Revelation wrote:seahawk wrote:Revelation wrote:That's akin to saying Boeing learned nothing from MCAS.
What is needed is competition.
The iteration of 2019-20 of NMA had LEAP with some incremental improvements.
If GE is willing to offer a scaled down GE9x that would be a new development.
Competition has advantages and drawbacks. If the market is really 2000 frames or less and you want to engine OEMs, both will be tempted to just go with scaled versions of proven engines. Either a scaled up LEAP or scaled down 9x. If you grant exclusivity the business case is safer and warrants more development costs. I think exclusivity for a CFM/GE engine is the right way forward, if CFM/GE is willing to commit fully.
Competition in the sense of competition to get onto the plane.
With UltraFan in the picture, GE/CFM will feel pressure to do better than a tweaked LEAP.
I think whomever gets onto the plane will insist on an exclusive.par13del wrote:Based on current experience and past, if Boeing has been struggling to close the business case, going with UltraFan in my opinion would be a huge risk with the potential to kill the entire program. Imagine if the NEO with PW was the only model, no CEO was available, look at the 787 when RR had their issues, were any sales lost to the A350 because of those problems? In a program like this where some say the market is niche, there are some risk that are a "bridge too far" if GE is going a modified of GENX and RR wants back in, a modified version of something presently in production would be best in my opinion.
GE has said their NMA offering will come from CFM and be based on LEAP.
I have yet to see a media report saying they will offer a modified GEnX or GE9X.
As above, I think we are at least 1-2 years out before the program gets ATO so we have lots of time for things to shake out.
Sorry, I never even considered the idea, that they could pick an engine without having the OEMs compete for the deal.