Falcon 10X

I want to talk more about engine PIPs.

The CFM-56 has a great reputation for regular fuel burn reduction PIPs. It is one reason customers are so loyal to the engine.

The V2500 had to wait 16 years for its first fuel burn reduction PIP! That PIP helped re-ignite sales.

The CF-34 *never* had a fuel burn reduction PIP. Oh, new versions of the engine came out, but the old versions burn fuel as they did when they first entered the fleet.

Pratt needs to overcome a reputation of being 'stingy' with fuel burn improvement PIPs on the PW1000g. e.g.,:
But already P&W has promised to deliver a performance improvement package in 2019 with a 2% reduction in specific fuel consumption relative to the entry-into-service target. "One major distinction is that this is an additional fuel reduction beyond our initial commitment to Airbus and not a fuel recovery package or PIP due to a shortfall," P&W tells Flightglobal.

from http://www.flightglobal.com/news/art...siveness-in-a320neo-orders-409314/


Now the NEO GTF is less conservative than the C-series GTF. So it is possible Pratt will introduce a PIP as soon as Bombardier sells enough planes to justify the certification costs.

Note: I ignore PIPs to bring an engine up to promise fuel burn. That is doing what must be done to stop the guarantee payments (e.g., T1000, GEnX). The same with PIPs to bring maintenance intervals up to original guarantee (I'm looking at you PW2000). Pratt is gearing up to have PIPs for all of the PW1000G series to build a better reputation.

The fact these PIPs, if applied to the core, will also benefit the PW800 is just a bonus.    Sharing one core amount four product lines will really help economies of scale on the bulk of the engine manufacturing costs.

Product lines with a common core:
PW1524/PW1900G (same mechanical engine, 3 stage low compressor GTF)
PW1217/PW1700G (same mechanical engine, 2 stage low compressor GTF)
PW815 (same core, no GTF. PW814 is just a derated version), powers G500/G600
PW812 (same core, no GTF, smaller low spool than PW815), to power replacement of G450

Naturally, Pratt is trying to sell the same mechanical engines to more customers. The competition in the super-midsize business jet market is amazing between Pratt's PW800 family, RR (BMR700NG), SAFRAN's Silvercrest (will eventually be a family of engines), and any attempt by GE to market different sizes of the Passport. The competition for the Falcon 9X engine was the most brutal competition I've ever heard of for engine placement onto an airframe (Safran won). No typo, the not yet official Falcon 9X. I'm hearing things on the Longitude... As if they will reopen the engine competition a la Falcon 5X (first won by RR with the BR700NG, then when "reopened" it went to the Silvercrest). However, nothing definitive and I'm getting too off thread. Sort of how Pratt won the Columbus but when it was reopened it went to the Silvercrest too...

A Longitude redesign could carry wider implications for the supply chain. Cessna selected the Pratt & Whitney Canada PW810 engines to power the Columbus, but switched to the Snecma Silvercrest engine on the Longitude.
http://www.flightglobal.com/news/art...door-to-longitude-redesign-404965/

Now to get the Cseries into the fleet as it is meant to be the foundation of sales for that core...

Lightsaber

Poncho (Admin) a écrit:Pourquoi changer de moteur ?
Le PW ne couvre pas la plage ?