Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Boeing Picks GE Engine for Proposed 747 Advanced
Reuters ^ | Mon Apr 25, 2005 03:08 PM ET | Staff

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.


TOPICS: Business/Economy
KEYWORDS: 747; 747advanced; 787; boeing; ge; generalelectric; outsourcing; trade

1 posted on 04/25/2005 4:57:28 PM PDT by Paleo Conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: COEXERJ145; microgood; liberallarry; cmsgop; shaggy eel; RayChuang88; Larry Lucido; namsman; ...
Ping!

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

2 posted on 04/25/2005 4:58:30 PM PDT by Paleo Conservative (Hey! Hey! Ho! Ho! Andrew Heyward's got to go!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Paleo Conservative

Just make sure these engines get built in the USA and not China.


3 posted on 04/25/2005 5:02:45 PM PDT by ProudVet77 ("Warning: Frequent sarcastic posts")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Paleo Conservative

I thought the engines were sold (rented) seperate from the airframe?


4 posted on 04/25/2005 5:03:37 PM PDT by patton ("Fool," said my Muse to me, "look in thy heart, and write.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Paleo Conservative

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.


5 posted on 04/25/2005 5:06:11 PM PDT by COEXERJ145 (Just Blame President Bush For Everything, It Is Easier Than Using Your Brain)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ProudVet77
...Just make sure these engines get built in the USA and not China...

Cincinnati, more than likely.

6 posted on 04/25/2005 5:14:51 PM PDT by FReepaholic (Vote for Pedro)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Paleo Conservative
Not sure what the differences are, except for the electronics perhaps - the profile looks the same:


7 posted on 04/25/2005 5:16:26 PM PDT by AgThorn (Bush is my president, but he needs to protect our borders. FIRST, before any talk of "Amnesty.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AgThorn

If the red parts are the changes, then it looks like they're putting in a fuselage plug.


8 posted on 04/25/2005 5:20:24 PM PDT by narby
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: tscislaw

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.


9 posted on 04/25/2005 5:22:47 PM PDT by ProudVet77 ("Warning: Frequent sarcastic posts")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Paleo Conservative

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.


10 posted on 04/25/2005 5:29:24 PM PDT by July 4th (A vacant lot cancelled out my vote for Bush.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: patton
It often depends upon who the customer is.

Often times an airline will negotiate the purchase of the airframe and engines seperately - as often the engines are financed seperate from the airframe. (This applies to airframes where more than one engine manufacturer is available)

Clearly the airframe manufacturer (Boeing) must have at least one engine to proceed through flight testing/certification. Probably due to the limited number of airframes forcast it wouldn't justify having multiple engine options.

I know at one time (back when I was designing engine controls for turbine engines - Bendix ENCD) the costs for the engines over their lifetime would easily exceed the cost of the airframe. Probably still true today.
11 posted on 04/25/2005 5:34:10 PM PDT by Jambe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Jambe

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..... :-)

Regards,
Joe


12 posted on 04/25/2005 5:51:38 PM PDT by Sonar5 (60+ Million have Spoken Clearly - "We Want Our Country Back")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: COEXERJ145
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

I don't think it's the exact some engine. Think of GEnx as the 'brand', with multiple models.
13 posted on 04/25/2005 5:53:01 PM PDT by Daus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Jambe
...the costs for the engines over their lifetime would easily exceed the cost of the airframe.

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".

14 posted on 04/25/2005 6:38:26 PM PDT by DuncanWaring (The Lord uses the good ones; the bad ones use the Lord.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: COEXERJ145
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.

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.

15 posted on 04/25/2005 7:18:16 PM PDT by Paleo Conservative (Hey! Hey! Ho! Ho! Andrew Heyward's got to go!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: patton; ProudVet77; COEXERJ145; tscislaw; AgThorn; narby; Jambe; Sonar5; DuncanWaring; July 4th
I thought the engines were sold (rented) seperate from the airframe?

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.

16 posted on 04/25/2005 7:32:37 PM PDT by Paleo Conservative (Hey! Hey! Ho! Ho! Andrew Heyward's got to go!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: AgThorn; ProudVet77; COEXERJ145; tscislaw; narby; Jambe; patton; Sonar5; DuncanWaring; July 4th
Not sure what the differences are, except for the electronics perhaps - the profile looks the same:

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.

17 posted on 04/25/2005 7:38:54 PM PDT by Paleo Conservative (Hey! Hey! Ho! Ho! Andrew Heyward's got to go!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Paleo Conservative


Freighter Version

18 posted on 04/25/2005 7:55:25 PM PDT by Paleo Conservative (Hey! Hey! Ho! Ho! Andrew Heyward's got to go!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Sonar5
Great news for Boeing, and GE.

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.

19 posted on 04/25/2005 8:08:21 PM PDT by Jorge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Jorge

Now jorge,

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.

Take Care,
Joe


20 posted on 04/25/2005 8:43:18 PM PDT by Sonar5 (60+ Million have Spoken Clearly - "We Want Our Country Back")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Jorge
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.

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.

21 posted on 04/25/2005 8:49:09 PM PDT by Paleo Conservative (Hey! Hey! Ho! Ho! Andrew Heyward's got to go!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Sonar5
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.

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.

22 posted on 04/26/2005 8:31:21 PM PDT by Jorge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Jorge

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.


23 posted on 04/26/2005 9:14:19 PM PDT by Sonar5 (60+ Million have Spoken Clearly - "We Want Our Country Back")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Sonar5
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.

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.

24 posted on 04/27/2005 6:37:55 PM PDT by Jorge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson