Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 7
 
TheSonntag
Topic Author
Posts: 4509
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2005 7:23 pm

CFM claimed to be missing specs by huge margin

Thu Mar 19, 2015 11:20 am

KarelXWB brouth up this in the A320NEO production thread, and I am sure this is worth its own thread in civ-av.

http://aeroturbopower.blogspot.de/2015/03/cfm-leap-1b-missing-sfc.html

This might be quite a huge blow if true, and might also be bad news for Boeing.
 
User avatar
scbriml
Posts: 19540
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:37 pm

CFM claimed to be missing specs by huge margin

Thu Mar 19, 2015 11:44 am

Quoting TheSonntag (Thread starter):
This might be quite a huge blow if true, and might also be bad news for Boeing.

If correct, engine exclusivity on the MAX might yet be a bad decision by Boeing. However, it looks like it will be CFM that will take most of the financial pain.

I expect all those neo customers who have yet to select an engine are on the phone to PW right about now.
Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana!
There are 10 types of people in the World - those that understand binary and those that don't.
 
User avatar
BlueSky1976
Posts: 1892
Joined: Tue Jul 20, 2004 9:18 am

CFM claimed to be missing specs by huge margin

Thu Mar 19, 2015 12:03 pm

I would take this article with a big grain of salt.
Proudly avoiding 737 MAX since 18.11.2020.
 
TheSonntag
Topic Author
Posts: 4509
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2005 7:23 pm

CFM claimed to be missing specs by huge margin

Thu Mar 19, 2015 12:09 pm

Quoting BlueSky1976 (Reply 2):
I would take this article with a big grain of salt.

Certainly true, but the lack of good news on the LEAP is speaking a lot for itself.
 
holzmann
Posts: 599
Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2011 3:43 pm

CFM claimed to be missing specs by huge margin

Thu Mar 19, 2015 12:15 pm

Hard to compare with so little news...seemingly...about the GTF.
DISCLAIMER: Airliners.net is an AIRBUS forum. Boeing Commercial Airplanes, if it has considered doing so in the past, should in no way consider supporting this website.
 
davs5032
Posts: 201
Joined: Fri Oct 01, 2010 2:12 am

CFM claimed to be missing specs by huge margin

Thu Mar 19, 2015 12:23 pm

Quoting holzmann (Reply 4):
Hard to compare with so little news...seemingly...about the GTF.

I've been seeing a lot of "rumor mill" type comments in the Cseries thread and others hinting that the GTF is actually exceeding performance specs - granted, such information should be taken with a grain of salt - but it's come from well-respected members who seem to be in a position to receive such information. If someone has anything more concrete, feel free to share, but I was under the impression the GTF was/is surrounded by optimism.
 
RickNRoll
Posts: 1869
Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2012 9:30 am

CFM claimed to be missing specs by huge margin

Thu Mar 19, 2015 12:23 pm

Quoting BlueSky1976 (Reply 2):
I would take this article with a big grain of salt.

It's based on an article by Aspire Aviation, who would have to be the biggest Boeing fan boy out there.
 
mjoelnir
Posts: 9411
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:06 pm

CFM claimed to be missing specs by huge margin

Thu Mar 19, 2015 12:29 pm

Quoting holzmann (Reply 4):
Hard to compare with so little news...seemingly...about the GTF.

Apart from that the PW1100G seems to be on or above spec and it is flying on the A320 and the Leap is delayed.
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 10004
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

CFM claimed to be missing specs by huge margin

Thu Mar 19, 2015 12:30 pm

Aspire says so? That scares me a bit.
 
User avatar
speedbored
Posts: 2230
Joined: Fri Jul 19, 2013 5:14 am

CFM claimed to be missing specs by huge margin

Thu Mar 19, 2015 12:32 pm

Quoting BlueSky1976 (Reply 2):
I would take this article with a big grain of salt.

Why? The numbers seem about right for this stage of the engine development program - just look at previous new engines, many of which have been marginally below spec at EIS but have caught up with PiPs.

Just because rumours suggest that the GTF is running closer to spec right now doesn't mean that the LEAP is not "situation normal" at this stage. I'm pretty sure that PW were far more conservative with their initial specs for reasons that have already been discussed in many previous threads.
 
TP313
Posts: 286
Joined: Sun Nov 11, 2001 12:37 am

CFM claimed to be missing specs by huge margin

Thu Mar 19, 2015 12:33 pm

Quoting RickNRoll (Reply 6):

Quoting BlueSky1976 (Reply 2):
I would take this article with a big grain of salt.

It's based on an article by Aspire Aviation, who would have to be the biggest Boeing fan boy out there.

I never took seriously their Boeing cheerleading garbage, it's not now that I'll begin taking them seriously.

I'll wait until a credible source addresses this issue.
 
User avatar
scbriml
Posts: 19540
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:37 pm

CFM claimed to be missing specs by huge margin

Thu Mar 19, 2015 12:34 pm

Quoting davs5032 (Reply 5):
but I was under the impression the GTF was/is surrounded by optimism.

I would categorise PW as being "quietly confident" they will better expectations/promises.

Quoting RickNRoll (Reply 6):
It's based on an article by Aspire Aviation, who would have to be the biggest Boeing fan boy out there.

This!   
Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana!
There are 10 types of people in the World - those that understand binary and those that don't.
 
TheSonntag
Topic Author
Posts: 4509
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2005 7:23 pm

CFM claimed to be missing specs by huge margin

Thu Mar 19, 2015 12:37 pm

Maybe the mods could change the title - I should have writtin CFM Leap claimed to be missing specs by huge margin.

Quoting speedbored (Reply 9):
I'm pretty sure that PW were far more conservative with their initial specs for reasons that have already been discussed in many previous threads.

Is there a direct comparision between the LEAP and the PW on the A320neo? Which one burns less fuel on similiar conditions?
 
mjoelnir
Posts: 9411
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:06 pm

CFM claimed to be missing specs by huge margin

Thu Mar 19, 2015 12:37 pm

Quoting speedbored (Reply 9):
Quoting BlueSky1976 (Reply 2):
I would take this article with a big grain of salt.

Why? The numbers seem about right for this stage of the engine development program - just look at previous new engines, many of which have been marginally below spec at EIS but have caught up with PiPs.

5% below specs on the Leap B1 is hardly marginal.

Quoting speedbored (Reply 9):
Just because rumours suggest that the GTF is running closer to spec right now doesn't mean that the LEAP is not "situation normal" at this stage. I'm pretty sure that PW were far more conservative with their initial specs for reasons that have already been discussed in many previous threads.

I think CFM promised to be 2% better with the Leap A1 then the PW1100G whatever. So if PW was conservative with their initial specs, the situation is worse.
 
tommy1808
Posts: 14129
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 3:24 pm

CFM claimed to be missing specs by huge margin

Thu Mar 19, 2015 12:46 pm

Quoting seahawk (Reply 8):
Aspire says so? That scares me a bit.

they must have changed... 5% aspire sfc - fail would normally mean it burns more fuel than the old one CFM56. And that can't be true...

Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 13):
5% below specs on the Leap B1 is hardly marginal.

iirc 5% is the sfc improvement the V2500 has seen over its lifetime.

Best regards
Thomas
Well, there is prophecy in the bible after all: 2 Timothy 3:1-6
 
sirtoby
Posts: 369
Joined: Sat Nov 10, 2007 11:56 am

CFM claimed to be missing specs by huge margin

Thu Mar 19, 2015 12:47 pm

Quoting tommy1808 (Reply 14):
they must have changed... 5% aspire sfc - fail would normally mean it burns more fuel than the old one CFM56

Why? The B737MAX was claimed to be 14% better on fuel burn than the B737NG, so the SFC difference should be in the same range!
 
tommy1808
Posts: 14129
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 3:24 pm

CFM claimed to be missing specs by huge margin

Thu Mar 19, 2015 12:52 pm

Quoting sirtoby (Reply 15):
Why?

I was joking. .. aspire isn't exactly know for looking too hard at numbers when doing so makes a Boeing product look bad aka they ate very biased. Just as they hope for the job once Randy retires...

Best regards
Thomas
Well, there is prophecy in the bible after all: 2 Timothy 3:1-6
 
mjoelnir
Posts: 9411
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:06 pm

CFM claimed to be missing specs by huge margin

Thu Mar 19, 2015 12:55 pm

Quoting TheSonntag (Reply 12):
Is there a direct comparision between the LEAP and the PW on the A320neo? Which one burns less fuel on similiar conditions?

Only the PW is flying on the A320. So no direct comparison. Perhaps later this year, but I doubt that Airbus will advertise a difference and leave it rather to the engine manufacturers.

Much more vague rumors about some performance comparisons have led to gloom and doom scenarios here on a.net.
If the 5% shortfall on the Leap 1b should be confirmed it would be bad news for Boeing.
Perhaps it could be the beginning of the end of running such big programs as the 737 on one engine choice.
Could Boeing manage to put the PW1000 on the 737? The PW1500G has a 1.85 m fan, only 9 cm bigger than the Leap 1b?
 
sirtoby
Posts: 369
Joined: Sat Nov 10, 2007 11:56 am

CFM claimed to be missing specs by huge margin

Thu Mar 19, 2015 12:55 pm

Quoting tommy1808 (Reply 16):
I was joking.

AHH...missed that!
 
User avatar
speedbored
Posts: 2230
Joined: Fri Jul 19, 2013 5:14 am

CFM claimed to be missing specs by huge margin

Thu Mar 19, 2015 12:58 pm

Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 13):
5% below specs on the Leap B1 is hardly marginal.

True, assuming the figure is correct.

But CFM and Boeing were aware from the start that the 1B was going to compromised by the possible fan size, and that the technical advancements necessary to counteract that would be tricky to achieve, so I would be very surprised if there has not already been contingency planning for possible changes to recover some of this shortfall, probably at the expense of a slight weight increase.
 
User avatar
KarelXWB
Posts: 26968
Joined: Sun Jul 15, 2012 6:13 pm

CFM claimed to be missing specs by huge margin

Thu Mar 19, 2015 1:02 pm

Quoting seahawk (Reply 8):
Aspire says so? That scares me a bit.

Perhaps Aspire is just trying to create a business case for the NSA   
What we leave behind is not as important as how we've lived.
 
sirtoby
Posts: 369
Joined: Sat Nov 10, 2007 11:56 am

CFM claimed to be missing specs by huge margin

Thu Mar 19, 2015 1:05 pm

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 20):
Perhaps Aspire is just trying to create a business case for the NSA

This is the job of the CIA!  
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 10004
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

CFM claimed to be missing specs by huge margin

Thu Mar 19, 2015 1:09 pm

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 20):
Perhaps Aspire is just trying to create a business case for the NSA

I thought it was an argument for the 757NEO with GTFs.
 
Ruscoe
Posts: 1748
Joined: Sun Aug 22, 1999 5:41 pm

CFM claimed to be missing specs by huge margin

Thu Mar 19, 2015 1:17 pm

CFM and Boeing have 3 years to sort it out, and CFM and Airbus have 2 years to sort out a smaller fuel burn problem.

I expect both will be able to do it, and both manufacturers can get more out of the airframe.

Ruscoe
 
User avatar
Francoflier
Posts: 5650
Joined: Wed Oct 31, 2001 12:27 pm

CFM claimed to be missing specs by huge margin

Thu Mar 19, 2015 1:31 pm

Quoting scbriml (Reply 11):
I would categorise PW as being "quietly confident" they will better expectations/promises.

While CFM was being quite brash about the performance of their cub. Until they went dead quiet...
Echoing what I wrote in the NEO thread, I'm afraid CFM salesmen were writing checks their engineers couldn't quite cash.

Is it really surprising? The LEAP had to catch up with the performance advances of a whole new technology using only incremental improvements to an old one.

I, for one, am happy for P&W. Their product will finally pay for all the risk and effort the company has put in this brilliant design.
Now, let the orders rain.
I'll do my own airline. With Blackjack. And hookers. In fact, forget the airline.
 
TheSonntag
Topic Author
Posts: 4509
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2005 7:23 pm

CFM claimed to be missing specs by huge margin

Thu Mar 19, 2015 1:36 pm

Quoting francoflier (Reply 24):

It sounds a bit like the MD-11 or the Superfan, but I am sure CFM will get a useful design. For P & W, indeed I hope they come up with a good engine. Whether the engine will be as reliable as the CFM56 will be interesting to watch. The reliability of modern engines is absolutely stunning, so the limit is high.
 
User avatar
scbriml
Posts: 19540
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:37 pm

CFM claimed to be missing specs by huge margin

Thu Mar 19, 2015 1:40 pm

Quoting Ruscoe (Reply 23):
CFM and Boeing have 3 years to sort it out

Less than that if they make their target EIS of "2017".

Quoting Ruscoe (Reply 23):
Airbus have 2 years to sort out a smaller fuel burn problem

Again, less than that. The LEAP powered neo is supposed to EIS in 2016.
Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana!
There are 10 types of people in the World - those that understand binary and those that don't.
 
User avatar
sunrisevalley
Posts: 5392
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2004 3:26 am

CFM claimed to be missing specs by huge margin

Thu Mar 19, 2015 1:43 pm

Quoting speedbored (Reply 9):
many of which have been marginally below spec at EIS but have caught up with PiPs.

Not sure that RR and GE have made spec yet on the 787 engines.
 
r2rho
Posts: 3096
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 10:13 pm

CFM claimed to be missing specs by huge margin

Thu Mar 19, 2015 1:46 pm

I'll wait to hear more rumors from other sources before giving it full credibility, but it is in line with what has been rumored in the NEO threads, and the lack of news from CFM could also be taken as an indication.

Let this be a warning - with A&B moving towards single-source engines on all new designs, they are also taking the risk of the engine supplier not meeting spec. RR better nail the T7000, GE better nail the GE9X, etc.

As for market impact, theoretically, if this rumor is confirmed, it should mean more orders for A320NEO, and more GTF's than Leaps being ordered. However in reality, as we are in a perfect duopoly, no one manufacturer (engine or airframe) can meet the entire demand, so there will always be a minimum market share for the "loser", it just won't be a 50-50 market split anymore. In addition, GE has some power through GECAS - they could offset the fuel burn miss with sweet leasing deals to keep the customers satisfied.
 
BestWestern
Posts: 8358
Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2000 8:46 pm

CFM claimed to be missing specs by huge margin

Thu Mar 19, 2015 1:47 pm

The aspire article is impenetrable.

http://www.aspireaviation.com/2015/0...launch-hinges-on-737-max-progress/

Anyone who uses the word layman and inserts a mathematical equation just one line later deserves their article to be closed. However, I plodded through it.


And half way through he demonstrates that the king has no clothes

To be fair, there is no reason to believe that CFM International will not incorporate lessons learnt during the upcoming flight tests to recoup the 2% and 4-5% engine SFC shortfalls on the Leap-1A and -1B, respectively




Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 20):
Perhaps Aspire is just trying to create a business case for the NSA

And thats exactly what they tried to do - on the basis of ten days flying data from Australia to Indonesia and Malaysia, alongside Sydney to Chengdu.

[Edited 2015-03-19 06:47:41]
Greetings from Hong Kong.... a subsidiary of China Inc.
 
mjoelnir
Posts: 9411
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:06 pm

CFM claimed to be missing specs by huge margin

Thu Mar 19, 2015 2:12 pm

Quoting tommy1808 (Reply 14):
Quoting seahawk (Reply 8):
Aspire says so? That scares me a bit.

they must have changed... 5% aspire sfc - fail would normally mean it burns more fuel than the old one CFM56. And that can't be true...

They wanted to increas 15% compared to the CFM56. Missing the mark by 5% still leaves a +10% improvement over the CFM56.

Quoting BestWestern (Reply 29):
And half way through he demonstrates that the king has no clothes

To be fair, there is no reason to believe that CFM International will not incorporate lessons learnt during the upcoming flight tests to recoup the 2% and 4-5% engine SFC shortfalls on the Leap-1A and -1B, respectively

The article in the thread start is from Aeroturbopower. And there quote:

" A shortfall of 2% can be corrected with a suitable performance improvement program (PIP), but a
shortfall of 5% in the case of the LEAP-1B cannot be corrected without a complete redesign of the engine, probably not without changing the whole engine architecture. GE needed two PIP’s to get the GEnx close to spec. One PIP touched the high pressure spool, effectively redesigning the whole HPC, the other touched the low pressure spool. Here the whole LPT was redesigned, getting more blades and vanes into the flowpath, as the original low number of blades and vanes proved to be too low. One should think that these "lessons learnt" were incorporated in the LEAP engines, so the current shortfall (and of course we don’t know from which components they stem from) should have different reasons than in the case of the GEnx."

They are commenting that the "rumors" are not coming from Aspire alone.
 
User avatar
Richard28
Posts: 2751
Joined: Thu Aug 14, 2003 5:42 am

CFM claimed to be missing specs by huge margin

Thu Mar 19, 2015 2:23 pm

Quoting r2rho (Reply 28):
However in reality, as we are in a perfect duopoly, no one manufacturer (engine or airframe) can meet the entire demand, so there will always be a minimum market share for the "loser", it just won't be a 50-50 market split anymore.

If true, in this instance it would allow Airbus to charge extra $ for the A320neo and force Boeing to reduce the cost of the 737MAX to compete.

Even in a perfect duopoly, a better product would get an advantage, even if net unit sales were split evenly... it would all be about the margin/profit
 
User avatar
EPA001
Posts: 3893
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2006 8:13 pm

CFM claimed to be missing specs by huge margin

Thu Mar 19, 2015 2:29 pm

Quoting TheSonntag (Thread starter):
This might be quite a huge blow if true, and might also be bad news for Boeing.

It sure would be bad news for all the customers who ordered the MAX. Because there is more space below the A320-wing, I expect the GE's to do better on the A320-neo then on the B737-MAX.

Quoting scbriml (Reply 1):
I expect all those neo customers who have yet to select an engine are on the phone to PW right about now.

Well, taking a call is easy. But delivering the number of engines is a lot harder. If many additional customers would shop at P&W they could be in trouble trying to cope with the extra demand.

Quoting TheSonntag (Reply 3):
the lack of good news on the LEAP is speaking a lot for itself.

That is sadly enough is.

Quoting RickNRoll (Reply 6):
It's based on an article by Aspire Aviation, who would have to be the biggest Boeing fan boy out there.

They usually are quite pro-Boeing. So no reason to suspect any foul play here.

Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 7):
Apart from that the PW1100G seems to be on or above spec and it is flying on the A320 and the Leap is delayed.

Which is another indication on the status of the program.

Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 13):
5% below specs on the Leap B1 is hardly marginal.

And is beyond repair for what a PIP can do. That is the most serious issue here.

Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 30):
They wanted to increas 15% compared to the CFM56. Missing the mark by 5% still leaves a +10% improvement over the CFM56.

Of course they will improve many things over the current standard of engines. But what counts is what was promised in the contracts and what they are seeming to come up with now. There will be some very nervous people at GE regarding this program.

[Edited 2015-03-19 07:38:49]
 
Aviaponcho
Posts: 836
Joined: Wed Aug 24, 2011 12:13 pm

CFM claimed to be missing specs by huge margin

Thu Mar 19, 2015 2:35 pm

Don't forget that the Leap1B is farer from EIS than Leap1B (2017 vs 2016) so that it as more time to mature (a little more...)
 
phillyramp270
Posts: 312
Joined: Fri Sep 19, 2014 4:06 am

CFM claimed to be missing specs by huge margin

Thu Mar 19, 2015 2:38 pm

Boeing can forget about that premium for the MAX
Barack Obama is not a foreign born, brown skinned, anti-war socialist who gives away healthcare. You're thinking of Jesu
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 27451
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

CFM claimed to be missing specs by huge margin

Thu Mar 19, 2015 2:38 pm

Quoting Richard28 (Reply 31):
If true, in this instance it would allow Airbus to charge extra $ for the A320neo and force Boeing to reduce the cost of the 737MAX to compete.

Engines are purchased separately from airframes, so P&W may be able to charge more and CFM might have to charge less.
 
tommy1808
Posts: 14129
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 3:24 pm

CFM claimed to be missing specs by huge margin

Thu Mar 19, 2015 2:38 pm

Quoting aviaponcho (Reply 33):
Don't forget that the Leap1B is farer from EIS than Leap1B (2017 vs 2016) so that it as more time to mature (a little more...)

only that 5% is more than the V2500 managed over a 28 years project life...

Best regards
Thomas
Well, there is prophecy in the bible after all: 2 Timothy 3:1-6
 
User avatar
scbriml
Posts: 19540
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:37 pm

CFM claimed to be missing specs by huge margin

Thu Mar 19, 2015 2:41 pm

Quoting EPA001 (Reply 32):
Well, taking a call is easy. But delivering the number of engines is a lot harder. If many additional customers would shop at P&W they could be in trouble trying to cope with the extra demand.

I don't see that's any different for CFM, but if PW has a significantly better product...   
Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana!
There are 10 types of people in the World - those that understand binary and those that don't.
 
UA444
Posts: 3009
Joined: Sun Mar 09, 2014 7:03 am

CFM claimed to be missing specs by huge margin

Thu Mar 19, 2015 2:49 pm

I hope PW retakes their crown as king of the engine suppliers.
 
User avatar
KarelXWB
Posts: 26968
Joined: Sun Jul 15, 2012 6:13 pm

RE: CFM Claimed To Be Missing Specs By Huge Margin

Thu Mar 19, 2015 2:52 pm

Quoting Richard28 (Reply 31):
If true, in this instance it would allow Airbus to charge extra $ for the A320neo and force Boeing to reduce the cost of the 737MAX to compete.
Quoting Stitch (Reply 35):
Engines are purchased separately from airframes, so P&W may be able to charge more and CFM might have to charge less.

Pratt is going to increase the PW1000G list price later this year.

http://aviationweek.com/commercial-a...ratt-whitney-hikes-gtf-list-prices
What we leave behind is not as important as how we've lived.
 
User avatar
Francoflier
Posts: 5650
Joined: Wed Oct 31, 2001 12:27 pm

RE: CFM Claimed To Be Missing Specs By Huge Margin

Thu Mar 19, 2015 2:54 pm

Quoting Stitch (Reply 35):
Engines are purchased separately from airframes, so P&W may be able to charge more and CFM might have to charge less.

Well except that when your choice is between an aircraft with less efficient engines and a glider, the whole package seems much less attractive.

 
I'll do my own airline. With Blackjack. And hookers. In fact, forget the airline.
 
AngMoh
Posts: 1074
Joined: Fri Nov 04, 2011 5:03 am

RE: CFM Claimed To Be Missing Specs By Huge Margin

Thu Mar 19, 2015 3:08 pm

Quoting tommy1808 (Reply 16):
I was joking. .. aspire isn't exactly know for looking too hard at numbers when doing so makes a Boeing product look bad aka they ate very biased. Just as they hope for the job once Randy retires...

As far as I know Aspire are Boeing's biggest fanboys.... To them Airbus is s..t and Boeing is absolutely perfect in anything they do.
727 732 733 734 735 73G 738 739/ER 742 743 744/M 752 753 762 772 77E 773 77W 788 A300 A310 A319 A320 A321 A332 A333 A343 A345 A346 A359 A35K A388 DC-9 DC-10 MD11 MD81 MD82 MD87 F70 ERJ145 E170 E175 E190 E195 ATR72 Q400 CRJ200 CRJ700 CRJ900 BAE146 RJ85
 
TheSonntag
Topic Author
Posts: 4509
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2005 7:23 pm

RE: CFM Claimed To Be Missing Specs By Huge Margin

Thu Mar 19, 2015 3:14 pm

BTW a big thank you to the admins for changing the thread title. I had asked for this myself, since it is only one source and not a fact.
 
Ruscoe
Posts: 1748
Joined: Sun Aug 22, 1999 5:41 pm

RE: CFM Claimed To Be Missing Specs By Huge Margin

Thu Mar 19, 2015 3:55 pm

Boeing and CFM must have kept this very quiet because just 3 weeks ago, an unidentified customer ordered 50 Max.

Ruscoe
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 10004
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

RE: CFM Claimed To Be Missing Specs By Huge Margin

Thu Mar 19, 2015 4:05 pm

http://www.aspireaviation.com/2015/0...launch-hinges-on-737-max-progress/

The whole article from aspire does not sound too positive either. But then maybe they are just trying to push Boeing to do the MOM/NSA.
 
User avatar
scbriml
Posts: 19540
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:37 pm

RE: CFM Claimed To Be Missing Specs By Huge Margin

Thu Mar 19, 2015 4:23 pm

Quoting Ruscoe (Reply 43):
Boeing and CFM must have kept this very quiet because just 3 weeks ago, an unidentified customer ordered 50 Max.

Of course they'll still sell MAXes.   

But, prices for Boeing will likely be softer and CFM will be compensating the customers for the fuel efficiency shortfall. Not that bad from the customer's perspective - unless they needed all the range Boeing promised from their MAXes.
Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana!
There are 10 types of people in the World - those that understand binary and those that don't.
 
queb
Posts: 1026
Joined: Tue Jun 01, 2010 3:10 am

RE: CFM Claimed To Be Missing Specs By Huge Margin

Thu Mar 19, 2015 4:24 pm

Quoting Ruscoe (Reply 43):
Boeing and CFM must have kept this very quiet because just 3 weeks ago, an unidentified customer ordered 50 Max.

Ruscoe

Yes but SFC is not the only thing, if the customers can have a significantly lower price with CFM, the SFC is less important.
 
starrymarkb
Posts: 285
Joined: Thu Apr 28, 2011 9:19 pm

RE: CFM Claimed To Be Missing Specs By Huge Margin

Thu Mar 19, 2015 4:30 pm

Quoting Ruscoe (Reply 43):
Boeing and CFM must have kept this very quiet because just 3 weeks ago, an unidentified customer ordered 50 Max.

Ruscoe

Could come down to price or availability. I suspect potential customers would be fully aware of any shortfall, but if the aircraft's pros outweigh the missed fuel burn then they'll still sell. It looks like the Leap will still outperform the NG/CEO.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 25263
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

RE: CFM Claimed To Be Missing Specs By Huge Margin

Thu Mar 19, 2015 4:33 pm

Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 13):
5% below specs on the Leap B1 is hardly marginal.

Yes, but to be fair, the exact quote from Aspire's article is "The Leap-1B engine is showing a 4-5% shortfall in specific fuel consumption (SFC) target and this does not involve any overweight issue, multiple sources at Boeing revealed. ".

By using the 4% figure the CFM optimists have just recovered 25% of the shortfall! 

LEAP was always going to be a challenge especially on the MAX. They were mostly tweaking aerodynamics and materials and not breaking any ground architecturally. I'm not at all surprised that they *may* be struggling to meet targets.

CFM has 5,000 LEAPs on order. It must not be fun to be on the team trying to hit the targets they've set.
Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world
The heart has its beaches, its homeland and thoughts of its own
Wake now, discover that you are the song that the morning brings
The heart has its seasons, its evenings and songs of its own
 
tommy1808
Posts: 14129
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 3:24 pm

RE: CFM Claimed To Be Missing Specs By Huge Margin

Thu Mar 19, 2015 4:37 pm

Quoting Revelation (Reply 48):
this does not involve any overweight issue,

THAT is scary. .. shortfall on weight and sfc??

Best regards
Thomas
Well, there is prophecy in the bible after all: 2 Timothy 3:1-6
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 7

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Vladex and 33 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