Skip to comments.Boeing Picks GE Engine for Proposed 747 Advanced
Posted on 04/25/2005 4:57:26 PM PDT by Paleo Conservative
BOSTON (Reuters) - Boeing Co. (BA.N: Quote, Profile, Research) has selected General Electric Co.'s (GE.N: Quote, Profile, Research) next-generation jet engine to power the plane maker's proposed 747 Advanced airplane, GE said on Monday.
The choice of General Electric's GEnx engine comes as Boeing mulls a 747 Advanced to strengthen its jumbo jet offerings to prevent Airbus' (EAD.PA: Quote, Profile, Research) A380 from taking control of the large end of the market.
If Boeing chooses to launch the new plane, GE would be the exclusive engine supplier for the new 747, which promises to be slightly larger, fly further and be more fuel efficient than its predecessor.
Boeing is forecasting a potential market for 250 to 300 of the 747 Advanced airplanes, which represents more than $10 billion in revenue for the GEnx engine, GE said.
GE beat out Britain's Rolls-Royce (RR.L: Quote, Profile, Research) to be the supplier for the proposed plane. The two engine makers are developing engines for Boeing's new mid-sized 787, due to enter service in 2008.
The GEnx engine, which has been selected to power the 787 and Airbus' A350 twin engine plane, will be tested in 2006 with full engine certification slated for 2007, GE said.
If you want on or off my aviation ping list, please contact me by Freep mail not by posting to this thread. Aviation Ping List
Just make sure these engines get built in the USA and not China.
I thought the engines were sold (rented) seperate from the airframe?
I find it strange that Boeing won't offer both RR and GE engines for the 747Adv since it will using the exact same engine as the 787.
Cincinnati, more than likely.
If the red parts are the changes, then it looks like they're putting in a fuselage plug.
I hope so, not so thrilled with GE about opening an engine plant in China. The Chinese hive no indigenous resources for building jet engines, so in a way, GE is showing them, how to do it.
I don't know if this is such a good idea, but Boeing must have a reason for it. It could seriously cut off sales potential to airlines like BA that run other models of engines. Perhaps GE agreed to upfront some development costs in order to get the contract.
Great news for Boeing, and GE.
I also heard that another aircraft is attempting to finally get off the ground on Wednesday, weather permitting, and cows mooing that is..... lol
Go Boeing..... :-)
I seem to recall those big newer engines run $25 million each. If we figure an overhaul costs half that, and is good for 5000 hours, it means engines cost $5000 per hour.
If the airframe life is 50,000 hours, the engine cost ends up being $250 million.
Full-retail on a fully-equipped 777 is about $240 million.
Disclosure: The only figure I'm certain of is the cost of a 777. The rest are "educated guesses".
I don't think they'll be identical or interchangeable. Supposedly the fan diameter will be smaller to ensure proper ground clearance with the outboard engines. It is also possible they won't be bleedless either. Still I wonder if this engine also might have a future in on a 767 based tanker and the E-10. If I were in charge of the acquisition of those systems, I'd rather have the newer engine type considering that the tankers will last at least 50 at the rate the USAF flies them. Also, I would want all the KC-767s to have the 767-400 cockpit and wing modifications. The 767-200 and 300 cockpit is obsolete and will be harder and to maintain in the future.
But only engines certified for a particular aircraft model may be legally installed on an airplane. Boeing had problems with the engine manufactureres being unhappy with sales of the 777 engines that cost RR, P&W, and GE billions of dollars to develop. After all there are only two engines on each aircraft. Neither P&W or GE willing to be a non-exclusive vendor for the 777-300ER and the 777-200LR, because they would have to split a smaller and more expensive submarket with another manufacturer. GE won the bid and got exclusive righs to provide the GE90-115 and GE90-110 for the 300ER and 200LR. It looks like neither Boeing nor the engine manufacturers think there will be extremely large numbers of 747 Advanced models sold in the next 20 years so exclusivity helps decrease development costs and helps maintain financial viability of the 747 program.
Here is a more accurate diagram. In addition to the stretch, there will be new engines derived from the 787's engines, and the flaps will be repaced with simpler and lighter flaps built with composite materials and having fly by wire controls. I am not sure yet if it will have beedless engines like the 787.
I don't know if revamping and old airplane to try play catch-up with Airbus in the Jumbo Jet market is such great news.
I see it as an admission by Boeing that they miscalculated the market demand for a bigger plane.
The design is sound, and proven on the 747 and it is a totally different aircraft systems wise, than the originals. Do you understand how many itterations of the 747 there are? This is just one more addition, IMHO.
As far as catch-up, I'm still not sure the market will prove profitable for the A380, nor has it even flown.
AFAIK, it is a Profitable line for the 747.
And you don't have to go extending current runways, infrastructure, etc for the 747.
Boeing is doing just fine, maybe in your version of the world, Boeing should co-op with a few more countries to catch-up and make it a Government Operation.
Let's see how many of those A380 Orders actually get built.
Boeing playing Catch-up with a plane that hasn't even flown yet... Please..... Now that is Funny....
Maybe you can explain your logic on that one please, like Airbus trying to catch up with an almost 40 Year old Aircraft.....
Now that is a better analogy than your version, IMHO.
I see it as an admission by Boeing that they miscalculated the market demand for a bigger plane.
Not at all. The 747 Advanced is just a minor stretch. The capacity will increase from 419 to 450 seats. The current 777-400 model is too close in size to the 777-300 and 777-300ER which seat about 360 passengers or about the same number as the 747-100 and 747-200. The 777 models being newer and twin engined have significantly less fuel burn per seat mile. That's a major reason why orders for new 747s especially passenger versions have significantly decreased. Some operators like QANTAS have never ordered the 777, because they don't want to operate under ETOPS restrictions. They got a few 747-400ERs to make it easier to operate the LAX-SYD and LAX-MEL routes year round with full passenger and cargo loads.
The 747 Advanced will weigh at least 100 tons less than the A380 and will have better seat mile costs while having longer range. The passenger version will have a capacity about midway between the A340-600 and the A380-800, and Airbus will not be able to economically build a competitor in the same capacity class. The A330/340/350 models have been stretched about as much as the can be while the proposed A380-700 with a 475 passenger capacity would weigh much more than the 747 Advanced while having higher per seat costs. The A380-800 models fill the available manufacturing slots so Airbus won't be able to put out a competitive product before Boeing in the 400-500 passenger capacity range. The 747 Advanced would have significant cost advantages for airlines that already operate 747s. If Boeing goes ahead with the 747 modernizaion, they could take quite a bit of sales away from Airbus. Remember Airbus needs to make back its $15 billion development costs plus interest while Boeing will only need to recover $2-3 billion to modernize the 747.
There is already a model for this. In the early 1990s Boeing developed the 737 Next Generation 600-900 models. They desinged a new and bigger wing and updated systems while keeping the same fuseage cross section and commonality to a large proportion of 737 classic parts. The 737NG models out perform the Airbus A320 series in both range and operational economy without having to be competely redesigned from scratch.
What does this have to do with anything?
I never made a case for Boeing to operate like Airbus when it comes to Govt subsidies etc.
What are you talking about?
Let's see how many of those A380 Orders actually get built. Boeing playing Catch-up with a plane that hasn't even flown yet... Please..... Now that is Funny.... Maybe you can explain your logic on that one please, like Airbus trying to catch up with an almost 40 Year old Aircraft.....
Are you really this clueless?
First of all Boeing executives have admitted that the new Airbus jumbo jet means the demise of the 747 UNLESS they can come up with something to compete with it.
Secondly the Airbus that you say has "yet to fly" flies tomorrow.
High oil prices and the resulting increase in orders for the fuel efficient 787 Dreamliner are the only thing rescuing Boeing presently. They made a winning bet with this plane.
But the fact is, Boeing KNOWS they are being left behind when it comes to the jumbo jet...and YES they are trying to play catch up to compete with the new Airbus.
By the way, our company has contracts with BOTH Boeing and Airbus, so I follow these developments closely.
I think clueless defines you, if you can't understand who is catching up with who here.
And after reading some of your other posts, have a nice day.
None of this makes a bit a difference when the fact is orders for the 747 have virtually dried up in the past few years.
The fact is Boeing didn't challenge Airbus on developement of a new jumbo and now is behind in the game.
The only thing saving Boeing is the unexpected success of the 787 due mostly to rising fuel costs.