PW4462
Topic Author
Posts: 3
Joined: Tue Oct 23, 2018 2:11 pm

CFM LEAP-1A vs PW1000G: Sensor Incorporation

Thu Jan 03, 2019 6:13 pm

A quick question for anybody with some technical knowledge on sensor incorporation in the latest technology engines operating in the market; notably LEAP and PW1000.

I have been reading a historical article this evening concerning the number of sensors in engines and the increase of them overtime (please see below).

https://tinyurl.com/y8ukabtl

There are some indicative figures on P&W engines contained within and specifically on the PW1000G; in the order of 5,000 sensors. However, I would like to understand how this compares to the LEAP engine family and whether this is across the wing or for one engine alone. Would I be correct in thinking that because of an extra HPT Stage, the engine OEM maximising material technologies to run hotter, as well as an aftermarket drive for increase repairs deferring heavy shop visits increase time (cycles) on-wing etc. that there could potentially be more sensors on a LEAP engine? A speculative question of course but hopefully somebody with this inherent knowledge can help me with my thought process.

Many thanks in advance.

~ PW4462
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Moderator
Posts: 16023
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

Re: CFM LEAP-1A vs PW1000G: Sensor Incorporation

Thu Jan 03, 2019 7:00 pm

Unfortunately, I have NDAs, so I'll just lurk.

Lightsaber
You only have the first amendment with the 2nd. If you're not going to offend someone with what you say, you don't have the 1st.
 
stratclub
Posts: 701
Joined: Fri Jan 05, 2018 10:38 pm

Re: CFM LEAP-1A vs PW1000G: Sensor Incorporation

Thu Jan 03, 2019 9:36 pm

What is your question? Many newer aircraft have engine condition/health monitoring systems. Does the Leap use 5,000 or 50,000 sensors? I have no clue. What does an extra HPT stage have to do with anything? An extra stage may well reduce EGT's because of more efficient HPT operational conditions.
 
LDRA
Posts: 89
Joined: Fri Jan 15, 2016 3:01 am

Re: CFM LEAP-1A vs PW1000G: Sensor Incorporation

Thu Jan 03, 2019 11:31 pm

5000 sensors? Maybe instrumentation points for development testing, not sensors on production engine
 
Okie
Posts: 3922
Joined: Wed Jul 16, 2003 11:30 am

Re: CFM LEAP-1A vs PW1000G: Sensor Incorporation

Fri Jan 04, 2019 12:01 am

I seriously doubt the 5,000 sensors below the pylon including all the systems per engine.

There are many predictive programs in existence already I am not sure exactly what P & W is offering that does any better.

I have had high hopes for the GTF but a simple pair of Mark 1 Eyeballs sees many issues yet to be resolved.


Okie
 
PW4462
Topic Author
Posts: 3
Joined: Tue Oct 23, 2018 2:11 pm

Re: CFM LEAP-1A vs PW1000G: Sensor Incorporation

Fri Jan 04, 2019 8:42 am

Thank you Okie, LDRA and stratclub. This certainly goes some way to helping a novice in this field to understand the points made in the article. It did appear difficult to understand where you might fit them all in or put another way, how you go from 100 physical sensors on a PW6000 to 5,000 on a PW1000.
 
stratclub
Posts: 701
Joined: Fri Jan 05, 2018 10:38 pm

Re: CFM LEAP-1A vs PW1000G: Sensor Incorporation

Fri Jan 04, 2019 11:35 am

LDRA wrote:
5000 sensors? Maybe instrumentation points for development testing, not sensors on production engine

Numbers out of thin air really. I have no clue how many measurements are taken on a production engine. On more modern engines there are many measurements taken and recorded to validate an engines health in real time. What that means is that before an aircraft reaches it's destination, ground crews will know what issues an engine will have before it arrives through data that is reported to the ground by the aircraft.

In flight test, the number of measurements taken can seem astronomical. On the 747-300, there were something like 300 measurements taken for an airplane and recorded while on the 787 with digital technology the number of measurements taken for a total aircraft is easily 5,000 plus.
 
PW4462
Topic Author
Posts: 3
Joined: Tue Oct 23, 2018 2:11 pm

Re: CFM LEAP-1A vs PW1000G: Sensor Incorporation

Fri Jan 04, 2019 12:10 pm

Very insightful stratclub. It certainly creates a safety conscious environment among other things.

Just so that I am not taking information from all of your brains, I have since had estimates detailing that the LEAP utilises between 55-60 sensors and the PW1000 is similar; possibly a few less. Previous generation CFM56-5B/-7B was between 45-50. It at least seems to corroborate the initial feedback from yourselves.
 
Lpbri
Posts: 144
Joined: Tue Sep 27, 2016 7:18 pm

Re: CFM LEAP-1A vs PW1000G: Sensor Incorporation

Fri Jan 04, 2019 6:16 pm

I can't speak for the LeapX or Pratt, but I do know the GENX. I count 3 pressure sensors, 3 temp sensors, 2 pairs of speed sensors plus EGT sensors and vibration sensors. Not much different from previous gen engines. There are also various external sensors for accessories like T/R's fuel oil etc. Not much different from previous gen.
 
stephanwintner
Posts: 2
Joined: Thu Jan 03, 2019 5:04 pm

Re: CFM LEAP-1A vs PW1000G: Sensor Incorporation

Fri Jan 04, 2019 10:27 pm

Lpbri wrote:
I can't speak for the LeapX or Pratt, but I do know the GENX. I count 3 pressure sensors, 3 temp sensors, 2 pairs of speed sensors plus EGT sensors and vibration sensors. Not much different from previous gen engines. There are also various external sensors for accessories like T/R's fuel oil etc. Not much different from previous gen.


I'd expect similar on a LEAP or GTF. The gearbox might require a couple more (e.g. chip detectors, oil temps) and you might add a couple speed sensors to ensure the gears are still meshed. I'd not expect stage count to affect sensor count on a production engine, but shaft count would.

I worked on dev sensors. Yes, there'd be hundred or thousands, and for them, stage count would matter - you'd want total and static pressure and temps on each stage, vane angle measurements, strain gages on each stage, etc. Flight engines got much less than ground test, but still far more than production. Each build of each engine would be different, depending on the tests to be run.

Stephan

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Francoflier, HAWKXP, Starlionblue and 20 guests

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos