qfa787380
Topic Author
Posts: 178
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2010 10:49 pm

GE Completes Configuration Plans For 737MAX

Tue Feb 07, 2012 2:23 am

As per Bloomberg post:

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-0...r-engines-on-new-737-aircraft.html

Additionally, GE also said they plan on having a 77W replacement engine to market in 2018/19 that is 6 to 8% more efficient than today's GE90. That's a pretty big clue that the 777X will EIS in 2018/19.
 
ContnlEliteCMH
Posts: 1375
Joined: Wed Mar 02, 2005 8:19 am

RE: GE Completes Configuration Plans For 737MAX

Tue Feb 07, 2012 2:52 am

From the article:

“It’s going to be a very unique installation for the 737 MAX,” Joyce said. “We’re going to take full advantage of the integration we do with Boeing and with Spirit to make sure the overall engine-airplane combination is incredibly efficient from an integrated propulsion system and the engine is really optimized for this airplane.”

Does this mean a new core?
Christianity. Islam. Hinduism. Anthropogenic Global Warming. All are matters of faith!
 
ssteve
Posts: 1133
Joined: Fri Dec 02, 2011 8:32 am

RE: GE Completes Configuration Plans For 737MAX

Tue Feb 07, 2012 2:55 am

Quoting ContnlEliteCMH (Reply 1):
Does this mean a new core?

Nah, just one huge engine mounted on top of the fuselage.
 
rheinwaldner
Posts: 1244
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 4:58 pm

RE: GE Completes Configuration Plans For 737MAX

Tue Feb 07, 2012 9:37 am

I am quite curious how the MAX will look like if even GE says "It’s going to be a very unique installation for the 737 MAX".

"Very unique" probably also translates into:

- costly (a unique installation means minimized reuse of know how and technology, which translates into additional R&D cost)

- inferior (the straight forward and superior kind of approaches are known since long time. Requireing to make it unique, unseen, means that the chosen solution would not have been considered as optimum up to now).

Quoting qfa787380 (Thread starter):
Additionally, GE also said they plan on having a 77W replacement engine to market in 2018/19 that is 6 to 8% more efficient than today's GE90. That's a pretty big clue that the 777X will EIS in 2018/19.

When Boeing recently wrote the RFP for new 777 engines they seemed to ask for 10% more efficient engines than the GE90. 6-8% means that GE misses Boeing's expectation by 20-40%. So, they will have to rework their plans. Or maybe RR will fare better and get the order.
 
parapente
Posts: 1278
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2006 10:42 pm

RE: GE Completes Configuration Plans For 737MAX

Tue Feb 07, 2012 10:02 am

Reply 3

"When Boeing recently wrote the RFP for new 777 engines they seemed to ask for 10% more efficient engines than the GE90. 6-8% means that GE misses Boeing's expectation by 20-40%. So, they will have to rework their plans. Or maybe RR will fare better and get the order."

We don't really know yet what the new 777 will be. If the much vaunted 787-10 takes most of the 772 space then it could well be one engine at 99lbs thrust and another at 120lbs. The latter being GE's alone. If the 748i really does not cut it (and it is not right now) I can see a larger (carbon) rewinged 777 taking it's place (400?) and a (250) underneath it.The latter may well have rolls engines as an option. Airbus better watch out I feel. The 350 was a rushed knee jerk reaction to the 787 and 346 failure all those years ago - they may well pay the price of that decision in the future.
 
N14AZ
Posts: 1963
Joined: Sat Feb 24, 2007 10:19 pm

RE: GE Completes Configuration Plans For 737MAX

Tue Feb 07, 2012 10:13 am

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 3):
I am quite curious how the MAX will look like if even GE says "It’s going to be a very unique installation for the 737 MAX".

Maybe something like this?


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Simon Thomas



     
 
Cerecl
Posts: 432
Joined: Sun Jul 13, 2008 10:22 am

RE: GE Completes Configuration Plans For 737MAX

Tue Feb 07, 2012 10:28 am

Quoting parapente (Reply 4):
If the much vaunted 787-10 takes most of the 772 space
Quoting parapente (Reply 4):
a (250) underneath it.

A359 and B789 are more than adequate for this role.

Quoting parapente (Reply 4):
a larger (carbon) rewinged 777 taking it's place (400?)

Such 777NG would approach 748i and even A380 territory. I wonder how much better it would be comparing to "abusing" the two 4-holers?

Quoting parapente (Reply 4):
Airbus better watch out I feel. The 350 was a rushed knee jerk reaction to the 787 and 346 failure all those years ago - they may well pay the price of that decision in the future.

This makes limited sense, to me at least.
 
User avatar
Faro
Posts: 1491
Joined: Sun Aug 12, 2007 1:08 am

RE: GE Completes Configuration Plans For 737MAX

Tue Feb 07, 2012 11:50 am

Quoting ContnlEliteCMH (Reply 1):
“It’s going to be a very unique installation for the 737 MAX,” Joyce said. “We’re going to take full advantage of the integration we do with Boeing and with Spirit to make sure the overall engine-airplane combination is incredibly efficient from an integrated propulsion system and the engine is really optimized for this airplane.”


I would be willing to wager that flight-testing will be fraught with a good dose of anxiety. Above and beyond the 'normal' problems that crop up, a "very unique installation" will guarantee that aerodynamic efficiency of the engine-wing-fuselage interface may become a major headache...Don't like that "very"...

Faro

[Edited 2012-02-07 03:52:06]
The chalice not my son
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 13760
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

RE: GE Completes Configuration Plans For 737MAX

Tue Feb 07, 2012 1:02 pm

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 3):
"Very unique" probably also translates into:

- costly (a unique installation means minimized reuse of know how and technology, which translates into additional R&D cost)

I agree more cost will be there because as you have pointed out more than once the 737 installation is challenging, however it's an issue of scale. Obviously the cost is less than the cost of the aborted NSA, and small enough to not deter Boeing from doing the MAX.

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 3):
- inferior (the straight forward and superior kind of approaches are known since long time. Requireing to make it unique, unseen, means that the chosen solution would not have been considered as optimum up to now).

So you don't allow for the possibility of discovery of new techniques and optimizations?

Quoting faro (Reply 7):
Above and beyond the 'normal' problems that crop up, a "very unique installation" will guarantee that aerodynamic efficiency of the engine-wing-fuselage interface may become a major headache...

Interesting. The way I read the first half of Joyce's second sentence was that he was quite confident that the GE-Boeing-Spirit team would produce an incredibly efficient engine-wing-fuse interface.
Inspiration, move me brightly!
 
PITingres
Posts: 993
Joined: Fri Dec 21, 2007 1:59 am

RE: GE Completes Configuration Plans For 737MAX

Tue Feb 07, 2012 1:05 pm

I'm fascinated as to why some people think "unique" has to translate to "awkward" or "inefficient". Just because "that's the way we've always done it" doesn't make it best in all scenarios.

It sounds to me like they are going to rethink some of the systems traditionally considered part of the engine, based on the fact that there is only one engine offering. Maybe move some stuff out of the nacelle area? I dunno. The bit about "integrated propulsion system" is suggestive, though.
Fly, you fools! Fly!
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 22953
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: GE Completes Configuration Plans For 737MAX

Tue Feb 07, 2012 1:08 pm

CFM did a "unique" installation to get the CFM56 to fit on the 737 Classic / 737NG and that worked out pretty well. *shrug*
 
sunrisevalley
Posts: 4953
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2004 3:26 am

RE: GE Completes Configuration Plans For 737MAX

Tue Feb 07, 2012 1:23 pm

Quoting parapente (Reply 4):
If the much vaunted 787-10 takes most of the 772 space then it could well be one engine at 99lbs thrust and another at 120lbs.

do you believe there will be two versions of the 787-10, one using the present wing and undercarriage with a MTOW of about 254t with about a 36t payload at 6000nm and another with a new wing , more fuel capacity, more power and a higher MTOW with load capability to match the 772.?
 
User avatar
PM
Posts: 4820
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 5:05 pm

RE: GE Completes Configuration Plans For 737MAX

Tue Feb 07, 2012 1:48 pm

Quoting ContnlEliteCMH (Reply 1):
“It’s going to be a very unique installation..."

Does Mr Joyce know what "unique" means? It's not an adjective than can be qualified. It's like saying "quite pregnant"
 
User avatar
Polot
Posts: 4610
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2011 3:01 pm

RE: GE Completes Configuration Plans For 737MAX

Tue Feb 07, 2012 1:54 pm

Quoting PM (Reply 12):
Does Mr Joyce know what "unique" means? It's not an adjective than can be qualified. It's like saying "quite pregnant"

Maybe not where you are from, but in the US the phrase "very unique" is very common. People would also have no problem saying quite pregnant either, referring to someone who is very far along their pregnancy.
 
User avatar
par13del
Posts: 6670
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

RE: GE Completes Configuration Plans For 737MAX

Tue Feb 07, 2012 1:57 pm

Since its a pax plane with minimal aerobatics required, unique could be that the engine is "within" the wing, as in first few feet from the fuse, then engine, then rest of wing, like the Meteor of WWII fame, with such a configuration there would be no need to raise the landing gear since the engine will not be "hanging" from the wing on pylons.

At the rate these OEM's computer models screw up mine is probably just as good as their  
 
neutronstar73
Posts: 660
Joined: Mon Mar 21, 2011 7:57 pm

RE: GE Completes Configuration Plans For 737MAX

Tue Feb 07, 2012 2:00 pm

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 3):

Jeez, couldn't wait to get a chance to bash the Boeing, eh?

Perhaps GE means they (unlike you or me or anyone else) know what they are doing and wouldn't dare screw up their cash cow, which means that they are HIGHLY UNLIKELY to throw out an "inferior product."

GE makes superb products and their engineers know what they are doing. They didn't seem to have any problem with the 737 before with the "flattened" CFM56, and I know they won't this time, either.

But, please, continue with the Boeing bashing, GE bashing if it pleases you.
 
rheinwaldner
Posts: 1244
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 4:58 pm

RE: GE Completes Configuration Plans For 737MAX

Tue Feb 07, 2012 2:19 pm

Quoting Revelation (Reply 8):
So you don't allow for the possibility of discovery of new techniques and optimizations?

I have thought about this possibility. In summary I would say, that finding new ways do do some very profound and established things like mounting an engine, requires a hefty amount of research. For something that usually is a simple engineering task. It is about the difference between engineering and research.

So, in order to overcome the inherent disadvantage by discovering new techniques and optimizations, the cost part of the equation would blow out of proportion (which does not mean that the MAX will not be a fine aircraft offering a nice ROI to Boeing, just to be clear).

Quoting Stitch (Reply 10):
CFM did a "unique" installation to get the CFM56 to fit on the 737 Classic / 737NG and that worked out pretty well. *shrug*

True, it worked out well. But are you aware that the unique installation of the Classics and NG will not be useful for the MAX anymore? Because GE says that there will be a new unique solution. If the existing would work again GE would not need to say that the new will be "very unique".

How many unique engine installations does Boeing want to have invented for the 737? Dealing with limitations by virtuosity is limited in itself...
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 10997
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: GE Completes Configuration Plans For 737MAX

Tue Feb 07, 2012 2:31 pm

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 3):
I am quite curious how the MAX will look like if even GE says "It’s going to be a very unique installation for the 737 MAX".

"Very unique" probably also translates into:

- costly (a unique installation means minimized reuse of know how and technology, which translates into additional R&D cost)

- inferior (the straight forward and superior kind of approaches are known since long time. Requireing to make it unique, unseen, means that the chosen solution would not have been considered as optimum up to now).

I doubt Boeing is designing the B-737MAX like the RMS Titanic or the Comet 1 was. At one time the Boeing designed and built B-47 was considered 'unique', yet the design set the basic standard for all airliners with the engines in pods under the wing, including all Airbus airliners. Since the B-731 was introduced by LH, the basic design has seen many changes, all of which improved upon the first design, so I see no reason the B-737MAX design will not continue that trend.

BTW, you do know the A-320NEO is going to be a 'unique' design, too. It is a departure from the original A-32X designs.

Quoting faro (Reply 7):
I would be willing to wager that flight-testing will be fraught with a good dose of anxiety. Above and beyond the 'normal' problems that crop up, a "very unique installation" will guarantee that aerodynamic efficiency of the engine-wing-fuselage interface may become a major headache...Don't like that "very"...

Have you ever heard of wind tunnel and computer generated testing? It is done well before the design is finalized/frozen. All flight testing has a 'good dose of anxiety'. More than a few airplanes have crashed during flight testing, including the wildly successful B-17, F-14, and even the A-333. In fact the F-14A crashed on its madian flight.

Quoting PITingres (Reply 9):
I'm fascinated as to why some people think "unique" has to translate to "awkward" or "inefficient". Just because "that's the way we've always done it" doesn't make it best in all scenarios.
Quoting Stitch (Reply 10):
CFM did a "unique" installation to get the CFM56 to fit on the 737 Classic / 737NG and that worked out pretty well.

        
 
maxter
Posts: 177
Joined: Sun May 24, 2009 2:23 am

RE: GE Completes Configuration Plans For 737MAX

Tue Feb 07, 2012 2:41 pm

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 17):
I doubt Boeing is designing the B-737MAX like the RMS Titanic or the Comet 1 was

True, but hopefully a tad more successful than the Spruce Goose...
maxter
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 13760
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

RE: GE Completes Configuration Plans For 737MAX

Tue Feb 07, 2012 2:50 pm

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 16):
So, in order to overcome the inherent disadvantage by discovering new techniques and optimizations, the cost part of the equation would blow out of proportion (which does not mean that the MAX will not be a fine aircraft offering a nice ROI to Boeing, just to be clear).

Your two statements are at odds with each other.

If the cost is blown out of proportion, then Boeing won't see a nice ROI on the MAX.

There will be a cost, but it clearly is a tolerable one.
Inspiration, move me brightly!
 
JoeCanuck
Posts: 3939
Joined: Mon Dec 19, 2005 3:30 am

RE: GE Completes Configuration Plans For 737MAX

Tue Feb 07, 2012 2:57 pm

GE and Boeing have been working on putting bigger engines on the 737 for years. Of course it will be a unique solution...just as the cfm's were unique, the winglets were unique...just like every single thing done to any aircraft is unique.

It's obviously worth doing since Boeing still seems keen on doing it.

That being said, the actual nuts and bolts of the design should prove interesting.
What the...?
 
PITingres
Posts: 993
Joined: Fri Dec 21, 2007 1:59 am

RE: GE Completes Configuration Plans For 737MAX

Tue Feb 07, 2012 2:58 pm

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 16):
I have thought about this possibility. In summary I would say, that finding new ways do do some very profound and established things like mounting an engine, requires a hefty amount of research.

Or, much more probably, discarding of one or more of the assumptions that has driven engine mounting up to this point. The most important one being, the airframe-engine interface. Most airframes are designed to accept more than one engine, at least in theory (whether it actually pans out is something else entirely). In the few cases where one engine has an exclusive on the airframe, the engine maker has generally wanted to be able to sell the engine elsewhere with minimal redesign (think CFM). The GE-90 might be a case of exclusivity in both directions, but it started life designed for a 777 accepting competing engines, and so far little to no advantage has been taken of the exclusivity.

If GE and Boeing are doing something special with the Leap-X mount for the MAX, they may simply be taking advantage of the opportunity to rethink what bits go where. That is not research, it's just engineering. It need not be particularly costly engineering, either.

(and yes, I know that the Leap is being used on other airframes. Maybe GE has accepted a much greater lack of commonality at the engine systems and installation level, as a tolerable price to pay for the MAX exclusive.)
Fly, you fools! Fly!
 
Flyglobal
Posts: 336
Joined: Sat Mar 15, 2008 6:25 am

RE: GE Completes Configuration Plans For 737MAX

Tue Feb 07, 2012 3:41 pm

Given the words said about the unique solution of integrating the engines and given the issue that the 737 should get the biggest possible fan under the wing without lifting the plane too much, I would expect that we see something like an engine almost looking like integrated into the wing as a result.

I expect some core improvement (next step evolution) and the new fan wing attachment, effecting the fan design as well as wing design.

The core improvement I would expect to be taken to the Airbus version as well, as GE also has to defend the engine against the Pratts GTF.

can't wait so see first pictures.

regards

Flyglobal
 
rheinwaldner
Posts: 1244
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 4:58 pm

RE: GE Completes Configuration Plans For 737MAX

Tue Feb 07, 2012 3:57 pm

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 17):

I doubt Boeing is designing the B-737MAX like the RMS Titanic or the Comet 1 was.

About that we two are in a broad agreement...

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 17):
At one time the Boeing designed and built B-47 was considered 'unique', yet the design set the basic standard for all airliners with the engines in pods under the wing, including all Airbus airliners

That is exactly what I meant with a profound and established design. Indeed Boeing layed the foundation there.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 17):
Since the B-731 was introduced by LH, the basic design has seen many changes, all of which improved upon the first design, so I see no reason the B-737MAX design will not continue that trend.

Correct, since the first 737 version Boeing was always hunting creative solutions. Calling these improvements is not correct because any other aircraft, also much later ones including any later development from Boeing, had the engines mounted as firstly displayed on the B-47 (in principle).

Quoting Revelation (Reply 19):
If the cost is blown out of proportion, then Boeing won't see a nice ROI on the MAX.

I would agree that the ROI probably looks much worse than for the NEO. But this does still not mean, that there will not be a nice ROI for Boeing. Because I expect the produced number to be high enough, that even double the development cost would easily be covered by the return. Astuteman has explained this.

You touch another point I usually make (that does not attract much feedback):
From the point we are today, the balance should not tilt any further in the direction of the NEO. Otherwise Airbus will eventually establish a noticeable lead on the market.

This would be the deceptive situation where Boeing will celebrate countless fantastic sales for their MAX, where year by year they sell hundreds of MAX's, where they will maintain the highest output of their 737 production for years and yet the customer base is slowly creeping away (see 737 Classics). And once the cards will be shuffled again (when NSA finally comes, as a new Airbus NB will), Airbus will be in a position where they have much more customers.

You know the beginning of a decline starts very subtle. There may be plenty of victories that might blur the broader picture.

This is my concern. And it is actually a concern, not a hope, as some seem to impute to me.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 19):
There will be a cost, but it clearly is a tolerable one.

I agree, I have not said, that it would not be tolerable.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 13760
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

RE: GE Completes Configuration Plans For 737MAX

Tue Feb 07, 2012 5:34 pm

It seems the MAX is replacing the 764 as the plane that Airbus fans love to hate.

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 23):

I would agree that the ROI probably looks much worse than for the NEO. But this does still not mean, that there will not be a nice ROI for Boeing. Because I expect the produced number to be high enough, that even double the development cost would easily be covered by the return. Astuteman has explained this.

Indeed so. Engine placement issues are not a detriment to moving forward with MAX.

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 23):
And once the cards will be shuffled again (when NSA finally comes, as a new Airbus NB will), Airbus will be in a position where they have much more customers.

Customer loyalty is a factor, but far from the only factor.

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 23):
I agree, I have not said, that it would not be tolerable.

What you did say was:

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 16):
the cost part of the equation would blow out of proportion

And the wording of this seems to me to be stronger than your later statements.
Inspiration, move me brightly!
 
User avatar
Faro
Posts: 1491
Joined: Sun Aug 12, 2007 1:08 am

RE: GE Completes Configuration Plans For 737MAX

Tue Feb 07, 2012 5:38 pm

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 17):
Quoting faro (Reply 7):
I would be willing to wager that flight-testing will be fraught with a good dose of anxiety. Above and beyond the 'normal' problems that crop up, a "very unique installation" will guarantee that aerodynamic efficiency of the engine-wing-fuselage interface may become a major headache...Don't like that "very"...

Have you ever heard of wind tunnel and computer generated testing? It is done well before the design is finalized/frozen. All flight testing has a 'good dose of anxiety'. More than a few airplanes have crashed during flight testing, including the wildly successful B-17, F-14, and even the A-333. In fact the F-14A crashed on its madian flight.

Quoting PITingres (Reply 9):
I'm fascinated as to why some people think "unique" has to translate to "awkward" or "inefficient". Just because "that's the way we've always done it" doesn't make it best in all scenarios.
Quoting Stitch (Reply 10):
CFM did a "unique" installation to get the CFM56 to fit on the 737 Classic / 737NG and that worked out pretty well.

       

Unique doesn't necessarily mean awkward, bad or inefficient. What it does mean is that there is a higher likelihood that *significant* unforeseen issues will crop up in development, including those not captured in wind tunnel testing. Those may or may not be easily addressed. It is the criticality of the optimization of the wing/engine/fuselage junction on any airliner, that leads me to believe that the flight testing will be particularly anxiety-prone.

On the plus side and as Stitch aptly points out, Boeing already did a unique engine installation on the original 737 Classics and it worked out fine. Best of luck to their engineers in repeating that neat little trick with the MAX, regardless of the Aspirin...

Faro
The chalice not my son
 
WarpSpeed
Posts: 314
Joined: Tue Feb 09, 2010 7:22 pm

RE: GE Completes Configuration Plans For 737MAX

Tue Feb 07, 2012 6:12 pm

Quoting flyglobal (Reply 22):
Given the words said about the unique solution of integrating the engines and given the issue that the 737 should get the biggest possible fan under the wing without lifting the plane too much, I would expect that we see something like an engine almost looking like integrated into the wing as a result.

Something like this? Engines a bit more forward and pulled up closer to the wing...

DaHjaj jaj QaQ Daghajjaj !!!!
 
roseflyer
Posts: 9606
Joined: Fri Feb 13, 2004 9:34 am

RE: GE Completes Configuration Plans For 737MAX

Tue Feb 07, 2012 6:16 pm

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 16):
In summary I would say, that finding new ways do do some very profound and established things like mounting an engine, requires a hefty amount of research. For something that usually is a simple engineering task. It is about the difference between engineering and research.

I absolutely disagree that mounting an engine is a simple task. The regulations keep getting stricter and more limitations are existing. It is far more complex than it was when the 737 was initially designed.

Current requirements require hydraulic tube separation, electrical separation, dry bay protection in hot areas, vibration damping, full flight envelope flutter protection, fan blade out vibration etc. The engine strut is one of the most complex parts of the airplane since all power systems (pneumatic, electrical, and hydraulic), along with fuel lines have to be routed around very rigid structure in a temperature and leakage sensitive environment. No part of the airplane has so many systems in such close proximity.

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 16):

How many unique engine installations does Boeing want to have invented for the 737? Dealing with limitations by virtuosity is limited in itself...

The 737 has always had a unique engine installation. Starting with the 737-100. It was the first high production twin with under-wing mounted engines. Until then twins always had engines mounted on the tail.

Next was the relocation of the gearbox from under the engine to the side which resulted in improved ground clearance. Another unique design.

So far unique designs haven't stopped the 737. Sometimes a unique design is a good thing to get around constraints. Today we are seeing larger and larger engines. Higher ground clearance = weight = increased fuel burn. Larger engine fan diameter = higher bypass ratio = lower fuel burn. The two contradict each other, so finding the optimal solution is not simple and a highly unique option might end up being the best.

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 3):
"Very unique" probably also translates into:

My Definition: A highly optimized configuration with components that are specifically designed for their end use. It likely is a design that integrates the suppliers of the strut, wing, engine designs together.

Or you can just read further into the article where it defines unique: “We’re going to take full advantage of the integration we do with Boeing and with Spirit to make sure the overall engine-airplane combination is incredibly efficient from an integrated propulsion system and the engine is really optimized for this airplane.”


Yes it will cost more to do a very unique configuration. Optimized for a specific application and unique are words that likely mean more cost. I absolutely agree on that. Saying it is inferior is just one opinion. Unique could just as easily be considered superior due to use of parts that are not overdesigned to be used in multiple applications. I certainly think there were more challenges that led to the LeapX engine on the 737MAX than other airplanes. It has some constraints to overcome and there likely will be some penalties taken.

[Edited 2012-02-07 10:21:19]
If you have never designed an airplane part before, let the real designers do the work!
 
ContnlEliteCMH
Posts: 1375
Joined: Wed Mar 02, 2005 8:19 am

RE: GE Completes Configuration Plans For 737MAX

Tue Feb 07, 2012 6:35 pm

The focus in this thread on the engine being "very unique" seems to focus on accessories packaging, engine placement, mount, etc. In my opinion, this is not nearly so interesting as the question about the core. There was rumor some months ago that Boeing asked GE to design a smaller core for the engine so as to restore the bypass ratio, which is arguably a better determiner of efficiency than simple fan size. This is why I asked if anybody knows if GE has agreed to provide the smaller core. That certainly would create an engine optimized for this airplane, given its fan size limitations.
Christianity. Islam. Hinduism. Anthropogenic Global Warming. All are matters of faith!
 
cosmofly
Posts: 195
Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 3:36 pm

RE: GE Completes Configuration Plans For 737MAX

Tue Feb 07, 2012 6:46 pm

What I found interesting is the phrase "an integrated propulsion system". What does the propulsion system integrate with? - the wing???

What about the phrase "incredibly efficient"?

I agree that it sounds like a more expensive endeavor, but on the other hand we may see some exciting new ideas. Can't wait to see what it is like   
 
ferpe
Posts: 2651
Joined: Tue Nov 30, 2010 7:44 am

RE: GE Completes Configuration Plans For 737MAX

Tue Feb 07, 2012 6:46 pm

When discussing the lack of space to hang an engine on the 737 one shall not forget that part of it's advantage over the 320, it's lower weight which counts in every part of the flight envelope comes from it's short and therefore light MLG and as a consequence short and light NLG installation.
Non French in France
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Crew
Posts: 11747
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

RE: GE Completes Configuration Plans For 737MAX

Tue Feb 07, 2012 7:06 pm

Quoting ContnlEliteCMH (Reply 28):
There was rumor some months ago that Boeing asked GE to design a smaller core for the engine so as to restore the bypass ratio, which is arguably a better determiner of efficiency than simple fan size.

Nitpick, Boeing doesn't care about bypass ratio itself, but the parameters that lead up to a more efficient engine. What they wanted changed was the core loading in order to have a more efficient engine. An oversized core would mean that the low spool wouldn't be able to have as high a pressure ratio as optimal. While optimizing the core size does in turn create a higher bypass ratio, it is the engine pressure ratio Boeing would want optimized and not the bypass ratio.

We can agree Boeing would demand an engine optimized for their airframe.

The closest analogy is the CF6 on the 767 and A330. The A330 has an under-sized core. While that produces an efficient engine, it limits hot/high performance (since corrected by GE). Hence with Airbus' demands for A320NEO performance, GE sized for that concept's requirements. For the 737, the same core is oversized.

Lightsaber
"They did not know it was impossible, so they did it!" - Mark Twain
 
User avatar
par13del
Posts: 6670
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

RE: GE Completes Configuration Plans For 737MAX

Tue Feb 07, 2012 7:14 pm

Quoting ferpe (Reply 30):
When discussing the lack of space to hang an engine on the 737 one shall not forget that part of it's advantage over the 320,

Oh, I thought the general wisdom was that it was not an advantage, hhhhhhhmmmm.  
Quoting WarpSpeed (Reply 26):
Something like this? Engines a bit more forward and pulled up closer to the wing...

That's my thought, may require additional wing strength but is does allow the gear to remain the same and who knows, may even allow better air flow over and around the wing and engine.

Quoting Roseflyer (Reply 27):
Current requirements require hydraulic tube separation, electrical separation, dry bay protection in hot areas, vibration damping, full flight envelope flutter protection, fan blade out vibration etc. The engine strut is one of the most complex parts of the airplane since all power systems (pneumatic, electrical, and hydraulic), along with fuel lines have to be routed around very rigid structure in a temperature and leakage sensitive environment. No part of the airplane has so many systems in such close proximity.

Higher into the wing eliminating the pylons would provide additional space, would sure make the MAX easy to identify.
 
roseflyer
Posts: 9606
Joined: Fri Feb 13, 2004 9:34 am

RE: GE Completes Configuration Plans For 737MAX

Tue Feb 07, 2012 8:01 pm

Quoting par13del (Reply 32):
Quoting ferpe (Reply 30):
When discussing the lack of space to hang an engine on the 737 one shall not forget that part of it's advantage over the 320,

Oh, I thought the general wisdom was that it was not an advantage, hhhhhhhmmmm.

I think he is referring to weight. Shorter gear is lighter. Also it allows more space in the wheel well which is highly used space for hydraulic components.
If you have never designed an airplane part before, let the real designers do the work!
 
ferpe
Posts: 2651
Joined: Tue Nov 30, 2010 7:44 am

RE: GE Completes Configuration Plans For 737MAX

Tue Feb 07, 2012 8:15 pm

Quoting Roseflyer (Reply 33):
Shorter gear is lighter.

Shorter gear is not only lighter it also transmits lower brake bending loads etc into the structure, ie the surrounding structure to hold the gears can be made lighter. In essence it is a compacter and therefore lighter/sturdier design, I guess this was why the B team made it like that in the first place. I think they realized that they would compromise the engine installation but would gain weight and cycle life.

The 737 was a frame which would do a lot of short hops and therefore cycles, weight was/is relatively more important than extragood aero, better therefore make things like gear etc sturdy yet light. As the range of a 737 has increase with something like 3 times since this trade was first decided this has changed a bit but the low weight is still a major advantage of the 737.
Non French in France
 
justloveplanes
Posts: 864
Joined: Thu Jul 08, 2004 5:38 am

RE: GE Completes Configuration Plans For 737MAX

Tue Feb 07, 2012 9:23 pm

Interesting time for a historical design review from the 40's...

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 17):
I doubt Boeing is designing the B-737MAX like the RMS Titanic or the Comet 1 was. At one time the Boeing designed and built B-47 was considered 'unique', yet the design set the basic standard for all airliners with the engines in pods under the wing, including all Airbus airliners. Since the B-731 was introduced by LH, the basic design has seen many changes, all of which improved upon the first design, so I see no reason the B-737MAX design will not continue that trend.

The swept wing / jet engine pod design was first used I believe on the Messerschmitt 262 fighter, which the B-47 leveraged. Though those pods were integrated a bit more.

Quoting flyglobal (Reply 22):
Given the words said about the unique solution of integrating the engines and given the issue that the 737 should get the biggest possible fan under the wing without lifting the plane too much, I would expect that we see something like an engine almost looking like integrated into the wing as a result.

The fully wing integrated engine was also a WWII fighter I believe, the Gloster Meteor, leveraged by the Comet.

So maybe we'll see something like these
 
chimborazo
Posts: 79
Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2011 7:51 pm

RE: GE Completes Configuration Plans For 737MAX

Tue Feb 07, 2012 11:00 pm

My immediate thought on reading the thread title was:

GE press release, "Er... We've decided the configuration will be one under each wing".



On a serious note: If the engines are brought forward on the wing as per posted pic, it seems to rob a fair bit of usable wing. Could this be compensated for by increasing span a few feet and still fit into required gates etc?
 
User avatar
ODwyerPW
Posts: 947
Joined: Thu Dec 09, 2004 6:30 am

RE: GE Completes Configuration Plans For 737MAX

Wed Feb 08, 2012 2:41 am

Quoting PITingres (Reply 21):
(and yes, I know that the Leap is being used on other airframes. Maybe GE has accepted a much greater lack of commonality at the engine systems and installation level, as a tolerable price to pay for the MAX exclusive.)

That is precisely how I interpret Unique. I submit that my interpretation of the semantics is no less invalid than anyone else here (unless of course, they are actively engaged with Boeing/GE on this project).
learning never stops.
 
ferpe
Posts: 2651
Joined: Tue Nov 30, 2010 7:44 am

RE: GE Completes Configuration Plans For 737MAX

Wed Feb 08, 2012 2:58 am

Quoting justloveplanes (Reply 36):
The swept wing / jet engine pod design was first used I believe on the Messerschmitt 262 fighter, which the B-47 leveraged. Though those pods were integrated a bit more.

The 262 pod design was very much the forerunner of the 737 original JT8 pod design.

Re putting the LeapX ahead of the wing, this can work fine for the engine but the real headache is the wings transonic efficiency, the engine will upset the pressure distribution of the wings under and over-side at cruise and that is an extremely sensitive play with things getting supersonic where it should not be and so on.

You can be sure the supercomputers in Seattle have been churning on the CFD for that installation for a while.
Non French in France
 
JoeCanuck
Posts: 3939
Joined: Mon Dec 19, 2005 3:30 am

RE: GE Completes Configuration Plans For 737MAX

Wed Feb 08, 2012 3:50 am

Quoting ferpe (Reply 40):

In a way, as a curious onlooker, I'm glad Boeing went with the MAX purely from the standpoint of seeing where their creativity will take them.

The puzzle of mounting the bigger engines on the 737 may be more effort and expense for Boeing, but that also makes it more interesting to me.
What the...?
 
User avatar
ODwyerPW
Posts: 947
Joined: Thu Dec 09, 2004 6:30 am

RE: GE Completes Configuration Plans For 737MAX

Wed Feb 08, 2012 4:53 am

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 41):
In a way, as a curious onlooker, I'm glad Boeing went with the MAX purely from the standpoint of seeing where their creativity will take them.

I feel the same way. I have always enjoyed the 'How Evolved will the 737 Become' threads.(think there was a Parti, Partii and a Partiii). The MAX is 4G.

History will change the cliches "Ride the Gravy Train" and "Milk the Cow" to "Build and Sell the 737".
learning never stops.
 
rheinwaldner
Posts: 1244
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 4:58 pm

RE: GE Completes Configuration Plans For 737MAX

Wed Feb 08, 2012 8:58 am

Quoting Revelation (Reply 24):
Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 16):
the cost part of the equation would blow out of proportion

And the wording of this seems to me to be stronger than your later statements.

Out of proportion can can be a lot of things. Including my later statement.

Quoting Roseflyer (Reply 27):
Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 16):
In summary I would say, that finding new ways do do some very profound and established things like mounting an engine, requires a hefty amount of research. For something that usually is a simple engineering task. It is about the difference between engineering and research.

I absolutely disagree that mounting an engine is a simple task. The regulations keep getting stricter and more limitations are existing. It is far more complex than it was when the 737 was initially designed.

Absolutely correct, I did not want to say that it would be simple. It is a 1.3bn $ task in case of Airbus (IIRC) and Boeing is quoted to require a 3bn $ investment for the 737 re-engine. Both figures are huge and prove that this is not going to be simple. Which does not contradict the fact, that it normally is a straight-forward engineering task.

Quoting Roseflyer (Reply 27):
Saying it is inferior is just one opinion. Unique could just as easily be considered superior due to use of parts that are not overdesigned to be used in multiple applications. I certainly think there were more challenges that led to the LeapX engine on the 737MAX than other airplanes. It has some constraints to overcome and there likely will be some penalties taken.

So my opinion matches the one you have written in your last sentence.

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 31):
Hence with Airbus' demands for A320NEO performance, GE sized for that concept's requirements. For the 737, the same core is oversized.

How was the situation for the NG? Did the CFM have the same core on the A321 and 739NG?

Quoting ferpe (Reply 34):
In essence it is a compacter and therefore lighter/sturdier design, I guess this was why the B team made it like that in the first place. I think they realized that they would compromise the engine installation but would gain weight and cycle life.

I would tend to agree, if there would not be many aircraft designs that have gearlength in excess. E.g. A320 or 757. Why did they waste that weight to make these gears so long initially? There were designs that had a reputation of being exceptionally lightweight with ultra long and sturdy gears, e.g the A-4 Skyhawk. So I am in doubt about the importance of short gears. With the 787 Boeing has returned to short gears after a series of "normal" designs (747, 767, 777).

A thought crossed my mind. Could it be that the 737 was designed with short gears because that way the gear bay and a lot of other solutions could be overtaken from the 727? This seems quite a plausible explanation for the low ground clearance of the 737 to me. So the challenge Boeing is facing for the MAX would have their roots back in the 727...

Quoting odwyerpw (Reply 39):
The ROI on the NEO will no doubt be more favorable than that of the MAX. Did you really have to say much worse?

No, that was harsh and needless, sorry!

Quoting odwyerpw (Reply 39):
Stop dogging the MAX at every turn.....we KNOW there will be comprimises that will likely result in loss of efficiency in relation to the same technology applied to the NEO.

The impression that I am too harsh might come up because I feel the MAX is too much touched with velvet gloves.

It was a trap to firmly believe Boeing's sunny day propaganda during the 787 development and I don't see much critical reflection when Boeing sings the same tune this time. What if they misjudge equally bad (though about something else)? I really wish Boeing the best and quite likely nothing will go wrong.

But if in ten years we have to look back, and discover that Boeing in the meantime has been relegated to a second rank manufacturer (because they'd have lost a considerable chunk of their customer base), we hardly won't find traces of critical voices on this board, that have anticipated this outcome (if just as slight possibility).

You have to see where Boeing is coming from. Boeing's NB business as it is now (enriched with MD's) in the eighties had 100% market share. Now it is less than 50%. A fact nobody seems to care. And still Boeing puts their hopes into the same frame from the sixties, that was responsible for their first decline (regarding market penetration).

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 41):
The puzzle of mounting the bigger engines on the 737 may be more effort and expense for Boeing, but that also makes it more interesting to me.

To me too. It is fascinating to see how Boeing deals with this situation.
 
User avatar
Faro
Posts: 1491
Joined: Sun Aug 12, 2007 1:08 am

RE: GE Completes Configuration Plans For 737MAX

Wed Feb 08, 2012 9:14 am

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 43):
Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 41):
The puzzle of mounting the bigger engines on the 737 may be more effort and expense for Boeing, but that also makes it more interesting to me.

To me too. It is fascinating to see how Boeing deals with this situation.

Indeed, it's always exciting to see something new being done with the boring old wing-and-tube model.

Faro
The chalice not my son
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 13760
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

RE: GE Completes Configuration Plans For 737MAX

Wed Feb 08, 2012 1:18 pm

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 43):
Out of proportion can can be a lot of things. Including my later statement.

What about "blow(n) out of proportion"? I doubt I'm alone in hearing that as an exasperated utterance. In other words, "them's fighting words"! At least that's the tone that is conveyed.

So, to step back, I think you meant proportional relative to the competitor's cost, vs. proportional relative to the MAX's profits.

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 43):
It was a trap to firmly believe Boeing's sunny day propaganda during the 787 development

So we should be filled with fear, uncertainty and doubt (FUD) over every Airbus program after it's sunny day propaganda about the A380?

Both companies know what colossal foul-ups those programs were/are.

This isn't the day of the 747 "Incredibles". It seems slippage is now part of the culture - A350 isn't tracking to schedule either. So while I think things will not go along the "sunny day" line, we also don't have to presume every program will track along the A380/B787 trajectory.
Inspiration, move me brightly!
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 22953
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: GE Completes Configuration Plans For 737MAX

Wed Feb 08, 2012 1:30 pm

Looking at the financial statements, as well as values and lease rates, the 737 has higher Average Sales Pricing than the A320, so RoI is probably not something Boeing is sweating bullets on. If it costs Airbus on average $1 million more to build an A320neo and they make $5 million more delivering it while Boeing spends $2 million more on production and makes $6 million more on delivery, they both make $4 million more. And even if Boeing spends $2m and makes the same $5m, it's still $3m more than delivering a 737NG, especially if 737NG ASPs became stagnant due to the neo.

The 2012 list price for the 737MAX averages $9.3 million more than for the 737NG. Airbus has also raised their average list premium for the neo from $6 million in 2011 to $9 million in 2012. So both companies appear to feel they can demand a similar premium for their models.

Which implies that both OEMs are going to continue to make money by the Panamax freighter-full with their narrowbody offerings - current and future.

[Edited 2012-02-08 06:03:47]
 
StickShaker
Posts: 620
Joined: Thu Sep 02, 2004 7:34 pm

RE: GE Completes Configuration Plans For 737MAX

Wed Feb 08, 2012 1:51 pm

Quoting ferpe (Reply 34):
Shorter gear is not only lighter it also transmits lower brake bending loads etc into the structure, ie the surrounding structure to hold the gears can be made lighter. In essence it is a compacter and therefore lighter/sturdier design, I guess this was why the B team made it like that in the first place.

I always understood that the 737 had shorter gear because it was originally designed to accommodate the PW JT8 which is a much physically smaller engine than those used today for NB aircraft. I'm sure the main gear wasn't looked on as "short" when the 731 first went into service all those years ago.


Regards,
StickShaker
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 22953
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: GE Completes Configuration Plans For 737MAX

Wed Feb 08, 2012 2:05 pm

Quoting StickShaker (Reply 47):
I always understood that the 737 had shorter gear because it was originally designed to accommodate the PW JT8 which is a much physically smaller engine than those used today for NB aircraft. I'm sure the main gear wasn't looked on as "short" when the 731 first went into service all those years ago.

In addition to that fact, the lower ground clearance makes bulk loading and unloading of bags a bit easier.

I imagine "lightness" was one of the secondary, if not tertiary, reasons Boeing went with a short strut.
 
racko
Posts: 4548
Joined: Tue Nov 06, 2001 12:06 am

RE: GE Completes Configuration Plans For 737MAX

Wed Feb 08, 2012 2:13 pm

Quoting N14AZ (Reply 5):
Maybe something like this?

I may be alone on this, but I would love anything that breaks with the boring "standard twin" look all new airliners have these days. Engines on the wing, under the wing, in the back, on top of the fuselage, I don't care, as long as it looks unusual.
 
Devilfish
Posts: 5182
Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2006 7:52 am

RE: GE Completes Configuration Plans For 737MAX

Wed Feb 08, 2012 4:25 pm

I've seen no mention of this, so here.....

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/art...et-or-exceed-a320neo-range-367932/

Quote:
"Boeing will match or exceed the range of the Airbus A320neo with its 737 Max family, as the company seeks to firm the configuration of its re-engined narrowbody.

The airframer expects the CFM International Leap-1B-powered 737 Max to be 'as good or better on range' than the A320neo family, said Boeing Commercial Airplanes vice president of marketing, Randy Tinseth.

Airbus identifies the range of today's sharklet-equipped A319, A320 and A321 as 6,850km (3,700nm), 6,150km (3,300nm) and 5,590km (3,200nm), respectively, and expects to add an additional 500nm with the addition of its Pratt & Whitney PW1100G and Leap-1A engines.

'We're going to make some minor structural enhancements to the 737 Max, so we can have a slightly higher maximum takeoff weights so we can slightly increase the range of the airplane as well,' said Tinseth at the Pacific Northwest Aerospace Alliance conference in suburban Seattle.

Tinseth declined to say what its target ranges or weights were for the Max family, but each variant would top its next generation 737 predecessor. The 737-700's design range is 6,200km (3,445nm), -800's is 5,700km (3,085nm) and -900ER's is 6,000km (3,235nm), respectively.

A higher maximum takeoff weight would allow the 737 Max to carry more fuel and payload, while offsetting the increased structural weight that comes with the larger 175cm (68.75in) Leap-1B engine fan."
"Everyone is entitled to my opinion." - Garfield
 
Daysleeper
Posts: 565
Joined: Sun Dec 20, 2009 3:33 pm

RE: GE Completes Configuration Plans For 737MAX

Wed Feb 08, 2012 5:07 pm

I think given the magnitude of sales which will be generated by this program an extra billion or two in costs isn’t going to matter, as Boeing will still see a significant ROI.

What I’d say is of more concern is time. The leap-X in its present form isn’t expected into service until 2015 and that’s before they have to make the unique changes required to make it work on the 737, whereas the GTF is already undergoing testing and is expected to be finalised and in production next year.

I think it’s easy to under-estimate just how exposed Boeing are because of this. I won’t pretend to understand all the pro’s and con’s of bypass ratio’s and the likes, but if Boeing are dependant on GE being able to make such changes in order to make the engine work on the Max then a delay becomes a distinct possibility.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 46):
Looking at the financial statements, as well as values and lease rates, the 737 has higher Average Sales Pricing than the A320, so RoI is probably not something Boeing is sweating bullets on

Historically perhaps, but as demand for the NEO has been unprecedented in aviation it’s difficult to predict what rates a lesser will be able to achieve. I suspect initially when demand is far higher than supply they will be able to charge a significant premium.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 48):
In addition to that fact, the lower ground clearance makes bulk loading and unloading of bags a bit easier.

This is a none-issue when baggage is containerised.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], cuban8, dman87, Dutchy, Jetstar315, joeytaffy93, mnik101, qf2048, RWA380, Thule, VS4ever, wrcairline, Yahoo [Bot] and 233 guests