|
|
Post by stealthmanbob on May 10, 2016 17:48:11 GMT 1
Thanks for that! Goes to show how minor the weight penalty on the 81 inch fan PW1100G-JM is compared to the 69.4 inch fan MAX LEAP-1B. Only 78kg per engine or 2.8% heavier. On the other hand the 78 inch LEAP-1A is heavier than the LEAP-1B by a whopping 373kg per engine or about 13.4%.  It depends a lot on the cowlings, and thrust reverse systems for the overall weight, as well as, how do you build the engines, do you have solid fan blades through out the engine, or do you have some solid and some honeycomb !  |
|
XWB
in service - 11 years
Posts: 16,115
|
Post by XWB on May 10, 2016 20:05:23 GMT 1
Thanks for that! Goes to show how minor the weight penalty on the 81 inch fan PW1100G-JM is compared to the 69.4 inch fan MAX LEAP-1B. Only 78kg per engine or 2.8% heavier. On the other hand the 78 inch LEAP-1A is heavier than the LEAP-1B by a whopping 373kg per engine or about 13.4%. This blog sums it up nicely: aeroturbopower.blogspot.com/2016/05/a320neo-engine-compared.html |
|
Baroque
in service - 2 years
Posts: 3,991
|
Post by Baroque on May 10, 2016 22:06:39 GMT 1
It depends a lot on the cowlings, and thrust reverse systems for the overall weight, as well as, how do you build the engines, do you have solid fan blades through out the engine, or do you have some solid and some honeycomb ! Oops, you may have a point. Must factor in the cowling and reverse thruster weight as well. This might swell the difference on the neo engines. Or is this already included in the dry weight?  But I think read recently that Boeing had to change the reverse thruster on the MAX due to supplier problems and the new one may have to use a heavier build to withstand the hotter temperatures of the LEAP engine. This blog sums it up nicely: It presents a very intriguing question indeed. How does the LEAP make up for the difference in weight efficiency... |
|
|
|
A320neo
May 10, 2016 22:22:43 GMT 1
Post by stealthmanbob on May 10, 2016 22:22:43 GMT 1
It depends a lot on the cowlings, and thrust reverse systems for the overall weight, as well as, how do you build the engines, do you have solid fan blades through out the engine, or do you have some solid and some honeycomb ! Oops, you have a point. Must factor in the cowling and reverse thruster weight as well. This might swell the difference on the neo engines. But I think read recently that Boeing had to change the reverse thruster on the MAX due to supplier problems and the new one may have to use a heavier build to withstand the hotter temperatures of the LEAP engine. This blog sums it up nicely: It presents a very intriguing question indeed. How does the LEAP make up for the difference in weight efficiency... Did my picture not help out a bit ? It was a sort of sign, or cap ! |
|
Baroque
in service - 2 years
Posts: 3,991
|
A320neo
May 10, 2016 23:44:27 GMT 1
Post by Baroque on May 10, 2016 23:44:27 GMT 1
Did my picture not help out a bit ? It was a sort of sign, or cap ! I did see the RR logo.  But what do you mean help out a bit? |
|
|
|
A320neo
May 11, 2016 18:34:29 GMT 1
Post by marlibu on May 11, 2016 18:34:29 GMT 1
Hi Guys, in reading the EASA document, is it saying the engine is certified?
|
|
XWB
in service - 11 years
Posts: 16,115
|
Post by XWB on May 11, 2016 23:02:13 GMT 1
Yes it is. Now they need to certify the engine + airframe combo.
|
|
|
|
Post by marlibu on May 13, 2016 7:47:55 GMT 1
I'm forever learning, the flight testing is what certifies the airframe/powerplant combo?
|
|
XWB
in service - 11 years
Posts: 16,115
|
Post by XWB on May 13, 2016 12:38:51 GMT 1
Correct  |
|
XWB
in service - 11 years
Posts: 16,115
|
Post by XWB on May 13, 2016 14:22:41 GMT 1
|
|
