A319/A320/A321 NEO Partie 1

Dès que je me clone, promis, je me lance

Bonsoir !

2 articles de Flight global, large reprise de ce qui a été vu, plus qq détails sur le NEO !
Quand même un peu plus que les moteurs ... l'aile, pour le poids moteur .. le CFM, peut être plus lourd que le GTF !
Ils seraient aussi un peu plus puissants !
Et le train avant, on ne sait pas trop pourquoi, probable MTOW un peu accru !
Et qq nouveaux alliages type A380 au passage ! Ho-Ho ! Al Li, Glare ???
Le tout pour 2'5 milliards ... plus que je ne pensais, plus de boulot aussi !
Noter aussi qu'ils pensent (Intox ?) que Boeing s'il part sur un avion NG c'est trop tôt, les moteurs ne sont pas prêts, et ils devront, Boeing, s'appuyer sur les nouveaux moteurs actuels, LeapX et GTF !
En gros seulement un 1/2 step en avant ! Info-Intox ....

------------------- FG -1 Extrait ----------------

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2010/05/12/341873/airbus-aims-to-keep-it-simple-with-a320-neo.html

But despite hints from Seattle that such a move is being considered, Williams is determined not to let this influence the definition of the A320 NEO, which is envisaged as being little more than a re-engined version of the current aircraft.

"I want to avoid being sucked into the A350 scenario again, which started out as an A330 re-engining," he said at the Airbus Innovations Days event at its Broughton, UK plant, which was held on 10-11 May. "Airbus needs to be disciplined and not to have scope creep" with the A320 NEO, he added.

Williams believes that Airbus and the engine makers have a "window of opportunity to exploit" with the A320 NEO, and moves to complicate the offering could cause the planned 2015 in-service date to slip and therefore jeopardise the business case for the aircraft.

Williams estimates that an all-new single-aisle would cost $10 billion to develop, around four times that estimated for an upgrade programme such as the A320 NEO.


Airbus has been examining the structural changes necessary to accommodate the installation of new engines, but its aim is to keep these to a minimum. Williams says that the new engines are potentially "600-800lb [270-370kg] heavier" than today's CFM56 and International Aero Engines V2500 powerplants. Their higher thrust and bigger inlets would also "give us some issues aerodynamically - wing bend and twist etc".

This will mean the outer wing will need reinforcing, but Williams says the hope is that Airbus "won't have to do too much to the centre wingbox".

Although Airbus aims to continue to offer the current engines in parallel with the NEO, Williams says that ideally production would be standardised around the heavier, reinforced wing as this is "the simplest and preferred option from an industrial standpoint".

The first official image released by Airbus of the A320 NEO reveals that the wingtips will incorporate the new "sharklet" winglet design, as expected.

Despite the new engines' higher thrust, Williams says that studies indicate that it would be unlikely there would be any need to enlarge the fin or tailplane to compensate for engine-out operations.

Another area that will need attention is the landing gear and Williams says that while studies into the sizing are ongoing, the aim is to "avoid a significant change".

No significant material changes are envisaged to save weight, says Williams, although Airbus may "take advantage" of new aluminium alloys that have been used in the A380.

Williams says that while from a technical perspective the GTF might be the better option as it fan-drive gearbox layout makes it more obvious where its performance gains come from, he sees the commercial argument as less strong because of P&W's weak position in the small-engine market. "Up to now they've accessed that market through IAE. We'd like them to keep the IAE relationship but for the moment the partners can't find a way to do that," he says.

However, Williams says that if agreement cannot be reached by the IAE partners, then Airbus "would countenance doing a separate deal with P&W", for its GTF.

P&W's IAE partner Rolls-Royce is not in the running as prospective supplier for the A320 NEO, says Williams. "We don't think they've got a solution that works for re-engining. We've had a lot of discussions but none of their ideas work for a re-engining programme from a technical or commercial point of view."

C'est comme cela ... RR hors circuit, malgré le cinéma et l'intox au RB282, des RR boy's, rien n'y fait !

------------------ Et Le lien - FG 2 ---------------
http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2010/05/12/341885/airbus-details-a30x-thinking-dismisses-boeing-all-new-airplane.html

JPRS

J'allais poster l'article !!
Il me reste le dessin !



Ça se précise quand même de plus en plus...........

Airbus points sharklet A321 at 757 replacement market

By [url=mailto://]Jon Ostrower[/url]

Airbus is confident that performance upgrades in the pipeline for its
single-aisle ­family will give its largest model, the A321, a sufficient
range boost for a genuine shot at the huge ­Boeing
757-200 replacement ­market.The airframer's chief operating
officer for customers, John Leahy, believes that the new 'sharklet'
winglets, which will provide a 3.7% reduction in fuel burn and around
220km (120nm) more range on the A321 from 2012, means there are "great
opportunities to replace the 757-200".According to Airbus there
are 689 passenger 757-200s in service, with several large fleets
operating with US carriers including American Airlines, Continental
Airlines, Delta Air Lines and United
Airlines. The latter is in the early stages of a fleet renewal
evaluation for its 96 aircraft, although this may be affected by its
proposed merger with Continental Airlines.The 757, which is
slightly larger that the A321, has always had superior payload-range,
but the sharklet upgrade gives the Airbus single-aisle "true US
transcontinental range capability", says Leahy.He adds that the
sharklet-outfitted A321 will be able to operate between Boston and San
Francisco or San Francisco and Maui, Hawaii, with maximum passengers -
similar to routes flown by the US 757 operators - but with a 17% per
seat fuel burn advantage, based on a 185-seat A321 and 192-seat 757-200.Equipped
with Aviation Partners Boeing winglets, the 757 has a range of 8,300km,
which is around 2,600km more than the A321, giving it transatlantic
range.Airbus vice-president for customer affairs Andy Shankland
concedes that the transatlantic routes flown by some US 757 operators
are beyond the capability of the A321, and says that the primary focus
centres on US transcontinental routes.Qatar
Airways chief executive Akbar Al Baker, whose airline is a major A320-family
operator, said recently that Airbus' proposed 'new engine option'
re-engining with advanced turbofans would provide an even more
significant boost in performance for the A321.Boeing is not being
idle on its current narrowbody family, and will decide this year on
re-engining for the 737 to give a potential fuel burn improvement of
10-15%.Airbus claims that the A321 with sharklets has an 8%
fuel-burn advantage over the current version of the largest 737, the
173-seat -900ER. However Boeing plans to deliver a 2% improvement in
fuel burn for the 737 next year through the new CFM56-7BE
engine and an aerodynamic clean-up.
http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2010/05/14/341981/airbus-points-sharklet-a321-at-757-replacement-market.html

Bonjour à tous.
Poncho, est-ce qu'il n'y aurait pas lieu de changer la couleur des links dans les encadrés orange, par exemple en jaune au lieu d'orange sur orange ?

Bonjour !

C'est pas la relève, mais juste avant !

JL joue de la guitare, avec les winglets du 321 !
Bien, un chiffre à retenir !
C'est pas 2, c'est pas 6, c'est 3,7% c'est peut être le vérité, enfin !
Lee A321 va remplacer le 757 .. avec un pauvre 120 Nm de plus ... bof, en continental peut être, mais en transatlantique ... nope !
Faut pas se moquer du monde non plus !
Bataille d'arrière garde avant les remotorisations, 10-15 points et 500nm à rajouter !

Personne ne va s'y tromper ... faudra attendre 3 ans de plus pour les moteurs !
Et tout le monde s'en fout ... le carnet est plein ...
Donc RV en 2015-16 Pour, peut être, traverser l'atlantique avec des A320 full et peut être des 321 !

Réaction des clients ... a suivre, on va peut être rigoler un peu ....
Super teasing, on le comprends, vers les cies US ou Airbus, est en perte de vitesse ...
Et aussi pour contrer, certaines velléités d'y aller pour son compte, côté winglets, par certaines cies US !

Noté aussi que CFMI, finit par faire un effort côté 737 !
100% sur l'avion, Error ... +/- 66% (75 %) de la production CFMI, ben faut pas l'oublier celui là (Le 737), qq'un s'en est souvenu, merci !

---------------- Flightglobal reporte sur JL L'article --------------

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2010/05/14/341981/airbus-points-sharklet-a321-at-757-replacement-market.html

Airbus points sharklet A321 at 757 replacement market
By Jon Ostrower

Airbus is confident that performance upgrades in the pipeline for its single-aisle ­family will give its largest model, the A321, a sufficient range boost for a genuine shot at the huge ­Boeing 757-200 replacement ­market.

The airframer's chief operating officer for customers, John Leahy, believes that the new 'sharklet' winglets, which will provide a 3.7% reduction in fuel burn and around 220km (120nm) more range on the A321 from 2012, means there are "great opportunities to replace the 757-200".

According to Airbus there are 689 passenger 757-200s in service, with several large fleets operating with US carriers including American Airlines, Continental Airlines, Delta Air Lines and United Airlines. The latter is in the early stages of a fleet renewal evaluation for its 96 aircraft, although this may be affected by its proposed merger with Continental Airlines.

The 757, which is slightly larger that the A321, has always had superior payload-range, but the sharklet upgrade gives the Airbus single-aisle "true US transcontinental range capability", says Leahy.

He adds that the sharklet-outfitted A321 will be able to operate between Boston and San Francisco or San Francisco and Maui, Hawaii, with maximum passengers - similar to routes flown by the US 757 operators - but with a 17% per seat fuel burn advantage, based on a 185-seat A321 and 192-seat 757-200.

Equipped with Aviation Partners Boeing winglets, the 757 has a range of 8,300km, which is around 2,600km more than the A321, giving it transatlantic range.

Airbus vice-president for customer affairs Andy Shankland concedes that the transatlantic routes flown by some US 757 operators are beyond the capability of the A321, and says that the primary focus centres on US transcontinental routes.

Qatar Airways chief executive Akbar Al Baker, whose airline is a major A320-family operator, said recently that Airbus' proposed 'new engine option' re-engining with advanced turbofans would provide an even more significant boost in performance for the A321.

Boeing is not being idle on its current narrowbody family, and will decide this year on re-engining for the 737 to give a potential fuel burn improvement of 10-15%.

Airbus claims that the A321 with sharklets has an 8% fuel-burn advantage over the current version of the largest 737, the 173-seat -900ER. However Boeing plans to deliver a 2% improvement in fuel burn for the 737 next year through the new CFM56-7BE engine and an aerodynamic clean-up.

JPRS

Bonjour !

Allez je vous passe le meilleur avis que j'aie croisé, concernant les re-motorisations 320/737, et, depuis longtemps !

A lire d'abord, je reprendrai ensuite !
C'EST ENORME DE JUSTESSE !

C'est long, mais ça vaut la peine ... Tout est dit !
Fallait le trouver celui là HéHé !

Et tous mes compliments pour l'auteur !
AISI fred bearden !
Il a tout compris ...

Et c'est rare sur le web Français .... de comprendre qq chose sur cette future remotorisation ... les pages s'empilent, sans rien apporter, que des pleurs sur RR (Qui a d'autres marchés, c'est trés bien, mais qui n'est pas prêt, sur ce coup, c'est évident), ou les MRO ... le tout noyé dans une profusion de pages de DPO sans intérêt, (Enfin presque, j'y reviendrai) !
Combat d'arrière garde, s'il en est, on connaît , quand RR (Que j'aime bien, en plus !) est concerné !

---------------------- Une publication AISI par Speed news --------------

http://www.speednews.com/CMS.aspx?pn=STW_aisi&pid=2792

By Fred Bearden, CEO, AISI

Recently a lot has been said about the prospects of Airbus re-engining its A320 family and Boeing doing the same to its 737 family.

There have been dire predictions that the re-engining process will cost too much, weigh too much, be less reliable, and will depress present aircraft values.

Here’s our take on the subject.

We think re-engining is all but inevitable.

Sure, Airbus and Boeing would really rather keep on selling the models they have, but on the other hand they really, really don’t want to have to introduce all new models to replace the A320 and 737 until the emerging new technologies have had a chance to mature, about ten years from now..

It is one thing to break new ground on some large aircraft with composite airframes, all-electric systems and bleedless engines, as will be the case with the new 787 and to a degree with the even newer A350XWB. These large widebody aircraft are of a scale to benefit easily from composite structure, and are a natural developing ground for new systems and new but not quite so radical engines.

It is quite another thing to take even bigger risks on even more radical engines with the smaller, more difficult design cases of the 150 – 200 seat narrowbody domestic aircraft that are far more economically important to the big airframers.

Airlines have been clamoring for some time for better narrowbody aircraft, and the only way to at least partially satisfy them and still not take huge technological risks before new engines and systems have time to prove themselves is to offer re-engined variants of the present airframes, making use of the latest developments of the turbofan engine that will become available in the next 3 to 4 years. The target is an operating cost reduction on the order of 10 to 15 percent.

The leading engines are the GE/Snecma CFM56 LEAP engine with a fan diameter of 70 to 75 inches and a bypass ratio of about 10, using integral blade/discs and a composite fan to reduce weight, and the Pratt & Whitney geared fan, the PW1000 or variant, which uses a reduction gearbox to better match the optimum higher engine speeds with the slower speeds best for the fan. The Pratt fan is supposed to be 75 inches or more, with more being better in this case.

The Airbus folks flight tested a pre-production model of the P&W geared fan and have been unusually non-committal on the results, but are working like beavers to be able to offer a re-engine version of the A320-200 later this year. That seems like a lot of effort if results were less than very good; we think they are just holding their cards close to their vest.

They also have announced they want at least two engines to offer; they are pressuring Rolls and Pratt to join forces again under the IAE banner to offer the Pratt designed geared fan. The second engine will probably be a version of the CFM LEAP.

Rolls Royce has other directions in mind, but has been remarkably silent on any new 20,000 pound thrust category twin shaft or three shaft engine development. Rolls has made no secret of their dislike for geared fans, and indeed earlier geared fans were not successful, to say the least.
But it is a bit late for Rolls to enter a new engine to the re-engine competition, and it would be strange indeed for Pratt to shelve its geared fan to join Rolls in a new IAE V engine a la LEAP or even an all new three shaft design.

So the betting is either Rolls caves and joins Pratt in an IAE geared fan offer, or Pratt goes it alone, regardless of Airbus’s preference to stick with the present engine vendors. If it is to be the latter that would leave Rolls in a very exposed position, offering new engines only suitable for widebody aircraft.

As we said, we think Airbus will commit, first to satisfy the near term desires of its customers, second to buy time before they have to offer an all new design, and third because re-engining for the A320 is relatively inexpensive, and they think they have an advantage over a Boeing re-engined 737.

Even a re-engined A320 variant needs at least a 7 to 10 year production run to be economically viable. Boeing doesn’t want to rush into an all new 737 replacement either, but they cannot allow a re-engined A320 to dominate the all-important narrowbody market for that long.

So Boeing will have to follow with its own 737 re-engining program. And indeed, the Boeing 737 has some 7 to 8 inches less room to work with under wing than does the Airbus A320, and thus, all things equal, cannot accommodate as big an engine fan without some really fancy pylon work that puts the engine way out in front of the wing and looks nasty from the standpoint of weight and structural efficiency.

But, the largest fan may not be the best solution for Boeing anyway. Matching an engine to an existing airframe is always a complex compromise. Thrust, weight, fuel efficiency, drag, frontal area, noise, emissions, all must be placed in balance. And then there are the considerations of cost and reliability.

Take the present 737 Next Generation family, for example. It competes quite well with its 60.5 inch diameter fan engine, the CFM56-7B series, against the 68.5 inch diameter fan of the CFM56-5 series on the A320 family. In fact, the smaller 63.5 inch fan of the IAE V2725-A5 competes well with the larger CFM engine on the same A320 airframe.

And Airbus may not enjoy the advantage they think they have over Boeing. Remember that the 737 has a smaller fuselage diameter than the A320, and for the same capacity the 737 empty weight tends to be less. That means less drag, more aerodynamic efficiency; not by much, but it is there.

You will also note that Airbus has had a difficult time putting large efficient winglets on the A320. This appears to be due to the margins of safety in the outer wing; they did not initially design in enough strength to handle the extra loads imposed by the optimum large winglet and the process of adding that strength incurs a weight penalty that offsets a significant part of the advantage the winglet offers.

This suggests that Airbus may face some difficult wing strengthening issues with a new engine as well, and may be one reason they have been less than informative about the potential of re-engining. But, as said, we think Airbus will overcome the obstacles and offer a re-engined A320 that will be significantly better than the present models of either manufacturer.

Boeing certainly has its share of re-engining problems too. There have been disturbing reports of some rather extreme pylon designs being considered to place the largest fan possible under the 737 wing – or rather, way out in front of it. That will raise all sorts of other issues such as weight, rigidity, vibration and just simply keeping the fan exhaust away from the under side of the wing.

We think Boeing will find simpler practical solutions; probably not trying to match Airbus in fan diameter, and probably electing to stay with CFM and install a version of the new LEAP engine which should have lower weight and less technological risk compared to the PW geared fan.

Speaking of technological risk, that bears on another vital issue in the re-engining story; reliability. Today’s newest narrowbody engines are providing superb reliability, now routinely staying on wing for over 10,000 cycles. No airline will accept any decline in that level of reliability, but it is well to consider that it has taken the engine manufacturers over 20 years to achieve it with the present engines.

To take a radically new engine such as the PW geared fan or even the highly advanced CFM56-LEAP engine, and have it deliver at the start the same reliability as the present engines represents at least as large a challenge as attaining the fuel efficiency, noise and emissions goals that have been set for these new engines.

But, at the end of the day, we expect Airbus to offer PW geared fan and CFM56 LEAP re-engined versions of the A320 and Boeing to offer a slightly smaller fan CFM56 LEAP engine on the 737. We’d be very surprised if both airplanes are not very competitive, just as they are today.

And, yes, for the pessimists out there, the re-engined aircraft will indeed depress values of the present models – but what is new about that?

It should not be an economic disaster, any more than was the introduction of the 737 Next Generation to the 737 Classic, or the Classic to the 737-200.

The facts are that both the A320 and the 737 NG are in about their last five or six years of production run, which will be ended either by the re-engine programs, or by a perhaps premature introduction of all new replacement aircraft. We think re-engining is a better alternative for the manufacturers, the airlines and even the lessors, and the impact on present aircraft values will be less.

Aircraft produced in the last five years of a production run always lose their value much faster than earlier aircraft, but the re-engined aircraft will still be derivatives, and we would expect the effect on present aircraft values to be only slightly more than the effect on the 737 Classics values when the 737 NG was introduced.

Historically as operating aircraft first become technologically obsolete and lose value they begin to trade off the advantage of reduced capital costs with the disadvantage of higher operating costs, and the trade-offs sustain the older aircraft in the marketplace for quite some time. Besides, it will take several years of high new aircraft production rates to permit the replacement of a significant part of the existing fleet under any circumstances.

Finally, we know nothing yet about the price of the re-engined variants. Their real offering price cannot be at much of a premium to the present models, based on a 10% to at best 15% operating cost improvement, especially in view of the likelihood that the re-engined aircraft will have at best a very short 10 year production run before they themselves are challenged by all new replacement designs, and their values decline.

It is looking like those all new replacement aircraft will not appear before the middle of the next decade, or almost 15 years from now, and they will have to offer at least another 15% improvement in operating costs, noise, and emissions while sustaining advantages in reliability and price.

That is going to be quite a challenge, and we not have heard that anyone can see the way clear for that to happen yet, which is the compelling reason not to try to do it prematurely, but to follow the alternative path of re-engining.

Some engine manufacturers are suggesting that unducted fans (we used to call them propellers) are the answer for the future. We hope not. Having survived the era of propeller driven aircraft, we do not want to return to it.

Propellers have an annoying habit of disengaging from the body of the engine and hitting various parts of the airframe, causing very nasty accidents. Thus airframe designers tend to want to put the unducted fans far at the rear of the fuselage, separated widely apart and high above the wing, where errant propellers are less likely to pierce the pressure vessel, take out another engine, or destroy control surfaces.

The trouble is, that is also a very dirty place full of damage causing foreign objects, it causes center of gravity problems and in general it requires a large pylon and probably some heavy shielding. It is not the optimum place to put an engine from the airframer’s perspective.

The unducted fan also has a preference to run at aircraft cruise speeds slower than that of a turbofan engine, which means loss of productivity. Noise is also an issue with unducted fans, and if you are concerned about the reliability of one gearbox on the geared fan engine, be prepared to worry about some 15 to 20 propeller pitch change gearboxes on the unducted fan. No, thank you.

Fortunately for me, I guess, these will be problems for the next generation to face and solve and I would be quite happy to see the problems delayed until some time in the middle of the next decade.

JPRS

Reprinted Courtesy of Aircraft Information Services, Inc. (AISI)

Salut JP,
En effet, quelle magnifique synthèse. Tout est dit et dans le contexte historique futur. Le re-engining pour 10-15 ans est un passage obligé pour les deux. Des problèmes à prévoir, mais rien de majeur.
Une seule question me vient à l'esprit : fred a-t-il si peu confiance dans les nouveau prétendants qu'il ne les mentionne même pas ?
Les Chinois sont capables de battre Airbus sur le terrain des 320 re-engined, d'autant plus qu'ils ont le marché captif pour les écouler.
Commentaires ?

Une question qui me tracasse : pourquoi doit-on renforcer la voilure pour y adapter des winglets/sharklets. Est-ce un problème de torsion du caisson, de vibrations ou de changement des modes de flexion de l'aile ?

Salut Jean !

Bof ... entre des re-motoridations,qui vont donner le 15-16, sans toucher à l'airframe (+3-4) pour airbus avec les winglets !
Et 0,5 % de progrès, par an (Conservateur) pour les moteurs pendant 10 ans .... P&W n'hésite pas à annoncer (En chauffant plus dur !) 5-7 points de plus avant 2020 ....
Donc, les Projets 25-30 % , avec l'airframee, et les PB open rotors, ben, c'est pas réglé, va falloir relever le cut off !

D'autant plus que des progrès cellule et ailes ne sont pas exclus sur les actuels !
A la limite, une nouvelle coque et ailes, optimisée carbone etc , ferait le boulot pour les -25 %
Alors ... quezkonfait !
Au point que certains acteurs du débat commencent à penser que la NG , n'a pas encore trouvé sa voie !

JPRS

Autrement dit, ça ne vaut pas vraiment la peine de se casser la tête pour des peanuts en optimisant l'aile avec des winglets à haut rendement...

Pas d'accord Jean !
Airbus a 3-4 points de retard sur Boeing Vs le 737, pour les winglets, c'est leur karma !
Et les avions peuvent en gagner autant, entre poids et finesse, en restant proches des désign actuels !
C'est aux NG de bosser un peu mieux !
Ils sont en train de se faire rejoindre par les meilleures actualisations ...
Merde alors !
Va falloir avancer encore un peu !
Grand dilemme, pour RR et GE avec leurs open rotors ... va encore falloir inventer mieux que ces vrais idiots de P&W qui nous mordent les talons avec leur machin, s'ils le font chauffer un peu plus ... enfin, ce sera vers les 2020, après ... on verra qq chose de nouveau viendra, c'est probable !

JPRS

Là je ne suis pas sûr de bien comprendre. Comment peux-tu gagner 3-4 % sans redesign majeur ?

Salut Jean !

J'ai modifié mon post !
Les 3-4 % ce sont les winglets Airbus, pour 2012, point de retard évident sur le 737, karma de Airbus, 3 ans qu'ils merdent sur le sujet !

JPRS

Vector a écrit:Une question qui me tracasse : pourquoi doit-on renforcer la voilure pour y adapter des winglets/sharklets. Est-ce un problème de torsion du caisson, de vibrations ou de changement des modes de flexion de l'aile ?

Sais pas, mais il se dit que l'aile du A320 était tellement parfaite, le juste ce qu'il faut !
Que toute modification, winglets, ou moteurs, implique des renforts !
C'est comme ça !

JPRS

Vector a écrit:Autrement dit, ça ne vaut pas vraiment la peine de se casser la tête pour des peanuts en optimisant l'aile avec des winglets à haut rendement...

Ben si, 3-4 points rendus à Boeing avec son 737 !
Ca fait partie du jeux et du paquet!
Incontournable,mais, qq centaines de Kg à la clef !

Cela aurait été plus intelligent de les intégrer (Optimiser) avec les re-motorisations ...

Pas dans le timing ! Cest comme ça !

JPRS

Est-ce qu'ils seront retrofittables sur la flotte actuelle ou est-ce que ça implique de modifier la voilure ?

Ben, personne ne sait ... ca va dépendre des poids réels ... à l'arrivée !

Et de ce côté va visiter Sévrien, dans son fouillis un peu compulsif,(Panic Button côté RR ) il soulève un bon lièvre !
C'est vrai qu'entre un LeapX et un RB282, dans les limbes pour l'instant ... les dimensions et implications sur le profil de l'aile pourraient être proches !
Les modifs éventuelles à apporter à l'aile F/ des nouveaux moteurs, ce sera peut être difficile à optimiser "Commonaliser" entre les 2 would be motors ... GTF et LeapX, dilutions et Diamètres différents ...!

Donc, les mêmes PB vont émerger, pour motoriser en rétrofit, poids à gérer, profil de l'aile, et éventuelle perte de rendement !
C'est dit dans l'article, pour les éventuelles pertes de rendement, un trade off, en sorte, si l'aile supporte, sais pas ???

Et quid de l'apport des éventuels renforts pour les Winglets ... vont ils aider les re-motorisations, ce serait intelligent ?? Sais pas!

JPRS

Beochien a écrit:C'est vrai qu'entre un LeapX et un RB282, dans les limbes pour l'instant ... les dimensions et implications sur le profil de l'aile pourraient être proches...

Pour cela, il faudrait que RR ait un calendrier et des perfos nominales à offrir, mais si les gardes au sol le permettent, pourquoi pas ?

Bonjour à tous,
Merci Beochien, pour cet article effectivement superbement rédigé : tout y est!
Comme vous, j'aurais bien aimé voir RR un peu plus dans le timing... ou bien se pourrait il qu'ils cachent leurs cartes, eux aussi ?
Sinon, comment fait on pour "visiter Sevrien" ? Je m'étonnais de ne plus le voir poster ici (je ne sais pas pourquoi d'ailleurs), poste-t'il ailleurs ?
Bon week-end,

Bonjour !

Pour ceux qui peuvent rentrer ...

Un combat d'arrière garde possiblement perdu ... sauf si RR pas vraiment prêt accepte de devenir un sous traitant de luxe sur le moteur IAE ...
Ce que je ne crois pas ... bien qu'il reste un peu de temps pour se décider ...

Je mets juste l'entrée, j'ai pas l'entrée perso !

Pour les privilégiés

Juste l'antithèse ! Il faut tout lire, on fera les comptes à l'arrivée ...
Je souhaite vraiment une lecture de toutes les lignes, c'est contestable, intéressant et totalement instructif !
Dieu reconnaitra les siens .... Ouaf !
Allez y les petits !

IAE est le seul itinéraire pour un quelconque GTF vers l'aile des monocouloirs d'Airbus existants, désignés pour l'opération NEO éventuelle ...

aeronewsline.forumactif.com/...f6/pw-son-gtf-t482-48.htm

Si le lien marche, pour les privilégiés !

Sinon, débrouillez vous !

http://www.google.fr/search?hl=fr&source=hp&q=A320+NEO+GTF&meta=&btnG=Recherche+Google

IAE est le seul itinéraire pour un quelconque GTF vers l'aile des monocouloirs d'Airbus existants, désignés pour l'opération NEO éventuelle ...

Pas impossible, qq mois restent pour négocier .... mais qui sera le leader ??? RV fin d'année !

JPRS

Bonsoir !

Excellent article de Flight global qui n'avait pas été à la une, du moins pas vu ! Rencontré sur Google !
Les remplacements NG du 737-320, résumé historiques et prospectives, Ben ça ne tombe pas loin de mes conclusions ... précédentes,
Va falloir rehausser la barre !
Et pour quelle année !
C'est tout !

J'ajoute quand même ....
Pas exclu non plus qu'un petit Bi-Couloir soit lancé, par Boeing ... mais today, ce sera une génération plus proche du 787, que franchement la NG attendue ... avec un marché type 757-767-A300, mais pas du type 737-321 !
Dans les 100-150 et qq par an, pas dans les 7-800 !
C'est un créneau ...

-------------------------L'article du 11 mars par Flightglobal ------------------------


http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/flightblogger/2010/03/flashback-boeings-2012-737-rep.html


Flashback: Boeing's 2012 737 Replacement Study

Once upon a time, before a single 787 barrel had been wrapped, Boeing let itself dream big about the future of the 737. Not to say that the big dreaming stopped, but it was just over taken by the engineering need on 787 and a massively growing 737 backlog between 2006-2008 that pushed the need for a replacement to the early part of the next decade.

Had Boeing gone ahead with the 737RS, today we would be just two to five years away from entry into service. The 737RS was part of Project 20XX, which spawned the Sonic Cruiser and 787 initial technology studies, and broke down Boeing's future ambition into three categories: Y1, Y2 and Y3. Y1, the 100-200 seat market, was the 737 replacement. Y2, the 200-350 seat replacement, is what we know as the 787. Y3 at 350-450 seats covered the 777 market.

Mike Cave, now president of Boeing Capital Corporation, was appointed as the study's director in 2006. At the time, not much was known about Boeing's 737RS plans, more than that the aircraft was set to be a mini-787:

According to industrial sources, Boeing has accelerated the pace of the 737RS study effort and even plans to make its initial pass on prospective supplier teams by mid-2006. The RS/Y1 concept is based around an all-composite 787-like structure, fly-by-wire, more-electric system architecture, EVS-integrated avionics flightdeck, and a cabin cross-section "wider than A320". Aerodynamic improvements include a longer span wing, single-slotted flaps, raked and blended-winglet wingtip options, blended fin root and 787-like Section 41 (nose and flightdeck).

Airbus launched its own NSR (new single aisle replacement) study and reached similar conclusions about what a 2012 narrowbody replacement could provide for gains in efficiency.

Initial results from both NSR and RS/Y1 studies have, apparently, been less than stellar. Acting completely independently, the two studies have come up with similar results for their individual concepts, which fall far short of the ideal targets set for the 2012 timeframe airliner.

Airbus NSR Phase 1 results, for example, are believed to have indicated that if all the advanced technology (available and considered mature and sufficiently low-risk for entry into service in 2012) was poured into the aircraft, the best specific fuel consumption reduction would be 4%, the best operating cost reduction 3% and the best emissions reduction would be 5%. The numbers are also said to be within 0.5-1% for all parameters for the initial phases of Boeing's RS/Y1.

These results therefore mean the aggregate benefit of all the combined results indicates a maximum efficiency improvement of only around 9-10% over the current A320/737 models. Given the estimated $7 billion development pricetag (airframe, systems and engine technology) involved in the NSR, insiders say Airbus in particular is asking if the venture is "too much, too soon".

Then, like now, the engine technology was the driving factor in getting narrowbody efficiency gains of 20%. However, as Boeing and Airbus target 15% improvement with re-engined 737s and A320s, next generation engine technology found in the LEAP-X, PW1000G and RB285 has provided a 50% boost in efficiency expectations from the RS/Y1 & NSR original studies.

Though does this create a dilemma down the road for Airbus and Boeing? If 10-15% gains in efficiency can be yielded with a re-engining program on existing models for a mid-decade entry into service, is an additional 5% over today's aircraft for a replacement 202X (a total gain of 20%) enough to justify the development of a completely new aircraft type? To really make mark, do the 202X replacements really need 30-35% improvement gains over today's aircraft?

A leap too far?

JPRS

Bonjour !

Re-engine or not Re-engine ! Pour les B737 ??
Les investisseurs sont douteux .... rien n'est écrit !

Des chiffres et des avis d'investisseurs, durant des journées dédiées à ceux ci, chez Boeing !
Morgan Stanley au créneau, pour ses investisseurs !

Un article de Leeham qui s'appuie sur une note de Morgan-Stanley (Non dispo sur le net now)
Bien, qq numéros en "Petits" Billions de $ !
2 - 3 milliards, pour la re-motorisationdu 737, la moitié peut être pour le A320 (C'est moi qui le dit)
Mais beaucoup plus grave ... 8-10 % d'efficacité , une différence en faveur d'Airbus ...a re-motorisation "Egale" des 320-737

J'ajoute ... les Analystes sont méchants, avec ce 8-10 % Je voyais 3,7 % , pour les Winglets, et 2-3 % pour les moteurs, à dilution un peu plus faible sous l'aile du 737 .... bon, peut être rajouter une conso un poil meilleure actuellement pour les VR2500, et ce n'est pas si évident, ça dépends des type de trajets !
Allez, à l'œil, je vois les 10 % un peu forts ... mais quand les analystes veulent enfoncer un clou ....!

Et un coût de développement de 13 milliards pour Boeing, pour une NG, qui ne disposera que des moteurs en développement actuellement (Pas des open rotors, qui ne seront pas prêts)

Ca, c'est à considérer aussi ... un 1/2 NG en quelque sorte pour remplacer le 737 vers 2017-18!
Va falloir inventer dur ou attendre un peu plus chez Boeing !

Ne pas oublier non plus les qq pistes publiées précédemment, qui montrent que, à côté des open rotors"...
Eh bien, les turbo-fan de très haute dilution (Bonjour les pas variables de RR ??? ou des Russes, qui sait ), vont très loin aussi dans les économies ... mais lesquels ... ce n'est pas encore la génération qui arrive !

Va falloir patienter 5 ans au moins, pour voir : les solutions réalistes! Mais pas des moteurs disponible .... sortir de chez les motoristes !

C'est le gros dilemme de Boeing !

A voir sur la fin qq slides de JL Airbus, et autres rapportées !
Pas toujours clair en l'absence des explications ...

-------------------- Extrait de la Com Leeham Tout frais ----------------------------

http://leehamnews.wordpress.com/2010/05/19/re-engine-new-or-do-nothing/


A second aerospace analyst has weighed in with the opinion that Boeing is likely to choose a replacement for the 737 rather than a re-engine solution.

Heidi Wood of Morgan Stanley published this note today, as Boeing’s investors’ day begins.

The bottom line – Another New Plane Ahead – BA’s Going To Do A New Single Aisle: We believe Boeing will be announcing a new narrowbody replacement to the well-worn and highly popular 737 instead of the less costly, but inferior solution of re-engining.

This means a $13B-type R&D effort ahead in lieu of a possible $2-3B R&D for re-engining, which was previously in our model. We are now lowering outyear estimates to reflect a projected new narrowbody 2012 launch and 2017-2018 entry into service (EIS, first delivery). We believe consensus earningsexpectations will be revised down significantly on higher R&D.

Why An All New Plane? We expect Airbus to announce an A320 re-engining sometime before yearend; BA will likely announce its plans around the same time. It is not generally known, but on a re-engine to re-engine equivalent basis, we believe the Airbus A320 ends up w/ a 8-10% better fuel burn than the 737, rendering the $3B R&D cost to re-engine largely ineffective. The 737 has been refreshed three times already since its first inception in 1967. And with 5 low end single aisle competitors ~mid-decade, we think BA is prudent to be pre-emptive with an all-new airplane.

Joe Nadol of JP Morgan and Joe Campbell disagree, thinking a re-engine is more likely.

So does Boeing rival Airbus, where COO-Customers John Leahy suggests all the talk about a replacement 737 is Boeing disinformation aimed at muddying Airbus’ waters.

Leahy believes Boeing would be foolish to proceed with a new airplane with a 2019-20 EIS (that predicted by Buckingham Research; Wood predicts 2017-2018, which we think is perhaps a year or two two soon), only to be followed by an all-new, much more efficient A320 replacement in the 2025-27 period.

Airbus is betting that the Open Rotor engine will be the solution rather than the PW GTF or CFM Leap-X engines, which are being considered for re-engine solutions.

At the Airbus Innovation Days, Leahy displayed several charts that showed fuel burn improvement and residual value data to make his case for a re-engine program.

Utiliser le lien , pour la suite !

JPRS

Salut Beochien

Décidemment, les slides d'Airbus sur ses concurrents sont tjs sympas...

Belle partie de manivelle qui se joue là
Pendant ce temps Boeing repasse à 34 avions par mois en 2012...

34 / Mois, ben si c'est pour livrer au plus vite, c'est pas bête .... moins de remotorisations à discuter sur les bras ...

Et surtout faire rentrer de l'argent dans les caisses, car c'est bien le 737 qui est le plus rentable pour Boeing

Salut à tous,

Et les slides de Bombardier valent aussi leur pesant de cacahuètes !



Amicalement