Boeing Picks GE Engine for Proposed 747 Advanced

Reuters ^ | Mon Apr 25, 2005 03:08 PM ET | Staff

[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.

[Paleo Conservative]

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

[ProudVet77]

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

[patton]

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

[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.

[FReepaholic]

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

Cincinnati, more than likely.

[AgThorn]

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

[narby]

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

[ProudVet77]

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.

[July 4th]

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.

[Jambe]

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.

[Sonar5]

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

[Daus]

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.

[DuncanWaring]

...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".

[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.

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.

[Paleo Conservative]

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.

[Paleo Conservative]

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.

[Paleo Conservative]

Freighter Version

[Jorge]

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.

[Sonar5]

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