XWB
in service - 11 years
Posts: 16,115
|
Post by XWB on Jun 7, 2017 13:17:00 GMT 1
This kind of improvement should be retrofittable. Why are they going introduce it? It not just for fun or because it's the "better" material, they have to do it to allow/achieve higher temperatures and pressures to win efficiency. This means more stress for the core and the whole engine. I do not believe that the core/engine is over engineered and has more margins than needed today. So I think they have to redesign the whole core/engine and I do not think it is retrofitable, just my opinion. I don't know but don't they need more compressor/turbine stages if working at higher pressures? You guys are talking about different things, it's getting confusing. To clarify: - The bearing fix released in Q2 2017 is retrofittable (confirmed by P&W). - The improved combustion chamber due in Q4 2017 will be retrofittable (confirmed by P&W). - Improvements to cut fuel burn by 2-3% in 2019 for the A321LR will be retrofittable (confirmed by P&W). - The improved core due by mid-2020 to cut fuel burn by 5-7% may or may not be retrofittable (not yet confirmed). |
|
philidor
in service - 6 years
Posts: 8,950
|
Post by philidor on Jun 7, 2017 15:38:37 GMT 1
Why are they going introduce it? It not just for fun or because it's the "better" material, they have to do it to allow/achieve higher temperatures and pressures to win efficiency. This means more stress for the core and the whole engine. I do not believe that the core/engine is over engineered and has more margins than needed today. So I think they have to redesign the whole core/engine and I do not think it is retrofitable, just my opinion. I don't know but don't they need more compressor/turbine stages if working at higher pressures? The P&W engine core is by no means over-engineered. Leduc's words strongly suggest that P&W's plan is to use CMCs (ceramic matrix composite) parts instead of existing metallic alloy parts. CMCs are known to tolerate much higher temperature than any metal alloy, and their extensive use by CFM is the main reason the LEAP -1A can presently compete with its P&W counterpart. Replacing some parts in the core, together with software changes, could be done through one or more PIPs. That is why I expect the changes to be retrofittable. I agree that this is speculation, since P&W has not disclosed its plans in detail yet, as XWB rightly points out. |
|
sciing
in service - 1 year
Enter your message here...
Posts: 2,503 
|
Post by sciing on Jun 7, 2017 20:42:06 GMT 1
Why are they going introduce it? It not just for fun or because it's the "better" material, they have to do it to allow/achieve higher temperatures and pressures to win efficiency. This means more stress for the core and the whole engine. I do not believe that the core/engine is over engineered and has more margins than needed today. So I think they have to redesign the whole core/engine and I do not think it is retrofitable, just my opinion. I don't know but don't they need more compressor/turbine stages if working at higher pressures? You guys are talking about different things, it's getting confusing. Not really, we are just talking about the last point. |
|
|
|
Post by Jkkw on Jun 17, 2017 12:35:38 GMT 1
|
|
mjoelnir
in service - 2 years
Posts: 4,089
|
Post by mjoelnir on Jun 18, 2017 12:04:53 GMT 1
LEAP engine deliveries seem to be in full swing now, a lot of neos with LEAP engines getting delivered in the last weeks.
|
|
mjoelnir
in service - 2 years
Posts: 4,089
|
Post by mjoelnir on Jun 22, 2017 8:53:07 GMT 1
Does CFM regarding the LEAP prioritise Boeing above Airbus? We have A320neo family LEAP customers ordering A320ceo family aircraft because their neo frames can not be delivered without delay. If engine availability would be according to plan, Airbus should not be forced to supply ceo instead of neo. There was already an overhang of ceo frames pushing the end of ceo production farther out than pplanned
Has anybody heard how the situation is with the GTF deliveries? It seems that at least 35 frames wait for engines, that would mean a shortfall of at least 70 engines.
|
|
cck
Final Assembly Line stage 1
Posts: 228
|
Post by cck on Jun 22, 2017 10:08:30 GMT 1
Does CFM regarding the LEAP prioritise Boeing above Airbus? We have A320neo family LEAP customers ordering A320ceo family aircraft because their neo frames can not be delivered without delay. If engine availability would be according to plan, Airbus should not be forced to supply ceo instead of neo. There was already an overhang of ceo frames pushing the end of ceo production farther out than pplanned Has anybody heard how the situation is with the GTF deliveries? It seems that at least 35 frames wait for engines, that would mean a shortfall of at least 70 engines. Or could it be not a delay matter but instead all 2018/2019 productions are sold out? e.g. AirAsia which just signed for additional 14 A320ceo said this order is for more aggressive expansion instead of conversion from a320neo |
|
s543
in service - 2 years
Posts: 3,959
|
Post by s543 on Jun 22, 2017 10:09:41 GMT 1
Does CFM regarding the LEAP prioritise Boeing above Airbus? We have A320neo family LEAP customers ordering A320ceo family aircraft because their neo frames can not be delivered without delay. If engine availability would be according to plan, Airbus should not be forced to supply ceo instead of neo. There was already an overhang of ceo frames pushing the end of ceo production farther out than pplanned Has anybody heard how the situation is with the GTF deliveries? It seems that at least 35 frames wait for engines, that would mean a shortfall of at least 70 engines. I just remember that some time back - maybe a year or two Leahy said there would be lack of LEAPs but no problem I can sell the GTFs..... So now we well know the GTFs have teething problems - so the "trust" into this product went down. We do know that GE is "friendly" with BO and SAFRAN with AB so where is CFM  ? |
|
philidor
in service - 6 years
Posts: 8,950
|
Post by philidor on Jun 22, 2017 10:10:49 GMT 1
P&W is supposed to catch up by year-end with its own delivery forecasts. We may believe them or not ...
As regards CFM, I don't see clear evidence that they are prioritising Boeing over Airbus. At least, Airbus customers seem to trust them, if we judge from their recent order collection.
|
|
mjoelnir
in service - 2 years
Posts: 4,089
|
Post by mjoelnir on Jun 22, 2017 17:39:35 GMT 1
Does CFM regarding the LEAP prioritise Boeing above Airbus? We have A320neo family LEAP customers ordering A320ceo family aircraft because their neo frames can not be delivered without delay. If engine availability would be according to plan, Airbus should not be forced to supply ceo instead of neo. There was already an overhang of ceo frames pushing the end of ceo production farther out than pplanned Has anybody heard how the situation is with the GTF deliveries? It seems that at least 35 frames wait for engines, that would mean a shortfall of at least 70 engines. Or could it be not a delay matter but instead all 2018/2019 productions are sold out? e.g. AirAsia which just signed for additional 14 A320ceo said this order is for more aggressive expansion instead of conversion from a320neo The neo and ceo are produced on the same lines. The only reason opening slots for the ceo rather than neo would be availability of engines. There are A320family LEAP customers seeing late deliveries. |
|
?