Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 154):

Here here!
Interesting stuff.

It's also to note, Pratt is supplying 'power by the hour' and maintenance packages on these engines.
So internally, the message always was, and is "let's make these things as rock solid and reliable as possible, because we have to fix them. The less they break the less we spend." (In summary).

Question from the peanut gallery here:

What is "PIP"?

Quoting czbbflier (Reply 157): What is "PIP"?

Performance Improvement Package

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, between weight, drag, and SFC you don't have many more options.

Quoting EaglePower83 (Reply 125): 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.

Definitely. The fact that they're not trailing CFM by much on the A320 is telling, considering CFMs reputation, install base, and financial arm.

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. 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.)

Based on this, I think they might come out with another 2-4% pretty quickly if they were slow-playing the CSeries engine. It seems the 1133G has had fewer issues and is already beating spec, so once all those lessons are backported into the CSeries they should beat it easily.

The other angle I see PW playing is that they need to a) compete with the CFM A320 engine and b) they're selling more units, so the same investment goes further there. It wouldn't surprise me if they go to BBD with something like "if you can get us another X orders, we'll do a 4% SFC bump because it'll be worth our while."

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. . . . Pratt is also keeping a large margin on fuel burn to allow deterioration in order to meet cycle life guarantees. . . . . The 'marketing sources' at Pratt just tell me they won't promise better fuel burn for money risk.

I must admit I was challenging you somewhat, I had a fairly good idea of your position, hope you don’t mind  

In any case, I fully agree. I also see that there is *much* more for Pratt to gain, by metering the good news**, in a sort of long steady flow, rather than just give at away prematurely and/or all at once.
They are already pretty much established now with the GTF platform, and now need to focus on ramping up their production system to levels they have never done in house themselves. Once that is up and running well, let the PR blitz do its thing.

** and in competition with the LEAP, my “rumor mill” is much less optimistic for CFM. Operators who expect CFM56 type of reliability, on-wing time, and low performance degradation, are probably going to be somewhat disappointed. And these are areas where the GTF is going to excel, with its much lower thermo loading and overall pressure ratio. The only iffy item for the GTF would possibly be endurance of the gear system. But the beauty on this gear system is that it is very predictable, in that any potential major condition will announce itself way in advance. Really, its almost the ultimate on-condition maintenance item. That, together with the modular design should be quite favourable with the maintenance departments.

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 152): Pratt is gearing up to have PIPs for all of the PW1000G series to build a better reputation.

LEAP is looking that it is going to need some PIPing(s) to meet brochure claims (and perhaps some contractual guarantees as well).

PW100

Quoting PW100 (Reply 160): LEAP is looking that it is going to need some PIPing(s) to meet brochure claims (and perhaps some contractual guarantees as well).

Maybe. The Leap engine is selling large quantities though. Even if Pratt is 1 or 2% more efficient, most engine deals are all about financing and maintenance etc.

Quoting PW100 (Reply 160):

I wouldn't bet against the LEAP, if for no other reason that GE is basically ground zero for outside of the envelope, exotic materials design and usage.

If, (and that's a pretty big if), they have their materials and coatings reliable enough under operating conditions, then they should be alright.

The big disadvantage for GE is that Pratt can always go the 'exotic materials' route and GE only has so much headroom to improve their product.

I think the next big evolution of GE engines will be the addition of a gearbox on the fan. I'd be very surprised if they don't have a few gearboxes spinning away in labs right now.

Looks like FTV4 flew to KROW this morning.

Quoting PW100 (Reply 156):

could you kindly elaborate on the gearbox reliability and the specific case why it is the ultimate on condition maintenance item ?

thanks  

I assume because they don't know how long the gearbox will last....it might never need to be changed. What they have instead is extensive monitoring and inspection.

The idea is that it should be detected making metal long before any chance of catastrophic failure, and dealt with on a per unit basis.

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 161): The idea is that it should be detected making metal long before any chance of catastrophic failure, and dealt with on a per unit basis.

Thanks for answering, but maybe I should have been more specific on what exactly I'd like to know: Would the gearbox be spilling metal chips in such a slow fashion that detection (via chip detectors or else?) would be easy making it the ultimate on condition item?
Or would gear vibration be the indicator?

Quoting nicoeddf (Reply 162):

It's not so much that it would slowly make metal, but the particles themselves are expected to be very small....tiny chips and shavings, which would be detected long before enough metal was lost or broken off that gear failure might become a serious threat.

I imagine balance would also be monitored but I think any problem would be detected long before so much metal was missing that it would mess up the balance enough to be noticed

Quoting nicoeddf (Reply 160): could you kindly elaborate on the gearbox reliability and the specific case why it is the ultimate on condition maintenance item ?

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 163): It's not so much that it would slowly make metal, but the particles themselves are expected to be very small....tiny chips and shavings, which would be detected long before enough metal was lost or broken off that gear failure might become a serious threat.

Correct. These gears are pretty big gears with big teeth. And they get plenty of oil feed, mainly for cooling purposes. So the circulation rate of the oil is fairly high. The gearbox oil sump, and /or return oil line form the gearbox is/are equipped with magnetic Chip Detectors. As these gears (and bearings) wear out, they shed tiny metal particles, which are caught by these Chip Detectors, which now generate a warning. At this point the wear is still perfectly acceptable, and the engine can remain in service.

Meanwhile, maintenance will now remove the Chip Detector, transfer the metallic debris and have a laboratory analysis performed. Typically this lab results are available within 24 hours (can be a little later if the debris sample has to be shipped by currier).

The lab results usually will be able fairly accurately pinpoint the component that has generated the debris, by material specifics. Critical components can even get “marker” elements, so that the exact component can be identified, such as Bearing No.xx or Gear xx.

While initial intervals will be set very conservative, Pratt has a very good understanding on the deterioration rate of each main bearing and gear. Once considerable service time has been accumulated, I would not be surprised that Pratt would allow maintenance actions to be deferred for 50 or 100 flight hours (or even more) before the gearbox has to be replaced, and/or the worn out component be replaced.

Since these gears are pretty big, and for the most part relatively slow in rotation, it can take anywhere between 50 and 500 operating hrs from the first metal generation, to a catastrophic failure. Like I said, initial intervals will probably be quite conservative, but I have no doubt that these will evolve considerably.

So then, why is this the ultimate on-condition machine? Gearboxes, once well designed with good lubrication and thermal transfer, have very good life and don’t need much attention. You can basically run them until the critical component (either a bearing or a gear) starts to wear. Since this can be very well monitored, there is no need for much preventive maintenance (like scheduled overhauls); the gearbox will tell you well in advance of a critical problem that it needs TLC (Tender., Love, Care). At which point it will probably be overhauled, or refurbished at minimum.

The most critical component in such a reduction gearbox system is the input gear shaft (which is connected to the LPT) and its supporting bearings, since this is the fastest turning gear. All other gears and bearings turn slower, and are therefore bigger.
The bigger the gear, the slower its rate of deterioration.

And what also helps, is that this gear system is in the coolest part of the engine, all the way in the front.
I’m not privy to the design of the GTF, but I would not be surprised if its gear system is (at least partially) changeable on-wing. That would really make it the ultimate on-condition machine:
* run gear system until it wears out - which could turn out to be 10000 – 20000 hrs;
* When it starts to wear out, it produces warning well in advance;
* Which allows for planning of maintenance, rather than ad-hoc corrective maintenance;
* Change engine overnight, or
* Change gear system on-wing overnight;
* Refurbish engine/gear system;
* Unscheduled down time: minimum, or even non-existing.

Rgs,
PW100

Seems that Swiss will become the launch customer after all.

http://twitter.com/jonostrower/status/574977636247543808

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 165): Seems that Swiss will become the launch customer after all

I think, you mean Launch Operator . . .  

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 165): Seems that Swiss will become the launch customer after all.

Was there really ever any doubt? Quality carrier SWISS gets to show off a brand spanking new aircraft model and BBD's mechanics are probably on hand to deal with any minute snag. Great marketing opportunity for both SWISS and BBD.

Quoting CRJ900 (Reply 167): Was there really ever any doubt?

Actually yes. Swiss have previously stated that they do not want to become the launch customer operator.

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 158): The big disadvantage for GE is that Pratt can always go the 'exotic materials' route and GE only has so much headroom to improve their product.

Bingo 
Pratt went with a revolutionary gearcase on a standard engine. Gained great efficiencies, and leapfrogged a generation of engines.
Once these GTFs are up and running, they can then go the fancy, exotic materials route, and once again, leap the LEAP the 2nd time around.
They got their issues for sure, but their business model is freakin' genius.

Quoting PW100 (Reply 164): And what also helps, is that this gear system is in the coolest part of the engine, all the way in the front. I’m not privy to the design of the GTF, but I would not be surprised if its gear system is (at least partially) changeable on-wing. That would really make it the ultimate on-condition machine:

I do believe the gearboxes are maintainable on-wing.
Remove the fan, pull the gearbox, re-install. Done.
It's a floating gearbox that's very durable and well insulated from shock.
If you saw reports a few years back on the GTFs "Blade-out" testing.....it broke records of all other Pratt engines being the most durable, and was even able to still FREELY TURN!
After blade-out!
The gearbox is also 99%+ efficient!   
So even though it's got an amazingly robust oil and cooling system, it won't have to work hard keeping it cool.

The GTF might have a few little teething problems here and there upon launch. All new stuff does.
But it's crazy efficient, quiet, lean......and the gearbox is freakin' brilliant.

At LH Group earnings yesterday, they stated Swiss had not committed to becoming launch operator of the model.

Also with transfer of E195s to Austrian closed the sales opportunity for the C-series.
OS CEO stated one of the big advantages with going with E195 was that OS could refleet rapidly commencing later this year and be done by 2017, while BBD did not offer such delivery time frames.

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 170): OS CEO stated one of the big advantages with going with E195 was that OS

Oil showing little signs of going over $60 for the foreseeable future (let alone ever reaching $90 again) is another factor...

Bombardier faces new headwind in bid to sell C Series: low oil prices

Quote: The European carrier’s decision to limit investments in new aircraft as oil prices remain under $60 (U.S.) a barrel highlights an unforeseen challenge for Bombardier

It is unfortunate that BBD didn't heed Adam Pilarski's warnings. He's been warning about the crash in oil prices since 2011... though as Leeham pointed out, it came a few years earlier than he predicted.

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 168): ctually yes. Swiss have previously stated that they do not want to become the launch customer operator.

From yesterday...

Lufthansa says no decision yet on CSeries launch at Swiss

Continued from Part 7.

As the last thread is getting really long, I thought it might be a good idea to start a new thread.

Also, let's have a fresh start:

THIS IS FOR FLIGHT TESTING AND PRODUCTION ONLY.

This thread is not for sales, markets, economies, competition. There are other sandboxes for that.

Thanks.

FTV5 first flight soon

Another #CSeries first flight coming soon. #FTV5 equipped with interior AND its @Transport_gc flight permit! #avgeek pic.twitter.com/04Qoe6N38M

— Bombardier Aerospace (@Bombardier_Aero) 13 Mars 2015

It is a good looking aircraft-I look forward to seeing it in a variety of liveries soon.

Air Baltic says their first CS300 jet will arrive in September 2016.

http://www.ch-aviation.com/portal/ne...onfirms-delays-in-cs300-deliveries

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 3): Air Baltic says their first CS300 jet will arrive in September 2016. http://www.ch-aviation.com/portal/ne...onfirms-delays-in-cs300-deliveries

I'm a little surprised it's going to take until September of next year to have their first CS300 delivered. Has any airline stepped up as the launch customer for the CS300?

Another flight for FTV7:

http://fr24.com/BBA507/5c4554e

It's a busy month: in addition to FTV7, FTV 1, 2, 3 and 4 have logged quite some hours in the past two weeks.

Seems that CSeries EIS might slide to the right:

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/art...le-cseries-schedule-change-410263/

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 7):

Not really much of a surprise. I hope they are taking this time to get production sorted out so the ramp up doesn't turn off current and potential customers.

Still, they do have 5 flight test vehicles spending a lot of time in the air with a 6th up soon, so those flight test hours should get eaten up fairly quickly...as long as not much else goes wrong.

FTV5 just took off for its first flight!

Updated the list: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1lXNG1xC1LmNqMjTeDEDgjjyuEVPnwoctDkl6fFr6hTc/edit?usp=sharing


And here's the flightradar: http://www.flightradar24.com/BBA505/5c8d4f2

[Edited 2015-03-18 14:05:34]

[Edited 2015-03-18 14:05:52]

6 flying flight test vehicles. It took some time but it did finally happen.

There is basically one flight test vehicle yet to fly; the other CS300.

Press release from BBD:

http://cseries.com/ftv5-takes-to-the-skies/

Total hours now well over 1,200 as well!

Considering how many hours were flown pre, and now post, engine failure...with a little luck, we could be seeing the flight testing program wrap up by September/October.

Holding breath and crossing fingers.

I wonder if they'll give FTV5 the full house livery before sending it to Dubai in November.

There, I had enough time to catch it on approach : https://flic.kr/p/qJGxSN

I need a better zoom... :/

I've been thinking about this June's Paris Airshow.
Since FTV5 is quite certain to be at the show, and maybe also the CS300 could pay a visit. I see them taking advantage of being on the other side of the Atlantic to perform certification tests for LCY, maybe after the airshow.
Or do they need to achieve EASA certification first?

Otherwise, I see very likely a visit to ZRH (Swiss) doing something like the Republic Airways visit they did last October.

Paolo,

I certainly would love to see both aircraft at Le Bourget. My question is: Have other aircraft visited when flight testing isn't quite completed? It would be great to see a formation fly-by/demonstration!

Quoting rikkus67 (Reply 15):

I believe the A350 made it to the Paris Air Show before it was certified.

Gosh the hours are piling up. Today only, 3h for FTV7, 3.5h for FTV2 and 7.25h for FTV5 (that's a single flight).

Quoting Quantos (Reply 17): 7.25h for FTV5

That's outstanding! I assume the fact that it was empty has something to do with it, but the likes of companies like Odyssey will be loving stuff like that. Much like the A319 ACJ.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articl...ut-to-2016-as-timeline-slips-again

Here we go again...

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 16): I believe the A350 made it to the Paris Air Show before it was certified.

The 787 also made it to Farnborough in 2010 before it was certified. That said the logistics for getting a new aircraft at a European airshow are obviously easier/less time consuming/less risky for Airbus than for Boeing or Bombardier.

Quoting jalarner (Reply 19): Here we go again...

This should not come as a surprise, the new CEO had already given a hint at a possible delay.

[Edited 2015-03-27 10:34:37]

Sad, though. EIS *after* the a320neo.

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 21): This should not come as a surprise

  

Quoting SSTeve (Reply 22): Sad, though. EIS *after* the a320neo.

But on the bright side, it gives BBD more time to get the 300 "firm" orders before EIS.

FTV2 is returning to Montreal.



See http://fr24.com/BBA502/5db7116

Latest update on the flight test program:

http://airinsight.com/2015/04/07/cseries-flight-test-update-4/

300 hours? That's almost double any previous month. Also, I believe that FTV2 flight was chasing icing; it's been searching for it for the past weeks.

They're pushing the test fleet flying hours. That's a good thing!

IFC, the third largest CSeries customer, might walk away from its order:

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/art...d-largest-cseries-customer-410987/

Quoting rikkus67 (Reply 27): They're pushing the test fleet flying hours. That's a good thing!

Yes but I believe FTV7 flight hours are not meant for the CS100 certification.

Karel...

Considering the political climate, this is not surprising.