Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 27058
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: Boeing Confirms Review Of Larger -7Max And -9Max - Pt. 2

Thu May 12, 2016 3:15 pm

Quoting fcogafa (Reply 36):
P&W suggest GTF for new MAX version...

Would Boeing want to offer - and airlines want to buy - a model of MAX that has a different engine than the rest of the family?

Remember Airbus refbuffed GE on the A350XWB because GE would not develop an engine for the -1000 model.
 
User avatar
BoeingVista
Posts: 2060
Joined: Mon Jan 12, 2009 9:54 am

RE: Boeing Confirms Review Of Larger -7Max And -9Max - Pt. 2

Thu May 12, 2016 4:31 pm

Quoting Stitch (Reply 50):
Would Boeing want to offer - and airlines want to buy - a model of MAX that has a different engine than the rest of the family?

Remember Airbus refbuffed GE on the A350XWB because GE would not develop an engine for the -1000 model.

Those two situations are completely different. Boeing has been keeping other manufacturers off of the 737 rather than the OEM's refusing to develop powerplants.
BV
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 27058
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: Boeing Confirms Review Of Larger -7Max And -9Max - Pt. 2

Thu May 12, 2016 4:45 pm

Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 51):
Those two situations are completely different. Boeing has been keeping other manufacturers off of the 737 rather than the OEM's refusing to develop powerplants.

Yet one imagines a concern of Airbus was having two A350XWB models with two powerplant options and one model having only one which would complicate spares and maintenance for operators looking to operate the entire range. A concern I would think Boeing would have as well if the MAX-9 had a different engine than the -7 and -8.

I'm also skeptical Pratt could adapt the PW1100G to the 737 without requiring major modifications to the host airframe. The PW1500G might have worked, but it's thrust ratings are too low (as it's designed for the lighter Embraer E-Jet family).

[Edited 2016-05-12 09:52:33]
 
ODwyerPW
Posts: 1624
Joined: Thu Dec 09, 2004 6:30 am

RE: Boeing Confirms Review Of Larger -7Max And -9Max - Pt. 2

Thu May 12, 2016 5:58 pm

Quoting EPA001 (Reply 40):
But then Boeing would be doing a very costly concession to the earlier adopted strategy on the MAX-program.

A necessary concession.... A321NEO is beating MAX9 5 to 1 in sales.
learning never stops.
 
sv11
Posts: 221
Joined: Tue Jun 01, 1999 6:26 am

RE: Boeing Confirms Review Of Larger -7Max And -9Max - Pt. 2

Thu May 12, 2016 11:37 pm

I dont think P&W GTF is needed for 737-10. Just putting LEAP-1A engine with bigger fan with additional belly fuel tanks and shortening landing gear like on the Airbus A330 would do. LEAP-1A will provide 5K pounds more thrust, which should provide for additional passengers/fuel.

sv11
 
User avatar
BoeingVista
Posts: 2060
Joined: Mon Jan 12, 2009 9:54 am

RE: Boeing Confirms Review Of Larger -7Max And -9Max - Pt. 2

Fri May 13, 2016 5:03 am

Quoting Stitch (Reply 52):
Yet one imagines a concern of Airbus was having two A350XWB models with two powerplant options and one model having only one which would complicate spares and maintenance for operators looking to operate the entire range. A concern I would think Boeing would have as well if the MAX-9 had a different engine than the -7 and -8.

Well this is completely up to Boeing, a Leap will not get them the same SFC as a GTF; if they want to spend a shed load of cash screwing with wings, undercarrige and wingbox to still come up short and still get spanked by the A321NEO they can go down the single engine path the choice is theres.
BV
 
brindabella
Posts: 619
Joined: Fri Apr 30, 2010 10:38 am

RE: Boeing Confirms Review Of Larger -7Max And -9Max - Pt. 2

Fri May 13, 2016 6:52 am

Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 55):
Quoting Stitch (Reply 52):
Yet one imagines a concern of Airbus was having two A350XWB models with two powerplant options and one model having only one which would complicate spares and maintenance for operators looking to operate the entire range. A concern I would think Boeing would have as well if the MAX-9 had a different engine than the -7 and -8.

Well this is completely up to Boeing, a Leap will not get them the same SFC as a GTF; if they want to spend a shed load of cash screwing with wings, undercarrige and wingbox to still come up short and still get spanked by the A321NEO they can go down the single engine path the choice is theres.

 


It is a commonplace here that both of the major OEMs have a huge depth of knowledge & skills; I can only think of a couple of contributors who are so completely, idiotically one-eyed in favour of either A or B as to see no merit at all in the products of the other, competing OEM.

A brand-new, high-performance and lightweight wing added-to the existing, competitive 737 body-structure and latest-generation engines would seem to hold great technical promise, even when competing with such a great aeroplane as the forthcoming A321neo.
B's problem is far more likely to be that A will have the ability to price the A321neo way down at any time, giving B a huge headache facing an unpredictably long wait until the multi-billion investment pays off.

Completely stupid post, really.
Amazingly tendentious.

Takes all types, I suppose.



 

Bill
Billy
 
User avatar
BoeingVista
Posts: 2060
Joined: Mon Jan 12, 2009 9:54 am

RE: Boeing Confirms Review Of Larger -7Max And -9Max - Pt. 2

Fri May 13, 2016 7:16 am

Quoting brindabella (Reply 56):
Completely stupid post, really.
Amazingly tendentious.

What exactly do you think my post says?

I don't realy care tbh as you show that you do not undestand either the English language or science and techniology, but I will try and school you anyway.

All technologies are not equal period.

It does not matter if you have a team of einsteins working on your turbojet it is not going to give you the same SFC as a turbofan. Same with turbofan v GTF. The idiotic thing is to rule out the latest engine technology which is what Boeing would be doing if they refuse the GTF.

Also as I pointed out upthread you cannot grandfather an aircraft for ever and some of the 737' 'efficiencies' are because it does not need to comply with some certification rules that apply to the A320 series. Change everything but the windshield and the FAA / Boeing might have to face this fact.
BV
 
ODwyerPW
Posts: 1624
Joined: Thu Dec 09, 2004 6:30 am

RE: Boeing Confirms Review Of Larger -7Max And -9Max - Pt. 2

Fri May 13, 2016 8:29 pm

On the A321NEO... what are the differences in SFC between the Leap-1A32 and the PW1133G?

Have we had enough flight testing of both to know that answer? I searched, I can't find any details.

Thrust never comes free, so how far apart in SFC are these engines as they both get built to the upper limits of their designs?

The Leap-1A doesn't have the smaller hotter running core of the Leap-1B, so it may scale similarly to the GTF... Would be neat to know.

That answer might help Boeing decide if they keep the CFM exclusivity on the MADMAX.
learning never stops.
 
CRJ900
Posts: 2384
Joined: Wed Jun 02, 2004 2:48 am

RE: Boeing Confirms Review Of Larger -7Max And -9Max - Pt. 2

Fri May 13, 2016 9:52 pm

Quoting tjh8402 (Reply 28):
If this is true, raked wing tips were the clear choice for the P-8 because that plane typically flies long missions at higher altitudes, requiring good endurance. This means it would benefit more from the raked wingtips cruise efficiency improvements over the winglets advantages in the early stages of flight. No way of knowing if this is actually the case but it made sense.

Could TK benefit from having raked wingtips on their B739ER, which they use on 7-8-hour flights? Or other airlines planning to use the B737 MAX 9 on mostly longer flights?
Come, fly the prevailing winds with me
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Moderator
Posts: 19604
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

RE: Boeing Confirms Review Of Larger -7Max And -9Max - Pt. 2

Fri May 13, 2016 9:59 pm

Quoting fcogafa (Reply 36):
P&W suggest GTF for new MAX version

I could only hope!   

Quoting ODwyerPW (Reply 53):
A necessary concession.... A321NEO is beating MAX9 5 to 1 in sales.

The MOM is too far away, so Boeing must make concessions or give Airbus uncontested sales in about a third of the narrowbody market. The MAX-10 will happen.

Pratt's will depend on relative fuel efficiency. Boeing might have no choice. Ironic if both NEO engines end up on the MAX.

Quoting ODwyerPW (Reply 58):
On the A321NEO... what are the differences in SFC between the Leap-1A32 and the PW1133G?

We know the Leap-1A is missing fuel burn but meeting expectations after a low compressor reblading and changes to turbine cooling.

Lightsaber
IM messages to mods on warnings and bans will be ignored and nasty ones will result in a ban.
 
tjh8402
Posts: 957
Joined: Sat Jan 12, 2013 4:20 am

RE: Boeing Confirms Review Of Larger -7Max And -9Max - Pt. 2

Fri May 13, 2016 10:48 pm

Quoting Polot (Reply 31):
I believe the P-8 is designed to operate at lower altitudes (very low, especially for a commercial jet).
Quoting Revelation (Reply 33):
I read that P-8 will spend a fair amount of time at lower altitudes, once on station.

Actually everything I'm reading about the P-8 says that one area where it represents a radical change from the P-3 is it's operating altitude. I can't find specific numbers, but it is routinely described as a "high altitude" ASW airplane vs the low flying Orion. One of the developments for the plane was torpedoes that can be deployed from as high as 30,000 ft. Its high(er) altitude mission is one of the reasons the MAD boom was not installed. Several articles mention the raked wingtips as part of the modifications done to optimize the plane for high altitude cruising and patrols.
 
User avatar
Polot
Posts: 10470
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2011 3:01 pm

RE: Boeing Confirms Review Of Larger -7Max And -9Max - Pt. 2

Sat May 14, 2016 1:41 pm

Quoting tjh8402 (Reply 61):
Actually everything I'm reading about the P-8 says that one area where it represents a radical change from the P-3 is it's operating altitude. I can't find specific numbers, but it is routinely described as a "high altitude" ASW airplane vs the low flying Orion. One of the developments for the plane was torpedoes that can be deployed from as high as 30,000 ft. Its high(er) altitude mission is one of the reasons the MAD boom was not installed. Several articles mention the raked wingtips as part of the modifications done to optimize the plane for high altitude cruising and patrols.

The P-3/P-8 don't spend their entire time at low altitudes. They are normally at high(er) altitudes then swoop down to just above the surface when needed. One of the requirements for the aircraft was the ability to do tactical maneuvers at 200ft altitude.

With the technology on board, however, the P-8 can be more effective at higher altitudes than the P-3. That doesn't mean it will always be used at high altitudes, and of course Boeing has to make sure the plane is as safe as possible when going down and cruising at low altitudes.
 
ODwyerPW
Posts: 1624
Joined: Thu Dec 09, 2004 6:30 am

RE: Boeing Confirms Review Of Larger -7Max And -9Max - Pt. 2

Mon May 16, 2016 5:49 pm

Quoting ODwyerPW (Reply 58):
On the A321NEO... what are the differences in SFC between the Leap-1A32 and the PW1133G?

Some are insisting Boeing would be crazy to not engineer for the GTF, but not one response to the question above.
learning never stops.
 
StTim
Posts: 3677
Joined: Thu Aug 08, 2013 7:39 am

RE: Boeing Confirms Review Of Larger -7Max And -9Max - Pt. 2

Mon May 16, 2016 6:14 pm

There is also the noise factor. The GTF may allow ops at times the LEAP wouldn't.

I haven't seen the detail noise footprints of the various frames yet. I suspect it will be 320 GTF slightly beating the 320 LEAP and both beating the 737 LEAP as it will have to be working harder with it's smaller fan diameter and lower bypass.
 
ODwyerPW
Posts: 1624
Joined: Thu Dec 09, 2004 6:30 am

RE: Boeing Confirms Review Of Larger -7Max And -9Max - Pt. 2

Mon May 16, 2016 6:42 pm

So far no one has published any noise footprints or SFC for A320NEO program with respect to the differences between GTF and LEAP1A.

Spanning the interwebs, I come across a myriad of comparisons between 2011 and 2012 citing differences of 3 to 4%... But those are all estimates. What have the actual test programs revealed? Both engines have been flying for a while on A320.... and have flown for at least 2 months on A321 (the one I'm really interested in for MAX9/MADMAX discussions).
learning never stops.

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