Leeham News and Analysis
There's more to real news than a news release.
There's more to real news than a news release.
Leeham News and Analysis
- Boeing unlikely to meet FAA’s 90-day deadline for new safety program April 18, 2024
- Focus on quality not slowing innovation, says GKN April 18, 2024
- Boeing defends 787, 777 against whistleblower charges April 17, 2024
- Dissecting Boeing CEO’s statement next new airplane will cost $50bn April 15, 2024
- Bjorn’s Corner: New engine development. Part 3. Propulsive efficiency April 12, 2024
PW gains major wins in Rolls-Royce deals
Here are some additional thoughts about the Rolls-Royce/Pratt & Whitney deal announced yesterday.
PW is a real winner in this set of transactions.
- Buying RR out of the International Aero Engines partnership gives PW far more latitude in making deals for the V2500 engines and the ability to connect V2500 transactions to transitions to Geared TurboFan orders. RR had no incentives to make connected deals, since there was nothing in it for them if a customer ordered the GTF instead of the V2500. CFM had the competitive advantage in offering the CFM56 for legacy airplanes and the LEAP for the A320neo. With PW now controlling the V2500 partnership, PW has come closer to leveling the playing field.
- PW has greater flexibility to wheel and deal on competition involving only the V2500. It was widely reported in aviation circles but never confirmed that RR’s recalcitrance to go along in one A320 legacy engine competition caused one customer to switch from V2500 to CFM56 in a follow-on order situation.
- Sam Pearlstein of Wells Fargo observes, “We believe this should be a high return investment because UTX is making use of foreign cash that would be subject to repatriation, it is gaining a larger share of a long-term spare parts stream and it clears up customer confusion for the selection of engines for A320 & A320NEO airplanes.”
- Pearlstein also observes, “By consolidating the IAE venture, we believe it makes for more simplified discussions with airline customers for both existing A320 and A320NEO orders essentially prior to this agreement, Rolls-Royce’s interests would have been to sell more V2500 while Pratt & Whitney preferred selling more PW1000G’s. This now makes for a more unified approach to selling engines to existing customers, new ones and conversions, in our view.” This is reflected in other quick analyst takes.
AirInsight has this additional analysis.
AeroTurboPower, which is based in Europe, has this very good take on the deals.
Would someone comment on the effect of this announcement/arrangement on the future production of Aircraft,
Who benefits by this? Will this have any impact on the NEO and MAX offerings.
For the aero challanged, could its impact be more clearly and simply spelled out. Thank you
BAInvestor, I think it is universally accpeted that this does strengthen the GTF engine.
What will be hotly debated is if this blows Leap out of the water or merely finally makes GTF somewhat attactive to some more customers.
Aero Ninja, Thank you. What sort of timeline are we talking about in terms of development? And when it is said that PW can make “connected” sales, is that a real advantage.
Does this even the playing field or will, as you indicate, make it appear that that the LEAP engines will not be competitive and will therefore suffer sales and effect the choice of Aircraft. Will GTF have such advantages that they will make earlier technologies seem obsolete? Or, are we living on hope and competition will make efforts to improve their product.
That makes a lot of sense. P&W concentrate on what matters now: selling current generation engines. While their promise to keep R&R in the game for future developments remains just that: a promise.
Isn’t this an attempt to get some more V2500 and PW-1100G orders on the A-32X/-32X-NEO? Sort of trying to force fewer orders for the CFM-56-5B and LEAP-1A engines on those airplanes? What does Airbus and Boeing think of all of this? Of course with the CFM-56-7B an exclusive engine on the B-737NG, and the LEAP-1B exclusive to the B-737MAX, on top of CFMI engines selected for the A-32X/-32X-NEOs still gives CFMI a huge market share.
Airbus were on record as wanting PW to offer the GTF through IAE.
In a convoluted way, it looks as though they now get their wish.
With RR as a partner in GTF, will be interesting to see if the much rumoured 4% SFC being held in reserve will surface.
One would assume some technical due diligence has taken place, and RR may be able to endorse the figures and add credibility.
At this moment RR is way bigger and more credible in civil engines. Widebodybody though (787, A350, A330, A380).
PW is big in defense and seems to have found itself back on civil narrowbody’s.
Add MTU and some Japanese parties and we have a credible combination against the French/American marketleaders.
It reminds us how difficult it is for an engine manufacturer to offer a complete family of engines. It appears to be even more difficult than for the aircraft manufacturers like Airbus and Boeing. That is the main reason why we increasingly see cooperative ventures like CFMI, EA and IAE.
P&W and RR don’t have at this time a well balance offering like GE does. Their new venture should give them an opportunity to start correcting this situation. Still, it won’t be enough for P&W to cover the 120-230 segment with RR. Above that range they remain conspicuously absent. The cash flow that will be generated by the existing GTF engines should give them the necessary resources to address this particular deficiency.
Normand, the PW1000 GTF family should be able to offer thrust up to 40.000 lbs, significantly more then the CFM56 and V2500. An A321 stretch next to the MS21-400 is a possibility and also the Chinese are looking at offering a GTF option for their future C919/929/939 family. Certainly 200+ seat territory. Soon PW have a small GTF for the CS100. I wouldn’t be suprised if Embraer and Sukhoi are interrested in this engine too.
RR, a big known OEM, that is no competitor, but a experienced subcontractor is handy to realize the scale neccessary quickly..
Take a look at AeroTurboiPower’s answer to my question whether this JV means the end to open rotor. Some sources they cite say it is dead.
As Scott pointed out, PW “wins” because of these transactions. However, IMO RR gains a lot as well. If anybody is a looser because of these transactions, IMO it’s GE. I’ll explain.
Now, one should realise that the IAE business accounts for only about 14 percent of RR’s revenues in the gas turbine business for civilian airliners. It’s the Trent engines that are the core of RR’s engine business. In this transaction, RR will receive $1.5 billion while still producing parts for the IAE engines and will be receiving an agreed by the hour payment for the next 15 years for the current installed fleet. That’s not too bad for a legacy engine.
So, what about the future cooperation between RR and PW? As I said in an earlier comment, the key words in the summary from RR regarding the joint venture with PW to develop new engines for future generation mid-size aircraft are: “Focus on high bypass geared technologies”.
First, RR will apparently be doing some “minor” work on the PW1100G engine for the neo. From RR’s point of view this will help maintain their “presence” in the NB market for the next decade.
What quite a few observers seem to miss is the fact that that while PW’s GTF is step-change, it’s nevertheless only a first step in the application of geared technologies to turbofans.
The next logical step is a geared turbofan with a two stage contra-rotating shrouded (prop-) fan. As I indicated in an earlier comment, in this further derivative of the geared turbofan concept, two contra-rotating fan rotors are arranged one behind the other. This arrangement boosts the propulsive efficiency of the engine, with the fan diameter remaining unchanged, and permits bypass ratios as high as 20 to 25 to be achieved (NB: A320NEO GTF Bypass Ratio: 12:1).
Again, what quite a few observers seem to miss is the fact that RR’s three shaft architecture will work extremely well for a geared contra-rotating shrouded fan.
The first of two contra-rotating fans would be powered by the low pressure turbine (LPT). This is also the current set-up where the LPT spool spins with the same RPM as that of the fan. In a first generation three shaft engine with a two stage contra-rotating fan, the current Trent-1000 and Trent-XWB LPT architecture with a six-stage low pressure turbine (LPT) design would likely be retained. If the first fan would have a gearing system, the RPM of the LPT could thus be increased while reducing the number of LPT stages to 3 or 4. However, that would be the logical next step. Two independent reduction gear systems on a “first” generation engine would in all likelihood be a step too far.
The 2nd fan would have several more fan blades than the first fan. It would be contra-rotating to the first fan/LPC/ LPT spool and to the high pressure turbine/compressor (HPT/HPC) spool, and would be attached to a reduction gear system on the intermediate pressure turbine/compressor (IPT/IPC) spool. The RPM of the IPT/IPC spool (currently >7000 RPM) could be increased in order to increase pressures (i.e. better optimal performance). A PW6000G type planetary reduction gearing attached just behind the second fan and in front of the IPC would reduce the RPM to slightly below 3000 RPM. If the RPM of the second-fan/IPC/IPT spool could be increased due to the geared 2nd fan, the number of stages on the IPC could be reduced from 8 to 6 or 7. The Trent-XWB’s 2nd IPT stage would be retained.
Now, what this means then is that RR is extremely well positioned to take advantage of the promises of a geared contra-rotating shrouded fan. By merely introducing one reduction gear system to the three shaft architecture, RR can mostly concentrate on developing the contra-rotating fans if the geared reduction system is PW-6000G-derived. It’s worth mentioning though that RR has apparently been developing geared reduction systems under the radar. However, by teaming-up with PW, a proven system would be available at the point of EIS.
An engine with two contra-rotating fans, but with only a single gear reduction system on the second fan, would work well with the current Trent engine architecture. An engine for the NG market could use a 2nd gear reduction system on the first fan in order to reduce LPT stages from 6 to 3 (i.e. saving weight) while increasing the RPM of LPT meaning that pressures and efficiencies of the LPT would also increase.
Conclusion: PW “wins” in the near term. RR OK in the near term; “wins” in the medium to long term.
What will GE do?
First, the GenX is presently below spec, and the smaller fan diameter of the -2b67 doesn’t seem to have helped much in the efficiency department. Is that a bad omen for the MAX-engine?
GE’s engine product philosophy seems to be for each new engine developed to run hotter than the previous one. IMO, they are about to run up against the proverbial brick wall here. In other words, they are approaching the point of diminishing returns with this approach. On the neo they had to increase the fan diameter of the Leap-X just to stay competitive with the PW-1100G from a performance point of view (i.e. not from a sales point of view where the sheer size of GE has often been used to squash the competition) -and PW has reportedly been conservative on their specs…..
GE is not on the A350. The Trent-XWB could eliminate GE on the A380 (I’m not mentioning what a geared twin contra-rotating fan Trent engine could do to the A380…..). If the Leap engine on the MAX suffers from the same scale-down problems as that of the -2b67 on the 748, PW will in all likelihood be superior on the neo. Then, only the Max will save GE, but their dominant market position in the NB market would be weakened.
Finally, if GE were to develop a new GenX derived engine for the conceptual 777-8/9 along the line of going “even hotter”, IMO both Boeing and GE would suffer for it.
What should GE do? Hmmmm?
Bad omens or not. CFM has 75% of the NB market now, not to mention a higher dispatch reliability then IAE. Customers remember this. Currently, CFM has approximately 60% of the NEO orders of the customers that have selected engines 455 to 270 thus far. Add they will get 100% of the MAX orders! So, I’m pretty sure the GE executives are not ready to jump out of the office windows just yet?
As far as the GEnx is concerned… RR has missed their numbers as well on the T1000. The GEnx is expected to meet or slightly exceed sfc next year. Haven’t heard anything definitive out of RR when theirs will meet specs. Is that an omen for the TXWB than?
TXWB on the A380? Rolls-Royce has some different risk and revenue sharing partners on the T-900 vs. TXWB so that is unlikely?
In regards to the 777, the GEnx was developed from the GE90 core. Which is a pretty good starting point… No?
GEnx is also about 2% short on SFC, not meeting or exceeding. There remain ETOPS qualifications to be achieved as well.
Have a look at the last 2 words in my sentence…
“The GEnx is expected to meet or slightly exceed sfc next year.”
Rgds,
I thought it was the GEnx-2B-67 (B-747-8 engine) that would not meet expected SFC, at least until late 2013 with PIP#1. Even then it would be closer, but still a little short until PIP#2, whenever that is. Is the GEnx-1B engine (B-787-8/-9) also 2% short of promised SFC? How does its SFC, currently, compare with the RR Trent-1000?
787 GEnx is still having its issues including SFC.
“This arrangement boosts the propulsive efficiency of the engine, with the fan diameter remaining unchanged, and permits bypass ratios as high as 20 to 25 to be achieved (NB: A320NEO GTF Bypass Ratio: 12:1).”
The open rotor prototypes so far have a BPR above 30. Noise etc remain complications. Higher BPR means higher propulsive efficiency. An open (CROR) rotor pushes out air straight back iso a swirling stream. Good for 5-10% better propulsive efficiency. But most gains come from the higher BPR. Slower flying also helps a lot. Inevitable in the future IMO.
Keesje, see #10.
Keesje, open rotors would be much less desirable on long range WB aircraft due to the slower speed requirement. The open rotor concept would work on short range NBs where the added flight time wouldn’t be much of an issue. Ducted contra-rotating fans is the logical way forward on WBs, not open rotors; unless, of course, if BWBs were to be developed. On BWBs, open rotors would be positioned on top of the upper centre aft fuselage partly in order to shield a considerable fraction of the rotor noise.
Interestingly, a three spool geared two stage contra-rotating shrouded turbofan could quite easily morph into a geared two stage contra-rotating open rotor turbofan engine. 😉
Addendum:
A three spool geared two stage contra-rotating shrouded turbofan could quite easily morph into a three spool geared two stage contra-rotating open rotor turbofan engine.
What’s the bypass ratio on a turboprop? Is a BPR 30 open rotor geared turbofan, the same as a turboprop with multispools and a better gear system?
Just a silly question, but how does one achieve a by-pass ratio with an open rotor?
Not much different to a shrouded arrangement?
Mass times delta V through core versus Mass times delta V through the open rotor ?
Hm.
Would a staggered system work? core + fan + open rotor ?
With all due respect, you seem to have misunderstood the crux of what I’ve been talking about. This is a question of long term strategy, not short term tactics.
The NB market for the next 20 years is projected by both OEMs to be at between 18000 and 21000 units, which mean that CFM and Pratt are not really out of the gate yet.
I do expect though that CFM will maintain their dominant market position in the near term. However, as the GTF technology matures, CFM risks being left behind on the neo during the latter part of the decade. However, the real threat to CFM would IMO be a RR/PW three spool geared two stage contra-rotating shrouded turbofan coming online a decade hence. If such a game-changing engine would be offered on the A320 – while retaining the PW-1100G partner set-up – IMO, Boeing would have to respond with an all new NB platform offering the same engine. If GE’s long term strategy is to only go hotter by introducing ever more advanced materials into the two spool core – such as ceramic matrix composite (CMC) turbine blades – on the existing two spool architecture, they may find themselves in a rather uncomfortable situation when RR/PW would also be using similar advanced materials in the core of a three spool geared two stage contra-rotating shrouded turbofan.
As Scott pointed out, GEnx is about 2 percent short on SFC, not meeting or exceeding sfc. However, I was mostly talking about the GenX-2b67 and the apparent fact that the shortened fan and the one less stage on both the LPC and the LPT don’t seem to have helped very much in the sfc department.
As for the TXWB, please do keep in mind – apart from the added IPT stage and other advances on the TXWB – that the development period is considerably longer for the TXWB than it was for the Trent-1000 and the Genx-1B64 (i.e. roughly 5 years vs. 3 years).
The TXWB engine could be offered as a new pricier engine option. Additionally, RR could buy-out those Trent-900 partners that are not on the TXWB, which btw would be similar to how PW has just bought RR out of the IAE consortium.
Yes it has. But so has the T1000, which you seem not to want to answer?
I posted: “The GEnx is expected to meet or slightly exceed sfc next year.”
You replied: “GEnx is also about 2% short on SFC, not meeting or exceeding.”
I replied: “Have a look at the last 2 words in my sentence”…
“The GEnx is expected to meet or slightly exceed sfc NEXT YEAR.”
You replied: “787 GEnx is still having its issues including SFC”
Here’s a view from another site below… Quote:
“During our testing, we noticed we needed to improve our SFC, and GE has plans in place to ensure we meet the SFC targets on both engine lines [the GEnx-1B on the 787 and GEnx-2B on the 747-8] through the PIP (performance improvement package) programmes,” General Electric Aircraft Engines (GEAE) spokeswoman Deborah Case acknowledged.
“GE Aviation is looking into a PIP programme for the GEnx-2B (which would be PIP 1 on the -2B), but it has not been finalised. The -1B PIP 1 provides a 1.4% improvement in SFC than the original configuration. PIP 2 will bring an additional 1.5% improvement in SFC,” Case conceded.
The PIP 1 and PIP 2 would deliver a combined 2.9% of reduction in the GEnx-1B engine’s specific fuel consumption (SFC) and bring the -1B engine, widely believed to have missed its original SFC target by 2%-3%, in line or slightly better than the SFC target originally envisioned.
“For PIP 1, we are nearing the end of ground testing and working on the FAA certification. GE has conducted flight tests on the engine and the results have been very position,” Case asserted.
“GE did ship engines in late May for flight testing. We anticipate the PIP 1 entering service early next year. PIP 2 on the GEnx-1B engine began testing in December 2010. We anticipate engine certification in June 2012 and entry into service in late 2012 or early 2013,” Case clarified.” END
I still don’t know what you found wrong with my original post? “The GEnx is expected to meet or slightly exceed sfc next year.”
I think if you ommit the “meet or exceed” your statement is OK.
Guy Norris wrote in late August that GENX1b.PIP2 to be certfied mid 2012
will bring sfc to within 1% of spec. That imho translates to sfc still 0.5 .. 0.9%
over spec.
A third PIP seems to be in the planning ( obviously, FlightBlogger from Jan 2011 )
but it is so far over the horizon that forex CargoLux balked at taking their pill
that way.
Thanks OV-099 for the clarification. Fair enough…
Quote: “The NB market for the next 20 years is projected by both OEMs to be at between 18000 and 21000 units, which mean that CFM and Pratt are not really out of the gate yet.”
I agree to a point. However in the NB market, we must consider that the New engines are not entering service until 2015/17 at the earliest … And the engine OEMs will be selling the current versions of their products until then and beyond (Both A & B have gone on record as saying that their current products would sell along side the NEO & MAX products for years after EIS of the new). Additionally, engine OEMs traditionally make way more money on ancillary services (spares, maintenance etc.) and not so much on initial sales. Engines are often heavily discounted at time of sale. There are examples where engines have been given at No cost up front (providing a contract was sighed for long term ancillary services).
If we look at the next 20 year horizon?
1 – For the next 5 years the current engine products will be the only option available.
2 – For the following 5 years there will be 2 options available? (% depends on ramp up)
3 – These engines will need spares and maintenance throughout their useful life. (20yrs. +/-)
So, It still looks very very good for GE/Snecma in the next 20 years even if there new product tanked! One could look at the recent PW/RR deal and see that RR will continue to produce parts, provide service and receive additional monies for 15 years as a result of being bought out of IAE (1st generation).
Quote: “However, the real threat to CFM would IMO be a RR/PW three spool geared two stage contra-rotating shrouded”
Before RR remarried PW, They were on record as saying their OR/3 Spool was the best way to go… A & B didn’t buy their version, they bought CFM and PW.
As far as the triple spool is concerned, I agree it has allot of potential. However, in the A380 race, the triple spool Trent 900 still lags the 2 spool GE/PW EA 7200 by 1% in SFC. So, I wouldn’t bet my life on the 3 spool being a game changer.
Quote: “As Scott pointed out, GEnx is about 2 percent short on SFC, not meeting or exceeding sfc. However, I was mostly talking about the GenX-2b67 and the apparent fact that the shortened fan and the one less stage on both the LPC and the LPT don’t seem to have helped very much in the sfc department.”
Again thanks, for the clarification regarding the version of the GEnx you were referring to. My comments were directed at the program in general. And, as I stated in several posts that “The GEnx is expected to meet or slightly exceed sfc next year.” GEnx-1B (NEXT YEAR) … It appears that Scott and I are also not on the same wavelength??
Quote: “The TXWB engine could be offered as a new pricier engine option. Additionally, RR could buy-out those Trent-900 partners that are not on the TXWB”
Again unlikely… Of all the A380 orders to date, all but 9 A/C have already selected their engines. Of the 9 remaining… 5 are from Kingfisher Airlines, and these are not likely to be ever delivered. At this stage, I find it highly improbable that the existing partners would be happy with a new arrangement that would deny them of what they were originally promised (by contract). Remember, this NEO would be starting from scratch (from when it would be available to order). RR already has less then 50% of the existing A380 engine orders. And, they would loose the compatibility with all the T900s currently in service. This would make some operators very unhappy. Additionally, it make PIPs for the T900 unlikely, and that would devalue all previous A380s w/T900s. Not a great deal for existing owners!
Sure, it looks good for CFM today and in the near term. Medium to long term success is IMO an open question. 😉
As for your first point, B seems to be married to GE while A didn’t want the three spool that were on offer. However, that three spool engine didn’t include a contra-rotating fan (i.e. 20+ percent reduction in SFC) nor did it include an intercooled recuperated core (i.e. a further 10 + percent reduction in SFC – in addition to a massive reduction in NOx emissions).
As for your second point, please do not that a TXWB powered A380 should have a 6-8 percent lower fuel cinsumption than a Trent-900 powered A380.
This would be really be no different than when GE was given full exclusivity on the 77W/77L/77F, consequently leaving out RR’s partners on the Trent-800. 😉 Slightly more than 500 Trent-800 engines have been delivered. It’s not unreasonable to assume that RR will deliver at least 400 Trent-900 engines, if not more, even if the TXWB engine was to be offered during the latter part of the decade. Some customers (i.e. LH, Air France) do not need the additional range a TWXB powered A380 would offer (range: 8600nm +), and would likely stay with the cheaper Trent-900 powered A380s for commonality reasons. BA proved with the 777-200 and the 777-200ER that a customer can even change engine manufacturer on very similar platforms, hence EK and other GP7200 customers could conceivably order additional A380s powered by TXWBs. A 6 percent lower fuel burn is IMO something that will make a lot of difference for A380 operators on the longest routes. For example, on the DXB-LAX route, a 6 percent reduction in fuel consumption may translate into a 12 tonne (i.e. 24 percent) increase in the payload capability (i.e. significantly increased revenue potential). That’s a huge increase in capability. Therefore, I’m sure that EK would love to introduce TXWB powered A380s on routes such as DXB-IAH/DFW/LAX/SFO.
As for your last point, it’s generally understood in the industry that an engine OEM wants to secure at least 400 sales for an engine type in order to offer PIPs. Therefore, I’m sure RR would be offering PIPs to Trent-900 customers even if they would be producing de-rated TXWBs for the A380.
I wouldn’t be too sure about the reliability. I have seen numbers where the UERs (Unplanned Engine Removals) for the CFM56 was much higher than for the V2500-A5.