Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 98): The CS300 aircraft is airborne on its second flight. http://fr24.com/BBA507/5a962ab

And it's now up for the second flight of the day today.

Quoting aerolimani (Reply 100):

You're right...the net is still there but i assume it's for personal items. i suspect the safety car and magazine will go in the top slot.

CSeries performance better than guarantees, “favorable” to brochure; range better than advertised:

http://leehamnews.com/2015/03/03/exc...hure-range-better-than-advertised/

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 104): CSeries performance better than guarantees, “favorable” to brochure; range better than advertised:

Bring on some orders!  

-Dave

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 104): http://leehamnews.com/2015/03/03/exc...hure-range-better-than-advertised/

a very promising update on all fronts...

now it's time to start pushing for those orders that BBD needs to put it over the top.

Better than advertised range, fuel burn and noise factors? Not only that, but although Rob Dewar doesn't give a ballpark number, he says that it is "significant, it's not a small number". I wonder how much that changes the maths overall. FTV5 flying into Paris with a better numbers and its interior is going to be a hit!

CS300 first flight video released by Bombardier.

Great areal shots and belly cameras show the take-off, landing and cycling of the landing gear.
You can get a peek at the recently painted black tail of FTV2 at the end of the video.

A very proud achievement for Bombardier

http://youtu.be/dUyle_9c7QQ

YULspotter

Nice and proud video indeed.

After months, even years, of bad news, delays etc, I finally get the feeling that this program has reached a tipping point and now really starts to build momentum . Can't wait for Le Bourget 2015 . . .   !

QR won't be ordering any.

http://business.financialpost.com/2015/03/04/qatar-airways-no-longer-interested-in-buying-bombardier-inc-cseries-you-cannot-wait-indefinitely/

Quoting golfradio (Reply 110): QR won't be ordering any.

No surprise there at all. BTW, did you read the other article that was linked to the article you posted from the FP: Bombardier Inc may take CSeries writedown

Quoting golfradio (Reply 110): QR won't be ordering any.

...so they said about 777-9.

Quoting planemaker (Reply 111): BTW, did you read the other article that was linked to the article you posted from the FP

Irrelevant opinion of one analyst, not a fact. Nothing more, nothing less.

Quoting golfradio (Reply 110):

I'm less optimistic about QR ordering any than some people here because I'm not sure how much QR is really interested in something that size for its network. But frankly Al has proven time and time again that he will say one thin then the next week do something that contradicts what he just said (in other words, he negotiates via the press). So I really wouldn't put too much weight into the article.

Al Baker has changed his mind so many times about the CSeries that I don't think anybody realistically thought QR was ever going to be a customer.

I had long ago forgot that he ever pretended to be interested. He must have been out of the news for too long and needed his press fix. The CS300 first flight gave him a good opportunity.

Quoting BlueSky1976 (Reply 112): Irrelevant opinion of one analyst, not a fact.

Unfortunately, it is not only one analyst. And BBD's finances are fact.

Yes, the stock is down and more than a number of projects are laggards in both divisions, however the outlook is good in that more than just the CSeries project seems to be getting back on track and it looks like Paris will finally have a good Bombardier showing. There is the other fact is this which indicates to me that they aren't going to run out of ability to deliver the CSeries to market. Paris is going to be important now that the aircraft and test numbers will be real. If there are no takers in Paris then, and only then, could I even imagine that analysts suggestion of writing down the CSeries program.

Quoting EnviroTO (Reply 116): If there are no takers in Paris then, and only then, could I even imagine that analysts suggestion of writing down the CSeries program.

Well said.

Quoting EnviroTO (Reply 116): they aren't going to run out of ability to deliver the CSeries to market.

But that isn't the point that analysts are making... it is that even with BBD management's projections of ~100 deliveries/yr, with the +$5.4 billion in development costs there is zero value generated over 20 years, hence the expectation of a write down.

Quoting planemaker (Reply 111): No surprise there at all. BTW, did you read the other article that was linked to the article you posted from the FP: Bombardier Inc may take CSeries writedown

These analysts are just trying to justify their existence. They make all these price targets and recommendations and burn from average to institutional investors. I read his report and he is really trying hard to sound relevant by doing some PV calculations on his little spreadsheet,
BBD has no choice but go it alone on the CSeries as no one would be interested: not the Chinese, no existing OEMs, and no investor community. The orderbook speaks for itself as it would be a bad investment. So BBD has to go it alone, try and win the AA MD-80 replacement, DL, and a bit here and there as they have no other choice.

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 114): Al Baker has changed his mind so many times about the CSeries that I don't think anybody realistically thought QR was ever going to be a customer.

We all know that he never was interested in the CSeries. He and the other Middle East carriers wanted more landing slots in Canada for their widebodies. Plain and simple.

Quoting planemaker (Reply 118):

So what? I mean what does that matter to us...those in here, who are in here, because we're aircraft enthusiasts? Carping on and on about the dire straights of BBD and the CSeries is just as silly and pointless as the endless whining about whether or not the 787 or A380 or 748 or A400...or a host of other aircraft, will ever make money for their companies.

It just doesn't matter. If anybody cares enough about the finances of various programs or companies, they can easily find out, and discuss it to their heart's content in the financial blogs. As it is, it has zero to do with those of us who wish to discuss the CSeries, (or any other aircraft), as an aircraft.

What is so terrible about wanting to actually discuss aircraft, in a thread about an aircraft?

Whether or not BBD or the CSeries survives is completely irrelevant. We'll deal with those possibilities if they ever come to pass. In the meantime, some of us actually want to merely enjoy being fans of and discussing the CSeries as the really cool thing it is. The future can take care of itself.

It is so very easy to start a new thread. Why not start one, for example, about speculation about the financial implications of the CSeries on the future of BBD? Financial speculators and guessers have absolutely no effect on the flight testing of the CSeries or its eventual production. Flight testing is happening, as will production. Nobody will stop that.

It's just a suggestion, of course. You certainly are free to post pretty much anything you like, about pretty much anything you like but what's wrong with letting people simply enjoy the glass half full side of something?

People deal with bad news all day...what's wrong with wanting a bit of positive for a change. Who's it hurting?

I'm pretty sure a thread already exists that fits the program as a whole, including speculation concerning its future success. We usually come back to this one because it is where the news are posted, and speculation sprouts from those.

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 104): CSeries performance better than guarantees, “favorable” to brochure; range better than advertised:

   I'm hoping some is due to the Pratts, but from what I've heard, Pratt is only going to guarantee original promise. I'd like to know where the fuel burn improvement is coming from.   

This is great news. Beating promise on noise, range, and fuel burn all will benefit future sales.


Lightsaber

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 120): Whether or not BBD or the CSeries survives is completely irrelevant. We'll deal with those possibilities if they ever come to pass. In the meantime, some of us actually want to merely enjoy being fans of and discussing the CSeries as the really cool thing it is. The future can take care of itself.

   At this point Bombardier could go bankrupt and there would still be a C-series. But I do not think that will happen. A new stock offering?    That means stock dilution. Cest la vie. As an enthusiast, I'm excited for the development.

Lightsaber

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 122): Beating promise on noise, range, and fuel burn all will benefit future sales.

I agree on noise and especially fuel burn. However, does the CSeries need better range?

We have had a great week or so - CS00 first flight, full cabin revealed, news regarding fuel burn, range and noise beating guarantees, an even a little a.net titillation (some sexy cabin and cockpit photos, and who can ignore that whole AA-chase-plane strip-tease thingy?) ... The other thing which made last week noticeable was a complete lack of any posts from a certain member who has well-known views about the impending death of BBD and CSeries.

And them an article suggesting that QR won't order the CSeries and behold:

Quoting planemaker (Reply 111): No surprise there at all. BTW, did you read the other article that was linked to the article you posted from the FP: Bombardier Inc may take CSeries writedown

He's back!! Coincidentally, as soon as there is something to bash the CSeries with!
My morning laugh.

Two other thoughts:

1. A message to:

Quoting EnviroTO (Reply 116): Yes, the stock is down

Quoting Tangowhisky (Reply 119): These analysts are just trying

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 120): So what? I mean what does

and everyone else who rolls their eyes and spends time refuting what that member says: HE'S TROLLING.
(I say this even though I agree with everything you have written, and even though I too have fallen for it in the past).

2. can we please remember that this is the fight test and production?? There is the other thread re the program more generally, which is set up so that people can debate the financial health of BBD train division ad nasuem without hijacking the flight test and production tread!

Let's make a resolution: let us ALL try to remember this, and if we see anyone posting on the wrong topic we send a gentle reminder. Deal?

For the sake of Pratt & Whitney, I hope the CSeries does well.
The A320 success will be good for them, but they need CSeries orders too.

CSeries will do well.
Orders will roll in as soon as the numbers are public. After all, Republic still has the frame on order, despite continuous trolling from you know who.

The only "risk" order at this point is Ilyushin Finance one, due to situation in Russia.

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 123):

I think the extra range is simply from the better than expected fuel efficiency.

Quoting BlueSky1976 (Reply 126):

I'm sure some will cancel but I'm also sure that enough orders will come that will more than make up for that.

Like many, I think that the CSeries won't reach its real potential until they launch the CS500.

Quoting Quantos (Reply 107): FTV5 flying into Paris with a better numbers and its interior is going to be a hit!

Unless AA, DL, AC, etc. announce big E2 orders. That can suck a lot of wind out of some sails, and at this stage Embraer can probably afford to chop a bit off of their prices as their investment appears to be less.

Quoting BlueSky1976 (Reply 126): Orders will roll in as soon as the numbers are public. After all, Republic still has the frame on order, despite continuous trolling from you know who. The only "risk" order at this point is Ilyushin Finance one, due to situation in Russia.

I'd like to think you're right but I'm a pessimist by nature. I'd LOVE to see the CSeries hit the ball out of the park, though.

-Dave

Regarding the better than expected fuel burn numbers, is this a normal occurrence, does it point to a flawed simulation and CFD modelling? Is it they were too conservative in their initial estimates, specially considering they say the margins are rather big?

I am asking this because if your CFD models are not correctly calibrated, that can also work against them in the future. Nice to hear they are on target though, normally it is the other way around.

Getting back to testing and production.... And this is a generic question, not directly related to the C-Series but of all new aircraft being tested. But as BBD is following this formula, it is relevant enough!

I'm curious- Why is there a magic 2500 hours threshold before approval? If BBD is using 5 aircraft, and let's assume they're all used for 500 hours of testing, then no one particular plane gets 2500 hours of use before it's approved.

Didn't the DH Comet have to be in the air for thousands of hours (or at least a thousand hours) before its fatal flaws started to show themselves?

Why don't regulators simply say, "Here are the following tests. If the aircraft passes these tests, regardless of how long it takes, then the aircraft is approved."

Quoting YYZYYT (Reply 124): We have had a great week or so - CS00 first flight, full cabin revealed, news regarding fuel burn, range and noise beating guarantees, an even a little a.net titillation (some sexy cabin and cockpit photos, and who can ignore that

Where can we see these full cabin photos?

Quoting teahan (Reply 134): Where can we see these full cabin photos?

See reply 88.

Quoting czbbflier (Reply 133): I'm curious- Why is there a magic 2500 hours threshold before approval? If BBD is using 5 aircraft, and let's assume they're all used for 500 hours of testing, then no one particular plane gets 2500 hours of use before it's approved. Didn't the DH Comet have to be in the air for thousands of hours (or at least a thousand hours) before its fatal flaws started to show themselves?

The Comet flaw may have taken many more hours, but now we have a much better understanding as to how these things work. That hels test and asses the aircraft more effectively at this stage AND monitor for subsequent problems (which all aircraft have, to some extent).

Also, don't forget that the flight hours are in addition to the other static tests, including fatigue tests, wing strength, iron horse/electrical, etc. Those add hundreds or thousands of simulated hours in testing of individual components.

Quoting PlanesNTrains (Reply 131): but I don't feel the need to have it reiterated every single day in these threads.

This thread has been going for almost two months and I have only posted on 7 days... furthermore, never initiating the discussion. So not even close to "every single day".

Quoting PlanesNTrains (Reply 131): Yes, we've heard repeatedly the "reality" - there's room for alternate points of view as well, and I don't find that unhealthy at all.

As pointed out above, I have only posted on 7 days out of this almost two month old thread... so obviously there has been "room for alternate points of view" posted... in fact, the overwhelming majority of posts have been "alternate points of view". It is very clear that there is a double standard. Any post can and has been made about the CSeries... even when it is patently false, as long as it is cheer leading the CSeries. But no post that corrects the false posts is to be permitted.  

Quoting czbbflier (Reply 133): I'm curious- Why is there a magic 2500 hours threshold before approval? If BBD is using 5 aircraft, and let's assume they're all used for 500 hours of testing, then no one particular plane gets 2500 hours of use before it's approved.

There is no requirement that a single frame has to complete all tests sequentially. There are a lot of tests that can be run parallely and BBD is leveraging it's 5 FTVs to crash the schedule (no pun. I am referring to PERT/CPM methodology).

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 138): I saw a chart recently, (I have no idea where at the moment), which showed the flights tests which have been completed, and ticked off.

Reply 83

I'm pretty sure there was a graph showing which tests had been completed as well as which aircraft would work on which tests going forward. It was part of the CS300 first flight material I believe.

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 138): When I want to know about the economics of BBD, the CSeries or anything else

Yes, you have always declared that you believe everything that BBD has said... and one just has to look at their stock price to see where that has led "believers".

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 138): I have much better sources than anonymous A.net posters.

I always provide the links so there is nothing "anonymous" about the sources.  

Quoting planemaker (Reply 137): This thread has been going for almost two months and I have only posted on 7 days... furthermore, never initiating the discussion. So not even close to "every single day".

Ya, I set myself up on that one.   Anyhow, it's just the repetitive nature of your message and the somewhat gleeful tone behind it. It is what it is, though. I certainly don't discount what you say - I just have heard it enough.  

-Dave

Quoting planemaker (Reply 141):

Always...? As in every single time...ever? You've read all of my posts? Every one...? It's flattering to know that you are so interested in what I have to say.

Like I said, thanks for caring. Your concern for my well being is deeply touching.

You will be relieved to know that my life doesn't hinge, in the least, on anything related to BBD, including the price of their stock.  

Hopefully you can sleep better now.

Shall we go back on topic?

Quoting dalce (Reply 144):

It would be greatly appreciated, Dalce.

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 135): See reply 88.

Thanks, I missed that.

Quoting planemaker (Reply 118): But that isn't the point that analysts are making... it is that even with BBD management's projections of ~100 deliveries/yr, with the +$5.4 billion in development costs there is zero value generated over 20 years, hence the expectation of a write down.

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 120): So what?

Indeed. If they (were forced to) stop the program, the write down would be *much* bigger.
They have dug themselves a pretty big hole, financially. This year will be turning point where they stop digging, and start filling the hole.

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 122): I'm hoping some is due to the Pratts, but from what I've heard, Pratt is only going to guarantee original promise. I'd like to know where the fuel burn improvement is coming from

Well, if it isn't coming from Pratt, than either the aero, or the FBW-tuning must be better than expected!  

Quoting PlanesNTrains (Reply 142): Ya, I set myself up on that one.

Putting it in context, as the lonely discordant voice it stands out.  

I've basically been the only person on here that has called out the multiple problems at BBD and the CSeries program while most have been blindly cheer leading. And for the most part correcting the incorrect assertions of posters, not initiating the discussion. I am surprised at the continuing incorrect assertions that are still being posted when most of the news that is out in the open. As for the glee aspect you posted, not at all. I am in fact saddened by the longstanding events at BBD that has led to this. There was no need for it to get to the current state of affairs.

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 143): You've read all of my posts?

I don't need to... you have said it often enough.  
'

Quoting PW100 (Reply 147): They have dug themselves a pretty big hole, financially. This year will be turning point where they stop digging, and start filling the hole.

Starting to fill the hole this year... maybe... but next year yes. Several supportive industry analysts are saying the EIS looks like it is slipping into Q1 2016.

Quoting PW100 (Reply 147): must be better than expected!

And the projected weight.

Quoting planemaker (Reply 148): And the projected weight.

That would be even better!

Quoting planemaker (Reply 148): Starting to fill the hole this year... maybe... but next year yes. Several supportive industry analysts are saying the EIS looks like it is slipping into Q1 2016.

That might very well be the case. However, anyway which way I look at it, I more and more get the feeling that BBD have reached a tipping point and have started building momentum now:
FTV's are flying left and right, some almost like Swiss clock works, CS300 first flight of 5 hrs, etc. For the first time in this program, the good news and progress is now not filtered through carefully worded press releases, but from their actions right there in front of our noses, in the open to see and witness for all of us!

I have a feeling 2015 will be a very good year for two programs that have had a (more than?) fair share of problems and criticism. After the turnaround of the 787 program, it's now time for the A380 and the C-series   At least that is what I sincerely hope as an aviation fanatic!

[Edited 2015-03-05 14:42:44]

Quoting PW100 (Reply 149): I more and more get the feeling that BBD have reached a tipping point and have started building momentum now:

On the flight testing yes. Looks like they will also announce better than advertised performance numbers, which is all good news. But to gain traction in sales, they need build confidence to the world stage that they are committed to the program and that if all goes well they will expand the CSeries family.

The fact that they don't hit back at these analysts who are speaking negatively about the program, especially about write-offs and all is not the way to build confidence. Airlines are watching to see how BBD would react to these testy comments, and BBD remain silent. They need to come out fighting loud and clear that the CSeries is here to stay and that it is a platform for the long run. They have also not replaced several top executive positions after their layoffs including the VP of Marketing roles since 8 months. They have been without consistent sales and marketing leadership for some time. What messages can the skeptic airlines see from all this? Airlines are not dumb, and BBD's competitors will pounce on these clues.

Quoting PW100 (Reply 147): Well, if it isn't coming from Pratt, than either the aero, or the FBW-tuning must be better than expected!

I was careful to say Pratt wouldn't *guarantee* the reduced fuel burn. My technical sources at Pratt tell me fuel burn promise will be beat, but Pratt isn't promising anything to keep 'some in reserve' to prevent having to pay penalties. I've also heard that Pratt made the compressor stator mapping very conservative to meet reliability goals at the sacrifice of fuel burn. Pratt is also keeping a large margin on fuel burn to allow deterioration in order to meet cycle life guarantees.

One way to think of this is Pratt has the option to be more aggressive in a PIP with stator mapping if compressor surge margin meets wear estimates. If not... Pratt throws away someone else's money (airlines paying for fuel) so that they do not have to pay penalties for early shop visits due to poor compressor stability margins. (Engine surges.)

If the compressor meets stability margin, Pratt could adjust the mapping not just for fuel burn, but to improve high turbine durability too. So this give Pratt options to meet guarantees.

The 'marketing sources' at Pratt just tell me they won't promise better fuel burn for money risk.

Let's all not forget about the promised 2% fuel burn reduction PIP. For marketing, Pratt isn't worried about fuel burn today. It is noise (looking good), durability (looking good), maintenance (looking good with the conservative stator mapping), and build cost.

Pratt is also 'keeping low' after the oil leaks. They might want to do a PR blitz after EIS with a series of good news announcements including a software PIP that cuts fuel burn. It also could be timing. There just might not be time to certify a new stator mapping without delaying C-series EIS. Since at least one prototype will stay with Bombardier, it could be used to test a series of engine PIPs.    Nothing like continuous improvement to keep customers happy.

Quoting planemaker (Reply 148): Several supportive industry analysts are saying the EIS looks like it is slipping into Q1 2016.

I would concur. But they are making progress and 'earning value' in flight testing.

Quoting planemaker (Reply 148): And the projected weight.

*Old* rumors were that Bombardier was going to deliver a plane 1 metric ton under promise. I do *not* know if that is true or not as I do not have sources that would *know* for the full plane. Parts... sure. The plane?   


Lightsaber

I want to talk more about engine PIPs.

The CFM-56 has a great reputation for regular fuel burn reduction PIPs. It is one reason customers are so loyal to the engine.

The V2500 had to wait 16 years for its first fuel burn reduction PIP! That PIP helped re-ignite sales.

The CF-34 *never* had a fuel burn reduction PIP. Oh, new versions of the engine came out, but the old versions burn fuel as they did when they first entered the fleet.

Pratt needs to overcome a reputation of being 'stingy' with fuel burn improvement PIPs on the PW1000g. e.g.,:
But already P&W has promised to deliver a performance improvement package in 2019 with a 2% reduction in specific fuel consumption relative to the entry-into-service target. "One major distinction is that this is an additional fuel reduction beyond our initial commitment to Airbus and not a fuel recovery package or PIP due to a shortfall," P&W tells Flightglobal.

from http://www.flightglobal.com/news/art...siveness-in-a320neo-orders-409314/


Now the NEO GTF is less conservative than the C-series GTF. So it is possible Pratt will introduce a PIP as soon as Bombardier sells enough planes to justify the certification costs.

Note: I ignore PIPs to bring an engine up to promise fuel burn. That is doing what must be done to stop the guarantee payments (e.g., T1000, GEnX). The same with PIPs to bring maintenance intervals up to original guarantee (I'm looking at you PW2000). Pratt is gearing up to have PIPs for all of the PW1000G series to build a better reputation.

The fact these PIPs, if applied to the core, will also benefit the PW800 is just a bonus.    Sharing one core amount four product lines will really help economies of scale on the bulk of the engine manufacturing costs.

Product lines with a common core:
PW1524/PW1900G (same mechanical engine, 3 stage low compressor GTF)
PW1217/PW1700G (same mechanical engine, 2 stage low compressor GTF)
PW815 (same core, no GTF. PW814 is just a derated version), powers G500/G600
PW812 (same core, no GTF, smaller low spool than PW815), to power replacement of G450

Naturally, Pratt is trying to sell the same mechanical engines to more customers. The competition in the super-midsize business jet market is amazing between Pratt's PW800 family, RR (BMR700NG), SAFRAN's Silvercrest (will eventually be a family of engines), and any attempt by GE to market different sizes of the Passport. The competition for the Falcon 9X engine was the most brutal competition I've ever heard of for engine placement onto an airframe (Safran won). No typo, the not yet official Falcon 9X. I'm hearing things on the Longitude... As if they will reopen the engine competition a la Falcon 5X (first won by RR with the BR700NG, then when "reopened" it went to the Silvercrest). However, nothing definitive and I'm getting too off thread. Sort of how Pratt won the Columbus but when it was reopened it went to the Silvercrest too...

A Longitude redesign could carry wider implications for the supply chain. Cessna selected the Pratt & Whitney Canada PW810 engines to power the Columbus, but switched to the Snecma Silvercrest engine on the Longitude.
http://www.flightglobal.com/news/art...door-to-longitude-redesign-404965/

Now to get the Cseries into the fleet as it is meant to be the foundation of sales for that core...

Lightsaber

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 151): They might want to do a PR blitz after EIS with a series of good news announcements including a software PIP that cuts fuel burn.

Does a software PIP mean that it could be applied to all engines including ones already in service, as opposed to only being available on new builds?

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 152):

Good job putting a lot of interesting stuff into one neat package.

Quoting czbbflier (Reply 133): I'm curious- Why is there a magic 2500 hours threshold before approval? Why don't regulators simply say, "Here are the following tests. If the aircraft passes these tests, regardless of how long it takes, then the aircraft is approved."

Actually, that's exactly what happens. 2500hrs is just the ballpark figure of how long it is planned for those tests to take. In the end whether it's 2000 or 4000 doesn't matter as long as all tests are passed. The only requirement for a minimum of flight hours are the functional and reliability tests towards the end of the FT campaign. And it's easier to tell financial analysts an easy round number than to explain to them - in vain - how a certification flight test program works.

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 151): I was careful to say Pratt wouldn't *guarantee* the reduced fuel burn. My technical sources at Pratt tell me fuel burn promise will be beat, but Pratt isn't promising anything to keep 'some in reserve' to prevent having to pay penalties. I've also heard that Pratt made the compressor stator mapping very conservative to meet reliability goals at the sacrifice of fuel burn. Pratt is also keeping a large margin on fuel burn to allow deterioration in order to meet cycle life guarantees.

The promised 2% PIP for 2019 and Airbus' range promises on A321NEOLR seem to confirm exactly that. If they are so confident already at this early stage it means they have a nice margin to play with. Great news for any GTF-powered aircraft.

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 152): Product lines with a common core: PW1524/PW1900G (same mechanical engine, 3 stage low compressor GTF) PW1217/PW1700G (same mechanical engine, 2 stage low compressor GTF) PW815 (same core, no GTF. PW814 is just a derated version), powers G500/G600 PW812 (same core, no GTF, smaller low spool than PW815), to power replacement of G450

To complete your very informative post, where does the 1400G for the MS-21 fit in? I assume it shares core and most of the rest with A320NEO?