We don't know today if the Bombardier CSeries will ever become a success. But one thing is for sure: it has initiated a maybe never seen activity in aircraft development, if you count re-engining activities as aircraft development.
Airbus and Boeing would never have lost a thought about that matter - and they just started when it became clear that the CSeries would have the potential to eat into their market.
This has a lot to do with the Geared Turbo Fan: Airbus started their re-engining studies only after they tested the GTF-Demo on their A340-600 testbed.
But it does not end with A. and B. - also Embraer today thinks about a re-engine programme for their successful EJet-Series. They feel the pressure that comes with the MRJ70/90 on the low end and the CS100 on the high end of their product line.
A re-engining with the same engines could be a straightforward and low-risk solution. Why:
a) The GTF works as advertised. Then the E170/175RE with the "MRJ GTF" would regain it's leading position, as the MRJ70 is (somewhat surpringsingly) heavier than the EJets, so that with the same engine and (probably) a new wing, as Embraer would have to redesign the center wing box to accomodate a longer gear anyway would provide less fuelburn. The same would be true for the E190/195RE against the CS100. For routes typically flown by the EJets (<1000nm), they would be unmatched in fuel burn. Embraer would have the market for themselves.
b) The GTF does not work (which is, from my perspective unlikely, but let's just play the game...): then there is no competion to the EJets anyway and they can flip back to the CF34 - the MRJ is dead, the CSeries is dead, BBD can't do anything to keep the CRJ family competitive as they are financially burdened with the CSeries, the Lear85, a Global successor and maybe the Q400X, the SSJ100 will not have a big impact in the western markets.
c) Embraer decides to take another engine, either a CFM/GE LEAP-X/TECH-X or a RB282 from RR: then there is the risk that the GTF works but the alternative fails - and Embraer is out of the market altogether.
But there is also the possibility that Embraer decides to develop a whole new aircraft. Probably to compete with the CSeries. Then there is the danger that it will be a "me-too" aircraft. They will probably go a little bit higher in capacity than the CS300 (see B787 vs. A350XWB), as aircraft tend to get biger anyway. But they would then also compete heavily against A. and B., so they would have to bet on new narrowbody aircraft families by A. and B. coming earlier than it is expected today. These aircraft families then would probably start at the size of todays A320 and 737-800, so that there would not be any direct competition to the new potential Embraer Jet.
Enough food for thought for today - whatever Airbus as the catalyst for all what is coming after that decides - and annouces - in the coming weeks: it will lead to a series of decisions to make by all others involved.
Meantime - good luck to Bombardier: they are the ones we have to thank for all the debates we can do today ;-)
Have a nice sunday!
9/01/2010
Don’t consider Pratt being dumb…
Again the “usual suspect”, writing on the GLG website, tries to tell us that P&W would be dumb enough to develop separate engines for the MS-21 and the A320NEO. He believes to know that the MS-21 (still – more or less – in the definition phase) needs 32klbf of thrust - and the fact that the A321 has a max. thrust of 33klbf drives him to the conclusion that P&W would have to start the design of a fourth engine to cover the A32XNEO thrust range.
Now – if you would be an engine maker: would you do that? Or would you design one engine that covers the full range up to 33klbf – especially as Airbus seems to be the far more important customer than the Russians?
Interestingly he does not see the need for CFM to come up with two different engines for the C919 and a potential B737 re-engining – just because a CFM official told him that the LEAP-X1C would fit under the wing of the B737. The C919 needs around 30klbf of thrust – the stretch version to be introduced later even more, far more than the B737 needs, so that the LEAP-X1C would be far being the optimal solution for the B737 – it seems that it would be better matched for the A32XNEO needs.
This might be an explanation why Boeing seems so skeptical about the re-engining.
But let’s wait what we hear out of Chicago after Airbus announced what they will do – I expect this to happen in late September or October…
aeroturbopower
Now – if you would be an engine maker: would you do that? Or would you design one engine that covers the full range up to 33klbf – especially as Airbus seems to be the far more important customer than the Russians?
Interestingly he does not see the need for CFM to come up with two different engines for the C919 and a potential B737 re-engining – just because a CFM official told him that the LEAP-X1C would fit under the wing of the B737. The C919 needs around 30klbf of thrust – the stretch version to be introduced later even more, far more than the B737 needs, so that the LEAP-X1C would be far being the optimal solution for the B737 – it seems that it would be better matched for the A32XNEO needs.
This might be an explanation why Boeing seems so skeptical about the re-engining.
But let’s wait what we hear out of Chicago after Airbus announced what they will do – I expect this to happen in late September or October…
aeroturbopower
8/31/2010
The „war of words“ on the GLG website
The GLG website is a big fairground for those who wish to tell the audience what they think about the two engines currently in development for the new or re-engined narrowbodies. I found the most of the claims that are being made in the recent “expert contributions” as just plain wrong or as misunderstandings.
Take the contribution “CFM International LEAP-X Engine Anything But A Derivative” as an example. This article is nothing as plain anti-rhetoric against P&W’s GTF and pure PR for the LEAP-X, but has nothing to do with an objective analysis.
Both engines feature (or will feature) a complete new core, both will have a 2 stage HPT.
One can guess that the HPC of the LEAP-X is a scaled-down and advanced version of the GEnx HPC and the same is true for the HPT. New materials further improve the performance of the core, as less cooling is needed as with conventional materials. What we don’t know is if the HPT would basically need more cooling air than the GEnx HPT as it probably runs even a little hotter. This is unusually for a narrowbody engine, as maintenance costs play a significant role here in the equation.
The core of the GTF is all new and was already tested successfully (if you want to believe the PR from P&W).
Now take a look at the comparison the author makes:
He states that the baseline thrust of the GTF starts at 21,000lbs – wrong as the MRJ engine starts at about 15,000lbs for the MRJ70. The engine for the CSeries starts at 21,000lbs and the proposed engine for the A320NEO covers the full range of the thrust needed for the Airbus narrowbody family up to 33,000lbs. This engine would have an up-scaled core from the CSeries engine, as the NG34 (or TECH-X) from GE would get a scaled-down core from LEAP-X.
If the author would be right when he writes that the baseline thrust for LEAP-X would be 30,000lbs (for the C919), CFM would have a hard time to sell that engine to Boeing, as the B737 does not need more than 27,300lbs today and a downrated engine would be sub-optimal for the B737. So CFM might have to come up with a separate engine (maybe with a smaller core) to cover Boeing’s thrust needs.
If one claims that the GTF architecture is forty years old as the author does, he has to call the architecture of the LEAP-X at least forty years either, as it is nothing less but nothing more than a 2 spool turbofan.
SFC reduction for both is in the same range. CFM gives a certain number, P&W gives something like a range, but in the end they will end in the same area – it’s coming down to physics.
Please, bloggers, experts and who-else-writes-about engines: let’s do not just play CFM vs. P&W, just as others always play A. vs. B. on the aircraft side. It might be fun when you start but soon turns boring.
Take the contribution “CFM International LEAP-X Engine Anything But A Derivative” as an example. This article is nothing as plain anti-rhetoric against P&W’s GTF and pure PR for the LEAP-X, but has nothing to do with an objective analysis.
Both engines feature (or will feature) a complete new core, both will have a 2 stage HPT.
One can guess that the HPC of the LEAP-X is a scaled-down and advanced version of the GEnx HPC and the same is true for the HPT. New materials further improve the performance of the core, as less cooling is needed as with conventional materials. What we don’t know is if the HPT would basically need more cooling air than the GEnx HPT as it probably runs even a little hotter. This is unusually for a narrowbody engine, as maintenance costs play a significant role here in the equation.
The core of the GTF is all new and was already tested successfully (if you want to believe the PR from P&W).
Now take a look at the comparison the author makes:
He states that the baseline thrust of the GTF starts at 21,000lbs – wrong as the MRJ engine starts at about 15,000lbs for the MRJ70. The engine for the CSeries starts at 21,000lbs and the proposed engine for the A320NEO covers the full range of the thrust needed for the Airbus narrowbody family up to 33,000lbs. This engine would have an up-scaled core from the CSeries engine, as the NG34 (or TECH-X) from GE would get a scaled-down core from LEAP-X.
If the author would be right when he writes that the baseline thrust for LEAP-X would be 30,000lbs (for the C919), CFM would have a hard time to sell that engine to Boeing, as the B737 does not need more than 27,300lbs today and a downrated engine would be sub-optimal for the B737. So CFM might have to come up with a separate engine (maybe with a smaller core) to cover Boeing’s thrust needs.
If one claims that the GTF architecture is forty years old as the author does, he has to call the architecture of the LEAP-X at least forty years either, as it is nothing less but nothing more than a 2 spool turbofan.
SFC reduction for both is in the same range. CFM gives a certain number, P&W gives something like a range, but in the end they will end in the same area – it’s coming down to physics.
Please, bloggers, experts and who-else-writes-about engines: let’s do not just play CFM vs. P&W, just as others always play A. vs. B. on the aircraft side. It might be fun when you start but soon turns boring.
Engine battle
Ok, here is my first real post...
There is an engine battle going on for a while now - but it is also a PR battle, a battle of words, whatever you want to call it: it's CFM's LEAP-X vs. P&W's GTF (Geared Turbo Fan, for beginners).
For example there is is a debate going on, which of the two engines is "just" a derivative and which of them is a revolutionary concept.
There are the ones who say that the GTF is a thirty year old concept - there are the ones who say the LEAP-X is just another step in the CFM line-up of all the CFM56 engines and the TECH56 programme.
There are the ones who call the GTF the winner of the battle, well before the first engine in the test programme is fired up.
There are the ones who call LEAP-X the winner, as it features (read: will feature) revolutionary materials, but first engine to test is also well ahead of us.
As long as we all do not have all the facts in our hands, let's just wait: the first GTF engine that one day will power the Bombardier CSeries will have it's first run in the coming weeks. Of course, we will not get the real-data from P&W, but in the next months and years (aerospace is a long-term business by all means) and as also the LEAP-X will come along, the truth about the winner (if there is one) will come to light.
In the meantime I will try to shed some light on the two different concepts from my very own perspective.
Yours,
aeroturbopower
There is an engine battle going on for a while now - but it is also a PR battle, a battle of words, whatever you want to call it: it's CFM's LEAP-X vs. P&W's GTF (Geared Turbo Fan, for beginners).
For example there is is a debate going on, which of the two engines is "just" a derivative and which of them is a revolutionary concept.
There are the ones who say that the GTF is a thirty year old concept - there are the ones who say the LEAP-X is just another step in the CFM line-up of all the CFM56 engines and the TECH56 programme.
There are the ones who call the GTF the winner of the battle, well before the first engine in the test programme is fired up.
There are the ones who call LEAP-X the winner, as it features (read: will feature) revolutionary materials, but first engine to test is also well ahead of us.
As long as we all do not have all the facts in our hands, let's just wait: the first GTF engine that one day will power the Bombardier CSeries will have it's first run in the coming weeks. Of course, we will not get the real-data from P&W, but in the next months and years (aerospace is a long-term business by all means) and as also the LEAP-X will come along, the truth about the winner (if there is one) will come to light.
In the meantime I will try to shed some light on the two different concepts from my very own perspective.
Yours,
aeroturbopower
New blog-kid on the block
Hi everyone,
here is another aero-related blog. As the number is growing almost every day and many of them I found are ill- or at least poor-informed I decided to start my own one, concentrating, but not limited, to aero (turbo)engines.
To be clear: there are many good-informed blogs and websites (think of flightblogger and Scott Hamiltons Comments), but there are also many who just write about something they read about with no further background knowledge.
But how can I claim that others are not well informed? Well, in short: because I am ;-)
Ok, let's say I am - to my knowledge - at least better informed as I am directly "related" to the industry and have access to information they do not have.
To rely on information from the press and from press material can never lead to an objective conclusion, as every company involved in the business will only show their view of things.
I will try to give an inside view of things that are so interesting in "our" business.
I will try to be as honest as possible with all the information I have.
But I won't to go so far to tell any company secrets...
Have fun!
Yours,
aeroturbopower
here is another aero-related blog. As the number is growing almost every day and many of them I found are ill- or at least poor-informed I decided to start my own one, concentrating, but not limited, to aero (turbo)engines.
To be clear: there are many good-informed blogs and websites (think of flightblogger and Scott Hamiltons Comments), but there are also many who just write about something they read about with no further background knowledge.
But how can I claim that others are not well informed? Well, in short: because I am ;-)
Ok, let's say I am - to my knowledge - at least better informed as I am directly "related" to the industry and have access to information they do not have.
To rely on information from the press and from press material can never lead to an objective conclusion, as every company involved in the business will only show their view of things.
I will try to give an inside view of things that are so interesting in "our" business.
I will try to be as honest as possible with all the information I have.
But I won't to go so far to tell any company secrets...
Have fun!
Yours,
aeroturbopower
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)