Rolls Unveils Business Jet Engine Game Plan.
Apr 11, 2017 Guy Norris | Aviation Week & Space Technology

Rolls-Royce is taking greater advantage of its larger civil engine advanced technology initiatives to boost development of a new generation of business aviation powerplants. The first full-up fan demonstrator is expected to run later this year.
The ramp-up of work on the technology demonstrator, dubbed Advance2, signals a new phase for the manufacturer, which has revealed few details of its future business aviation family initiative until now. Covering the 10,000-20,000-lb.-thrust range, the plan is to develop three Advance2 demonstrators with two different core sizes and three different low-pressure systems.
These will provide a springboard into a new family series for entry into service in the early 2020s, with market demand driving the thrust level of the launch variant. The initial demonstrator is targeted to provide similar thrust levels to the BR725, the most powerful engine in Rolls’s business aviation portfolio.
The Advance2 initiative closely parallels the company’s next-generation commercial turbofan development plan, which is centered on a new-technology core dubbed Advance3. The new commercial core is scheduled to run at the heart of a full demonstrator engine in Derby, England, around midyear, and is intended to form a steppingstone toward development of the Advance and UltraFan engine families next decade.
Future Two-shaft Family Tests
Advance2 targets 10,000-20,000-lb.-thrust range
Tests will focus on two cores and three low-pressure spools
Entry into service from 2020
Program closely aligned with Advance3 commercial demonstrator
“The key point from business aviation is that we have refocused our technology programs over the past year to get much more synergy between the commercial large engines and the business aviation products,” says Joe Hoelzl, chief project engineer for future programs at Rolls-Royce Deutschland, the company’s center of excellence for two-shaft engine development.
Although Rolls continues to dominate the high-thrust engine market for large-cabin, long-range business jets with more than 3,000 powerplants in service and continuing sales of the BR700 and AE3007, the company’s position is under attack. Rolls is therefore stepping up its next-generation plan after acknowledging its grip on the sector has slipped following aggressive competition from General Electric and Pratt & Whitney Canada.
Both GE and P&WC have made significant incursions into Rolls territory during the past seven years. GE’s Passport engine, originally the TechX, was launched in 2010 for Bombardier’s Global 7000/8000, while P&WC’s 16,000-lb.-thrust-class PW800 was announced in 2014 as the powerplant for the Gulfstream G500/600 family. Despite these losses, Rolls believes everything is in play in a market that it forecasts will need up to 9,000 new aircraft over the next 10 years.

Architecturally similar to today’s BR700 family, the core of the Advance2 will be smaller but more powerful, and efficient. Credit: Rolls-Royce

“We have nowhere to go but down,” says Scott Shannon, senior vice president for customers at Rolls-Royce Business Aviation. “GE has made no secret of getting into business aviation in a big way and wanting to break up the Rolls monopoly, in part because it is an attractive market. But make no bones about it, we will defend our position very vigorously. We are investing in the technology but it is going to be tough competition, no doubt about it,” he adds.
“We can’t stand still,” says Rolls’s business aviation product strategy executive, Frank Moesta. “We have lost a little bit, but we are fairly sure we can keep our market position and extend it again. So what’s the next step? We call it Advance2.”
Building on the baseline core architecture of the 10-stage high-pressure compressor and two-stage high-pressure turbine used in the BR700 series, the Advance2 introduces a suite of new technologies that will provide the foundation for a new family.
The Advance2 plan aims to achieve a technology readiness level ready for full-scale development by the 2020s with a specific fuel burn 10% lower than for the BR710. In terms of emissions, the new family will have a 50% margin to the latest International Civil Aviation Organization Committee on Aviation Environmental Protection regulations while dispatch reliability is targeted at 99.99%. Thrust-to-weight ratio relative to the BR700 is expected to grow by 20% and the bypass ratio to about 6.5:1.

The initial Advance2 demonstrator is targeted at a thrust level similar to the current BR725, one of which is shown under assembly in Dahlewitz, Germany. Credit: Rolls-Royce

Because absolute size of fan diameters is necessarily limited by the conventional fuselage-mounted engine configurations and higher Mach cruise speeds of current and projected long-range subsonic designs, the fan is not expected to see the sort of dramatic growth of larger commercial engines. The relative increase in bypass ratio therefore derives from the introduction of the smaller core of the more advanced gas generator.
“We have a 48-in. fan on the BR710 and a 50-in. fan on the BR725, but the biggest Advance2 will feature only a 52-in. fan. So we are packing a much more efficient product into the same nacelle envelope and that’s one of the key factors to making high-speed aircraft work,” says Hoelzl.
With Advance3 running slightly ahead of schedule of its smaller sibling project, Hoelzl adds that “the larger engine technology will be mature, and we will have to do some miniaturization of that to get it ready for the business aviation programs.” Like the Passport and PW800, the new Rolls engine will have a one-piece blisked fan rotor. It also is expected to include a lightweight fan case to keep overall weight down, an important driver for access of large business jets to smaller, restricted airports.
“We have already done multiple rig demos, and in the aerodynamic rigs the Advance2 fan shows stability and good performance. We have done bird-strike rig tests, as well as fan blade-off rig tests. The next step is to run this in a full engine, which we will run maybe later this year. Watch this space,” Hoelzl explains.
The new high-pressure compressor “is the heart of the engine,” he notes. Comprising titanium blisks in the front stages, the design increases the pressure ratio to 24:1 from the 16:1 of today’s BR700. “This is the key enabler in terms of making the core physically smaller, lighter and higher-performing. It also results in higher temperatures that have improved the thermodynamic performance, and contribute toward a 40% higher overall pressure ratio,” Hoelzl says.
The 3D aerodynamics of the compressor have been tested extensively in a full-scale aeromechanical rig. “We have over 115 hr. of tests covering the full operational range under our belt,” Hoelzl continues. “We have fully demonstrated the pressure ratio and stability targets, and we have learned quite a lot in terms of speed, altitude and bleed settings. We have optimized the stage loading as we enter the second phase of engine testing.”
At the rear of the core is a two-stage, high-pressure shroudless turbine. “The differentiator is that today the turbine is fully shrouded,” he says. The turbine change, which leverages designs developed for military engines such as the EJ200, is possible because of the advent of improved high-temperature materials and advanced cooling technology.
“We found shrouds were limiting in terms of speed. The smaller the core goes, the faster it runs, and the speed is limited by the tip speed which is going supersonic. So shroudless is a step change and breaks a barrier in terms of turbine capability,” Hoelzl explains. Rig testing has been underway with—and without—a combustor and an all-turbine rig test is underway in cooperation with DLR, the German aerospace research agency.
Composites form a key element of the design. The Advance2 will incorporate lightweight outlet guide vanes made from composites that combine structural and aerodynamic functions, while the exhaust system will make extensive use of an oxide-oxide ceramic matrix composite material set.
The low-pressure (LP) turbine will be the most efficient and lowest noise unit ever developed by Rolls for a business jet engine. “This is where we have synergy with the large commercial engines,” says Hoelzl, who adds that the smallest Advance2 will have two LP turbine stages like the BR710, the midsize variant will have three like the BR725, and “here, for our biggest member of the Advance2, we are going for four stages.”
In conjunction with DLR in Cologne, Germany, as well as other facilities, Rolls is also conducting an extensive series of rig tests of advanced low-emissions combustor technology. The company is using additive layer manufacturing to advance both the designs themselves, as well as the time taken to test them. “It has allowed a step change in our combustor technology,” says Hoelzl. “We basically are printing the combustor cans in sectors and welding them together, which allows us to do more experiments in terms of cooling hole locations.” Time between rounds of experiments has dropped from around a year to just four months, he adds.

The question is now: Who will buy these engines? The market seems already crowded.

The things I note:

1) A 40% increase in bypass ratio produces a 10% increase in fuel efficiency????

2) They are going to have a common core powering two different low pressure spools of significantly differing thrust ratings. This would make me think that the configuration/design of the core and the low pressure spool are only lightly coupled. Who knew?

If they were able to get in the market sooner, it would be a great option for a CRJ re-engine.

lolodydy wrote:

The question is now: Who will buy these engines? The market seems already crowded.

That was my thought.

RR used to own the large business jet market. Now we have
GE at the top end on the Global 7000
Pratt in the mid-range on the G500/G600
SAFRAN Silvercrest is late, but the market is supporting on the Falcon 5X and Cessna Hemisphere. Rumors are it will also be the Falcon 9X engine. (3-engine stretch of the 5X, modified wing).
Pratt on the 3rd Gulfstream P42 (I'm guessing it will be called the G400 again...)


What is the market is left open? The G650 re-engine (that airframe needs a refresh now that the Global 7000 is in flight testing) is a possibility. Bombardier and Dassault need a mid-market airframe... But it will be a tough market to re-enter.

Lightsaber

kitplane01 wrote:

2) They are going to have a common core powering two different low pressure spools of significantly differing thrust ratings. This would make me think that the configuration/design of the core and the low pressure spool are only lightly coupled. Who knew?

Please take a look at the Pratt Pure Power (smaller) core.
Planned engines (major variations), all with the same high spool:
PW1525G (3 stage low compressor, compressor at high RPM)
PW1217G (2 stage low compressor, compressor at high RPM)
PW816 (3 stage low compressor, compressor at lower RPM)
PW812 (2 stage low compressor, compressor at lower RPM).


Note; RPM isn't the design, it is mach #, it is just easier to think RPM unless you're into fluids like myself.

The BR700 was available in 3 thrusts. A modern high spool is very flexible. Even the CFM-56, a fighter engine (16k thrust pre-augmentor) has been made into many different engines.


LIghtsaber

Why PW doesn't reduce the PW815 core to develop a 816 engine? It sound strange to take a smaller core to design a bigger engine.
And what about the 810 can we imagine the small core without low compressor?

Regarding RR, a 10 stage compressor for a 10 to 12 000lbs engines doesn't seem well adapted.
I guess RR develop another core for the low end of the thrust range.(the market will be there in the next decade)

RR used to own the large business jet market. Now we have
GE at the top end on the Global 7000
Pratt in the mid-range on the G500/G600
SAFRAN Silvercrest is late, but the market is supporting on the Falcon 5X and Cessna Hemisphere. Rumors are it will also be the Falcon 9X engine. (3-engine stretch of the 5X, modified wing).
Pratt on the 3rd Gulfstream P42 (I'm guessing it will be called the G400 again...)


What is the market is left open? The G650 re-engine (that airframe needs a refresh now that the Global 7000 is in flight testing) is a possibility. Bombardier and Dassault need a mid-market airframe... But it will be a tough market to re-enter.

The market is indeed saturated, and with no place to go for RR, with all current developments having "defected" to other manufacturers. But the post-2020 EIS date hints at either a next Generation of bizjets or a reengine of existing ones. The Global 5/6000 could use a reengine and refresh in the shorter term for instance, and the G650 could be reengined later on with the larger Advance2 derivative.

In any case, it seems clear that RR is aiming for a small and versatile core with various possible applications, thus hedging their bets.

If they were able to get in the market sooner, it would be a great option for a CRJ re-engine.

To me the best engine for that application would be a Passport derivative. If only BBD had the Money and resources...

While Rolls have had great success with the Trents, they do seem to have rather dropped on the ball on basically everything else! Sales of the AE and BR700 ranges must be minimal now

lolodydy wrote:

Why PW doesn't reduce the PW815 core to develop a 816 engine? It sound strange to take a smaller core to design a bigger engine.
And what about the 810 can we imagine the small core without low compressor?

Regarding RR, a 10 stage compressor for a 10 to 12 000lbs engines doesn't seem well adapted.
I guess RR develop another core for the low end of the thrust range.(the market will be there in the next decade)

The PW816 uses the core from the PW1525G. It is slightly over-sized allowing the less than optimal GTF low compressor to be spun slower to produce the reduced thrust, although at a much faster exit velocity (faster cruise at the sacrifice of fuel burn).

Reducing the core requires a new parts chain. While Pratt says this is 80% commonality, I calculate roughly 70%.

This saves at least $500 million in development costs, probably more. Using the oversized high spool will also save about $15 per takeoff in maintenance costs per engine thanks to manufacturing economy of scale.

The PW810 is shelved. That relied on a high spool optimized for the MRJ. When the MRJ adopted the C-series high spool with a less optimal pressure ratio, that ended the PW800 economically scaling down to 10k. Besides, for what platform are we discussing? The Cessna Hemisphere is using the Silvercrest.

As to RR over-developing, there issue is they are using a lower Mach number compressor. This saves development costs, but at a higher parts count. The resulting higher pressure ratio allows more scaling with the same high spool.

Because a high spool costs so much to develop, in business jets they are used over a wider range of thrusts with the low cost to develop low spool resized. While a less optimal engine for lower thrust, it is a more efficient engine overall.

Recall SAFRAN's Silvercrest is a centrifugal compressor with a reverse flow combustor. That has higher fuel burn (at least 5%) and half the maintenance interval of the RR or Pratt engines. However, it saves so much on development and manufacturing, the mid range of the market is happier with the cheaper solution.

10k of thrust is about a $1 million dollar engine for the Silvercrest. The PW812 is about twice that. A custom high spool would be $2.5 to $3 million more per engine than the Silvercrest. As these go on $25 to 45 million dollar business jets, it is tough to justify the higher initial costs. For example, the PW812 adds about $3 million to the cost over the Silvercrest for Gulfstream.

Dassault chose to lose years of sales on the 5X instead of increasing there price with an engine slip by accepting the Silvercrest delays. Cessna couldn't justify the higher costs either. Only Gulfstream had demanding enough customers to justify the higher price PW812 for the 3rd P42 airframe.

Do you understand now why new business jet engines are few and far between? It is also why GE and Pratt had no economic choice but to let RR rule the top of the business jet market for 30 years.

Lightsaber

I think, there will be some business opportunities around 10 k lbs in the next 5 years for a Silvercrest or a PW810 (if it is not too expensive or heavy). Several aircraft manufacturer will have to replace their aircraft in that range. BB with a CL700 or 750, Embraer with a legacy 700 and Dassault with a F10X to replace Falcon 2000.
I’m quite surprise by your PW800 family price, I thought the volume of the PW1000 added to the commonalty would slightly reduce the price of the engine.
I heard that RR has competed against the silvercrest for the helisphere. I guess RR may have on the shelf another core engine for the small thrust (between 9-12k lbs)

lolodydy wrote:

I think, there will be some business opportunities around 10 k lbs in the next 5 years for a Silvercrest or a PW810 (if it is not too expensive or heavy). Several aircraft manufacturer will have to replace their aircraft in that range. BB with a CL700 or 750, Embraer with a legacy 700 and Dassault with a F10X to replace Falcon 2000.
I’m quite surprise by your PW800 family price, I thought the volume of the PW1000 added to the commonalty would slightly reduce the price of the engine.
I heard that RR has competed against the silvercrest for the helisphere. I guess RR may have on the shelf another core engine for the small thrust (between 9-12k lbs)

I think there is an opportunity for the Silvercrest, RR, or a new Pratt. The PW800 engines are surprisingly expensive. The commonality reduced development costs substantially , maintenance, and fuel burn.

Let us put it into perspective. The PW800 has a precise turbine clearance control valve that will last over 20,000 cycles and even more hours between overhauls. This valve is built to minimize a C-series operators costs and is a hand me down. The Silvercrest has a valve that won't last a third as long nor is it as precise. This further costs another say 1% in fuel burn, but is, for the subsystem, about $15,000 cheaper. Add in all the other subsystems and there is a substantial savings. A centrifugal compressor saves about $180k by getting rid of the low compressor, another $150k as it is a cheaper high compressor. Then the Silvercrest has a turbine built for a third of the life of the PW800. That saves $200k or so as it is made from cheaper materials and easier manufacturing.

The Silvercrest fuel injectors are simpler and cheaper too. Saving about $20k per engine, but the PW800 injectors will last 5X as long...

Even the PW800 nacelle is too sophisticated for the application. Oh well, it saves maintenance and fuel burn.

It adds up to a PW812 + nacelle is twice the price of a Silvercrest.

Pratt is working on a PW300/PT6 replacement family of centrifugal compressor/reverse flow combustor engines now for this segment.

If Pratt PiPs the PW800, it should be trivial to double the service interval. It is that overbuilt for the application. Gulfstream wanted an engine to service like a Lexus automobile; go in once a year and otherwise just use it. That is a tough requirement with stiff penalties if Pratt fails to meet expectations.

Many of the PW800 components had 4X the time on the test benches vs. Silvercrest parts. Some of the tests required we're... Silly. Why? Gulfstream used to have bad specifications so the sent their engineers to specification training.

I've had that training. It uses a specification of an open to the public US Navy coffee cup holder for the conning tower of a submarine as one if several examples.

It has a vibration requirement (cup holder must service a depth charge attack)
It has a thermal shock (sub goes up through ice in the artic)
It has salt exposure
Water exposure
Sand exposure (landing troops at a beach)
It has stress requirements (don't break when an 18 year old sailor steps on it)
It specifies envelope of where it goes and the coffee mugs that will fit into it.

When I saw the *exact* cut and paste of the depth charge vibration, salt and sand requirements for the PW800 I litterly fell out of my chair laughing. Oh, Gulfstream added heat, cycles, operation precision, and lots of proprietary stuff. But making an engine so robust it could survive getting through a convoy escort screen's depth charge attack in the artic or a Sandy Navy seal landing struck me as funny.

Then someone noticed I was reading something I shouldn't. (I was laughing hard...). You see, I never signed that NDA...


So, Gulfstream has an expensive design for the PW816 and PW812. Oh well... An engine I have no doubt can go a year between mechanic visits in normal operation and will laugh at middle East sandstorms, take Moscow winter operations in stride, and not have any issue being based out of the Bahamas salt air climate.

Careful what you require of your engineers... It adds cost. But Pratt had to outbid RR and part was a tough specification.

Lightsaber

lightsaber wrote:

Pratt is working on a PW300/PT6 replacement family of centrifugal compressor/reverse flow combustor engines now for this segment.

Could you tell me about the PT6 replacement? I assume this is because of GE, and GE winning the new Cessna airplane?

Also, is there some reason that the PT6 cannot have a FADEC (or something like a FADEC only cheaper)? There are so many planes with such nice avionics ... and then a manual engine control.

Lightsaber, this post #12 may (already) qualify as my preferred for the year…

Ok lightsaber, so if I understand your point, the PW800 won’t be selected by another aircraft manufacturer.
It is too expensive and also too heavy I guess.
So 5X and 9X with slivercrest, G400/500/600 with PW800, G5000NG with new RR and G7000/8000 (if 8000 is not canceled) with GE.
Four engine manufacturers for a so small business the market is crowded and the benefits will be low…
The next battle will be around 8 to 11K lbs, for the challenger 700 and the embraer 750. The new PW300 would be perfect for them…
Do you think the PW300 and the PT6 could have the same level of communalities as the PW800 and PW1000 families? I’m not an engineer but the core architectures look close.

I am by no means proficient as y'all are with the specifics of these types of engines & the differences between the competition. But I do know a good deal about human behaviour & what lengths a human will go to to satisfy their ego.

The RR logo on the cowling, millionaires will relish the opportunity to brag, show-up or look better than their other rich friends. The RR name will bring those who can already afford a new private jet, to RR for their powerplants, all because of vanity.

[quote="lightsaber"][/quote]


Say, You must also know about Gulfstream's Structural Manauls specs on Corrosion:

"None Allowed - Contact Engineering for Disposition or Remove and Replace part"

Garbage.

lolodydy wrote:

Ok lightsaber, so if I understand your point, the PW800 won’t be selected by another aircraft manufacturer.
It is too expensive and also too heavy I guess.
So 5X and 9X with slivercrest, G400/500/600 with PW800, G5000NG with new RR and G7000/8000 (if 8000 is not canceled) with GE.
Four engine manufacturers for a so small business the market is crowded and the benefits will be low…
The next battle will be around 8 to 11K lbs, for the challenger 700 and the embraer 750. The new PW300 would be perfect for them…
Do you think the PW300 and the PT6 could have the same level of communalities as the PW800 and PW1000 families? I’m not an engineer but the core architectures look close.

It might be selected by another manufacturer.

But GE has higher thrust in the Passport capping Pratt's ambitions.

The PW816 is a great engine with the opportunity for another platform.

It is the PW812 whose price vs. capability is out of whack with market realities.

The new Pratt core will compete at the lower end. As far as I know, details are being decided. The launch customer will get to determine the engines personality.

Pratt won't give up the PT-6 market and that forces a new design to compete with GE. Other than the basics, I do not know any details.

But on thread, where is RR going to compete? With a 10 stage (obviously BR700 evolved) high compressor. Hopefully with a new high turbine (the technology has moved forward in the last few decades).

Lightsaber

Who could be interested by a PW816, the market is already crowded in that range, G600 G650, G750 for Gulfstream, G5000 NG G7000 G8000, for BB and the 7X/8X/9X for Dassault.
I also heard about that new Pratt "small core". Pratt strategies seems very good on the business jet engine. I'm looking forward to see which OEM will be the first to annonce something on that range. I bet on bombardier for the first move.

Two new Gulfstream's have been mentioned in this thread, anyone care to share any more info on these?

Wes...

lolodydy wrote:

Who could be interested by a PW816, the market is already crowded in that range, G600 G650, G750 for Gulfstream, G5000 NG G7000 G8000, for BB and the 7X/8X/9X for Dassault.
I also heard about that new Pratt "small core". Pratt strategies seems very good on the business jet engine. I'm looking forward to see which OEM will be the first to annonce something on that range. I bet on bombardier for the first move.

Probably growth of the G600.

Also Bombardier has to save the lower priced Globals to stay in that niche. The engine is built for a little more thrust than Gulfstream required. Who is to say Cessna or Embraer won't need a little more thrust for their competing product with say a new tech wing in 2030? Business jet engines sell for a long time. See BR700.

Lightsaber

wezgulf3 wrote:

Two new Gulfstream's have been mentioned in this thread, anyone care to share any more info on these?

Wes...

I don't know details, if I did, I couldn't post. But the G450 is ending production soon as Gulfstream needs something in the $35 to $40 million dollar market. The PW812 is being developed for them with the MRJ two stage low compressor just as the PW816 uses the C-series 3 stage low compressor. The PW816 is derated on the upcoming G500 & G600.

I'm more excited about the Dassault Falcon 8X, expected to be announced within 2 years. A new trijet with the 5X cross section and three Silvercrest engines.

Gulfstream has to do something about the Global 7000 and Falcon 9X. They have a few years, but not much longer before they must be developing some new top of the line plane. But Gulfstream is good at keeping quiet and avoiding the Sinclair effect (announcing such a good new product that customers avoid buying the current product).

Sometimes there is no choice. When Falcon 2000, 900, and 7X sales dried up, Dassault had not choice but to announce the 8X a year earlier than plan.

To others:. Yes the market is crowded, but if the new plane has features, they sell despite horrid plunges in resale value.

Not as if I can afford to even window shop...

Lightsaber

As can be seen on my user name I'm a Gulfstream nut, so any new product info is always of interest. The Falcon 5X is something I'm really looking forward too and hope the silvercrest issues are quickly resolved

Wes...

Now my rumor mill is saying Dassault might go with a twin for the 9X. Probably just a case study, but the launch definition is expected to be announced by the end of the year.

RWA380 wrote:

I am by no means proficient as y'all are with the specifics of these types of engines & the differences between the competition. But I do know a good deal about human behaviour & what lengths a human will go to to satisfy their ego.

The RR logo on the cowling, millionaires will relish the opportunity to brag, show-up or look better than their other rich friends. The RR name will bring those who can already afford a new private jet, to RR for their powerplants, all because of vanity.

That used to be everyone's thought. But now GE will be at the top and Pratt in the middle of the market. Considering how many Airframes in the past lost out to other engines makes me think the value of that logo isn't what it used to be. GE has the best reputation in business jets for dependability, but Honeywell and Pratt also have great reputations.

I look at the parking lot dropping people off for NetJets flights and rarely see a RR car.
In fact RR engines industry wide have a reputation for excessive combustor rumble. This hurts G550 resale value and Bombardier had to double up noise insulation on the Global 5000/6000 due to customer complaints.

There good engines, but they lost their time at the top for the upcoming generation. The only thriving platform RR is on is the G650.
G550 is being replaced by the Pratt G600
G450 production is ending with the Pratt powered G500 and a PW812 powered lower end new design not yet revealed.
G280 is Honeywell
The Globals are going to GE, with the RR powered Global backlog gasping.
Did Dassault ever use RR? Going SAFRAN, and looking at bids again for the 9X. But these engines will be too late
Cessna's high end will be SAFRAN.
Embraer never flew RR (Pratt and Honeywell)

RR business jet engines will be around, but they need a restart.

Lightsaber

lolodydy wrote:

Ok lightsaber, so if I understand your point, the PW800 won’t be selected by another aircraft manufacturer.
It is too expensive and also too heavy I guess.
So 5X and 9X with slivercrest, G400/500/600 with PW800, G5000NG with new RR and G7000/8000 (if 8000 is not canceled) with GE.
Four engine manufacturers for a so small business the market is crowded and the benefits will be low…
The next battle will be around 8 to 11K lbs, for the challenger 700 and the embraer 750. The new PW300 would be perfect for them…
Do you think the PW300 and the PT6 could have the same level of communalities as the PW800 and PW1000 families? I’m not an engineer but the core architectures look close.

Since the thrust ratings are similar, how much of the forthcoming new technology would be applicable to a potential CF34 replacement for regional jets?

I should point out again the PW812 will cruise faster than any centrifugal compressor engine and have more durability. Only Gulfstream sees their customers paying enough of a premium over the Silvercrest. Spp

TSS wrote:

lolodydy wrote:

Ok lightsaber, so if I understand your point, the PW800 won’t be selected by another aircraft manufacturer.
It is too expensive and also too heavy I guess.
So 5X and 9X with slivercrest, G400/500/600 with PW800, G5000NG with new RR and G7000/8000 (if 8000 is not canceled) with GE.
Four engine manufacturers for a so small business the market is crowded and the benefits will be low…
The next battle will be around 8 to 11K lbs, for the challenger 700 and the embraer 750. The new PW300 would be perfect for them…
Do you think the PW300 and the PT6 could have the same level of communalities as the PW800 and PW1000 families? I’m not an engineer but the core architectures look close.

Since the thrust ratings are similar, how much of the forthcoming new technology would be applicable to a potential CF34 replacement for regional jets?

GE compromised the Passport performance to have a highspool intended for RJ duty. This also slightly increase production costs. That is due to Global 7000 sales will never have enough profit to pay back the billions of R&D spent. GE will get onto new platforms with the passport and their annoyingly good new turboprop.


The Silvercrest is designed for exceptionally good downsizing and will be seen in many more configurations.

Pratt will design a new centrifugal compressor high spool to keep in what is now the PW300 market and PT6 markets.

RR is here proposing another BR700 evolution. I hope they find a platform. There best hope is Bombardier, for if the 9X goes to a twin, GE or Pratt are so we'll placed, it will be tough to get onto that airframe.

But RR should develop as Embrarr, Bombardier, Dassault, and Cessna all have holes in there product lines this engine could complete on.

The next 15 years of business jet development will be exciting.

Lightsaber

The next 15 years of business jet development will be exciting.

I fully agree

Hi lighsaber,
I spoke with a P&W guy who told that the PW814/815 has only 2 low pressure compressor stage. Does it mean the pw816 will be a different engine with its three booster stage?

lolodydy wrote:

Hi lighsaber,
I spoke with a P&W guy who told that the PW814/815 has only 2 low pressure compressor stage. Does it mean the pw816 will be a different engine with its three booster stage?

The PW812 has two low pressure compressor stages.

The PW814/815 have 3. They are de-rates of the PW816.

From what I can tell (Sorry, I don't have blade counts memorized, although the turbine inlet temperate is obviously wrong) the wikipedia entry is correct:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pratt_%26 ... nada_PW800

fan
3 stage low compressor
8 stage high compressor
2 stage high turbine
3 stage low turbine

The low compressor is compromised as it is the PW1500G low compressor spinning at a lower RPM (it will not charge the high spool fully or as efficiently as a custom designed compressor). But that is OK. More part commonality achieves lower production and maintenance costs for a little fuel burn.