Agrajag
Topic Author
Posts: 97
Joined: Wed Mar 27, 2019 8:23 am

Max Engines

Fri Jul 26, 2019 10:34 am

Talking hypothetically, and I stress, hypothetically, if the Max was never to be allowed to fly again, would the engines find their way on to alternative frames, if so, which?
The plural of anecdote is anecdotes, not data.
Slartibartfast had a point
 
Agrajag
Topic Author
Posts: 97
Joined: Wed Mar 27, 2019 8:23 am

Re: Max Engines

Fri Jul 26, 2019 10:36 am

And i mean specifically the engines on the grounded fleet.
The plural of anecdote is anecdotes, not data.
Slartibartfast had a point
 
Lrockeagle
Posts: 145
Joined: Wed Oct 06, 2004 1:40 am

Re: Max Engines

Fri Jul 26, 2019 2:25 pm

Many many many things from those frames would be used on other aircraft. I don’t know the model engine on the MAX or if any other a/c currently used them so I can’t say about the engines specifically. But if some other frame used that engine then yeah
Lrockeagle
14 years ago

I got $20 says AA takes their 787's with GE powerplants. Just a hunch. Any takers?
 
gloom
Posts: 347
Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2016 4:24 pm

Re: Max Engines

Fri Jul 26, 2019 2:39 pm

Leap1B, powering 737 MAX, is one of the versions for LEAP engine family. Other applicants would be A320Neo, and Comac C919. While C version (Comac) is a bit different animal, A version is pretty similar. Boeing (with its lower gear) required different fan, but otherwise, they're very similar (if not identical). IF (and that's a capital IF) 737MAX would never fly again, most of Leap1B could be probably adopted to 1A with a cost much lower than a new engine. So, probably we'd see lots of conversions, and change to production lines to provide more Leaps to Airbus.

Still, it's not going to happen. I don't see it, even given the problems MAX does have.

Cheers,
Adam
 
User avatar
CALTECH
Posts: 3296
Joined: Thu May 17, 2007 4:21 am

Re: Max Engines

Fri Jul 26, 2019 3:46 pm

LEAP-1B was developed for the 737MAX. It would not find it's way onto another aircraft. The MAX will fly again.
You are here.
 
Agrajag
Topic Author
Posts: 97
Joined: Wed Mar 27, 2019 8:23 am

Re: Max Engines

Fri Jul 26, 2019 5:51 pm

I have no doubt that the Max will fly again but none the less i find the prospect of a permanent grounding fascinating in terms of how it would be handled. There are more than 700 engines that would need to find new homes, not to mention all the other equipment that can be re-homed. But specifically in terms of the engines, what impact would that have on the market for those engines and the manufacturer's bottom line.?
The plural of anecdote is anecdotes, not data.
Slartibartfast had a point
 
astuteman
Posts: 6960
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 7:50 pm

Re: Max Engines

Sat Jul 27, 2019 5:39 am

Agrajag wrote:
I have no doubt that the Max will fly again but none the less i find the prospect of a permanent grounding fascinating in terms of how it would be handled. There are more than 700 engines that would need to find new homes, not to mention all the other equipment that can be re-homed. But specifically in terms of the engines, what impact would that have on the market for those engines and the manufacturer's bottom line.?


It's an academic question as all those MAXes will fly again.
The answer to your question though is "no". The engines would not find new homes.
Anyone wanting modern engines in that thrust category would require a fan diameter of 77"-78", not the 69" shoehorned onto the MAX.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CFM_Inter ... ifications

The Leap 1A on the A320 is 78" with a bypass ratio of 11:1.
The Leap 1C on the C919 is 77" with a bypass ratio of 11:1
The leap 1B on the MAX is 69" with a bypass ratio of 9:1

The 1B is an orphan sadly.

Rgds
 
Zeke2517
Posts: 52
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2013 4:29 pm

Re: Max Engines

Sun Jul 28, 2019 11:10 am

I don’t think that a prolonged or permanent grounding is that far out of the realm of possibility.

It seems that the faulty sensors which led to the software deciding to dig a hole in the ground were only a byproduct of an airframe that is fundamentally aerodynamically unsound.

So to the OP’s point they’ll probably just put the engines on the NEOs.
Last edited by Zeke2517 on Sun Jul 28, 2019 11:20 am, edited 1 time in total.
 
Zeke2517
Posts: 52
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2013 4:29 pm

Re: Max Engines

Sun Jul 28, 2019 11:17 am

I foolishly glossed over astuteman’s post so I’d like to revise my post by saying... Oh man that would be a huge deal.

Question: although they have been cranking out the max airframes to this point have they been putting engines on them?

So let’s say that in an alternate dimension they ground the Max forever are there really hundreds of unusable brand new jet engines? That would be a huge deal in itself.
 
User avatar
flyingturtle
Posts: 5685
Joined: Mon Oct 31, 2011 1:39 pm

Re: Max Engines

Sun Jul 28, 2019 1:06 pm

Could they be repurposed as emergency power generators on the ground?

Or would that be prohibitive in terms of costs and engineering?
Reading accident reports is what calms me down
 
GalaxyFlyer
Posts: 4128
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2016 4:44 am

Re: Max Engines

Sun Jul 28, 2019 1:29 pm

Zeke2517 wrote:
I foolishly glossed over astuteman’s post so I’d like to revise my post by saying... Oh man that would be a huge deal.

Question: although they have been cranking out the max airframes to this point have they been putting engines on them?

So let’s say that in an alternate dimension they ground the Max forever are there really hundreds of unusable brand new jet engines? That would be a huge deal in itself.


Boeing is installing them as that’s part of the reason production continues—long lead contracts need to be fulfilled.


Probably trash, they aren’t viable for Airbus; they can’t put on the 737NG for the simple reason they don’t fit. It’s gonna fly again, it’s not aerodynamically wrong
 
LDRA
Posts: 290
Joined: Fri Jan 15, 2016 3:01 am

Re: Max Engines

Sun Jul 28, 2019 9:21 pm

Perfect match for a A319NEO! Or second engine option for A220-500?
 
BigDirt
Posts: 1
Joined: Tue Jul 30, 2019 8:58 pm

Re: Max Engines

Tue Jul 30, 2019 9:28 pm

The LEAP-1B (B737-MAX) and the LEAP-1A (A320neo) actually have few parts in common. Those that are are primarily LRU's, not internal engine parts.
 
User avatar
CALTECH
Posts: 3296
Joined: Thu May 17, 2007 4:21 am

Re: Max Engines

Wed Jul 31, 2019 10:28 pm

astuteman wrote:
The 1B is an orphan sadly.

Rgds


Can you show us where the LEAP-1B is a orphan ? For if the LEAP-1B is a orphan, then so are the siblings, the LEAP-1A and -1C. Or is it just someone prattling on......

From October 2018 numbers
.................................................Aircraft ....................Engines.............Operators..............Hours...........Cycles
LEAP-1A
A320NEO, A321NEO.............. 268.............................621....................33.........................1,542,391....747,452

LEAP-1B..................................219.............................478.....................40............................758,479...277,283
737-MAX

TOTAL.....................................487...........................1,099....................70.........................2,300,870...1,024,735
You are here.
 
astuteman
Posts: 6960
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 7:50 pm

Re: Max Engines

Thu Aug 01, 2019 4:54 am

CALTECH wrote:
astuteman wrote:
The 1B is an orphan sadly.

Rgds


Can you show us where the LEAP-1B is a orphan ? For if the LEAP-1B is a orphan, then so are the siblings, the LEAP-1A and -1C. Or is it just someone prattling on......

From October 2018 numbers
.................................................Aircraft ....................Engines.............Operators..............Hours...........Cycles
LEAP-1A
A320NEO, A321NEO.............. 268.............................621....................33.........................1,542,391....747,452

LEAP-1B..................................219.............................478.....................40............................758,479...277,283
737-MAX

TOTAL.....................................487...........................1,099....................70.........................2,300,870...1,024,735


I thought I was pretty clear CALTECH, but apparently not.
The exam question was
"If the MAX was cancelled would the engines get used somewhere else?"

The answer to that is that in the latest generation of engines, the Leap 1B has an architecture that is totally unique to the 737 MAX and would not be likely to be applied anywhere else.
It has a much lower fan diameter and bypass ratio than any other latest generation engine to try to make it fit under the 737's stubbly landing gear.
I doubt it would be welcome on any C919 or A320 or any other similar narrowbody platform outside of the 737.
In contrast, the Leap 1A and Leap 1C are remarkably similar in characteristics, and whilst different in architecture, are remarkably similar in fan size and bypass ratio to the competing GTF's.

The Leap 1B is an orphan engine in that respect.

Rgds
 
User avatar
CALTECH
Posts: 3296
Joined: Thu May 17, 2007 4:21 am

Re: Max Engines

Fri Aug 02, 2019 2:24 pm

Remarkably similar, ha ha, they are different. In fact the LEAP-1C might have made the LEAP=1A obsolete since it has a 'O' Reverser nacelle, rather than the 'C/D' nacelle found on the old LEAP-1A.
-1A designed for A-320 family, -1C designed for C919. Sounds like they will not find their way onto the most produced commercial jet airliner, the 737. Sounds like they meet your definition of orphan, which is wrong. A orphan is one who has lost it's parents, the LEAP-1A/B/Cs are a family of engines.
Oh, and remember the A-320 'perfect' wing that does not need winglets, ended up getting them.
You are here.
 
PerVG
Posts: 37
Joined: Tue Jan 23, 2018 10:41 pm

Re: Max Engines

Fri Aug 02, 2019 6:43 pm

gloom wrote:
While C version (Comac) is a bit different animal, A version is pretty similar. Boeing (with its lower gear) required different fan, but otherwise, they're very similar (if not identical).


Actually, it's the A and C that are similar. They have approximately the same size, thrust ratings and core structure.
The B is smaller and has a substantial difference in the core arrangement, mainly, a 5 stage LP turbine Vs. a 7 stage on the others.
 
astuteman
Posts: 6960
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 7:50 pm

Re: Max Engines

Sat Aug 03, 2019 3:07 am

CALTECH wrote:
Remarkably similar, ha ha, they are different. In fact the LEAP-1C might have made the LEAP=1A obsolete since it has a 'O' Reverser nacelle, rather than the 'C/D' nacelle found on the old LEAP-1A.
-1A designed for A-320 family, -1C designed for C919. Sounds like they will not find their way onto the most produced commercial jet airliner, the 737. Sounds like they meet your definition of orphan, which is wrong. A orphan is one who has lost it's parents, the LEAP-1A/B/Cs are a family of engines.
Oh, and remember the A-320 'perfect' wing that does not need winglets, ended up getting them.


Ugly sibling then, if orphan offends you.

Every other 30k to 35k lb thrust next gen engine is 78"-80" fan diameter and BPR 12:1

1B was deliberately stunted to fit under the stubbly legged 737 fuselage. If the 737 goes away (per OP question) so does the 1B

Rgds
 
Agrajag
Topic Author
Posts: 97
Joined: Wed Mar 27, 2019 8:23 am

Re: Max Engines

Sat Aug 03, 2019 9:54 am

CALTECH wrote:
Remarkably similar, ha ha, they are different. In fact the LEAP-1C might have made the LEAP=1A obsolete since it has a 'O' Reverser nacelle, rather than the 'C/D' nacelle found on the old LEAP-1A.
-1A designed for A-320 family, -1C designed for C919. Sounds like they will not find their way onto the most produced commercial jet airliner, the 737. Sounds like they meet your definition of orphan, which is wrong. A orphan is one who has lost it's parents, the LEAP-1A/B/Cs are a family of engines.
Oh, and remember the A-320 'perfect' wing that does not need winglets, ended up getting them.




"The most produced jet airliner". You mean the one currently filling up the carparks of Seattle?

What do the wings on the A320 have to do with anything?
The plural of anecdote is anecdotes, not data.
Slartibartfast had a point
 
Sokes
Posts: 459
Joined: Sat Mar 09, 2019 4:48 pm

Re: Max Engines

Sat Aug 03, 2019 5:22 pm

Agrajag wrote:

What do the wings on the A320 have to do with anything?

Just to join this lovely discussion:
The engines are attached to the wing.
Why can't the world be a little bit more autistic?
 
Agrajag
Topic Author
Posts: 97
Joined: Wed Mar 27, 2019 8:23 am

Re: Max Engines

Sat Aug 03, 2019 6:00 pm

Sokes wrote:
Agrajag wrote:

What do the wings on the A320 have to do with anything?

Just to join this lovely discussion:
The engines are attached to the wing.



Ah... Thanks for that.
But what would happen to all those engines should the max never fly again? This discussion is like the old adage, get 3 lawyers in a room get 4 opinions.
The plural of anecdote is anecdotes, not data.
Slartibartfast had a point
 
Sokes
Posts: 459
Joined: Sat Mar 09, 2019 4:48 pm

Re: Max Engines

Sat Aug 03, 2019 7:07 pm

Agrajag wrote:
Sokes wrote:
Agrajag wrote:

What do the wings on the A320 have to do with anything?

Just to join this lovely discussion:
The engines are attached to the wing.



Ah... Thanks for that.
But what would happen to all those engines should the max never fly again? This discussion is like the old adage, get 3 lawyers in a room get 4 opinions.

You are doing me too much of an honour by taking my post serious.

I'm not qualified to answer your question. From a height perspective the engines would fit under A220 or Embraer 190-E2. They are however heavier and more powerful than the existing engines. Those who design planes probably say now that I'm really not qualified.
Bypass ratio 9:1 is not so bad. Maybe some country with aviation industry ambition would be willing to design a plane/ bomber for these 700 or so engines?
North Korea might be interested to design a cruise missile with nice payload/ range around them?
Speedboat was also not a bad idea.

However I consider it politically close to impossible that the MAX won't fly again. Just for the theory: All existing B737 MAX would still be used as freighter or for military purposes.
Why can't the world be a little bit more autistic?
 
Agrajag
Topic Author
Posts: 97
Joined: Wed Mar 27, 2019 8:23 am

Re: Max Engines

Sat Aug 03, 2019 8:05 pm

Sokes wrote:
Agrajag wrote:
Sokes wrote:
Just to join this lovely discussion:
The engines are attached to the wing.



Ah... Thanks for that.
But what would happen to all those engines should the max never fly again? This discussion is like the old adage, get 3 lawyers in a room get 4 opinions.

You are doing me too much of an honour by taking my post serious.

I'm not qualified to answer your question. From a height perspective the engines would fit under A220 or Embraer 190-E2. They are however heavier and more powerful than the existing engines. Those who design planes probably say now that I'm really not qualified.
Bypass ratio 9:1 is not so bad. Maybe some country with aviation industry ambition would be willing to design a plane/ bomber for these 700 or so engines?
North Korea might be interested to design a cruise missile with nice payload/ range around them?
Speedboat was also not a bad idea.

However I consider it politically close to impossible that the MAX won't fly again. Just for the theory: All existing B737 MAX would still be used as freighter or for military purposes.



I once saw a proposal for using jet engines as a means for combating smog in cities like Beijing. I think the premise was they would be used to blow the low level smog up to higher altitudes where winds would move it on. I wonder...
The plural of anecdote is anecdotes, not data.
Slartibartfast had a point
 
chance6
Posts: 8
Joined: Wed Mar 13, 2019 12:38 am

Re: Max Engines

Tue Aug 06, 2019 2:46 am

gloom wrote:
Leap1B, powering 737 MAX, is one of the versions for LEAP engine family. Other applicants would be A320Neo, and Comac C919. While C version (Comac) is a bit different animal, A version is pretty similar. Boeing (with its lower gear) required different fan, but otherwise, they're very similar (if not identical). IF (and that's a capital IF) 737MAX would never fly again, most of Leap1B could be probably adopted to 1A with a cost much lower than a new engine. So, probably we'd see lots of conversions, and change to production lines to provide more Leaps to Airbus.

Still, it's not going to happen. I don't see it, even given the problems MAX does have.

Cheers,
Adam


Oh, it'll fly again I'm sure. Maybe under a different name. Rebranding will take away the horrors, right?
It'll fly, but those families will be holding their children on the flights just a little tighter..."let us live!!!", they cry.
 
User avatar
CALTECH
Posts: 3296
Joined: Thu May 17, 2007 4:21 am

Re: Max Engines

Tue Aug 06, 2019 4:40 pm

astuteman wrote:
CALTECH wrote:
Remarkably similar, ha ha, they are different. In fact the LEAP-1C might have made the LEAP=1A obsolete since it has a 'O' Reverser nacelle, rather than the 'C/D' nacelle found on the old LEAP-1A.
-1A designed for A-320 family, -1C designed for C919. Sounds like they will not find their way onto the most produced commercial jet airliner, the 737. Sounds like they meet your definition of orphan, which is wrong. A orphan is one who has lost it's parents, the LEAP-1A/B/Cs are a family of engines.
Oh, and remember the A-320 'perfect' wing that does not need winglets, ended up getting them.


Ugly sibling then, if orphan offends you.

Every other 30k to 35k lb thrust next gen engine is 78"-80" fan diameter and BPR 12:1

1B was deliberately stunted to fit under the stubbly legged 737 fuselage. If the 737 goes away (per OP question) so does the 1B

Rgds


Orphan doesn't offend me, it is a incorrect description. Ugly sibling kinda works, but then all 3 versions are one off ugly siblings. And the -1A and -1C are not interchangeable, so the -1A is a ugly sibling as it only goes on the A-32X family, no other airplane uses that engine. The OP's question is a fantasy of Airbus and it's fans. Airbus is now reviewing a pitch up issue it has found on the A-320NEO and the A-321NEO. What if they can't ever flty again, what will happen to all those engines ? A ugly sibling it would become.
You are here.
 
User avatar
CALTECH
Posts: 3296
Joined: Thu May 17, 2007 4:21 am

Re: Max Engines

Tue Aug 06, 2019 4:49 pm

Sokes wrote:
Agrajag wrote:
Sokes wrote:
Just to join this lovely discussion:
The engines are attached to the wing.



Ah... Thanks for that.
But what would happen to all those engines should the max never fly again? This discussion is like the old adage, get 3 lawyers in a room get 4 opinions.

You are doing me too much of an honour by taking my post serious.

I'm not qualified to answer your question. From a height perspective the engines would fit under A220 or Embraer 190-E2. They are however heavier and more powerful than the existing engines. Those who design planes probably say now that I'm really not qualified.
Bypass ratio 9:1 is not so bad. Maybe some country with aviation industry ambition would be willing to design a plane/ bomber for these 700 or so engines?
North Korea might be interested to design a cruise missile with nice payload/ range around them?
Speedboat was also not a bad idea.

However I consider it politically close to impossible that the MAX won't fly again. Just for the theory: All existing B737 MAX would still be used as freighter or for military purposes.


Maybe the engines could generate faster winds for the wind turbine farms.....

Image
You are here.
 
Agrajag
Topic Author
Posts: 97
Joined: Wed Mar 27, 2019 8:23 am

Re: Max Engines

Sun Sep 22, 2019 9:56 am

What is the biggest maintenance issue for one of these engines that has been sitting idle for 6 months, assuming the required minimum maintenance has been done.?
The plural of anecdote is anecdotes, not data.
Slartibartfast had a point
 
Agrajag
Topic Author
Posts: 97
Joined: Wed Mar 27, 2019 8:23 am

Re: Max Engines

Tue Nov 26, 2019 4:48 am

They are still grounded and my original question still stands. Seems to be lots of disagreement as to whether the engines can be reused.
The plural of anecdote is anecdotes, not data.
Slartibartfast had a point
 
Sokes
Posts: 459
Joined: Sat Mar 09, 2019 4:48 pm

Re: Max Engines

Fri Nov 29, 2019 8:35 am

Agrajag wrote:
I once saw a proposal for using jet engines as a means for combating smog in cities like Beijing. I think the premise was they would be used to blow the low level smog up to higher altitudes where winds would move it on. I wonder...


As you raise the topic again I have to ask: were you serious about blowing smog up?
Why can't the world be a little bit more autistic?
 
Agrajag
Topic Author
Posts: 97
Joined: Wed Mar 27, 2019 8:23 am

Re: Max Engines

Fri Nov 29, 2019 1:46 pm

Sokes wrote:
Agrajag wrote:
I once saw a proposal for using jet engines as a means for combating smog in cities like Beijing. I think the premise was they would be used to blow the low level smog up to higher altitudes where winds would move it on. I wonder...


As you raise the topic again I have to ask: were you serious about blowing smog up?


Was I serious that I once saw a proposal? Yes, of course. I even think they were going to do a proof of concept somewhere. No idea what happened.
The plural of anecdote is anecdotes, not data.
Slartibartfast had a point
 
asr0dzjq
Posts: 89
Joined: Tue Oct 29, 2019 2:36 am

Re: Max Engines

Sat Nov 30, 2019 8:41 pm

flyingturtle wrote:
They cannot be repurposed as emergency power generators on the ground.
Because that be prohibitive in terms of costs and engineering.

FTFY
R.I.P.

Pan Am (B 19-10-1927, D 4-12-1991)
TWA (B 1-10-1930, D 1-12-2001)
Douglas (B 22-7-1921, D 23-5-2006)

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Phosphorus, QF93 and 11 guests

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