Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
osiris30
Posts: 2681
Joined: Sat Sep 30, 2006 10:16 am

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

Fri Mar 01, 2019 3:19 pm

LDRA wrote:
seahawk wrote:
Or more realistically RR can not meet the 2025 EiS and a competitor who can demands exclusivity on the 797 in return for making the 2025 EiS and probably investing some money into the development.

It was always certain that GE/CFM with a LEAP 1.5 and RR with a Ultrafan engine as the 2 engine options for the 797 won´t work out. The interests of the OEMs are way too much in conflict.


So the real question would be does PW stand a chance for second source?


IMHO Pratt is in the lead position on NMA. Their tech is a good fit and NMA provides Pratt a bridge back into the wide body segment. For Pratt that bridge is too important to not cross. They have not been a viable competitor in that space for a very long time. A good NMA engine raises their credibility on higher thrust engines. Basically what I am saying is Pratt does not really have a strategic choice but to be the most aggressive on NMA.
I don't care what you think of my opinion. It's my opinion, so have a nice day :)
 
jagraham
Posts: 1146
Joined: Sun Jul 17, 2016 11:10 pm

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

Fri Mar 01, 2019 3:42 pm

RJMAZ wrote:
LDRA wrote:
Then Boeing should want second source for engine. New technology in a new product carries amplified risk


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.


Gearboxes are as old as dirt. Garrett TFE731. Lycoming ALF50x.

But if GE wanted IP protection they could get some from Honeywell.

Pratt can't exclude GE from using a gearbox. If GE chooses to pay royalties for any Pratt novel tech, it won' t be huge.
 
User avatar
william
Posts: 3350
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 1999 1:31 pm

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

Fri Mar 01, 2019 3:48 pm

With the news that RR was scaling back some of the features from Ultrafan, one has to wander how much "more" efficient was it going to be vs LEAP or Pratt's GTF if at all.
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Moderator
Posts: 20610
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

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

Fri Mar 01, 2019 4:01 pm

osiris30 wrote:
LDRA wrote:
seahawk wrote:
Or more realistically RR can not meet the 2025 EiS and a competitor who can demands exclusivity on the 797 in return for making the 2025 EiS and probably investing some money into the development.

It was always certain that GE/CFM with a LEAP 1.5 and RR with a Ultrafan engine as the 2 engine options for the 797 won´t work out. The interests of the OEMs are way too much in conflict.


So the real question would be does PW stand a chance for second source?


IMHO Pratt is in the lead position on NMA. Their tech is a good fit and NMA provides Pratt a bridge back into the wide body segment. For Pratt that bridge is too important to not cross. They have not been a viable competitor in that space for a very long time. A good NMA engine raises their credibility on higher thrust engines. Basically what I am saying is Pratt does not really have a strategic choice but to be the most aggressive on NMA.

I wish Pratt were in the lead, but CFM is always agressive on exclusives because they do not have have to be on the service contracts (which probably costs a few MAX orders).

Pratt will have to cave to win this one. I don't know, but I still think 2/3rds chance CFM. I wish otherwise...

Lightsaber
Winter is coming.
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Moderator
Posts: 20610
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

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

Fri Mar 01, 2019 4:03 pm

jagraham wrote:
RJMAZ wrote:
LDRA wrote:
Then Boeing should want second source for engine. New technology in a new product carries amplified risk


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.


Gearboxes are as old as dirt. Garrett TFE731. Lycoming ALF50x.

But if GE wanted IP protection they could get some from Honeywell.

Pratt can't exclude GE from using a gearbox. If GE chooses to pay royalties for any Pratt novel tech, it won' t be huge.

Pratt's tech is failure prediction and cooling. The later GE has the talent. The former cost Pratt years of testing.

Lightsaber
Winter is coming.
 
osiris30
Posts: 2681
Joined: Sat Sep 30, 2006 10:16 am

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

Fri Mar 01, 2019 4:10 pm

lightsaber wrote:
osiris30 wrote:
LDRA wrote:

So the real question would be does PW stand a chance for second source?


IMHO Pratt is in the lead position on NMA. Their tech is a good fit and NMA provides Pratt a bridge back into the wide body segment. For Pratt that bridge is too important to not cross. They have not been a viable competitor in that space for a very long time. A good NMA engine raises their credibility on higher thrust engines. Basically what I am saying is Pratt does not really have a strategic choice but to be the most aggressive on NMA.

I wish Pratt were in the lead, but CFM is always agressive on exclusives because they do not have have to be on the service contracts (which probably costs a few MAX orders).

Pratt will have to cave to win this one. I don't know, but I still think 2/3rds chance CFM. I wish otherwise...

Lightsaber


Perhaps I wasn't clear enough:. I think Pratt is on this bird not because their tech is amazing but because Pratt NEEDS this win. Unless I am forgetting the only high volume frames Pratt are on in the commercial space TODAY are the 320NEO and 220. The latter is above but not much the top end of the RJ market.

Pratt is in the lead because they are likely the hungriest and most desperate to get the win. That may not even be a bad thing. At least they have the resources and the guts to stick it out and fight. We need a bit of that gumption in aviation these days. It has become far too boring with everything being merely about cost and no passion anymore
I don't care what you think of my opinion. It's my opinion, so have a nice day :)
 
mxaxai
Posts: 2062
Joined: Sat Jun 18, 2016 7:29 am

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

Fri Mar 01, 2019 6:07 pm

Revelation wrote:
I'm not sure a "late next decade" RR product is that daunting a prospect in the near/mid term.

The A340-300 entered service in 1993; the 777-200ER did the same in 1997. While both were of comparable technology with regards to the airframe - the sibling A330 did quite well against the 777 - the 777 was able to use a new engine generation. The results are well documented.

A RR superfan-powered Airbus (or Boeing ...) product with EIS 2027 - 2029 is a serious threat. Of course Boeing might accept that and consider a reengine after a few years.
Revelation wrote:
I don't think putting CFM56 onto A342/3 is a apt model.

I think LEAP 1.5 will be much more than Airbus got for CFM56 which was up-sized which required a throttle push, but had little new content.

From what I've gathered, the CFM56-5C on the A342/3 was a significant change from the CFM56-5A found on early A320s. So significant, in fact, that much of the -5C technology was reused for the -5B on later A32X and the -7 on the 737NG.

And even if CFM chooses not to incorporate those changes in the narrowbody LEAP, at least the A320 still has two engine choices. I fully expect P&W to iron out the remaining problems of the PW1000 as well as include continuous improvements to fuel burn and reliability. Can CFM accept to miss out on several thousand narrowbodies in trade for a few hundred additional 797s?
Revelation wrote:
Yet if we see NMA provide a lot of tech flow through to NSA like A340 provided to A330 and the result is a product that captures its class for many years, Boeing would be happy.

If the NMA's only purpose is to learn how to build the NSA, Boeing can save a lot of time and money by developing the NSA straight away. If they expect NMA by 2025, they could probably deliver NSA by 2026 or 27 instead.
 
WIederling
Posts: 9464
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

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

Fri Mar 01, 2019 6:10 pm

jagraham wrote:
Pratt can't exclude GE from using a gearbox. If GE chooses to pay royalties for any Pratt novel tech, it won' t be huge.


IP is in achieved powerlevel, lifetime management, predictive maintainance, ... of the gearbox.
Murphy is an optimist
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 14118
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

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

Fri Mar 01, 2019 6:37 pm

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.
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
ikramerica
Posts: 15100
Joined: Mon May 23, 2005 9:33 am

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

Fri Mar 01, 2019 7:39 pm

keesje wrote:
ikramerica wrote:
RR claims they dont have the testing capacity to build a Trent NMA but they are floating the idea of building a plant in China to power the 929?

These two things dont correlate.

Here’s what happened: RR was told by Boeing their engine was in third place and they would need to improve in some way (weight, price, burn, etc) and RR decided to withdraw instead.


Yes, or RR didn't like the proposed aftermarket profit sharing Boeing is trying to enforce on its supply chain & RR did their own studies on NMA market potential, like GE did before moving it to CFM.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-07-16/ge-unconvinced-there-s-a-business-case-for-powering-new-boeing

Pratt has the best papers for the NMA, they know it,
and they are negotiating with Boeing based on that.

Not sure Boeing us happy with RR withdrawing. They want a good geared fan for the NMA in 2025. And share in the profit it makes too, but Collins Aerospace has its own goals. Currently they are likely completing details on a PW1100G PIP/ uprate for a A321XLR /322 program. And bag orders in July.

While more descriptive, it falls under the category of price. Rolls isnt going to make enough money one way or the other to make it worth their while.
Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
 
User avatar
GEUltraFan9XGTF
Posts: 385
Joined: Thu Nov 22, 2018 3:31 pm

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

Fri Mar 01, 2019 7:43 pm

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.


And RR is at the forefront how? RR quality has not exactly been top shelf these days.
© 2020. All statements are my own. The use of my statements, including by journalists, YouTube vloggers like "DJ's Aviation", etc. without my written consent is strictly prohibited.
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 14118
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

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

Fri Mar 01, 2019 9:25 pm

GEUltraFan9XGTF wrote:
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.


And RR is at the forefront how? RR quality has not exactly been top shelf these days.


https://www.americanmachinist.com/news/new-rolls-royce-engine-critical-testing

I guess Pratt is at the forefront of GTF, RR probably second. CFM discussed a LEAP growth version for an NMA so far. Is it realistic for CFM to propose a GTF EIS for an NMA in 2025, or is it irrealistic? Or impossible?

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/paris-cfm-not-ruling-out-geared-turbofan-for-boeing-438308/
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
RJMAZ
Posts: 2087
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

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

Fri Mar 01, 2019 9:28 pm

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.
 
jagraham
Posts: 1146
Joined: Sun Jul 17, 2016 11:10 pm

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

Fri Mar 01, 2019 10:17 pm

lightsaber wrote:
frigatebird wrote:
Hmm... Boeing NMA was supposed to be launched 2025. Does this mean EIS of the A350neo (with Ultrafan engine) would also be not 2025 but later?

pabloeing wrote:
Another GE proyect for Boeing.....the B797


SEPilot wrote:
Having an engine option adds cost for both the engine manufacturers and for the airframe manufacturers. It also reduces profits for the engine makers. It may be coming to the point where they all decide it is a luxury they can no longer afford.


I thought P&W were still in the running for the NMA?

Right now, I'd bet 65% chance CFM
35% chance Pratt.

Pratt is bringing forward the 3.5:1 gearbox and new compressor tech that is low risk.

At this time, I wouldn't rule out IAE being the platform (RR with Pratt). However, Pratt's contractual commitments with MTU complicate the situation.

Both CFM and Pratt have declared sole source only. Boeing wants too much for another $3 billion+ to be invested and split revenue.

The risk of CFM awarded the contract is Boeing is beholden to GE. There will not be a platform, excluding the legacy 767 and RR on the 787, with any other engine but a GE/CFM product from Boeing.

Pratt has the lower fuel burn on the NEO. Reports since November are that the latest fix works (but it will take another 9+ months to manufacture enough parts to remove the old parts from the fleet).

Part of the issue is both Pratt and RR own shops that have capacity to make the most production limited parts (once both resolve current issues, in 9 months for Pratt, in 15 months for RR). They both own technology they just won't share. CFM is good, but in some ways just better as masking errors.

Lightsaber


Pratt brought Rolls out of IAE in 2011

http://www.utc.com/News/News-Center/Pag ... And-N.aspx

Pratt and Rolls supposedly committed to a new joint venture for narrowbody engines. I haven't heard anything about this joint venture past this initial announcement.
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 14118
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

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

Fri Mar 01, 2019 11:44 pm

It seems few dare to imagine giving GE/CFM the second best chance.

"Boeing selects Pratt over CFM"

No,no,no,no...

Still, CFM doesn't have a GTF & 2025=2025..

Maybe they should have invested more in geared technology 3-4 years ago.
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
ikramerica
Posts: 15100
Joined: Mon May 23, 2005 9:33 am

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

Sat Mar 02, 2019 12:12 am

Could be see a dual-cfm proposal where they put a standard tech engine on for 2025 and then an interchangeable GTF leap for 2028-29 for the ER version of the 797? In other words, less of a bump in GW would be required for the ER if the engine made up some of the difference.
Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
 
Ruscoe
Posts: 1747
Joined: Sun Aug 22, 1999 5:41 pm

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

Sat Mar 02, 2019 12:44 am

Can someone quantify the differences in fuel burn and weight between the CFM and Pratt on the NEO's. If its significant why is the CFM selling on the NEO?
Ruscoe
 
smartplane
Posts: 1574
Joined: Fri Aug 03, 2018 9:23 pm

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

Sat Mar 02, 2019 3:31 am

Revelation wrote:
osiris30 wrote:
The entire point of how Boeing plans to be a game changer with MoM (if anyone has paid attention) is in manufacturing cost and unit cost.

Yes, and recovering less cost at purchase time and more throughout the life cycle of the aircraft.

And word on the street is Boeing will supply the engines and maintenance - no customer direct negotiations permitted. Interesting to see how well this goes down with mega customers.

Strategy for Boeing seems very much heads we win, tails engine OEM's lose. Hope all contemplating involvement are doing the math.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 24850
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

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

Sat Mar 02, 2019 3:39 am

keesje wrote:
It seems few dare to imagine giving GE/CFM the second best chance.

"Boeing selects Pratt over CFM"

No,no,no,no...

Still, CFM doesn't have a GTF & 2025=2025..

Maybe they should have invested more in geared technology 3-4 years ago.

I really don't see why you have to express doubts about people's bravery when we're simply analyzing market potential.

I also don't see how you've decided a gear is a decisive advantage when we see LEAP and GTF battling to a stalemate on A320.

We also can't conclude that the gear that works well in the 30k ft/lb band with 3:1 ratio will work well in the 50k thrust band with 3.5:1 ratio.

Lots of linear and super-linear effects to consider there.

Maybe you should dare to consider that CFM has some pretty smart people working for it who know more about the pros and cons of gear vs no gear than we do?

We know RR is working on a gear, but we also know they just said their engine wouldn't be mature enough to ship in 2025, and the only really new thing on it is the gear.

Ruscoe wrote:
Can someone quantify the differences in fuel burn and weight between the CFM and Pratt on the NEO's. If its significant why is the CFM selling on the NEO?
Ruscoe

:scratchchin:

Good question. Brave of you to ask.

smartplane wrote:
And word on the street is Boeing will supply the engines and maintenance - no customer direct negotiations permitted. Interesting to see how well this goes down with mega customers.

Strategy for Boeing seems very much heads we win, tails engine OEM's lose. Hope all contemplating involvement are doing the math.

Interesting. Instead of money passing through the vendor's hands then a kickback to Boeing, it's sounding more like all money passing through Boeing's hands then they decide who gets what.
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
 
Waterbomber2
Posts: 1359
Joined: Mon Feb 04, 2019 3:44 am

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

Sat Mar 02, 2019 4:29 am

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.


Why would GE have to license the GTF technology feom PW when they have their own GTF patents already?
PW didnt exactly invent the GTF...
 
strfyr51
Posts: 5100
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2012 5:04 pm

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

Sat Mar 02, 2019 6:04 am

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,
 
2175301
Posts: 1913
Joined: Wed May 16, 2007 11:19 am

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

Sat Mar 02, 2019 8:51 am

smartplane wrote:
And word on the street is Boeing will supply the engines and maintenance - no customer direct negotiations permitted. Interesting to see how well this goes down with mega customers.

Strategy for Boeing seems very much heads we win, tails engine OEM's lose. Hope all contemplating involvement are doing the math.



Please provide references. I have not heard a thing about that... and with my sources I most likely would have.

Otherwise, its an unfounded roomer -

Have a great day,
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 9765
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

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

Sat Mar 02, 2019 9:03 am

smartplane wrote:
Revelation wrote:
osiris30 wrote:
The entire point of how Boeing plans to be a game changer with MoM (if anyone has paid attention) is in manufacturing cost and unit cost.

Yes, and recovering less cost at purchase time and more throughout the life cycle of the aircraft.

And word on the street is Boeing will supply the engines and maintenance - no customer direct negotiations permitted. Interesting to see how well this goes down with mega customers.

Strategy for Boeing seems very much heads we win, tails engine OEM's lose. Hope all contemplating involvement are doing the math.


IN the case it will one engine only, because the engine OEMs could never agree to such conditions when in a direct competition.
 
WIederling
Posts: 9464
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

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

Sat Mar 02, 2019 11:13 am

Ruscoe wrote:
Can someone quantify the differences in fuel burn and weight between the CFM and Pratt on the NEO's. If its significant why is the CFM selling on the NEO?
Ruscoe

No idea.
But the topography of optimality is not identical. ( LH for example bought both. )
( you see the same with the CFM56 vs V2500 selections on the CEO )

As a side effect some selections will have been dominated by financing.

did CFM follow the 3% better after 2019 move by Pratt ?
The CFM solution gets its advance from hugging the tech border more closely.
The GTF solution gets its principal advantage from using the gearbox.
The hot section can still go the CFM way : hotter. evolutionary progress.
Murphy is an optimist
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 14118
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

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

Sat Mar 02, 2019 12:39 pm

Maybe PW & RR have an understanding on < , >40k lbs, hot - cold sections & geared technology development.

Over the last decade, their focus areas have grown a bit complementary. Maybe there are opportunities for strategic cooperation, like they did with Pratt on the V2500, GE & Pratt with the GP7000, GE and Safran in CFM and MTU with all of them.
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
Dalmd88
Posts: 3157
Joined: Fri Jul 28, 2000 3:19 am

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

Sat Mar 02, 2019 12:50 pm

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.
 
texl1649
Posts: 1493
Joined: Thu Aug 02, 2007 5:38 am

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

Sat Mar 02, 2019 1:03 pm

Waterbomber2 wrote:
RJMAZ wrote:
GEUltraFan9XGTF wrote:

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.


Why would GE have to license the GTF technology feom PW when they have their own GTF patents already?
PW didnt exactly invent the GTF...


The Pratt GTF patents cover a large range of the needed ratios. Note: GE actually makes Pratt’s gearbox (their subsidiary Avios does), so I think they understand the patents, and engineering quite well. GE has certainly tried to get the key patents on GTF invalidated as non-original and obvious both based on prior art but has largely failed to do so.
 
Waterbomber2
Posts: 1359
Joined: Mon Feb 04, 2019 3:44 am

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

Sat Mar 02, 2019 1:11 pm

Has it occurred to anyone on this thread that RR probably doesn't have anything to offer in the thrust range that Boeing is seeking?

RR is probably passing for the same reasons that they passed on the A320neo, B737Max, MC21, C919.

Boeing is trying to design a large narrowbody or a small widebody with narrowbody economics, so the thrust requirements are in the narrowbody range.

The Ultrafan will be based on the Trent architecture. Scaling that down to power something the size of a B757 can't be as efficient or competitive as scaling up from the PW GTF or CFM Leap. Even if it can be scaled down, it takes time and quite a bit of effort.

The question is, how much can PW and CFM squeeze out of their respective engines to make their engines more competitive to make it worth for Boeing to launch a new family of aircraft?
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 14118
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

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

Sat Mar 02, 2019 2:39 pm

Waterbomber2 wrote:
Has it occurred to anyone on this thread that RR probably doesn't have anything to offer in the thrust range that Boeing is seeking?

RR is probably passing for the same reasons that they passed on the A320neo, B737Max, MC21, C919.

Boeing is trying to design a large narrowbody or a small widebody with narrowbody economics, so the thrust requirements are in the narrowbody range.

The Ultrafan will be based on the Trent architecture. Scaling that down to power something the size of a B757 can't be as efficient or competitive as scaling up from the PW GTF or CFM Leap. Even if it can be scaled down, it takes time and quite a bit of effort.

The question is, how much can PW and CFM squeeze out of their respective engines to make their engines more competitive to make it worth for Boeing to launch a new family of aircraft?


Looking at the 2025 EIS and IP, it seems Pratt has the best papers. But reality is Boeing is actively trying to by-pass the UTC companies, because of their strenght and settled aftermarket positions. That includes Pratt.. GE has had the upperhand over the last 20 years at Boeing, but CFM didn't put priority on geared technology.

RR hotsection matrials and blade technology /IP together with Pratt gear and could offer something useful.
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Moderator
Posts: 20610
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

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

Sat Mar 02, 2019 3:04 pm

keesje wrote:
Waterbomber2 wrote:
Has it occurred to anyone on this thread that RR probably doesn't have anything to offer in the thrust range that Boeing is seeking?

RR is probably passing for the same reasons that they passed on the A320neo, B737Max, MC21, C919.

Boeing is trying to design a large narrowbody or a small widebody with narrowbody economics, so the thrust requirements are in the narrowbody range.

The Ultrafan will be based on the Trent architecture. Scaling that down to power something the size of a B757 can't be as efficient or competitive as scaling up from the PW GTF or CFM Leap. Even if it can be scaled down, it takes time and quite a bit of effort.

The question is, how much can PW and CFM squeeze out of their respective engines to make their engines more competitive to make it worth for Boeing to launch a new family of aircraft?


Looking at the 2025 EIS and IP, it seems Pratt has the best papers. But reality is Boeing is actively trying to by-pass the UTC companies, because of their strenght and settled aftermarket positions. That includes Pratt.. GE has had the upperhand over the last 20 years at Boeing, but CFM didn't put priority on geared technology.

RR hotsection matrials and blade technology /IP together with Pratt gear and could offer something useful.

Pratt has the turbine covered. Where RR brings tech is the compressors. I would love to see another Pratt/RR venture, but the Pratt contracts with MTU complicate this. They would have to set up *another* joint venture per my best understanding of the legal knot Pratt has tied itself into.

Lightsaber
Winter is coming.
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 14118
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

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

Sat Mar 02, 2019 4:03 pm

lightsaber wrote:
keesje wrote:
Waterbomber2 wrote:
Has it occurred to anyone on this thread that RR probably doesn't have anything to offer in the thrust range that Boeing is seeking?

RR is probably passing for the same reasons that they passed on the A320neo, B737Max, MC21, C919.

Boeing is trying to design a large narrowbody or a small widebody with narrowbody economics, so the thrust requirements are in the narrowbody range.

The Ultrafan will be based on the Trent architecture. Scaling that down to power something the size of a B757 can't be as efficient or competitive as scaling up from the PW GTF or CFM Leap. Even if it can be scaled down, it takes time and quite a bit of effort.

The question is, how much can PW and CFM squeeze out of their respective engines to make their engines more competitive to make it worth for Boeing to launch a new family of aircraft?


Looking at the 2025 EIS and IP, it seems Pratt has the best papers. But reality is Boeing is actively trying to by-pass the UTC companies, because of their strenght and settled aftermarket positions. That includes Pratt.. GE has had the upperhand over the last 20 years at Boeing, but CFM didn't put priority on geared technology.

RR hotsection matrials and blade technology /IP together with Pratt gear and could offer something useful.

Pratt has the turbine covered. Where RR brings tech is the compressors. I would love to see another Pratt/RR venture, but the Pratt contracts with MTU complicate this. They would have to set up *another* joint venture per my best understanding of the legal knot Pratt has tied itself into.

Lightsaber


At CFM and the Engine Alliance cold - hot workshare seperation worked. However GE was ahead in CFRP-Ti blade technology, but that didn't make it onto the A380.. I know the lower rpm on the PW1000 fan made lighter Al alloy-Ti blades practicle, but going for higher BPR's on the NMA would maybe make CFRP a better idea.

A technology where GE/CFM of course holds the trackrecord, but RR has been investing in recent years. Another opportunity for a RR-PW alliance?

GE fanblade production: https://youtu.be/g8zt-qljYmM

Then there is CMC's..
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
WIederling
Posts: 9464
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

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

Sat Mar 02, 2019 4:47 pm

With Hyfil R&R were very much up front on (cabon) fiber fan blades.
Why did they never pursue CFRP blades for industrialized products later on?
and apparently being overtaken by GE.

Looking at GE manufacture there are vast amounts of manual work involved?
How high is the production yield ?
Murphy is an optimist
 
smartplane
Posts: 1574
Joined: Fri Aug 03, 2018 9:23 pm

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

Sat Mar 02, 2019 8:38 pm

texl1649 wrote:
Waterbomber2 wrote:
Why would GE have to license the GTF technology feom PW when they have their own GTF patents already?
PW didnt exactly invent the GTF...


The Pratt GTF patents cover a large range of the needed ratios. Note: GE actually makes Pratt’s gearbox (their subsidiary Avios does), so I think they understand the patents, and engineering quite well. GE has certainly tried to get the key patents on GTF invalidated as non-original and obvious both based on prior art but has largely failed to do so.

GE is still challenging PW patents.

Unless GE ceases, meets PW costs, and they can agree royalties, co-operation looks unlikely. The party likely to broker a deal between the two is Boeing.
 
smartplane
Posts: 1574
Joined: Fri Aug 03, 2018 9:23 pm

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

Sat Mar 02, 2019 8:52 pm

lightsaber wrote:
Pratt has the turbine covered. Where RR brings tech is the compressors. I would love to see another Pratt/RR venture, but the Pratt contracts with MTU complicate this. They would have to set up *another* joint venture per my best understanding of the legal knot Pratt has tied itself into.

PW and RR have worked together on some recent well publicised engine issues, including technical, manufacturing and loaning exclusive 3rd party capacity.

JV's are the European way. MTU has multiple JV's with just about every major engine and component OEM, so one more wouldn't be an obstacle.

Perhaps a window of opportunity to revive a previous partnership pre-Brexit, so an announcement re IAE Mk2 (or IAE look alike) soon?
 
Kilopond
Posts: 563
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 10:08 am

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

Sat Mar 02, 2019 10:10 pm

smartplane wrote:
[...]JV's are the European way. MTU has multiple JV's with just about every major engine and component OEM, so one more wouldn't be an obstacle.[...]


The same applies to JAEC. It seems that the guys in this paricular sector are much less bitchy and a little bit more pragmatic than the common crowd.
 
User avatar
PW100
Posts: 4123
Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2002 9:17 pm

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

Sat Mar 02, 2019 10:11 pm

lightsaber wrote:
Pratt's tech is failure prediction and cooling. The later GE has the talent. The former cost Pratt years of testing.

:checkmark: :checkmark:

Like stated, anyone can design a gearbox. Doing so with a 30000 shp through put, 30000 hrs on wing time, and keeping weight down at the same, is the hard part.

Understanding potential failure modes allowed Pratt to optimize the design and mature the gearbox (if only they had done that with the rest of the engine). This is the important intellectual property, which they have smartly been keeping away from Avio (and thus GE).

This also enabled them to come up with a well-engineered maintenance program, which proved to be very robust and reliable (the gearbox system, that is . . .).
Immigration officer: "What's the purpose of your visit to the USA?" Spotter: "Shooting airliners with my Canon!"
 
WIederling
Posts: 9464
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

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

Sun Mar 03, 2019 8:19 am

lightsaber wrote:
Pratt can't exclude GE from using a gearbox. If GE chooses to pay royalties for any Pratt novel tech, it won' t be huge.

Pratt's tech is failure prediction and cooling. The later GE has the talent. The former cost Pratt years of testing.
[/quote]

cooling" : gearbox or turbine ?
Murphy is an optimist
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 14118
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

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

Sun Mar 03, 2019 9:01 am

I think a consideration for Boeing must be the competition is almost surely offering the airlines enhanced LEAP and GTF engines on future A321/22 variants. Using all lessons learned, PIP’s and new materials available. The A321 is a big market for both CFM and Pratt and they are fiercely competing for each new contract, they can never sit on their hands, wait & see..

Image

If Boeing is conservative, takes it’s time to fully understand the market & takes a deliberate decision when it suits them, they could lose half the market. The airlines are risk averse and want value World class CASM up to 5 hours, mature engines and Airbus apparently isn’t holding back. Delaying an NMA decision until 2020 (with a realistic EIS 2027) might already have caused some major NMA prospects to switch tables.

I wonder who will be the first aviation authority to say an EIS in has become a pipe dream by now. So far most stick to “ Boeing confirmed 2025 EIS”. Useally that stays until Boeing confirms a new timetable. Real obvious, but stock price sensitive realities tend to stay “unconfirmed”.. Udvar maybe, Al Baker? Even John Ostrower choses to be correct/ confirmed so far. Better stay safe or get nasty phone calls / no invitation for Paris.. Maybe Leehamnews?

Image
Older NMA timeline. “Compression” must apparently be “feasible” ...
Last edited by keesje on Sun Mar 03, 2019 9:28 am, edited 2 times in total.
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 9765
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

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

Sun Mar 03, 2019 9:29 am

smartplane wrote:
texl1649 wrote:
Waterbomber2 wrote:
Why would GE have to license the GTF technology feom PW when they have their own GTF patents already?
PW didnt exactly invent the GTF...


The Pratt GTF patents cover a large range of the needed ratios. Note: GE actually makes Pratt’s gearbox (their subsidiary Avios does), so I think they understand the patents, and engineering quite well. GE has certainly tried to get the key patents on GTF invalidated as non-original and obvious both based on prior art but has largely failed to do so.

GE is still challenging PW patents.

Unless GE ceases, meets PW costs, and they can agree royalties, co-operation looks unlikely. The party likely to broker a deal between the two is Boeing.


Why would Boeing do this? With RR out of the running, a cooperation between GE/CFM and P&W would mean that Boeing can not choose an engine but only has one option. Boeing aims at capturing more of the margins that the OEMs enjoy. Having only one bidder for the one of the parts with the highest value of the whole product, is not helping their goal.
 
jagraham
Posts: 1146
Joined: Sun Jul 17, 2016 11:10 pm

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

Sun Mar 03, 2019 10:49 am

Revelation wrote:
keesje wrote:
It seems few dare to imagine giving GE/CFM the second best chance.

"Boeing selects Pratt over CFM"

No,no,no,no...

Still, CFM doesn't have a GTF & 2025=2025..

Maybe they should have invested more in geared technology 3-4 years ago.

I really don't see why you have to express doubts about people's bravery when we're simply analyzing market potential.

I also don't see how you've decided a gear is a decisive advantage when we see LEAP and GTF battling to a stalemate on A320.

We also can't conclude that the gear that works well in the 30k ft/lb band with 3:1 ratio will work well in the 50k thrust band with 3.5:1 ratio.

Lots of linear and super-linear effects to consider there.

Maybe you should dare to consider that CFM has some pretty smart people working for it who know more about the pros and cons of gear vs no gear than we do?

We know RR is working on a gear, but we also know they just said their engine wouldn't be mature enough to ship in 2025, and the only really new thing on it is the gear.

Ruscoe wrote:
Can someone quantify the differences in fuel burn and weight between the CFM and Pratt on the NEO's. If its significant why is the CFM selling on the NEO?
Ruscoe

:scratchchin:

Good question. Brave of you to ask.

smartplane wrote:
And word on the street is Boeing will supply the engines and maintenance - no customer direct negotiations permitted. Interesting to see how well this goes down with mega customers.

Strategy for Boeing seems very much heads we win, tails engine OEM's lose. Hope all contemplating involvement are doing the math.

Interesting. Instead of money passing through the vendor's hands then a kickback to Boeing, it's sounding more like all money passing through Boeing's hands then they decide who gets what.


I would like to present an alternative understanding of RR's withdrawal from the NMA engine competition.
RR has committed the Ultrafan for the A350 in the 2025 timeframe; their plate is full.
Overpromising can be problematic, especially for new technology. I would say that RR is concerned about nailing the introductory Ultrafan engine.
 
jagraham
Posts: 1146
Joined: Sun Jul 17, 2016 11:10 pm

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

Sun Mar 03, 2019 10:54 am

We should also keep in mind that RR has quite a gear already. It's just not on a commercial airliner; it's on the F35B
 
downdata
Posts: 589
Joined: Wed Feb 17, 2016 2:38 am

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

Sun Mar 03, 2019 10:56 am

Eh. There is no chance in hell Pratt will meet a 2025 EIS. GE/CFM were not only the forerunner, they were the only runner to begin with. It's going to be a long long while before we see another non GE engines on a Boeing.
 
User avatar
scbriml
Posts: 19302
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:37 pm

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

Sun Mar 03, 2019 11:22 am

downdata wrote:
GE/CFM were not only the forerunner, they were the only runner to begin with.


Who or what is GE/CFM?
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.
 
oschkosch
Posts: 599
Joined: Mon Oct 29, 2018 3:41 pm

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

Sun Mar 03, 2019 11:25 am

downdata wrote:
Eh. There is no chance in hell Pratt will meet a 2025 EIS. GE/CFM were not only the forerunner, they were the only runner to begin with. It's going to be a long long while before we see another non GE engines on a Boeing.
well if that turns out to be true it means that Boeing only has 1 contender for their Rfq on the engine. That means price goes up, at least that is what I would be doing in the position of GE/CFM. With no competition there is no reason to quote agressive.

And that drives total cost of a potential nma up. All these uncertainties seem to be backfiring this project.

Gesendet von meinem SM-G950F mit Tapatalk
:stirthepot: :airplane: "This airplane is designed by clowns, who in turn are supervised by monkeys" :airplane: :stirthepot:
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 14118
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

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

Sun Mar 03, 2019 11:26 am

downdata wrote:
Eh. There is no chance in hell Pratt will meet a 2025 EIS. GE/CFM were not only the forerunner, they were the only runner to begin with. It's going to be a long long while before we see another non GE engines on a Boeing.


Meaning a no geared fan LEAP off spring for the NMA?

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/leap-derivative-likely-in-cfms-bid-for-nma-engine-446993/

That would be all fine, bringing some maturity, risk reduction, GE co-financing.. all very well.

But, meanwhile Airbus, Pratt keep ramping up A321NEO/LR/XLR/322 deliveries, enhanced geared turbo fans and CFM 78 Inch Leaps, thousands.

Image

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.
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
planecane
Posts: 1585
Joined: Thu Feb 09, 2017 4:58 pm

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

Sun Mar 03, 2019 11:51 am

texl1649 wrote:
Waterbomber2 wrote:

Why would GE have to license the GTF technology feom PW when they have their own GTF patents already?
PW didnt exactly invent the GTF...


The Pratt GTF patents cover a large range of the needed ratios. Note: GE actually makes Pratt’s gearbox (their subsidiary Avios does), so I think they understand the patents, and engineering quite well. GE has certainly tried to get the key patents on GTF invalidated as non-original and obvious both based on prior art but has largely failed to do so.


There has to be way more to pratt's patents than gear ratios. Gears have been around for hundreds of years. They are prior art. There has to be some unique and new feature of the gears to have a defendable patent. Otherwise, I could go and patent a few thousand gear ratios and demand that every auto maker pay me a license fee for every transmission.
 
User avatar
GEUltraFan9XGTF
Posts: 385
Joined: Thu Nov 22, 2018 3:31 pm

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

Sun Mar 03, 2019 12:13 pm

downdata wrote:
Eh. There is no chance in hell Pratt will meet a 2025 EIS. GE/CFM were not only the forerunner, they were the only runner to begin with. It's going to be a long long while before we see another non GE engines on a Boeing.


Link or are you relaying insider information?
© 2020. All statements are my own. The use of my statements, including by journalists, YouTube vloggers like "DJ's Aviation", etc. without my written consent is strictly prohibited.
 
User avatar
GEUltraFan9XGTF
Posts: 385
Joined: Thu Nov 22, 2018 3:31 pm

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

Sun Mar 03, 2019 12:18 pm

I think if GE/PW/Safran are smart, they don't see each other as competition but RR and its UltraFan as the competition. If they're smart, they'll consider joining forces, sharing risks and profits, and partner on a CFM LEAP Pure Power 50GTF. It would keep RR out of the NB market and lay the groundwork for a scaled up UltraFan competitor in the WB market. It would keep RR out of the NB market and lay the groundwork for a scaled up UltraFan competitor in the WB market, keeping RR from charging crazy premiums and limiting their profit margins.
Last edited by GEUltraFan9XGTF on Sun Mar 03, 2019 12:22 pm, edited 2 times in total.
© 2020. All statements are my own. The use of my statements, including by journalists, YouTube vloggers like "DJ's Aviation", etc. without my written consent is strictly prohibited.
 
User avatar
william
Posts: 3350
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 1999 1:31 pm

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

Sun Mar 03, 2019 12:34 pm

Ruscoe wrote:
Can someone quantify the differences in fuel burn and weight between the CFM and Pratt on the NEO's. If its significant why is the CFM selling on the NEO?
Ruscoe


With all of the "insiders" that post here, I am still waiting for an answer to this question.
 
User avatar
Faro
Posts: 2006
Joined: Sun Aug 12, 2007 1:08 am

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

Sun Mar 03, 2019 12:41 pm

keesje wrote:
downdata wrote:
Eh. There is no chance in hell Pratt will meet a 2025 EIS. GE/CFM were not only the forerunner, they were the only runner to begin with. It's going to be a long long while before we see another non GE engines on a Boeing.


Meaning a no geared fan LEAP off spring for the NMA?

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/leap-derivative-likely-in-cfms-bid-for-nma-engine-446993/

That would be all fine, bringing some maturity, risk reduction, GE co-financing.. all very well.

But, meanwhile Airbus, Pratt keep ramping up A321NEO/LR/XLR/322 deliveries, enhanced geared turbo fans and CFM 78 Inch Leaps, thousands.

Image

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.



Haven't CFM/Boeing said that the engine tech will be a 0.5 generation improvement and not a full generation ahead? Looks to me that they are unwilling to push newer engine tech too much to reduce development risk...


Faro
The chalice not my son

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: A350OZ, airplaneboy, AstanaMagic, B6WNQX, Baidu [Spider], Bing [Bot], bwaflyer, debonair, ei a330-200, flipdewaf, Fliplot, fr738, Google [Bot], Google Adsense [Bot], gr8slvrflt, hyd09l27r, JFKalumni, MCTSET, PBerry, pugman211, Someone83, TEALflyer and 213 guests

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