic matrix composite turbine nozzles advanced LPT with titanium aluminide blades and a TAPS (twin-annular pre-swirled) II combustor."

But I must admit that titanium aluminide sure sound exotic to my uneducated ears. Big grin
"Everyone is entitled to my opinion." - Garfield
 
Rheinbote
Posts: 1103
Joined: Sun May 21, 2006 9:30 pm

RE: Bombardier CSeries Has Its Engine: PW

Wed Nov 14, 2007 10:23 pm



Quoting Stitch (Reply 30):
I wonder if it might just become Boeing's "ace in the hole" for the 787HGW or Y3, which would be about when Boeing was ready to go forward with either?

That would require gearboxes rated in excess of 100.000shp, doesn't look feasible anytime soon.  no 
 
BlueSkys
Posts: 286
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2007 2:58 am

RE: Bombardier CSeries Has Its Engine: PW

Wed Nov 14, 2007 10:29 pm

I wonder...... Would SAS ever buy the C-series after all they went through with the Q400?
 
Rheinbote
Posts: 1103
Joined: Sun May 21, 2006 9:30 pm

RE: Bombardier CSeries Has Its Engine: PW

Wed Nov 14, 2007 10:45 pm



Quoting Lightsaber (Reply 19):
Seriously though, Pratt cannot get arrogant. RR isn't that far behind them. I'm not sure how this happened, but RR has been shopping GTF's in the 25k to 35k range a bit.

They have rather been promoting geared propfans lately...
 
Arrow
Posts: 2325
Joined: Wed Jun 19, 2002 7:44 am

RE: Bombardier CSeries Has Its Engine: PW

Wed Nov 14, 2007 10:57 pm



Quoting BlueSkys (Reply 44):
I wonder...... Would SAS ever buy the C-series after all they went through with the Q400?

Ha! They certainly wouldn't be the launch customer, unless Bombardier gave them away. Even then ...
Never let the facts get in the way of a good story.
 
connies4ever
Posts: 3393
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2006 10:54 pm

RE: Bombardier CSeries Has Its Engine: PW

Wed Nov 14, 2007 11:32 pm

This is a great thread ! As earlier stated, no A v B flaming, just some good technical content.

As for C-series moving ahead, bring it! It flies a different mission than the E-jets, and if the GTF works out as advertised, should be more than able to hold its' own 1-on-1. As for launch customer, I agree with earlier posting that either NW or LH are the target launch customer. BBD will have to make them a super offer to get them to commit. Then watch the fur fly ! Not sure EMB can stretch the E-jet much more than what the 195 already is at, so ~115 or so seats is about the limit w/o either a) a new wing or b) a new engine, or c) both. C-series could likely stretch to ~145-150 seat range before limiting out.
Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
 
tdscanuck
Posts: 8572
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 7:25 am

RE: Bombardier CSeries Has Its Engine: PW

Thu Nov 15, 2007 2:32 am



Quoting Parapente (Reply 12):
Boeing "said" that the GTF was "too much risk" on the 787. But then chose TWO safe bets. Why not one "safe" and one "Risk?" Indeed since (at that time) it was only going to take 30 minutes to change an engine - then why not 3 suppliers -it was fine in the past,wasn't it.

The 787 already has something like 20 all-new technologies in it, any one of which could sink the program if not properly executed. Taking a flyer on the engine at the same time might be pushing a the risk a little too far.

Quoting Parapente (Reply 15):
Since the LP on a tripple spool is lower the force majeur the loading would be lower. Thus RR's technology and P&W's are complimentary -I would have thought. But it seems not -why?

I suspect because they're different ways to fix the same problem. A triple-spool has better fan performance at the cost of an extra spool. A GTF has better fan performance at the cost of a gearbox. Both together might perform really well, but you'd pick up the excess complexity of both.

Quoting Lightsaber (Reply 24):
As to making a larger GTF, its no harder than a small scale.

Really? Gearboxes are not known for scaling nicely in the 10,000-100,000 HP range.

Quoting BlueSky1976 (Reply 27):
There is a new alloy that is supposedly 20% lighter than carbon fibre based composite

and not as prone to corrosion as the traditional alluminum.

It's not an alloy, it's a metal matrix composite developed by the same group that developed GLARE.

Quoting Parapente (Reply 31):
Both Boeing and Airbus have said that their computer studies do not give a big enough advantage to develop new Y1 type aircraft. Well that excuse is gone now (as I believe it is an excuse)

How is the excuse gone? The major hangup is an engine. Right now, the GTF is just starting prototype testing for the RJ-sized engine. The engine that Boeing/Airbus need to make the business case for the single-aisle replacement doesn't exist and won't exist for at least a few years. Neither company is going to launch a program on the assumption that the engine will work out without some real data to back that up.

Tom.
 
JoeCanuck
Posts: 3939
Joined: Mon Dec 19, 2005 3:30 am

RE: Bombardier CSeries Has Its Engine: PW

Thu Nov 15, 2007 2:50 am

I reckon that work on their next generation narrow body planes is probably pretty advanced already. Both Airbus and Boeing can probably announce as soon as they see the right engine.
What the...?