Pratt & Whitney Purepower GTF doing well in tests

[stranger706]

For the aviation fans here, some news on the Geared Turbofan -

http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/...-300048289.html

Also, the rumors are that the P&W Purepower GTF is passing specs with room to spare, and CFM is failing to meet specs by as much as 5% on some versions of the LEAP X. (5% below spec means a do-over)

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

 

[andrewg]

So....good or bad news for Boeing?

Anytime I see Airbus getting a leg up in performance...I cringe. The 737MAX really MUST be a fuel efficient aircraft. That NEO his a concern.

 

[A_Harman]

Sounds like bad news for Boeing. The CFM engine used on the 737 is not meeting fuel efficiency specs and Boeing isn't on P&W's customer list for the geared turbofan.

 

[fdcg27]

Originally Posted By: A_Harman
Sounds like bad news for Boeing. The CFM engine used on the 737 is not meeting fuel efficiency specs and Boeing isn't on P&W's customer list for the geared turbofan.


The good news is that Pratt appears to be on the cusp of producing a class leading transport engine for the first time in decades.
Want to lease or buy an early 777 cheaply?
Just focus on aircraft with Pratt engines.
Part of the problem is with the 737 itself.
This fifty year old design (with new wings and tail on the NG) sits low enough on its gear that overall engine diameter is far more limited than it is on the single aisle Airbus, as is rotation angle on takeoff, which compromises the runway performance of the longest 737 developments relative to the A321.
OTOH, while 5% is huge, GE does know a thing or two about engine development, so I'm pretty sure that they'll achieve the opearting efficiency specs they need to get.
Boeing is also very good at finding tweaks here and there to improve performance.
I don't think that this is game over for either the 737 program or the CFM joint venture.
It's also early days in terms of GTF reliability and durability in service, while the CFM 56 has proven to be a Mercedes diesel among modern turbofans.
The reliability and durability of the P&W GTF will be found in service, but the reliability and durability of the basic design of the Leap X is already a given.

 

[Mr Nice]

Which airlines fly the 777 with PW engines?

 

[Cujet]

I work in the aviation world. During a recent trade show, I took a good look at the P+W cutaway engine (PW800) which is based on the GTF core. (without a geared fan)

It's core engine is amazingly small. The quality of the core components was interesting. As they did not appear to be all that well made. Certainly, the Rolls Royce components I deal with on a regular basis look nicer. I'd guess they simply spend time making the parts work properly, and not making them look good.

Still, it's a bit odd to see aerospace components that don't really look good.

 

[fdcg27]

United was the launch customer for the type and ultimately bought a total of 74 777-200s, most of which were the higher gross weight extended range version.
All of these aircraft used the PW4000 112" engine developed for the 777 and United remained the largest 777 operator until a certain Middle Eastern carrier rapidly bulked up.
As the launch customer of both the type and this version of the engine, United undoubtedly got a killer deal from both Boeing and P&W.
A quick glance at operating results seems to indicate that the P&W is comparable to both the RR and GE engines also offered on various 777 models in both fuel consumption and maintenance costs, while a quick look at lease rates shows the P&W powered aircraft to be cheaper to lease than those equipped with either GEs or RRs. Of course, the purchase or lease of an aircraft is totally negotiable and may also depend upon the financial health of the acquiring carrier.
If all three engines are roughly comparable in fuel burn and maintenance costs per hour or cycle, then aircraft equipped with any of them should have about the same value in the used market.
A couple of complicating factors are the relative shortage of these aircraft in the resale market as well as the tight control the OEMs have kept over the supply of spares for their engines.
Maybe Pratt just charges more for either spares or power by the hour contracts?
I was probably off-base in my comment about Pratts making for a cheaper 777-200, since there don't appear to be many cheap ones out there in ready to earn money for a carrier condition.
The earliest deliveries will reach twenty years in service this year.