7E7 Engines Could Have A Twist.

[lame]

Although NOT directly related to Australia or New Zealand YET, how is this for a radical idea. :ok:


7E7 engines could have a twist

Using 2 suppliers would allow swaps


The Boeing Co. is about a month away from deciding who will supply the all-important engines for its 7E7 Dreamliner, the executive who heads the program said yesterday.

If two engine makers are selected, as expected, the 7E7 will have a capability not seen before in the jet age -- interchangeable engine types.

Mike Bair, vice president of the 7E7 program, told reporters during a conference call that it will be easy to swap engine types on the new super-efficient jet -- assuming Boeing picks two engine makers.

In other words, a 7E7 could be flying with Rolls-Royce engines one day, and General Electric or Pratt & Whitney engines the next day.

For the aviation industry, that would be a little like Clark Kent rushing into a phone booth and emerging seconds later as Superman.

The complex task of swapping out jetliner engine types today is nearly impossible and likely would take months -- assuming an airline would want to do it.

But it will take only 24 hours to switch out engine types on the 7E7, Bair disclosed.

For an airline, staying with one engine type reduces costs.

But the ability to swap engine types would be an important selling point for leasing companies and others who finance airplanes and move them around.

And it would make the 7E7 far more appealing across different airlines.

Consider the 17-member Star Alliance, which includes major international airlines such as United, Lufthansa, Singapore, Air Canada, Air New Zealand and All Nippon Airways.

The world's largest airline alliance has said it might consider a group purchase of 7E7s. Different airlines in the alliance could operate the planes as needed. This would be much easier, and would provide better operating economics if an airline in the alliance had the option of swapping engine types if necessary.

"This offers airlines a lot of flexibility and will increase the 'financibility' of the plane," Bair said.

"One issue that people who finance planes have is the mobility of planes from one carrier to another," he added. "Having the wrong engine when trying to move from one airline to another impedes the marketability."

The 7E7 will be designed so that the physical job of swapping engine types can be accomplished by mechanics in a matter of hours.

It will also require a quick software change in the flight-deck avionics so the twin-engine 7E7 will know that a different engine type has been installed.

Bair said Boeing probably will announce by mid-April its choice of engine suppliers.

The big three -- Rolls-Royce, General Electric and Pratt & Whitney, a unit of United Technologies -- are engaged in a fierce competition for the contract.

"All three engines companies are progressing very well," Bair said. "They have very competitive technical offers. We are having detailed business discussions."

The engine makers have also been busy talking with airlines about their respective engine designs for the 7E7.

Bair said Boeing is leaning toward having two engine suppliers rather than one. It previously ruled out having all three.

The 7E7 engine contract will be worth billions of dollars.

Boeing has forecast a potential market for its new jet of 2,500 to 3,000 units.

[itchybum]

Boeing leads the way again. Innovation vs imitation. If it weren't for government subsidies there'd only be one real choice in the world.

[Wirraway]

Fri "The Australian"

Boeing extends range of proposed 7E7
By Steve Creedy
March 12, 2004

BOEING has extended the range of its proposed 200-seat base model 7E7 by 9 per cent, a move that would comfortably allow non-stop Sydney-New York flights, and says it is confident of launching the plane this year at a list price of about $US120 million ($158 million).

The US aerospace giant announced yesterday that it was boosting the range of the base 200-seater from 7800 nautical miles to 8500 nautical miles (15,700km).

But it said the main reason for the increase was a desire by airlines for more freight capacity and it would allow them to carry an additional six tonnes.

Boeing is in talks about the new plane with 50 airlines and expects to be able to announce a launch customer later this year.

"And if you were to ask me, my sense is it's going to be sooner rather than later in 2004," 7E7 program vice-president Mike Bair said.

The new aircraft, expected to go into service in 2008, will be 20 per cent more fuel efficient than the 767 it is intended to replace.

The $US120 million list price of the new aircraft is about the same as a 767-300ER, but the 7E7 comes packed with additional features.

It will also fly further, boast a greater cargo carrying capability, be significantly quieter and sport a more comfortable interior featuring higher humidity and air pressure.

The company expects to sell about a third of its planes in each of Asia, the Americas and Europe/Middle East. The forecast market demand for the aircraft type is 3500 planes worth about $US400 billion.

Mr Bair said potential customers included US domestic carriers, mainline and charter operators in Europe, and airlines in the Middle East.

He said Boeing was focusing on a smaller set of airlines as potential launch customers and was comfortable with its position.

"Clearly some of the early interest, and where we see a significant portion of the 7E7 market, is in Asia," he said.

"So it shouldn't be any surprise to anybody that we've really focused a lot of attention on Asia.

"We recently held a forum in Hong Kong with most of the CEOs of the major Asian airlines."

Boeing is also on track for an engine decision in mid-April.

The aircraft's engines will be in the 65,000lb thrust class with a fan diameter about the same as bigger 777 engines.

More sophisticated materials will allow them to operate at higher temperatures with higher bypass and pressure ratios.

Mr Bair said all three engine manufacturers -- Rolls Royce, Pratt & Whitney and General Electric -- had competitive products under evaluation. The company had yet to decide whether the project would have one or two engine manufacturers.

If it did go with two, a design requirement was that engines from different manufacturers could be changed on the wing in less than 24 hours.

Boeing also claims the new plane will be so quiet it will be able to fly outside curfew.

"It will be incredibly quiet," Mr Bair said.

"One commonly used figure for noise is an 85 decibel contour.

"And this airplane will put that contour inside the airport boundaries at all airports and in most cases right on top of the runway."

The new plane will be made mostly of composite materials requiring a radically different manufacturing process.

Composites are lighter, do not corrode and are not fatigued by pressurisation cycles.

Mr Bair admitted airlines had been concerned about durability of the composite materials as well as ease of repair.

He said one concerned customer had attacked a piece of composite with sledgehammers and metal punches for more than an hour without causing damage.

"In the end this material is going to be far more damage resistant than aluminium," he said.

Boeing had also developed quick repair methods, one of which took about 40 minutes on the ramp that allowed the aircraft to be flown for the rest of the day.

"And then we have a two-hour repair that will basically let you fly until the airplane goes into a hangar for a more a permanent repair and that can be up to five years," he said.

Australians will play a part in developing the new technology with Melbourne-based Boeing subsidiary Hawker de Havilland building wing trailing edges on the new aircraft.

==========================================

[GRINDER]

This is not a new concept in aviation - The Joint Strike Fighter Program will have two engine suppliers - Both engines 100% interchageable. An engines will be able to be changed in a matter of hours.

[lame]

We were of course talking about Airliners. ;)

You may well be able to do it on small military aircraft, maybe even on some civilian small aircraft, I don't know. :confused:

But it is certainly a new idea on Airliners. :ok:

[Monkey Magic]

So the Joint Strike Fighter is old now??!!

Did I miss something?

[lame]

IF you mean what I said, I did NOT say it was old, just that it was military. :confused:

This is a radical concept in AIRLINERS. :ok:

As far as I am aware, this has never happened until now, with "normal" passenger carrying Airliners.

There are some special projects of course, like the two I saw at Mojave in 1992.

GE had at their Flight Test Facilty a very old A300, that was originally a normal passenger carrying Airliner, converted to have a GE CF6-80E1 on one side, and its normal CF6-50 on the other side. Also they had a B707, that was also a normal passenger carrying Airliner originally, converted to have the latest CFM56 in one position, and its normal three engines in the other positions.

[Buster Hyman]

What about an each way bet lame? Roller on the port & Pratt on the starboard? Perhaps a GE on the "third" pod too!:p

[lame]

Well, as I pointed out on a different site, that would be the next logical step. :ok:

Doing that might improve a twins ETOPS range. ;)

I mean if you had say a GE on one side and it failed, the odds of say a Roller on the other side failing before you could make a suitable airport, is probably greater than if you had another identical GE on the other side. :rolleyes:

Better NOT tell Boeing, they might take up the idea and boost ETOPS time even further............ :uhoh:

[Buster Hyman]

...and what if they were contra-rotating(?)?

[lame]

Showing your age now Buster............. ;)

Someone at another site asked that question recently, he had assumed on twin engine Airliners, that the engines always rotated different directions to counter yaw. :uhoh:

With the ETOPS it is not as silly as it sounds.

When we did the initial Ansett B767 training, the Boeing instructor gave us the official Boeing line, about IF one engine fails the odds are (whatever, very high) that the other engine will also fail soon. :ok:

However he then said HIS personal feeling was, IF one engine fails over the middle of the Pacific somewhere, just remember that the engine on the other side is identical, probably even consecutive serial numbers, assembled by the same people, from the same parts and components as the other engine. :uhoh:

So HE reckoned the odds were the other engine was about to fail too, any minute............. :{

[Buster Hyman]

That's it! I'm building a fallout shelter & hiding down there! If anyone needs me, just stamp your feet on the ground!

[lame]

Not at KAH I hope. :confused:

You'll get wet.............. :uhoh: :ok:

[Buster Hyman]

Ah-ha...but I'm not there at the moment...am I?;) :p

[itchybum]

IF one engine fails over the middle of the Pacific somewhere, just remember that the engine on the other side is identical, probably even consecutive serial numbers, assembled by the same people, from the same parts and components as the other engine So can we then expect an endless series of double flame-outs all around the world? ;)

[lame]

As this was 23/24 years ago, probably not. ;)

But he had a point, Boeing used statistics to show that the odds of the second engine failing too were even greater than the odds of the first one failing, he was just saying that if one failed, why can't the other 5 minutes later. :uhoh:

Statistics are a wonderful thing, like this old joke.......... ;)


Aunt Bessie loved to visit her nieces and nephews. However, she had relatives all over the country.

The problem was that no matter how much she enjoyed seeing them, she hated flying. No matter how safe people told her it was, she was always worried that someone would have a bomb on the plane.

She read books about how safe it was and listened to the stewardess demonstrate all the safety features. But she still worried herself silly every time a visit was coming up.

Finally, the family decided that maybe if she saw the statistics she'd be convinced. So they sent her to a friend of the family who was an actuary.

"Tell me," she said suspiciously, "what are the chances that someone will have a bomb on a plane?"

The actuary looked through his tables and said, "A very small chance. Maybe one in five hundred thousand."

She nodded, then thought for a moment. "So what are the odds of two people having a bomb on the same plane?"

Again he went through his tables.

"Extremely remote," he said. "About one in a billion."

Aunt Bessie nodded and left his office.

And from that day on, every time she flew, she took a bomb with her.

;) :ok:

[Going Boeing]

It would be interesting if Rolls Royce was chosen as one of the suppliers as its engine rotates in the opposite direction to the American engines and thus on RR equiped aircraft the "dry bay"in the wing is on the opposite side of the pylon to the GE & PW. To have the quick change option discussed at the start of this thread would mean that there would have to be dry bays on both sides of the pylons thus slightly reducing the total fuel capacity.

[vortsa]

Good thought G.B. but what if the manufacturer uses a new concept engine, we are talking the future hear and development and improvement is progress.

[Going Boeing]

I heard recently that Rolls Royce and GE were successful which means that P & W have again missed out. I suspect that eventually GE and PW will merge in order to have more muscle take on RR.