For years, from the start CFM and Pratt have been promoting their NB engine offerings as up to 35k lbs engines.
- https://www.safran-group.com/products-s ... J8QAvD_BwE
- https://leehamnews.com/2014/05/20/pw-me ... st-rating/
For some reason w've seen no 35k lbs versions.
Is it demand? Time on wing? Reliability?
It seems Airbus A321NEO / LR operators could use a bit of extra thrust for airfield performance, hot & high, climb out at MTOW etc.
And then there comes the 101t MTOW A321XLR and the MC-21-400.. https://www.airway1.com/irkut-plans-to- ... 0-by-2025/
Any news?
Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR
-
-
lightsaber
Moderator
- Posts: 24641
- Joined:
Re: The 35k lbs thrust versions of Pratt GTF and CFM LEAP, when?
PW1100G is currently only certified for 33,110lbf
https://www.easa.europa.eu/sites/defaul ... e%2007.pdf
The LEAP-1A has fractionally less thrust:
https://www.easa.europa.eu/sites/defaul ... 03_1.0.pdf
The engine makers need enough demand to perform the certification testing (it is expensive).
This link notes more thrust needed, but a flap change for the xLR.
https://mentourpilot.com/airbus-a321xlr ... er-needed/
CFM says no changes needed, I take that to mean no more thrust.
https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news ... er-a321xlr
https://mentourpilot.com/airbus-a321xlr ... er-needed/
My rumor mill has PiPs in work. It is always a trade between efficiency and durability at thrust. That is a knob to turn in the design process. If a new coating allows higher temperature, either reduce cooling for fuel efficiency or maintain cooling for durability.
Nothing is free. Only significant design changes:
1. higher mach# compressors, both engines, 2. improved low turbine design, both engines, but in my opinion the LEAP-1B is a generation ahead (and why Boeing kept the exclusive)
3. Improved fans, both (CFM more advanced, but requires a more advanced design due to higher mach #)
4. GTF (Pratt)
5. Variable turbine cooling (LEAP)
If Airbus solved takeoff with better flaps, then why sacrifice durability or fuel burn?
Lightsaber
https://www.easa.europa.eu/sites/defaul ... e%2007.pdf
The LEAP-1A has fractionally less thrust:
https://www.easa.europa.eu/sites/defaul ... 03_1.0.pdf
The engine makers need enough demand to perform the certification testing (it is expensive).
This link notes more thrust needed, but a flap change for the xLR.
https://mentourpilot.com/airbus-a321xlr ... er-needed/
CFM says no changes needed, I take that to mean no more thrust.
https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news ... er-a321xlr
https://mentourpilot.com/airbus-a321xlr ... er-needed/
My rumor mill has PiPs in work. It is always a trade between efficiency and durability at thrust. That is a knob to turn in the design process. If a new coating allows higher temperature, either reduce cooling for fuel efficiency or maintain cooling for durability.
Nothing is free. Only significant design changes:
1. higher mach# compressors, both engines, 2. improved low turbine design, both engines, but in my opinion the LEAP-1B is a generation ahead (and why Boeing kept the exclusive)
3. Improved fans, both (CFM more advanced, but requires a more advanced design due to higher mach #)
4. GTF (Pratt)
5. Variable turbine cooling (LEAP)
If Airbus solved takeoff with better flaps, then why sacrifice durability or fuel burn?
Lightsaber
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: n757kw and 35 guests