• 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 7
 
musman9853
Topic Author
Posts: 825
Joined: Mon May 14, 2018 12:30 pm

Boeing has given the 3 Major Engine Manufacturers until June 27 to submit their 797 engine proposals

Tue Jun 26, 2018 10:06 pm

https://preview.theaircurrent.com/

This is Jon Ostrower's new gig.
Welcome to the City Beautiful.
 
texl1649
Posts: 1059
Joined: Thu Aug 02, 2007 5:38 am

Re: Boeing has given the 3 Major Engine Manufacturers until June 27 to submit their 797 engine proposals

Tue Jun 26, 2018 10:28 pm

So it’s ultrafan vs LEAP/9x. I’m shocked rolls has the resources available short term to do this.
 
jagraham
Posts: 920
Joined: Sun Jul 17, 2016 11:10 pm

Re: Boeing has given the 3 Major Engine Manufacturers until June 27 to submit their 797 engine proposals

Tue Jun 26, 2018 10:37 pm

There is another thread which reports that GE and Safran were negotiating to increase the max thrust for CFM engines to 50000 lbs. So I vote for LEAP as opposed to 9x.

OTOH, what is Pratt going to do?
 
JayinKitsap
Posts: 1476
Joined: Sat Nov 26, 2005 9:55 am

Re: Boeing has given the 3 Major Engine Manufacturers until June 27 to submit their 797 engine proposals

Tue Jun 26, 2018 10:37 pm

texl1649 wrote:
So it’s ultrafan vs LEAP/9x. I’m shocked rolls has the resources available short term to do this.


I suspect that B is concerned about this very thing.
 
scouseflyer
Posts: 2190
Joined: Wed Apr 26, 2006 7:02 pm

Re: Boeing has given the 3 Major Engine Manufacturers until June 27 to submit their 797 engine proposals

Tue Jun 26, 2018 10:51 pm

"OTOH, what is Pratt going to do?"

After the recent SNAFUs by Pratt will an OEM trust them to provide launch engines in the near future?
 
mffoda
Posts: 1099
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 4:09 pm

Re: Boeing has given the 3 Major Engine Manufacturers until June 27 to submit their 797 engine proposals

Tue Jun 26, 2018 10:54 pm

This is an interesting note in Jon's article... :scratchchin:

"Historically, picking a power plant has closely preceded the formal launch of the aircraft. Boeing made its pick of General Electric and Rolls-Royce engines for the 787 (then-7E7) just 20 days before All Nippon Airways placed the jet’s 2004 kickoff order."
harder than woodpecker lips...
 
texl1649
Posts: 1059
Joined: Thu Aug 02, 2007 5:38 am

Re: Boeing has given the 3 Major Engine Manufacturers until June 27 to submit their 797 engine proposals

Tue Jun 26, 2018 11:05 pm

Yes, picking an engine means the offer order to cert to delivery contractual dates are basically...done.

It also means the loser(s) among the three engine makers becomes incentivized, from a market perspective, to “discuss” with Airbus, their in house technically quite advanced stage design/plans/options. After the Boeing board meeting last week, I think the ball is rolling pretty quickly, finally.
 
texl1649
Posts: 1059
Joined: Thu Aug 02, 2007 5:38 am

Re: Boeing has given the 3 Major Engine Manufacturers until June 27 to submit their 797 engine proposals

Tue Jun 26, 2018 11:08 pm

jagraham wrote:
There is another thread which reports that GE and Safran were negotiating to increase the max thrust for CFM engines to 50000 lbs. So I vote for LEAP as opposed to 9x.

OTOH, what is Pratt going to do?


The basic LEAP core can’t do that though. His article references tech from both families, and while GE (and Boeing) would have an interest to brand them as one family, I’m guessing actual parts commonality would approach zero. Mechanic training for GE 797 engine and LEAP might be quite similar tho.
 
PlanesNTrains
Posts: 9526
Joined: Tue Feb 01, 2005 4:19 pm

Re: Boeing has given the 3 Major Engine Manufacturers until June 27 to submit their 797 engine proposals

Tue Jun 26, 2018 11:13 pm

mffoda wrote:
This is an interesting note in Jon's article... :scratchchin:

"Historically, picking a power plant has closely preceded the formal launch of the aircraft. Boeing made its pick of General Electric and Rolls-Royce engines for the 787 (then-7E7) just 20 days before All Nippon Airways placed the jet’s 2004 kickoff order."


The question then becomes, when will they pick the powerplant?
-Dave


MAX’d out on MAX threads. If you are starting a thread, and it’s about the MAX - stop. There’s already a thread that covers it.
 
User avatar
Continental767
Posts: 150
Joined: Fri Apr 01, 2016 3:22 pm

Re: Boeing has given the 3 Major Engine Manufacturers until June 27 to submit their 797 engine proposals

Tue Jun 26, 2018 11:26 pm

Looks like the 797 is coming soon. Very soon. Maybe even within a month, if it follows the 787 timeline. Exciting!
Indianapolis.
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Moderator
Posts: 18114
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

Re: Boeing has given the 3 Major Engine Manufacturers until June 27 to submit their 797 engine proposals

Tue Jun 26, 2018 11:56 pm

Sadly, I think Boeing will decide which is less worse: RR or Pratt.

CFM has issues with the LEAP turbine, but that is interval on wing, not fuel burn nor dispatch reliability. It is easily monitored and the factories have already geared up to provide replacement parts.

CFM is pretty much certain (or at least GE) to be selected.

It is a question of who is the 2nd option and what hurdles they must leap to be selected.


PlanesNTrains wrote:
mffoda wrote:
This is an interesting note in Jon's article... :scratchchin:

"Historically, picking a power plant has closely preceded the formal launch of the aircraft. Boeing made its pick of General Electric and Rolls-Royce engines for the 787 (then-7E7) just 20 days before All Nippon Airways placed the jet’s 2004 kickoff order."


The question then becomes, when will they pick the powerplant?

This is the most exciting time to engineer an engine. Many changes and improvements. Management decides if they want to risk new technology or not. It take a few months to optimize the concept for launch (including planned thrust growth margin).

By iterating aircraft/engine optimization, the overall airframe cuts fuel burn a few percent. The pylon will be optimized.

Now, far more goes on after engine selection, but first the opportunity has to be seen.

Lightsaber
IM messages to mods on warnings and bans will be ignored and nasty ones will result in a ban.
 
User avatar
par13del
Posts: 9043
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

Re: Boeing has given the 3 Major Engine Manufacturers until June 27 to submit their 797 engine proposals

Tue Jun 26, 2018 11:59 pm

Imagine a carrier having 787 and 797 in their fleet, based on what is taking place now, the risk is high.
Th engine OEM's have a couple years to restore confidence, the issues with engines on the 787 today are reliability not new tech, the engines have been around for a few years.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 21379
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Boeing has given the 3 Major Engine Manufacturers until June 27 to submit their 797 engine proposals

Wed Jun 27, 2018 12:16 am

JayinKitsap wrote:
texl1649 wrote:
So it’s ultrafan vs LEAP/9x. I’m shocked rolls has the resources available short term to do this.

I suspect that B is concerned about this very thing.

In theory, they have Advance technology integrated in a testbed engine (see thread in TechOps) and by the time the big spend needs to happen for UltraFan RR should be taking in lots of cash from A350 TXWB sales. Unfortunately they have taken a big hit financially and reputationally with the T1000 issues.

texl1649 wrote:
The basic LEAP core can’t do that though. His article references tech from both families, and while GE (and Boeing) would have an interest to brand them as one family, I’m guessing actual parts commonality would approach zero. Mechanic training for GE 797 engine and LEAP might be quite similar tho.

We have some pretty clear guidance from just three months ago:

(CEO of GE Aviation David) Joyce said CFM will probably be the engine provider rather than GE, if Boeing selects the family.

“I see no reason at all why we wouldn’t make LEAP the baseline,” he said. “It will be bigger, but it will be something advancing not a full generation, but a half generation in technology from what LEAP is today.”

It will be “kind of” a clean-sheet engine, Joyce said. “We’ll be able to put as much technology as we feel is mature enough, advanced technology, brand new stuff.”

Ref: https://leehamnews.com/2018/03/22/ge-cf ... ng-on-nma/

“It will be bigger,” Joyce told a JP Morgan investment conference on 14 March. “It’s advancing [on the Leap technology] not a full generation but a half-generation.”
...
“The probability is very, very high this will be a CFM engine,” Joyce says.

So in essence it's going to be a bigger CFM LEAP with a "half generation" leap (tm) in technology.
Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world
The heart has its beaches, its homeland and thoughts of its own
Wake now, discover that you are the song that the morning brings
The heart has its seasons, its evenings and songs of its own
 
bigjku
Posts: 1906
Joined: Sat Feb 17, 2007 10:51 pm

Re: Boeing has given the 3 Major Engine Manufacturers until June 27 to submit their 797 engine proposals

Wed Jun 27, 2018 12:21 am

lightsaber wrote:
Sadly, I think Boeing will decide which is less worse: RR or Pratt.

CFM has issues with the LEAP turbine, but that is interval on wing, not fuel burn nor dispatch reliability. It is easily monitored and the factories have already geared up to provide replacement parts.

CFM is pretty much certain (or at least GE) to be selected.

It is a question of who is the 2nd option and what hurdles they must leap to be selected.


PlanesNTrains wrote:
mffoda wrote:
This is an interesting note in Jon's article... :scratchchin:

"Historically, picking a power plant has closely preceded the formal launch of the aircraft. Boeing made its pick of General Electric and Rolls-Royce engines for the 787 (then-7E7) just 20 days before All Nippon Airways placed the jet’s 2004 kickoff order."


The question then becomes, when will they pick the powerplant?

This is the most exciting time to engineer an engine. Many changes and improvements. Management decides if they want to risk new technology or not. It take a few months to optimize the concept for launch (including planned thrust growth margin).

By iterating aircraft/engine optimization, the overall airframe cuts fuel burn a few percent. The pylon will be optimized.

Now, far more goes on after engine selection, but first the opportunity has to be seen.

Lightsaber


I think this makes the most sense. CFM goes on first and I would guess is the launch engine. If you want a Pratt or RR you wait some additional time. It fits with the aggressive launch schedule for the airplane as well. CFM may be comfortable with a 2025 EIS and the others may need longer.
 
acjbbj
Posts: 310
Joined: Sat Mar 17, 2018 7:06 pm

Re: Boeing has given the 3 Major Engine Manufacturers until June 27 to submit their 797 engine proposals

Wed Jun 27, 2018 12:24 am

Didn't GE say that they were calling it quits if they didn't get exclusivity?
Douglas Aircraft Company
Born: 22 July 1921 (Santa Monica, CA)
Died: 23 May 2006 (Long Beach, CA), age 84 years 10 months 1 day
You will be missed.
 
GoSharks
Posts: 127
Joined: Mon Nov 02, 2015 3:23 am

Re: Boeing has given the 3 Major Engine Manufacturers until June 27 to submit their 797 engine proposals

Wed Jun 27, 2018 1:03 am

Continental767 wrote:
Looks like the 797 is coming soon. Very soon. Maybe even within a month, if it follows the 787 timeline. Exciting!

You don't pick winner(s) of an RFP the day they are due..
 
texl1649
Posts: 1059
Joined: Thu Aug 02, 2007 5:38 am

Re: Boeing has given the 3 Major Engine Manufacturers until June 27 to submit their 797 engine proposals

Wed Jun 27, 2018 1:09 am

Oh, I realize, Revelation, that GE/SNECMA are expanding their contractual relationship with this new family, To 50or 55k, I should clarify my suspicion is it is, in fact, a new family. Sure, lots of LEAP stuff, but in reality a new core engine, with GE9x tech, and, curiously, not a GTF. so, same stage numbers and architecture as LEAP basically.

GE basically said they weren’t doing another three engine sources all new design/family, and I’m sure they offered to spend/contribute more if sole sourced.

What rational major carrier would want an all new ultrafan design in about 2026 at this point? I don’t think even BA or DL, let alone Korean or others would throw a big commitment that way.
 
jetblueguy22
Posts: 3235
Joined: Thu Nov 29, 2007 12:26 am

Re: Boeing has given the 3 Major Engine Manufacturers until June 27 to submit their 797 engine proposals

Wed Jun 27, 2018 1:18 am

scouseflyer wrote:
"OTOH, what is Pratt going to do?"

After the recent SNAFUs by Pratt will an OEM trust them to provide launch engines in the near future?

RR and Pratt are about on par in the SNAFU department.
Look at sweatpants guy. This is a 90 million dollar aircraft, not a Tallahassee strip club
 
bigjku
Posts: 1906
Joined: Sat Feb 17, 2007 10:51 pm

Re: Boeing has given the 3 Major Engine Manufacturers until June 27 to submit their 797 engine proposals

Wed Jun 27, 2018 1:18 am

GoSharks wrote:
Continental767 wrote:
Looks like the 797 is coming soon. Very soon. Maybe even within a month, if it follows the 787 timeline. Exciting!

You don't pick winner(s) of an RFP the day they are due..


Yeah but Boeing has a ton of familiarity with the basic offerings they are going to see. The manufacturers will make their guarantees on performance, finances and specs which will be easily comparable in a matter of a few hours.

The only hard part is evaluating the technical risk with each proposal. But the basic architecture of each proposal is fairly well known. GE/CFM will offer a high temp exotic material but fairly conventional engine. Pratt will offer some GTF. RR is the only wildcard. Do they offer the full ultra fan or just the advanced?

You have likely already talked to airlines about their preferences. My take is that more airlines are loyal to RR than Pratt. I expect the RR to have more technical risk with their first geared fan and a new core but to win out on political merits over Pratt. I think CFM/GE is a sure thing.
 
User avatar
ClipperYankee
Posts: 143
Joined: Wed Apr 12, 2017 12:51 pm

Re: Boeing has given the 3 Major Engine Manufacturers until June 27 to submit their 797 engine proposals

Wed Jun 27, 2018 1:37 am

bigjku wrote:
GoSharks wrote:
Continental767 wrote:
Looks like the 797 is coming soon. Very soon. Maybe even within a month, if it follows the 787 timeline. Exciting!

You don't pick winner(s) of an RFP the day they are due..


Yeah but Boeing has a ton of familiarity with the basic offerings they are going to see. The manufacturers will make their guarantees on performance, finances and specs which will be easily comparable in a matter of a few hours.

The only hard part is evaluating the technical risk with each proposal. But the basic architecture of each proposal is fairly well known. GE/CFM will offer a high temp exotic material but fairly conventional engine. Pratt will offer some GTF. RR is the only wildcard. Do they offer the full ultra fan or just the advanced?

You have likely already talked to airlines about their preferences. My take is that more airlines are loyal to RR than Pratt. I expect the RR to have more technical risk with their first geared fan and a new core but to win out on political merits over Pratt. I think CFM/GE is a sure thing.



I'd agree but I think Pratt has to go "all in" as this would probably be their last opportunity to move up the size ladder. That they know they can't screw it up anything beyond something very minor is a given. Also, Pratt would probably be more aggressive on price, something they can do with their corporate backing that Rolls might not be able to match with all the money they are spending fixing current issues. As with most, I concur that something involving CFM/GE is almost a given.
I've got nothing against any manufacturer but as a Pratt fan I'd love to see a strong comeback.
707/717/727/737-100,200,300,400,500,700,800/747-200,300,400/757-200,300/767-300,400
772/788&9/DC3/DC6/DC8/DC9/DC10/MD80s/L1011/A300/A319,320,321/A332&3/A343/A359/A388/
BAE146/ATP/ATR42/DHC2,3,7,8/S340B/CRJ200,700,900/E140,145,175,190/F70,100/B1900
 
RJMAZ
Posts: 1625
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

Re: Boeing has given the 3 Major Engine Manufacturers until June 27 to submit their 797 engine proposals

Wed Jun 27, 2018 1:56 am

texl1649 wrote:
jagraham wrote:
There is another thread which reports that GE and Safran were negotiating to increase the max thrust for CFM engines to 50000 lbs. So I vote for LEAP as opposed to 9x.

OTOH, what is Pratt going to do?


The basic LEAP core can’t do that though. His article references tech from both families, and while GE (and Boeing) would have an interest to brand them as one family, I’m guessing actual parts commonality would approach zero. Mechanic training for GE 797 engine and LEAP might be quite similar tho.

The last few GE engines have pretty much been done by taking their best current core design and scaling it to the appropriate size and then adding a bit of new technology. This scaling of cores is now done in the virtual world speeding up development. The more new technology that is added the greater the risk. GE can easily strike a balance between risk and fuel burn targets to create an engine by the required operational date.

GE has this in the bag.

The GE9X fan is newer tech and a bit lighter at any given size. So you could effectively have a larger diameter fan providing more thrust with the same shaft horsepower. The LEAP core might only need to provide 10% more shaft power to create an engine with 30% more thrust. Bypass ratio could be as high as 13:1 setting a new record.

Supercharging a core with an additional front stage is pretty common practice. It increases overall frontal area giving higher flow and pressure ratio through the core. Increased heat is the obvious side effect but the LEAP core is reaching maturity. They might add some GE9x techology in the turbine section to handle the heat. This could easily add 25% more shaft power from the core creating an engine with 50% more thrust than the current LEAP.

The end result is an engine that probably shares few parts with the LEAP or GE9x but shares the mature technology of both.

Scaling the Pratt GTF is high risk. It needs a new larger core, Pratt has little experience scaling cores. It needs a new higher ratio gearbox.

Rolls royce advance is based off the 3 shaft trent design and is simply too large for the 797. Scaling it down would be inefficient. Derating the trentTen core and adding a smaller fan can not beat GE. Rolls would need a brand new core. The Rolls royce ultrafan is a cleansheet and very high risk option to meet the in service date. Boeing knows they arw struggling at the moment, even amateur enthusiasts can see Rolls is in trouble.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 26376
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

Re: Boeing has given the 3 Major Engine Manufacturers until June 27 to submit their 797 engine proposals

Wed Jun 27, 2018 2:41 am

I think a derivative of the LEAP engine is the most-likely at launch, with a possible P&W GTF or RR UF option down the road. GTF and UF would probably be desirable on NSA so whomever wins the second engine option on NMA would help de-risk the NSA program.
 
User avatar
DL747400
Posts: 721
Joined: Mon Sep 01, 2008 4:04 pm

Re: Boeing has given the 3 Major Engine Manufacturers until June 27 to submit their 797 engine proposals

Wed Jun 27, 2018 2:55 am

texl1649 wrote:
What rational major carrier would want an all new ultrafan design in about 2026 at this point? I don’t think even BA or DL, let alone Korean or others would throw a big commitment that way.


Agreed. While DL has already said that they want to be a (the?) launch customer for the NMA, an ultrafan engine concept which has not been proven and debugged in commercial service might be too much risk to take on.
From First to Worst: The history of Airliners.net.

All posts reflect my opinions, not those of my employer or any other company.
 
rj777
Posts: 1798
Joined: Sat Dec 02, 2000 1:47 am

Re: Boeing has given the 3 Major Engine Manufacturers until June 27 to submit their 797 engine proposals

Wed Jun 27, 2018 3:00 am

Kind of interesting that DL wants to be the launch customer considering they've operated every Boeing model EXCEPT the 787.....
 
User avatar
QuarkFly
Posts: 368
Joined: Mon Aug 15, 2016 4:20 pm

Re: Boeing has given the 3 Major Engine Manufacturers until June 27 to submit their 797 engine proposals

Wed Jun 27, 2018 3:04 am

Launch customers may have some preferences...look at 757/767/787/Neo current and past operators...NH is 767 carrier and a potential launch customer -- went for Rolls on 787, maybe NH kicking themselves? AA chose LEAP for A320Neo and 787 GEnx, also is 767-CF6 so CFM is what they would prefer. Delta went for Pratt-GTF on NEO, and Isn't UAL a 767 Pratt aircraft? --but GE on UA 787. Qantas may be interested in 797, what would they prefer?

So agreed that CFM is almost a shoe-in. I don't know if there is really room for another 797/NMA engine maker. It's very expensive to certify two engines and the engine OEM's may not want a competition, instead may demand an exclusive. Didn't hurt the A350 and I don't know if the 797 will have a big initial customer base that would support two engines. Maybe another engine could be a 797 NEO ten years layer in 2035. My bet is CFM only for now.
Always take the Red Eye if possible
 
JayinKitsap
Posts: 1476
Joined: Sat Nov 26, 2005 9:55 am

Re: Boeing has given the 3 Major Engine Manufacturers until June 27 to submit their 797 engine proposals

Wed Jun 27, 2018 3:41 am

texl1649 wrote:
Oh, I realize, Revelation, that GE/SNECMA are expanding their contractual relationship with this new family, To 50or 55k, I should clarify my suspicion is it is, in fact, a new family. Sure, lots of LEAP stuff, but in reality a new core engine, with GE9x tech, and, curiously, not a GTF. so, same stage numbers and architecture as LEAP basically.


Jon's blog post indicated the RFP is for a 45k engine, less than the 50k of the GE/SNECMA.

Currently Boeing has single engine supplier on the 737, 748, the 772LR, 777F, & 773W
The 767 has 3 suppliers and the 787 has 2 with GE having the pole position for both.

My best guess is GE/SNECMA in an exclusive on the first model, possibly 2 for the 2nd model. That would allow for a larger thrust and more mature technology. There is probably a couple of years between the two models.
 
jagraham
Posts: 920
Joined: Sun Jul 17, 2016 11:10 pm

Re: Boeing has given the 3 Major Engine Manufacturers until June 27 to submit their 797 engine proposals

Wed Jun 27, 2018 4:41 am

RJMAZ wrote:
texl1649 wrote:
jagraham wrote:
There is another thread which reports that GE and Safran were negotiating to increase the max thrust for CFM engines to 50000 lbs. So I vote for LEAP as opposed to 9x.

OTOH, what is Pratt going to do?


The basic LEAP core can’t do that though. His article references tech from both families, and while GE (and Boeing) would have an interest to brand them as one family, I’m guessing actual parts commonality would approach zero. Mechanic training for GE 797 engine and LEAP might be quite similar tho.

The last few GE engines have pretty much been done by taking their best current core design and scaling it to the appropriate size and then adding a bit of new technology. This scaling of cores is now done in the virtual world speeding up development. The more new technology that is added the greater the risk. GE can easily strike a balance between risk and fuel burn targets to create an engine by the required operational date.

GE has this in the bag.

The GE9X fan is newer tech and a bit lighter at any given size. So you could effectively have a larger diameter fan providing more thrust with the same shaft horsepower. The LEAP core might only need to provide 10% more shaft power to create an engine with 30% more thrust. Bypass ratio could be as high as 13:1 setting a new record.

Supercharging a core with an additional front stage is pretty common practice. It increases overall frontal area giving higher flow and pressure ratio through the core. Increased heat is the obvious side effect but the LEAP core is reaching maturity. They might add some GE9x techology in the turbine section to handle the heat. This could easily add 25% more shaft power from the core creating an engine with 50% more thrust than the current LEAP.

The end result is an engine that probably shares few parts with the LEAP or GE9x but shares the mature technology of both.

Scaling the Pratt GTF is high risk. It needs a new larger core, Pratt has little experience scaling cores. It needs a new higher ratio gearbox.

Rolls royce advance is based off the 3 shaft trent design and is simply too large for the 797. Scaling it down would be inefficient. Derating the trentTen core and adding a smaller fan can not beat GE. Rolls would need a brand new core. The Rolls royce ultrafan is a cleansheet and very high risk option to meet the in service date. Boeing knows they arw struggling at the moment, even amateur enthusiasts can see Rolls is in trouble.


Ultrafan is a GTF https://www.rolls-royce.com/media/our-s ... arbox.aspx. It also has a variable pitch fan. The new core is already being done in the Advance3 demonstrator. So the pieces are there, and should generate class leading efficiency; but will Boeing wait??? Or trust for that matter????? Ultrafan has a LOT of new toys in one toybox.
 
dampfnudel
Posts: 420
Joined: Wed Oct 04, 2006 9:42 am

Re: Boeing has given the 3 Major Engine Manufacturers until June 27 to submit their 797 engine proposals

Wed Jun 27, 2018 4:45 am

acjbbj wrote:
Didn't GE say that they were calling it quits if they didn't get exclusivity?


Is that calling it quits with manufacturing engines or calling it quits completely because the vultures seem to circling GE at the moment. Anyway, it looks like the 797 will make its debut soon and we won’t have to guess/argue over the specifications. We’ll just have to guess/argue if it was the right decision for Boeing to make. As always, time and a DL/UA order for 100+ each will tell.
A313 332 343 B703 712 722 732 73G 738 739 741 742 744 752 762 76E 764 772 AT5 CR9 D10 DHH DHT F27 GRM L10 M83 TU5

AA AI CO CL DE DL EA HA KL LH N7 PA PQ SK RO TW UA YR
 
imthedreamliner
Posts: 100
Joined: Mon Nov 20, 2017 11:34 am

Re: Boeing has given the 3 Major Engine Manufacturers until June 27 to submit their 797 engine proposals

Wed Jun 27, 2018 5:10 am

Fingers crossed for 797 :) By the way, I think it is the perfect time to launch the program. Airbus is not at a position to counter this program due to the recent changes at the management level. Do they need to respond to 797 is another topic. Time will tell.
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 13179
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: Boeing has given the 3 Major Engine Manufacturers until June 27 to submit their 797 engine proposals

Wed Jun 27, 2018 5:46 am

imthedreamliner wrote:
Fingers crossed for 797 :) By the way, I think it is the perfect time to launch the program. Airbus is not at a position to counter this program due to the recent changes at the management level. Do they need to respond to 797 is another topic. Time will tell.


Airbus is in a very good position to counter & even pre emp this program. They have lots of resources, available technology and 2 existing maturing engines. If they want they do a small, light, cheap NMA, 3 years before Boeing NMA they will. And forget game changing, technological magic from either side. Airbus never has been shy, waiting for Boeing.
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
WPvsMW
Posts: 2088
Joined: Thu Mar 23, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: Boeing has given the 3 Major Engine Manufacturers until June 27 to submit their 797 engine proposals

Wed Jun 27, 2018 5:52 am

But wouldn't a scaled down and lighter (and reliable) Trent, or a new smaller core (compared to Trent) be technological magic, Ultrafan or not?
 
User avatar
Taxi645
Posts: 317
Joined: Wed Feb 22, 2017 7:29 pm

Re: Boeing has given the 3 Major Engine Manufacturers until June 27 to submit their 797 engine proposals

Wed Jun 27, 2018 6:09 am

One can ask oneselve how long aviation will be able to avoid the consequences of the Paris agreement. Considering EIS will be somewhere between 2025-2027, playing it save with half-generation improvements might avoid technological risk but could very likely make itself very vulnerable to market/fuel use/regulatory risk.
Innovation is seeing opportunity before obstacle.
 
QXAS
Posts: 348
Joined: Thu Nov 19, 2015 5:26 am

Re: Boeing has given the 3 Major Engine Manufacturers until June 27 to submit their 797 engine proposals

Wed Jun 27, 2018 6:18 am

So with a 45K engine, what sort of fuselage does that indicate? Is the thrust required a clue for that or is it mostly inconsequential?
I am NOT an employee of any airline or manufacturer. I speak for myself, not on the behalf of any company.
 
questions
Posts: 2021
Joined: Thu Sep 15, 2011 4:51 am

Re: Boeing has given the 3 Major Engine Manufacturers until June 27 to submit their 797 engine proposals

Wed Jun 27, 2018 6:19 am

What do we know about the 797/NMA aircraft? From the link in the OP’s post:

- A pair of new small twin-aisle aircraft
- NMA-6X, is a 228-passenger medium-ranger with a 5,000 nautical mile endurance
- NMA-7X, seating in two classes for 267, touting a range 800 nautical miles shorter

How will it be different from the 788?
What will be the abreast seating configuration?

What is an ovoid hybrid fuselage?
What are 767-200 small twin boarding doors?
 
imthedreamliner
Posts: 100
Joined: Mon Nov 20, 2017 11:34 am

Re: Boeing has given the 3 Major Engine Manufacturers until June 27 to submit their 797 engine proposals

Wed Jun 27, 2018 6:25 am

keesje wrote:
imthedreamliner wrote:
Fingers crossed for 797 :) By the way, I think it is the perfect time to launch the program. Airbus is not at a position to counter this program due to the recent changes at the management level. Do they need to respond to 797 is another topic. Time will tell.


Airbus is in a very good position to counter & even pre emp this program. They have lots of resources, available technology and 2 existing maturing engines. If they want they do a small, light, cheap NMA, 3 years before Boeing NMA they will. And forget game changing, technological magic from either side. Airbus never has been shy, waiting for Boeing.

The sales performance of game changing, technological magic dreamliner against old technology A330neo is proving you wrong. The cheap counter of Airbus against 797 may prove to be wrong as well.
 
1989worstyear
Posts: 640
Joined: Sun Dec 04, 2016 6:53 pm

Re: Boeing has given the 3 Major Engine Manufacturers until June 27 to submit their 797 engine proposals

Wed Jun 27, 2018 6:25 am

Taxi645 wrote:
One can ask oneselve how long aviation will be able to avoid the consequences of the Paris agreement. Considering EIS will be somewhere between 2025-2027, playing it save with half-generation improvements might avoid technological risk but could very likely make itself very vulnerable to market/fuel use/regulatory risk.



I'm glad someone else notices this on the site. A320 CEO is a good example of the current mindset - tweak engines, add LCD's and winglets and a 1988 variant magically becomes "state of the art" 25-30 years later. I guess I should upgrade the memory in my damn Apple IIe while I'm at it - and then tell my friends I have fast computer :banghead:
Stuck at age 15 thanks to the certification date of the A320-200 and my parents' decision to postpone having a kid by 3 years. At least there's Dignitas...
 
User avatar
scbriml
Posts: 17474
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:37 pm

Re: Boeing has given the 3 Major Engine Manufacturers until June 27 to submit their 797 engine proposals

Wed Jun 27, 2018 7:03 am

1989worstyear wrote:
Taxi645 wrote:
One can ask oneselve how long aviation will be able to avoid the consequences of the Paris agreement. Considering EIS will be somewhere between 2025-2027, playing it save with half-generation improvements might avoid technological risk but could very likely make itself very vulnerable to market/fuel use/regulatory risk.



I'm glad someone else notices this on the site. A320 CEO is a good example of the current mindset - tweak engines, add LCD's and winglets and a 1988 variant magically becomes "state of the art" 25-30 years later. I guess I should upgrade the memory in my damn Apple IIe while I'm at it - and then tell my friends I have fast computer :banghead:


While selling by the thousand. :rotfl:
Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana!
There are 10 types of people in the World - those that understand binary and those that don't.
 
1989worstyear
Posts: 640
Joined: Sun Dec 04, 2016 6:53 pm

Re: Boeing has given the 3 Major Engine Manufacturers until June 27 to submit their 797 engine proposals

Wed Jun 27, 2018 7:11 am

scbriml wrote:
1989worstyear wrote:
Taxi645 wrote:
One can ask oneselve how long aviation will be able to avoid the consequences of the Paris agreement. Considering EIS will be somewhere between 2025-2027, playing it save with half-generation improvements might avoid technological risk but could very likely make itself very vulnerable to market/fuel use/regulatory risk.



I'm glad someone else notices this on the site. A320 CEO is a good example of the current mindset - tweak engines, add LCD's and winglets and a 1988 variant magically becomes "state of the art" 25-30 years later. I guess I should upgrade the memory in my damn Apple IIe while I'm at it - and then tell my friends I have fast computer :banghead:


While selling by the thousand. :rotfl:


It's sad how little has changed, really :worried:

The 90s and Noughties really were the malaise period for airliners.
Stuck at age 15 thanks to the certification date of the A320-200 and my parents' decision to postpone having a kid by 3 years. At least there's Dignitas...
 
strfyr51
Posts: 3929
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2012 5:04 pm

Re: Boeing has given the 3 Major Engine Manufacturers until June 27 to submit their 797 engine proposals

Wed Jun 27, 2018 7:17 am

scouseflyer wrote:
"OTOH, what is Pratt going to do?"

After the recent SNAFUs by Pratt will an OEM trust them to provide launch engines in the near future?

Of Course!! Not Every GE engine built was ALL THAT either. I remember the CF6-6 was pretty much a "DOG" in the summer. on the DC-10-10.
 
RJMAZ
Posts: 1625
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

Re: Boeing has given the 3 Major Engine Manufacturers until June 27 to submit their 797 engine proposals

Wed Jun 27, 2018 7:27 am

QXAS wrote:
So with a 45K engine, what sort of fuselage does that indicate? Is the thrust required a clue for that or is it mostly inconsequential?

As engine technology improves aircraft can get lighter while doing the same mission. Less fuel burn means less weight and a smaller wing. The A321LR is the perfect example it can carry roughly the same payload the same distance as the 757-200 with three quarters of the thrust.

Based on this 45,000lb of thrust definitely means a 767 cabin sized aircraft. That means 7ab minimum but that is enough thrust for a short 8ab aircraft as well.

So the 797 will be a light weight, smaller winged version of the 767. Just like the A321LR is a light weight smaller version of the 757.

Cross section is still open for debate but I think it will be very similar to the 767. Most likely a foot wider to allow tight 8ab while keeping the 767's LD2 containers. Potentially a slightly reduced height cross section to use a brand new full width container.

It definitely wont use LD3 containers so that rules out the A310, A300 cross section.
 
parapente
Posts: 3061
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2006 10:42 pm

Re: Boeing has given the 3 Major Engine Manufacturers until June 27 to submit their 797 engine proposals

Wed Jun 27, 2018 7:32 am

Considering the incredibly tight lead times put forward for this project it really can't be anything else than Cfm can it?
Boeing would be mad to select anybody else (and they are not mad).
And if I were Cfm I would demand exclusivity too.Cant see that Boeing has any option but to agree.
The 7x (I assume it would be built second) is actually quite a large aircaft that's going to need plenty of ooomph imho.
 
User avatar
frigatebird
Posts: 1673
Joined: Thu Jun 05, 2008 7:02 pm

Re: Boeing has given the 3 Major Engine Manufacturers until June 27 to submit their 797 engine proposals

Wed Jun 27, 2018 7:42 am

Revelation wrote:
[

(CEO of GE Aviation David) Joyce said CFM will probably be the engine provider rather than GE, if Boeing selects the family.

“I see no reason at all why we wouldn’t make LEAP the baseline,” he said. “It will be bigger, but it will be something advancing not a full generation, but a half generation in technology from what LEAP is today.”

It will be “kind of” a clean-sheet engine, Joyce said. “We’ll be able to put as much technology as we feel is mature enough, advanced technology, brand new stuff.”

Ref: https://leehamnews.com/2018/03/22/ge-cf ... ng-on-nma/

“It will be bigger,” Joyce told a JP Morgan investment conference on 14 March. “It’s advancing [on the Leap technology] not a full generation but a half-generation.”
...
“The probability is very, very high this will be a CFM engine,” Joyce says.

So in essence it's going to be a bigger CFM LEAP with a "half generation" leap (tm) in technology.

Seems to me this is exactly what Boeing wants.

jagraham wrote:
Ultrafan is a GTF https://www.rolls-royce.com/media/our-s ... arbox.aspx. It also has a variable pitch fan. The new core is already being done in the Advance3 demonstrator. So the pieces are there, and should generate class leading efficiency; but will Boeing wait??? Or trust for that matter????? Ultrafan has a LOT of new toys in one toybox.


I hope Boeing will take this risk and select the RR Ultrafan as their second engine. I'm a big fan of something really new. I was hoping the GTF would have had a smoother EIS, still it wasn't the gearbox which caused the problems many had feared.

I would think P&W will have sorted out the GTF by the time the 797 has its EIS. But I don't think Boeing should opt for just an upscaled version of the GTF which will power the A321(X)LR. Like the Trent-XWB doesn't give the A350 a decisive advantage over the 787, the GTF won't give the 797 a decisive advantage over an updated A321 IMO. Playing safe with the GE engine option in combination with going bold with the RR Ultrafan will make the 797 a winner I think.
146,318/19/20/21, AB6,332,333,343,345,388, 722,732/3/4/5/G/8,9, 742,74E,744,752,762,763, 772,77E,773,77W,788 AT4/7,ATP,CRK,E75/90,F50/70
 
RJMAZ
Posts: 1625
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

Re: Boeing has given the 3 Major Engine Manufacturers until June 27 to submit their 797 engine proposals

Wed Jun 27, 2018 7:43 am

questions wrote:
What do we know about the 797/NMA aircraft? From the link in the OP’s post:

- A pair of new small twin-aisle aircraft
- NMA-6X, is a 228-passenger medium-ranger with a 5,000 nautical mile endurance
- NMA-7X, seating in two classes for 267, touting a range 800 nautical miles shorter

How will it be different from the 788?
What will be the abreast seating configuration?

What is an ovoid hybrid fuselage?
What are 767-200 small twin boarding doors?

Shorter ranged aircraft usually have a smaller wing compared to fuselage size. Big wings are to carry the fuel to fly long distances. The 797 might have a high number of seats on paper but it will be significantly lighter and have less wing area than the 788.

If a cleansheet design is used the seat numbers being two class points to a 8ab design not a 7ab cabin.

Hybrid ovoid means a double bubble style cross section. It still uses circles to have even pressure distribution. Most aircraft are double bubble but usually they are taller than they are wide. The 797 will probably be the first aircraft that has less height than width. Structurally it might weigh slightly more but the reduced surface area means less drag and less fuel burn.

We'll probably see something like my design from a couple years ago. I expect there will eventually be a third stretch model which will pretty much equal the 787-8 in capacity but be much lighter with half the range.

Image
Bases on the graphic above
NMA-6X equals my 797-8
NMA-7X equals my 797-9
Future NMA-8X would be my 797-10
 
User avatar
frigatebird
Posts: 1673
Joined: Thu Jun 05, 2008 7:02 pm

Re: Boeing has given the 3 Major Engine Manufacturers until June 27 to submit their 797 engine proposals

Wed Jun 27, 2018 8:01 am

RJMAZ wrote:
Cross section is still open for debate but I think it will be very similar to the 767. Most likely a foot wider to allow tight 8ab while keeping the 767's LD2 containers. Potentially a slightly reduced height cross section to use a brand new full width container.

Actually I think the 797 will have somewhat narrower cross section than the 767. 7 abreast Y with 17,5" only. The 787 is too wide for 8 abreast Y (according to the airlines) and too narrow for 9 abreast (according to the passengers). Same with the 777, too wide for 9 abreast and too narrow for 10 abreast. I don't think Boeing will make this mistake another time and make the fuselage wider (and heavier) than necessary, to compete with large narrowbodies like the A321LR.

parapente wrote:
Considering the incredibly tight lead times put forward for this project it really can't be anything else than Cfm can it?
Boeing would be mad to select anybody else (and they are not mad).
And if I were Cfm I would demand exclusivity too.Cant see that Boeing has any option but to agree.
The 7x (I assume it would be built second) is actually quite a large aircaft that's going to need plenty of ooomph imho.

Of course Boeing doesn't have to agree with exclusivity. It's their RFP, they set the conditions. Demanding exclusivity is the only reason I can see GE/CFM missing out on the 797. GE has a good relationship with Boeing, but nothing is guaranteed. See the A320neo, despite RR's excellent relationship with Airbus, they are not powering the neo.
146,318/19/20/21, AB6,332,333,343,345,388, 722,732/3/4/5/G/8,9, 742,74E,744,752,762,763, 772,77E,773,77W,788 AT4/7,ATP,CRK,E75/90,F50/70
 
Bealine251
Posts: 40
Joined: Sat May 14, 2016 10:30 am

Re: Boeing has given the 3 Major Engine Manufacturers until June 27 to submit their 797 engine proposals

Wed Jun 27, 2018 8:08 am

Didn't RR recently announce a major restructure with upto 4500 people being made redundant. 3000 in the UK and those mostly Managerial and admin. It could be they know the outcome already and it would give more money for investment/development of a new engine or they know they have missed out. Guess you can make what you want from the restructure news.
 
RJMAZ
Posts: 1625
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

Re: Boeing has given the 3 Major Engine Manufacturers until June 27 to submit their 797 engine proposals

Wed Jun 27, 2018 8:14 am

frigatebird wrote:
Actually I think the 797 will have somewhat narrower cross section than the 767. 7 abreast Y with 17,5" only. The 787 is too wide for 8 abreast Y (according to the airlines) and too narrow for 9 abreast (according to the passengers). Same with the 777, too wide for 9 abreast and too narrow for 10 abreast. I don't think Boeing will make this mistake another time and make the fuselage wider (and heavier) than necessary, to compete with large narrowbodies like the A321LR.

Doubtful. 7ab at those seating values if two class would be nearing 767-400 length. That is getting structurally inefficient.

With a reduced height ovoid cross section the fuselage tube will be more suseptable to bending so optimal finenesd ratio will be less than normal. This points further to an 8ab cabin. It will look slightly stubby when viewed top down but it will look slender from the side due to the reduced height.

The big one is that 8ab is more efficient than 7ab in terms of aisle area. With 17.5" seats and aisles when going to 8ab you gain 14.5% extra seats in the width for only a 11.1% increase in width. That difference of 3.4% is pure efficiency. Its the main reason why the A330 beat the 767.
 
Planesmart
Posts: 2891
Joined: Sun Dec 05, 2004 3:18 am

Re: Boeing has given the 3 Major Engine Manufacturers until June 27 to submit their 797 engine proposals

Wed Jun 27, 2018 8:41 am

Financiers and leasors will push against engine exclusivity on future mass models, given current issues with maturity and volume production.

Perhaps a new alliance / JV (or two) will surprise.
 
tortugamon
Posts: 6795
Joined: Tue Apr 09, 2013 11:14 pm

Re: Boeing has given the 3 Major Engine Manufacturers until June 27 to submit their 797 engine proposals

Wed Jun 27, 2018 9:02 am

RJMAZ wrote:
Doubtful. 7ab at those seating values if two class would be nearing 767-400 length. That is getting structurally inefficient.

With a reduced height ovoid cross section the fuselage tube will be more suseptable to bending so optimal finenesd ratio will be less than normal. This points further to an 8ab cabin. It will look slightly stubby when viewed top down but it will look slender from the side due to the reduced height.

The big one is that 8ab is more efficient than 7ab in terms of aisle area. With 17.5" seats and aisles when going to 8ab you gain 14.5% extra seats in the width for only a 11.1% increase in width. That difference of 3.4% is pure efficiency. Its the main reason why the A330 beat the 767.


DL have roughly these seating capacities (228/267) on their two-class 763s and 764s respectively. I am not sure shorter and fatter would be more efficient from a fitness ratio perspective. The wing wouldn't have to be as large but then again it would be cfrp thinner and have a higher aspect ratio limiting fuel volume.

tortugamon
 
User avatar
OA940
Posts: 1908
Joined: Fri May 20, 2016 6:18 am

Re: Boeing has given the 3 Major Engine Manufacturers until June 27 to submit their 797 engine proposals

Wed Jun 27, 2018 10:08 am

So Boeing gave them 24 hours. Nice one. But anyway I'm so looking forward to the 797. Mayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyybe they'll launch it at Farnborough but I doubt it.
A350/CSeries = bae
 
StTim
Posts: 3445
Joined: Thu Aug 08, 2013 7:39 am

Re: Boeing has given the 3 Major Engine Manufacturers until June 27 to submit their 797 engine proposals

Wed Jun 27, 2018 10:10 am

If the RFP's are due back this week then the question is how long does Boeing take to do a final appraisal of the responses before picking a winner (or winners)?

I suspect that is not a two week turn around.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 7

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos