User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 20892
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Reuters: Rolls Royce withdraws bid for Boeing NMA project

Mon Mar 04, 2019 1:06 pm

keesje wrote:
I said:

Even if Boeing looks the other way, airlines aren't. I doubt Boeing & the airlines want an NMA without geared fan technology for introduction from second half of next decade.

Looking at replies, some members suggest CFM might strike a deal to get this technology on board next to their more evolutionairy LEAP engine technology.

It seems the market is answering the question for Boeing if an NMA should have geared technology or not. Pratt can hardly keep up, RR is testing and GE fighting for IP.

No airline or Boeing qoutes. It still is happening. If Boeing is investing 10-15 Billion in a new project, it is vital that it includes the technology that makes it the most efficient engine option for the 2025-2040 period. That probably means at least a realistic development plan on top of the current CFM and PW offerings.

You still haven't shown that airlines are asking for a geared fan.

You've just posted your personal opinion that they should be, without any proof that they are.

As I wrote earlier, they may end up getting one, given that Boeing has a geared and a non geared proposal in their hands.

Gears come with advantages and disadvantages, and it's good Boeing has a choice, isn't it?

VV wrote:
So the question is whether anyone here can say with certainty that PW's bid is based on a geared turbofan.

No, no one can, although Boeing has said they are trying to avoid technological risk and PW would have to invent a non-geared turbofan from decades old designs in a short period of time which would be an enormous technological risk.

For that matter, no one can say that CFM hasn't been cooking up a geared turbofan in a secret laboratory somewhere and has chosen it for its NMA proposal, yet of course that too would be an enormous technological risk.

So, Boeing could have a PW non-geared proposal and a CFM geared proposal on their desks, but given our understanding of their desires, that is very unlikely.
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
 
PlanesNTrains
Posts: 9527
Joined: Tue Feb 01, 2005 4:19 pm

Re: Reuters: Rolls Royce withdraws bid for Boeing NMA project

Mon Mar 04, 2019 2:08 pm

WIederling wrote:
PlanesNTrains wrote:
Weren’t you the one that suggested not having a GTF might be a problem for airlines?


Afaics GTF at the moment and for NB craft can be taken as synonymous to "better market leading sfc". :-)


Boy, simple questions are still too much for you guys, huh?
-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
keesje
Posts: 13016
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: Reuters: Rolls Royce withdraws bid for Boeing NMA project

Mon Mar 04, 2019 3:55 pm

VV wrote:
So the question is whether anyone here can say with certainty that PW's bid is based on a geared turbofan.
Is the question so difficult to understand?


PlanesNTrains wrote:
Boy, simple questions are still too much for you guys, huh?


Can some provide with the names of the airlines who have committed to the Boeing NMA? Otherwise we can't discuss anything.
https://leehamnews.com/2019/03/04/pontifications-doubts-continue-over-boeing-nma-launch/

What a non sense :rotfl:
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
osiris30
Posts: 2655
Joined: Sat Sep 30, 2006 10:16 am

Re: Reuters: Rolls Royce withdraws bid for Boeing NMA project

Mon Mar 04, 2019 4:01 pm

keesje wrote:
VV wrote:
So the question is whether anyone here can say with certainty that PW's bid is based on a geared turbofan.
Is the question so difficult to understand?


PlanesNTrains wrote:
Boy, simple questions are still too much for you guys, huh?


Can some provide with the names of the airlines who have committed to the Boeing NMA? Otherwise we can't discuss anything.
https://leehamnews.com/2019/03/04/pontifications-doubts-continue-over-boeing-nma-launch/

What a non sense :rotfl:


Sorry man. Watched enough of this. Time to call out the BS. YOU made a statement that airlines do not want NMA without a geared engine.

NO ONE ELSE BUT YOU made that statement. Defend it with facts or withdraw it. Your deflections and moving of the goal posts is the same nonsense I see watching a Whitehouse press briefing or Theresa May talking about Brexit.

Either admit you were making crap up to fit your narrative or provide facts. That is what is being asked of you.
I don't care what you think of my opinion. It's my opinion, so have a nice day :)
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 20892
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Reuters: Rolls Royce withdraws bid for Boeing NMA project

Mon Mar 04, 2019 4:06 pm

keesje wrote:
VV wrote:
So the question is whether anyone here can say with certainty that PW's bid is based on a geared turbofan.
Is the question so difficult to understand?


PlanesNTrains wrote:
Boy, simple questions are still too much for you guys, huh?


Can some provide with the names of the airlines who have committed to the Boeing NMA? Otherwise we can't discuss anything.
https://leehamnews.com/2019/03/04/pontifications-doubts-continue-over-boeing-nma-launch/

What a non sense :rotfl:

People seem to spend a lot of energy worrying about something that can't be discussed.

Guess we can't discuss A321XLR either, nor lots of fly-speckled photoshops.

Funny how that works.
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
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 13016
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: Reuters: Rolls Royce withdraws bid for Boeing NMA project

Mon Mar 04, 2019 4:11 pm

osiris30 wrote:
keesje wrote:
VV wrote:
So the question is whether anyone here can say with certainty that PW's bid is based on a geared turbofan.
Is the question so difficult to understand?


PlanesNTrains wrote:
Boy, simple questions are still too much for you guys, huh?


Can some provide with the names of the airlines who have committed to the Boeing NMA? Otherwise we can't discuss anything.
https://leehamnews.com/2019/03/04/pontifications-doubts-continue-over-boeing-nma-launch/

What a non sense :rotfl:


Sorry man. Watched enough of this. Time to call out the BS. YOU made a statement that airlines do not want NMA without a geared engine.

NO ONE ELSE BUT YOU made that statement. Defend it with facts or withdraw it. Your deflections and moving of the goal posts is the same nonsense I see watching a Whitehouse press briefing or Theresa May talking about Brexit.

Either admit you were making crap up to fit your narrative or provide facts. That is what is being asked of you.


Ah, another one slightly modifying what I said, leaving out the actual quote. :smile:

I said (& totally support) :

Even if Boeing looks the other way, airlines aren't. I doubt Boeing & the airlines want an NMA without geared fan technology for introduction from second half of next decade.


Please don't do the cut & paste thing & then call BS. I'm sure it is against forum rules.
"Facts" about the future are hard to find & I didn't claim them.

Please read the latests Leeham report. Some certainties of yesterday might become grey ish. Please don't get FRUSTRATED / angry. https://leehamnews.com/2019/03/04/pontifications-doubts-continue-over-boeing-nma-launch/

Who asked for a composites $100mln oval 7 abreast 250 seater for their 1000-2000Nm bulk of flights? Who?
Last edited by keesje on Mon Mar 04, 2019 4:21 pm, edited 2 times in total.
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
User avatar
william
Posts: 3090
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 1999 1:31 pm

Re: Reuters: Rolls Royce withdraws bid for Boeing NMA project

Mon Mar 04, 2019 4:19 pm

keesje wrote:
osiris30 wrote:
keesje wrote:



Can some provide with the names of the airlines who have committed to the Boeing NMA? Otherwise we can't discuss anything.
https://leehamnews.com/2019/03/04/pontifications-doubts-continue-over-boeing-nma-launch/

What a non sense :rotfl:


Sorry man. Watched enough of this. Time to call out the BS. YOU made a statement that airlines do not want NMA without a geared engine.

NO ONE ELSE BUT YOU made that statement. Defend it with facts or withdraw it. Your deflections and moving of the goal posts is the same nonsense I see watching a Whitehouse press briefing or Theresa May talking about Brexit.

Either admit you were making crap up to fit your narrative or provide facts. That is what is being asked of you.


Ah, another one slightly modifying what I said, leaving out the actual quote. :smile:

I said (& totally support) :

Even if Boeing looks the other way, airlines aren't. I doubt Boeing & the airlines want an NMA without geared fan technology for introduction from second half of next decade.


Please don't do the cut & paste thing & then call BS. I'm sure it is against forum rules.
"Facts" about the future are hard to find & I didn't claim them.

Please read the latests Leeham report. Some certainties of yesterday might become grey ish. Please don't get FRUSTRATED / angry.
https://leehamnews.com/2019/03/04/pontifications-doubts-continue-over-boeing-nma-launch/


I got the same email in my my inbox, even when Leeham is pro Boeing, I take with a grain of salt and then I cut that grain in half. As a stockholder he is a great source of Airbus news though. :D

I learn more from reading the comment section. Outside of Keese, I wander who else from that blog post here.
 
osiris30
Posts: 2655
Joined: Sat Sep 30, 2006 10:16 am

Re: Reuters: Rolls Royce withdraws bid for Boeing NMA project

Mon Mar 04, 2019 4:22 pm

keesje wrote:
osiris30 wrote:
keesje wrote:



Can some provide with the names of the airlines who have committed to the Boeing NMA? Otherwise we can't discuss anything.
https://leehamnews.com/2019/03/04/pontifications-doubts-continue-over-boeing-nma-launch/

What a non sense :rotfl:


Sorry man. Watched enough of this. Time to call out the BS. YOU made a statement that airlines do not want NMA without a geared engine.

NO ONE ELSE BUT YOU made that statement. Defend it with facts or withdraw it. Your deflections and moving of the goal posts is the same nonsense I see watching a Whitehouse press briefing or Theresa May talking about Brexit.

Either admit you were making crap up to fit your narrative or provide facts. That is what is being asked of you.


Ah, another one slightly modifying what I said, leaving out the actual quote. :smile:

I said (& totally support) :

Even if Boeing looks the other way, airlines aren't. I doubt Boeing & the airlines want an NMA without geared fan technology for introduction from second half of next decade.


Please don't do the cut & paste thing & then call BS. I'm sure it is against forum rules.
"Facts" about the future are hard to find & I didn't claim them.

Please read the latests Leeham report. Some certainties of yesterday might become grey ish. Please don't get FRUSTRATED / angry.
https://leehamnews.com/2019/03/04/pontifications-doubts-continue-over-boeing-nma-launch/


Fine I SLIGHTLY paraphrased your statement. But again;. Show your working. You know exactly what you are doing here Keesje. And frankly it is obvious to everyone watching you operate. You are fooling anyone. If you cannot provide data to back your assertions I will submit that it is a tacit acknowledge that your point is invalid and move on. Just answer the question if you have data. Reply with another distraction or unrelated point I would suggest you lack the facts to provide.

I took the time to read the article you posted in reply to me above.. and it doesn't speak to anything you said in the quote at hand.

I will give you the last word on this because I believe you will make my point for me. Have a good day!
I don't care what you think of my opinion. It's my opinion, so have a nice day :)
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Moderator
Posts: 17665
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

Re: Reuters: Rolls Royce withdraws bid for Boeing NMA project

Mon Mar 04, 2019 4:24 pm

keesje wrote:
VV wrote:
So the question is whether anyone here can say with certainty that PW's bid is based on a geared turbofan.
Is the question so difficult to understand?


PlanesNTrains wrote:
Boy, simple questions are still too much for you guys, huh?


Can some provide with the names of the airlines who have committed to the Boeing NMA? Otherwise we can't discuss anything.
https://leehamnews.com/2019/03/04/pontifications-doubts-continue-over-boeing-nma-launch/

What a non sense :rotfl:

Committed? That happens after ATO, expected within 90 days.

DL has expressed interest:
https://www.bizjournals.com/seattle/new ... oeing.html

I've worked programs where enough launch orders are conditionally signed before ATO and programs that struggled. Don't write off the NMA yet.

The A321 is underwinged, has an old heavy beer can wing, and engines optimized for a 2 hour mission. The NMA will gain a small amount of new tech, but will be optimized for longer missions:
1. Lighter CFRP wing.
2. Folding wingtips (enables more underside laminar flow whic Airbus calls wing twist) for a 2% to 3% fuel
3. Engines with more bypass ratio (benefit of scale and optimization of longer mission.
4. Engines with more low turbine stages.
5. Engines with more cooling loops (e.g., another turbine clearance control valve to further optimized fuel burn in cruise).

Pratt will offer 3.5:1 GTF (scale and mission length allow this) and probably variable fan nozzle.

CFM will offer CMC turbine inlet guide vanes, as well as scale enhancement.

I see a market. We find out within 90 days (ATO).

Don't laugh. This could be a market changer. Leeham tends to favor Airbus, they miss predicted A346, A388, and A338/9.

Today's widebodies with 7,500+nm range are too heavy and too expensive. Today's narrowbodies are able to do missions far beyond their design optimization (high wing loading, engines designed for cycles not minimum cruise fuel burn). I see a gap.

Personally, I would be surprised if Boeing doesn't launch the NMA. I would also be surprised if it didn't sell well.

Lightsaber
IM messages to mods on warnings and bans will be ignored and nasty ones will result in a ban.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 20892
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Reuters: Rolls Royce withdraws bid for Boeing NMA project

Mon Mar 04, 2019 5:01 pm

lightsaber wrote:
Don't laugh. This could be a market changer.

I think that is what really worries some people. It seems a lot of people have a lot invested in the status quo. They worry that Boeing might be on track to deliver what we read they are working towards, and they worry that the competition isn't saying anything about a response other than perhaps putting a bigger fuel tank on the under winged 80s vintage A321.

PS: Thanks for the summation, it captures the current state of events quite well.
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
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 8484
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

Re: Reuters: Rolls Royce withdraws bid for Boeing NMA project

Mon Mar 04, 2019 5:03 pm

The business case is still a bit problematic. Boeing needs a low price, but engine OEMs are leaning towards a single source solution and no competition on the MoM, which conflicts with the lower price target.

The other points are economies of scale and which aircraft sales the 797 would actually replace. The last one is a biggie imho, when looking at the "do nothing" option.
 
Amiga500
Posts: 2237
Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2015 8:22 am

Re: Reuters: Rolls Royce withdraws bid for Boeing NMA project

Mon Mar 04, 2019 5:07 pm

There is a technical gap where a better optimised product can nestle.


But, I'm very skeptical as to whether this is sufficiently wide and of sufficient depth to equate to a value gap for the airlines.

i.e. Is it worth an airline paying out 2x $80m for MoM when 1x $50m 737 + 1x $115m 787 does much the same with more flexibility at the top and bottom ends? What gives you better coverage of your missions and creates more value for the airline?
 
neutronstar73
Posts: 792
Joined: Mon Mar 21, 2011 7:57 pm

Re: Reuters: Rolls Royce withdraws bid for Boeing NMA project

Mon Mar 04, 2019 5:21 pm

RJMAZ wrote:
GEUltraFan9XGTF wrote:
RJMAZ wrote:
Pratt will probably get very large licence royalties on the gearbox tech if GE goes geared. So it would be a win win for both Pratt and GE. The geared GE engine would effectively be 60% GE, 20% Pratt and 20% Safran in terms of intellectual property.


Very interesting. One engine, three partners. Seems feasible and allows for greater risk sharing. I wonder if CFM work together on a standard engine, with the PW GTF version also being made available. 3 partners, 2 engines?

I expect one engine.

Pratt could never match a Geared LEAP as their core technology is too far behind. Likewise Rolls Royce could not match a geared LEAP.

Pratt would have two choices:

1) Spend billions developing a large geared turbofan for the 797 and have to sell hundreds of engines just to break even. If the 797 gets two engines choices that break even point might be 10 years away.

2) Licence their IP on geared turbofan technology to GE and make decent profit from the very first engine. They would then hand the win over to GE. GE would negotiate a very generous licence fee to secure the sole source win.

keesje wrote:
If we agree the GTF technology promises the best economics combined with higher pressures, temperatures, marterials in the hot sections, then I would not position GE/CFM on the forefront of that technology for a 2025 EIS.

On the contrary GE is on the forefront of high pressures, temperatures and materials in the hot section. The gearbox technology is the easy part. All they need is to slap a gearbox on the front. GE owns the company that makes the gearbox for Pratt so they just need to pay a licence fee.

It would be lower risk for GE to use a gearbox to reach the fuel burn targets than to fit CMC turbine blades.

Though the GE 9X does have some new technology not used in the LEAP. GE might also have some tech that didn't quite make the 9X that will be mature for the 797 engine. So it could be a 2 spool without a gearbox and have better fuel burn than any Pratt GTF proposal.

I give a 50/50 GE goes geared or not.


Agree 100%, and I've been saying it for a while. GE has a big lead in materials technology and the core, and that takes years to do. GE/CFM can add a geared fan (and not to out of the park for them, either) and just build upon the lead the LEAP has in the core and materials, and Pratt and RR will need years to catch up. And GE/CFM won't be idle during that time.
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 13016
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: Reuters: Rolls Royce withdraws bid for Boeing NMA project

Mon Mar 04, 2019 5:23 pm

Boeing needs to do something. I think everybody agrees. But apparently nobody asked for a composites, oval, 7 abreast, 5000NM platform to fly their most frequent 2-3 hour flights.

Otherwise the business case would have been approved years ago, after years of studying, discussing, fully understanding. Business logic is GE, Pratt, RR will be ready to invest more, if they like the business case too.

My best guess is, it won't be "NMA" or "NSA" but some fancy new name, for something in between. Lean and light enough to be competitive. With CMC's, geared fan and every useful technology to make it relevant after 2030.
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
WayexTDI
Posts: 1082
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2018 4:38 pm

Re: Reuters: Rolls Royce withdraws bid for Boeing NMA project

Mon Mar 04, 2019 5:39 pm

lightsaber wrote:
The NMA will gain a small amount of new tech, but will be optimized for longer missions:
1. Lighter CFRP wing.
2. Folding wingtips (enables more underside laminar flow whic Airbus calls wing twist) for a 2% to 3% fuel
3. Engines with more bypass ratio (benefit of scale and optimization of longer mission.
4. Engines with more low turbine stages.
5. Engines with more cooling loops (e.g., another turbine clearance control valve to further optimized fuel burn in cruise).

For whatever reason, I do not see Point #1 and #2 being that cheap or low risk...
Point #3 through #5 will require a lot of investment from the engine manufacturers; if this plane is not single-sourced as far as engines, the cost of each engine will be through the roof.

Boeing can do an NMA with all that technology; no doubt. Can they do it cheap enough to fill (what appears to be) an ever shrinking market? That's the billion dollar question...
 
Eyad89
Posts: 612
Joined: Fri Sep 02, 2016 10:47 pm

Re: Reuters: Rolls Royce withdraws bid for Boeing NMA project

Mon Mar 04, 2019 5:39 pm

Revelation wrote:
I think that is what really worries some people. It seems a lot of people have a lot invested in the status quo. They worry that Boeing might be on track to deliver what we read they are working towards, and they worry that the competition isn't saying anything about a response other than perhaps putting a bigger fuel tank on the under winged 80s vintage A321.

PS: Thanks for the summation, it captures the current state of events quite well.


No need to twist people's intentions. There could be a very logical and objective reasoning on why this market may not be that big. I have always had this impression, and this has nothing to do with Airbus or its products. The only reason why I am having doubts over this is that I generally trust Boeing's forecasts on demand, but they are not perfect, and they have made mistakes in that regard in the past, which is fine. Those doubts are raised by engine manufacturers, market analysts and allegedly Boeing's executives, hence we have this delay. This isn't simply some Airbus fanboys freaking out.

Just because the market isn't served around this size does not mean there has to be a demand for it. There is no rule that says demand vs size must be a linear plot. What we currently see is a plot with two humps, one hump being around 737/A320 size while the other one laying around the size of 789/A359. Those two points in size are simply creating black holes with such a gravity that is drawing all nearby orders.
 
PlanesNTrains
Posts: 9527
Joined: Tue Feb 01, 2005 4:19 pm

Re: Reuters: Rolls Royce withdraws bid for Boeing NMA project

Mon Mar 04, 2019 6:01 pm

keesje wrote:
VV wrote:
So the question is whether anyone here can say with certainty that PW's bid is based on a geared turbofan.
Is the question so difficult to understand?


PlanesNTrains wrote:
Boy, simple questions are still too much for you guys, huh?


Can some provide with the names of the airlines who have committed to the Boeing NMA? Otherwise we can't discuss anything.
https://leehamnews.com/2019/03/04/pontifications-doubts-continue-over-boeing-nma-launch/

What a non sense :rotfl:


Then stop discussing it.
-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
lightsaber
Moderator
Posts: 17665
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

Re: Reuters: Rolls Royce withdraws bid for Boeing NMA project

Mon Mar 04, 2019 6:18 pm

keesje wrote:
Boeing needs to do something. I think everybody agrees. But apparently nobody asked for a composites, oval, 7 abreast, 5000NM platform to fly their most frequent 2-3 hour flights.
.

You are asking for a horse by committee, an aircraft doomed to fail and Boeing isn't going down that path.

NEO/MAX:. Engines optimized for 1.5 to 2 hours on a wing optimized for 75 to 90 minute missions. They can fly further, but cruise fuel burn is high (flying too low). Minimized upgrade costs. Economical (under $60 million new, usually ~45 million).

Current widebodies:. Incredibly expensive ($100m+ new):. Heavy due to optimization for long missions.

Aircraft pricing:
viewtopic.php?t=1399391


Airlines will abuse the NMA on 2 to 3 hour missions just as current widebodies are abused.

Airlines insist on a lower purchase price. More narrowbody like (at most $80 million,bless is better). Good economics when competing with narrowbody aircraft on 4+ hour missions.

By forgoing range, we will finally see a really optimal 10 to 11:hour mission aircraft. That doesn't exist today. Many (most?) Widebody aircraft are used on these mission lengths, but carry weight to allow longer missions.

Airlines always ask for more economical aircraft. There is an obvious Gap in the 3,000 to 5,500nm still air range offerings.

That doesn't mean Boeing can deliver. They need to meet a tough business case. They need an engine vendor to sign on to terms engine vendors have always refused to sign (license fee or share of maintenance revenue).

We have the opportunity to add a CFRP wing with folding wingtips.

We have the opportunity to advance a half generation in engines and optimized for the 6 to 11 hour flights.

This won't kill the NEO or MAX nor acheive their volumes. There is obviously a need for a regional widebody in Asia.

It will be competitive, but only if vendors can meet price targets. Only if fuel burn is that much less per seat. I see market demand at a limited price and the need to beat A321NEO cost and fuel burn per seat (with expected PIPs).

Just optimizing the engine only for 5+ hour missions and for only the A321, I could make that aircraft more competitive. But it has a heavy wing lacking the aspect ratio for underside laminar flow (wing twist) and subsystems for higher altitude cruise in thin air.

Oh, the NEO also needs a longer LOV in hours to really compete long haul. 120,000 FH is nice, 150,000+ is better.

As to asking for CFRP, customers might not want to pay for the 66,000FC (more than NEO 60,000) or 200,000 FH (vs. NEO 120,000FH) LOV of the 787, but they'll take that aspect of CFRP (cheap durability). I expect the 797 to match on cycles, but have slightly less in hours. (Say 150k to 160k).

Customers are asking. The problem is at what price. I believe the era of selling regional widebodies for $100m+ is about to end. But that only works if Boeing comes up with a concept that sells in volume.

Automation is forcing all aircraft to higher economics of scale. A hundred per year is needed just to survive now. This doesn't bode well for the 777x or A330NEO. :(

Lightsaber
IM messages to mods on warnings and bans will be ignored and nasty ones will result in a ban.
 
smartplane
Posts: 1024
Joined: Fri Aug 03, 2018 9:23 pm

Re: Reuters: Rolls Royce withdraws bid for Boeing NMA project

Mon Mar 04, 2019 7:29 pm

lightsaber wrote:
keesje wrote:
Boeing needs to do something. I think everybody agrees. But apparently nobody asked for a composites, oval, 7 abreast, 5000NM platform to fly their most frequent 2-3 hour flights.
.

You are asking for a horse by committee, an aircraft doomed to fail and Boeing isn't going down that path.

NEO/MAX:. Engines optimized for 1.5 to 2 hours on a wing optimized for 75 to 90 minute missions. They can fly further, but cruise fuel burn is high (flying too low). Minimized upgrade costs. Economical (under $60 million new, usually ~45 million).

Current widebodies:. Incredibly expensive ($100m+ new):. Heavy due to optimization for long missions.

Aircraft pricing:
https://www.airliners.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1399391


Airlines will abuse the NMA on 2 to 3 hour missions just as current widebodies are abused.

Airlines insist on a lower purchase price. More narrowbody like (at most $80 million,bless is better). Good economics when competing with narrowbody aircraft on 4+ hour missions.

By forgoing range, we will finally see a really optimal 10 to 11:hour mission aircraft. That doesn't exist today. Many (most?) Widebody aircraft are used on these mission lengths, but carry weight to allow longer missions.

Airlines always ask for more economical aircraft. There is an obvious Gap in the 3,000 to 5,500nm still air range offerings.

That doesn't mean Boeing can deliver. They need to meet a tough business case. They need an engine vendor to sign on to terms engine vendors have always refused to sign (license fee or share of maintenance revenue).

We have the opportunity to add a CFRP wing with folding wingtips.

We have the opportunity to advance a half generation in engines and optimized for the 6 to 11 hour flights.

This won't kill the NEO or MAX nor acheive their volumes. There is obviously a need for a regional widebody in Asia.

It will be competitive, but only if vendors can meet price targets. Only if fuel burn is that much less per seat. I see market demand at a limited price and the need to beat A321NEO cost and fuel burn per seat (with expected PIPs).

Just optimizing the engine only for 5+ hour missions and for only the A321, I could make that aircraft more competitive. But it has a heavy wing lacking the aspect ratio for underside laminar flow (wing twist) and subsystems for higher altitude cruise in thin air.

Oh, the NEO also needs a longer LOV in hours to really compete long haul. 120,000 FH is nice, 150,000+ is better.

As to asking for CFRP, customers might not want to pay for the 66,000FC (more than NEO 60,000) or 200,000 FH (vs. NEO 120,000FH) LOV of the 787, but they'll take that aspect of CFRP (cheap durability). I expect the 797 to match on cycles, but have slightly less in hours. (Say 150k to 160k).

Customers are asking. The problem is at what price. I believe the era of selling regional widebodies for $100m+ is about to end. But that only works if Boeing comes up with a concept that sells in volume.

Automation is forcing all aircraft to higher economics of scale. A hundred per year is needed just to survive now. This doesn't bode well for the 777x or A330NEO.

A horse designed by a committee is exactly what you get when endlessly looping through customer and supplier consultation, precisely the path Boeing has been going down. Internally, Boeing are trying to reconcile a conservative Board looking for a sure thing, customers demanding a quantum leap in value for money, and techs wanting to rollout everything shiny and new from the 777X and 787, plus what they weren't permitted to include in those two models (plus what has been worked on since).

At the same time, Boeing is insisting on two-way profit sharing with suppliers, with suppliers taking on disproportionate risk at the front end, and Boeing sharing profit at the back end, which makes for super conservative offerings.

RR withdrawing may help stop the madness. Will GE and PW be brave enough to say NO to Boeing? Appears GE's solution is to do a Boeing to Safran, and let them carry the risk, while GE will collect backend profits.
 
mxaxai
Posts: 1067
Joined: Sat Jun 18, 2016 7:29 am

Re: Reuters: Rolls Royce withdraws bid for Boeing NMA project

Mon Mar 04, 2019 7:52 pm

Bricktop wrote:
I believe the supposed few percentage points a GTF gives is secondary though. What airlines supposedly want from the NMA is capacity and range. If BCA can give them that and they get enough orders with LEAP 1.5.../quote]
The capacity and range is not a technological problem anymore. Heck, they could buy a 767 today. Cost is going to be key, both for Boeing and the airlines. The niche between a 4000 nm A321 and a 8000 nm 787-8 is, IMHO, too small. So the 797/NMA has to be competitive against A321 & 737-10 on shorter routes (e. g. US transcon, intra-EU, intra-Asia) and against the 787 on longer routes (e. g. TATL).

The gear itself does not add much cost and complexity; at least not for Pratt. But if CFM's package - fuel efficiency, weight, cost & maintenance - beats P&W's offer, you are correct. They don't need to be the very best in fuel efficiency. And if RR cannot have the engine ready by 2025, they already lost by default.
Revelation wrote:
There was considerable doubt that a gear-less CFM LEAP engine would be competitive against a PW one that uses a gear yet we see that was wrong.

And CFM promised to go to the limits of the used materials, new exotic materials and methods never used before. And they did, and it paid off. But how much margin is there still left to achieve the desired efficiency? Probably less than a geared engine has.

Revelation wrote:
Gears come with advantages and disadvantages, and it's good Boeing has a choice, isn't it?

If Boeing knew beforehand that they'd rather partner with CFM (or P&W ...) it's more of an illusion than a choice. You know how easy it is sway such decisions to the result you want them to have. For example, the risks of the various new technologies can hardly be quantified. No decision is ever fully objective.
 
Waterbomber2
Posts: 371
Joined: Mon Feb 04, 2019 3:44 am

Re: Reuters: Rolls Royce withdraws bid for Boeing NMA project

Mon Mar 04, 2019 11:21 pm

The question can also be raised whether a B762/B763 MAX with a scaled up CFM Leap could not be a consideration.

Sure, the market wants something new and shiny, but if Boeing spends billions only to end up with an aircraft with an OEW close to 80 tons and similar performances as a B767...

If they can reduce the fuel burn of the B762 to below 4 tons with engines and aerodynamic tweaks, it starts getting close to whatever the NMA could achieve performance wise.
The development cost would be very limited and so would the sales price.
 
2175301
Posts: 1436
Joined: Wed May 16, 2007 11:19 am

Re: Reuters: Rolls Royce withdraws bid for Boeing NMA project

Tue Mar 05, 2019 1:59 am

keesje wrote:
Can some provide with the names of the airlines who have committed to the Boeing NMA? Otherwise we can't discuss anything.
https://leehamnews.com/2019/03/04/pontifications-doubts-continue-over-boeing-nma-launch/

What a non sense :rotfl:


I find the stated 25% markup in the article to be ridiculous. I doubt there is a production aircraft anywhere in the world that is sold for 25% markup over cost. 10-15% is a more likely goal. Less than 10% is achieved in some cases. Boeing financials do not indicate anywhere near that level of markup on their current aircraft.

This flies in the face that Boeing's margins have in the past been low (single digit) while its suppliers' margins were in the double digits; and Boeing is is aggressively trying to reverse that with new supplier agreements, including those that that give Boeing a cut of the future replacement parts market.

Have a great day,
 
User avatar
par13del
Posts: 8651
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

Re: Reuters: Rolls Royce withdraws bid for Boeing NMA project

Tue Mar 05, 2019 2:05 am

Waterbomber2 wrote:
The question can also be raised whether a B762/B763 MAX with a scaled up CFM Leap could not be a consideration.

Sure, the market wants something new and shiny, but if Boeing spends billions only to end up with an aircraft with an OEW close to 80 tons and similar performances as a B767...

If they can reduce the fuel burn of the B762 to below 4 tons with engines and aerodynamic tweaks, it starts getting close to whatever the NMA could achieve performance wise.
The development cost would be very limited and so would the sales price.

Well, since all the A.net experts said a 767MAX could not compete with the A321NEO or the A330 which killed it, Boeing abandoned the idea. The current trend now lends credence to the theory that this NMA will be the upper end of the NSA product line, it will be used to proof all the non-engine tech.
 
osiris30
Posts: 2655
Joined: Sat Sep 30, 2006 10:16 am

Re: Reuters: Rolls Royce withdraws bid for Boeing NMA project

Tue Mar 05, 2019 3:26 am

Amiga500 wrote:
There is a technical gap where a better optimised product can nestle.


But, I'm very skeptical as to whether this is sufficiently wide and of sufficient depth to equate to a value gap for the airlines.

i.e. Is it worth an airline paying out 2x $80m for MoM when 1x $50m 737 + 1x $115m 787 does much the same with more flexibility at the top and bottom ends? What gives you better coverage of your missions and creates more value for the airline?


Same argument exists for just about any pair of frames. The '57 had the '37 below and '67 above. Same logic.

Same logic applies to the 330 NEO. (321 and 350).

One could argue to a much lesser extent the logic could be loosely applied to the 788.

It is about optimization. To you and me, meh 5%... to an airline; omg gimme 5% NOW!
I don't care what you think of my opinion. It's my opinion, so have a nice day :)
 
osiris30
Posts: 2655
Joined: Sat Sep 30, 2006 10:16 am

Re: Reuters: Rolls Royce withdraws bid for Boeing NMA project

Tue Mar 05, 2019 3:30 am

keesje wrote:
Boeing needs to do something. I think everybody agrees. But apparently nobody asked for a composites, oval, 7 abreast, 5000NM platform to fly their most frequent 2-3 hour flights.

Otherwise the business case would have been approved years ago, after years of studying, discussing, fully understanding. Business logic is GE, Pratt, RR will be ready to invest more, if they like the business case too.

My best guess is, it won't be "NMA" or "NSA" but some fancy new name, for something in between. Lean and light enough to be competitive. With CMC's, geared fan and every useful technology to make it relevant after 2030.


What have you read in the press that backs up the bolded part? Did you see anyone specifically state they did not want an oval 7 abreast platform? Furthermore, are you certain in any way, shape or form beyond your usual hyperbole that no airlines asked for that? (Hint: Boeing and Airbus design their products WITH the customers' input. If that is what they came up with I bet at least ONE organization wanted it... therefor your 'nobody' is the usual overstatement)
I don't care what you think of my opinion. It's my opinion, so have a nice day :)
 
LDRA
Posts: 271
Joined: Fri Jan 15, 2016 3:01 am

Re: Reuters: Rolls Royce withdraws bid for Boeing NMA project

Tue Mar 05, 2019 4:03 am

I thought NMA will be 8 abreast cross section, due to 7 abreast not space efficient?
 
LDRA
Posts: 271
Joined: Fri Jan 15, 2016 3:01 am

Re: Reuters: Rolls Royce withdraws bid for Boeing NMA project

Tue Mar 05, 2019 4:07 am

Also how much NMA market can a refreshed 787-8 capture?
I am talking about new 6000lb thrust geared engine, redesigned structure for 200Ton takeoff weight, center fuel tank deletion.
 
osiris30
Posts: 2655
Joined: Sat Sep 30, 2006 10:16 am

Re: Reuters: Rolls Royce withdraws bid for Boeing NMA project

Tue Mar 05, 2019 4:13 am

LDRA wrote:
Also how much NMA market can a refreshed 787-8 capture?
I am talking about new 6000lb thrust geared engine, redesigned structure for 200Ton takeoff weight, center fuel tank deletion.


None if NMA hits its price target. NMA is as much about acquisition and life time cost as it is about fuel related CASM. The NMA plane is really about optimizing all facets of the aircraft. Yes fuel burn should be good for missions it is designed for but that isn't the sole driver for costs at an airline.

Lower purchase price.
Lower maintenance fees.
Faster turn around times.
More optimized life times (ie right sizing hours and cycles).
Etc. Etc.

Right now as lightsabre has pointed out aircraft are being misused from above and below into this mission space. It isn't a hole in capability but it is a hole in optimization.
I don't care what you think of my opinion. It's my opinion, so have a nice day :)
 
VV
Posts: 778
Joined: Sat Feb 13, 2016 1:03 pm

Re: Reuters: Rolls Royce withdraws bid for Boeing NMA project

Tue Mar 05, 2019 7:29 am

Revelation wrote:
... ... ...
VV wrote:
So the question is whether anyone here can say with certainty that PW's bid is based on a geared turbofan.

No, no one can, although Boeing has said they are trying to avoid technological risk and PW would have to invent a non-geared turbofan from decades old designs in a short period of time which would be an enormous technological risk.

For that matter, no one can say that CFM hasn't been cooking up a geared turbofan in a secret laboratory somewhere and has chosen it for its NMA proposal, yet of course that too would be an enormous technological risk.

So, Boeing could have a PW non-geared proposal and a CFM geared proposal on their desks, but given our understanding of their desires, that is very unlikely.


That's an interesting observation.

So, for now the only known engine architecture proposal is the one that has been withdrawn from the competition. We know for sure Rolls-Royce's proposal was a geared turbofan "Ultrafan".
 
User avatar
william
Posts: 3090
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 1999 1:31 pm

Re: Reuters: Rolls Royce withdraws bid for Boeing NMA project

Tue Mar 05, 2019 2:57 pm

Leeham is stating money could have been one of the reasons RR bowed out.

https://leehamnews.com/2019/03/04/rolls ... /#comments

I know, shocking........ :roll:
 
bigjku
Posts: 1906
Joined: Sat Feb 17, 2007 10:51 pm

Re: Reuters: Rolls Royce withdraws bid for Boeing NMA project

Tue Mar 05, 2019 3:06 pm

william wrote:
Leeham is stating money could have been one of the reasons RR bowed out.

https://leehamnews.com/2019/03/04/rolls ... /#comments

I know, shocking........ :roll:


You mean making money and having positive cash flow is actually important? What lies are you telling here...

Makes you wonder where the money will come from for an A350neo...wait...nevermind.
 
VV
Posts: 778
Joined: Sat Feb 13, 2016 1:03 pm

Re: Reuters: Rolls Royce withdraws bid for Boeing NMA project

Tue Mar 05, 2019 4:20 pm

bigjku wrote:
william wrote:
Leeham is stating money could have been one of the reasons RR bowed out.

https://leehamnews.com/2019/03/04/rolls ... /#comments

I know, shocking........ :roll:


You mean making money and having positive cash flow is actually important? What lies are you telling here...

Makes you wonder where the money will come from for an A350neo...wait...nevermind.

LOL
 
Naincompetent
Posts: 25
Joined: Thu Nov 15, 2018 7:20 am

Re: Reuters: Rolls Royce withdraws bid for Boeing NMA project

Tue Mar 05, 2019 8:18 pm

Do we know (even approximately) how much the engine would cost to develop and what kind of engine price is to be expected?
Why I am asking is because part of the exclusivity issue for the engines seems to be related to the size of the market, meaning the approximate market size could be deduced from these numbers.
TIA
 
JayinKitsap
Posts: 1389
Joined: Sat Nov 26, 2005 9:55 am

Re: Reuters: Rolls Royce withdraws bid for Boeing NMA project

Tue Mar 05, 2019 9:01 pm

Well if the market is 4,000 frames and Boeing does a 2 way engine exclusive, it ensures that the competitor has to develop an engine too, an increased cost of entry. By 2 way exclusive I mean that there is only one engine on the NMA and that engine is only for the NMA, like what happened on the 777 with GE and A350 with RR - it ensures that the NMA is by itself with the competition either above or below the NMA.
 
JayinKitsap
Posts: 1389
Joined: Sat Nov 26, 2005 9:55 am

Re: Reuters: Rolls Royce withdraws bid for Boeing NMA project

Tue Mar 05, 2019 9:08 pm

A thought, if the design utilized a center fuel tank so the wings could be thinner it allows the more direct trade of payload for range, improving the future package freighter variant, all without changing the MTOW, but increasing the landing weight. Still a lot of the fuel in the wings where it is the most structurally efficient.
 
FlyHPN
Posts: 65
Joined: Thu Jan 03, 2019 9:15 pm

Re: Reuters: Rolls Royce withdraws bid for Boeing NMA project

Sat Mar 09, 2019 3:38 am

Dalmd88 wrote:
strfyr51 wrote:
FlyHPN wrote:
Wonder if this will change Delta's stance on the NMA considering their partnership with RR.

Delta is partnering with Rolls but they also have other engines,

True we also have a major GTF deal with Pratt. That shop is starting up as we speak. Within five years the projections are for 180 engine shop visits a year for the 1100 and the 1500. There still is much internal debate about where all this work is going to go. There currently is not enough open floor space in the TOC shops to expand that much. Rumors have been all over the place; convert more hangar space to shop space, move one or two other lines to MSP, create a new off site building near the TOC. For the short term they are beginning in the old JT8 shop space but will out grow that in a few years as they ramp up.

Interesting insight - Thanks!

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