Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR
"At Pratt, total GTF production continued to ramp up successfully, with nearly doubled GTF production," Hayes says.
UTC's P&W unit delivered 779 large commercial aircraft engines in 2018, up 45% from 537 engines in 2017, the company says. Fourth quarter deliveries did indeed nearly double -- they increased 90% in one year to 247 engines.
Palumboism wrote:"At Pratt, total GTF production continued to ramp up successfully, with nearly doubled GTF production," Hayes says.
UTC's P&W unit delivered 779 large commercial aircraft engines in 2018, up 45% from 537 engines in 2017, the company says. Fourth quarter deliveries did indeed nearly double -- they increased 90% in one year to 247 engines.
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/utcs-profits-rise-as-pws-gtf-deliveries-surge-455234/
It looks like the production ramp up is progressing successfully. This is particularly important to Airbus with the A320neo and A220 being primarily GTF.
GEUltraFan9XGTF wrote:Much like the Boeing 787, perhaps the PW GTF will be known as the miracle worker with a rough start. And just like Boeing and the 787, I wonder if PW feels in hindsight they should have done more themselves instead of more risk sharing and outsourcing with partners. Time will tell, but I have the feeling enough cash will be flowing for them to scale the product...to MOM and beyond.
I have the hunch that PW and CFM still have MOM bids in the running. Or perhaps they could be partnering...with UltraFan in their sights.
JoeCanuck wrote:GEUltraFan9XGTF wrote:Much like the Boeing 787, perhaps the PW GTF will be known as the miracle worker with a rough start. And just like Boeing and the 787, I wonder if PW feels in hindsight they should have done more themselves instead of more risk sharing and outsourcing with partners. Time will tell, but I have the feeling enough cash will be flowing for them to scale the product...to MOM and beyond.
I have the hunch that PW and CFM still have MOM bids in the running. Or perhaps they could be partnering...with UltraFan in their sights.
Pratt has justifiably been given a rough ride over their handling of the GTF debacle...and your comparison with the 787 is apt. Both were good ideas, let down by intra company bureaucratic meddling and confusion, which, among other things, offered too much, too soon.
Delays in delivering as promised, allowed competitors to significantly bridge the relative performance gaps.
Ultimately, the basic designs are sound and will stand the test of time. Still...unlike if they had managed to perform as promised, WHEN it was promised, they now face competition they otherwise would have gotten a greater leg up on.
I think Pratt's future will center around the gearbox. I wouldn't be surprised if we end up with a GE/CFM engine with a PRATT gearbox, on the Boeing NMA.
GEUltraFan9XGTF wrote:Time will tell, but I have the feeling enough cash will be flowing for them to scale the product...to MOM and beyond.
I have the hunch that PW and CFM still have MOM bids in the running.
wjcandee wrote:I think the telling point here is that Pratt put a zillion dollars into making sure they got the gearbox right, and proof is in the pudding that they did.
Where they ran into problems was perhaps a little arrogance about developing the other "easy" stuff, and testing it, leading to the issues they have had. The issues also arose from supply-chain failures or failures of suppliers. But those are not cutting-edge technology, and they seem to have handled it.
As I understand it, engine assembly -- operating the factories -- was a goatrope, but they brought in an experienced executive who consulted with the rank-and-file a lot as to practical, shop-floor solutions, and got things moving and the workers energized.
So should be smoother sailing from here.
AirFiero wrote:Has there been any consideration that adding gears to an engine increases complexity and therefore maintenance costs and an added failure point?
AirFiero wrote:Has there been any consideration that adding gears to an engine increases complexity and therefore maintenance costs and an added failure point?
LDRA wrote:AirFiero wrote:Has there been any consideration that adding gears to an engine increases complexity and therefore maintenance costs and an added failure point?
Reduces turbine stages.
wjcandee wrote:A Rockwell calculator was like $350 in 1975 dollars.
...
So RIP Rockwell...
The company developed a desktop calculator based on a MOSFET chip for use by its engineers. In 1967 Rockwell set up its own manufacturing plant to produce them, starting North American Rockwell MicroElectronics Corp. (called NARMEC). This would later become Rockwell Semiconductor. One of its major successes came in the early 1990s when it introduced the first low-cost 14.4 kbit/s modem chipset, which was used in a huge number of modems.
Waterbomber2 wrote:Also, considering that the BAe-146 also had GTF engines, with a resilient gearing mechanism, it's not like PW reinvented the gear.
lightsaber wrote:LDRA wrote:AirFiero wrote:Has there been any consideration that adding gears to an engine increases complexity and therefore maintenance costs and an added failure point?
Reduces turbine stages.
Gearbox adds $250,000 to engine costs, but removes $500,000 of turbine.
Complexity? :no:
Maintenance is less than the removed turbine.
Whittle proposed GTFs for a reason.
wjcandee wrote:Revelation: Thank you! Very cool!
North American Aviation (NAA) was a major American aerospace manufacturer, responsible for a number of historic aircraft, including the T-6 Texan trainer, the P-51 Mustang fighter, the B-25 Mitchell bomber, the F-86 Sabre jet fighter, the X-15 rocket plane, and the XB-70, as well as Apollo command and service module, the second stage of the Saturn V rocket, the Space Shuttle orbiter and the B-1 Lancer.
Through a series of mergers and sales, North American Aviation became part of North American Rockwell, which later became Rockwell International and is now part of Boeing.