4/3/2016
`
`Special Report The eng‘ne battle heats up (Update1) | Aspire Aviation
`
`osfire ovioiion
`
`(http://www.aspireaviation.com)
`
`(http://www.aspireaviation.com/cart/)
`
`10
`MAY
`
`SPECIAL REPORT: THE ENGINE BATTLE HEATS UP
`(UPDATE1)
`BY DANIEL TSANG (HTTP://WWW.ASPIREAVIATION.COM/AUTHOR/ADMIN/) / 9 COMMENTS
`(HTTP://WWW.ASPIREAVIATION.COM/2011/05/10/PW-PUREPOWER-ENGINE-VS-CFM-I.EAP-
`X/#COMMENTS)
`
`With a little more than a month to go before this June's Paris Air Show takes place, summer heat
`
`will not be the only one felt by the aerospace industry. As the engine battle between Pratt &
`
`Whitney (P&W)’s PurePower geared turbofan (GTF) engine and CFM International’s Leap-X engine
`
`heats up for the engine orders for the popular Airbus A320 neo (new engine options) which has
`
`garnered over 330 orders and commitments since the programme's launch in last December and
`
`is expected to receive significant new orders at the show, in addition to Bombardier’s CSeries
`
`aircraft, the Paris Air Show is poised to become a major battleground for the two englnes whose
`
`architectures are decidedly different.
`
`For instance, having won all three engine competitions for the A320 neo aircraft - Lufthansa’s
`
`order for 60 PW1100G PurePower engines for its 30 A320 neo aircraft and Indian low cost carrier
`
`(LCC) Indigo Airlines’ one for 300 PW1100G engines for its 150 A320 neo aircraft, as well as
`
`engines powering at least 60 of International Lease Finance Corporation (ILFC)’s 100 A320 neo
`
`aircraft, Pratt & Whitney (P&W) has undoubtedly taken an early lead in a decisive battle which the
`
`East Hartford, Connecticut-based engine manufacturer hopes to make a strong comeback.
`
`However, a crucial engine competition is destined to take place as all-CFM customers Virgin
`
`America is widely believed to make an engine choice by this June's Paris Air Show and Aspire
`
`Aviation has learned that AirAsia is going to order up to 150 A320 neo aircraft.
`
`An order for Pratt & Whitney (P&W)’s geared turbofan engines from a big all-CFM customer,
`
`analysts contend, will be the clearest indication yet which engine architecture the market favours.
`
`“So far, Pratt has won three, but the most telling decisions will be by AirAsia and Virgin America,
`
`each of which flies only CFM engines. If these airlines elect to go with Pratt, then CFM is likely to
`
`face a high hurdle unless Pratt fails to deliver,” New York-based Bernstein Research noted in a
`
`April 13 report.
`
`httpj/www.aspireaviation.com/2011/05/10/pw-pu'epower-engine-vs-cfm-leap-x/
`
`1/18
`
`UTC-2004.001
`
`GE v. UTC
`
`Trial IPR20l6—00952
`
`

`
`4/3/2016
`
`Special Report: The engine battle heats up (Update1) | Aspire Aviation
`
`I W
`
`Il_.l
`
`‘ uuulluuulunll
`
`_
`. _" __= _-L. _..1-"_
`__
`®AIRBUS SJ-’\.S. 2011 - COMPUTER RENDERING BY FIXION - GWLNSD
`
`Reliability matters
`
`Scepticisms raised by sceptics, including CFM International and Rolls-Royce, have been centered
`
`on the reliability of PW1000G engine's unique gearbox structure, a critical component which
`
`allows the engine fan to run at a speed 3 times slower than the low pressure turbines (LPTs) in
`
`order to maximise the engine's propulsive efficiency.
`
`“In 2009, we did a survey of airlines, lessors, bankers, and appraisers about what was most
`
`important to their operations. Reliability was far and away the most critical requirement for
`
`these customers, followed by maintenance cost, quality, and time on wing. Fuel burn came in
`
`fifth,” spokeswoman for CFM Internationa|’s main shareholder General Electric (GE), Jamie Jewell,
`concedes.
`
`“Airplanes in this segment usually operate 8 — 10 cycles per day, many with 30-minute or less
`
`turn times.
`
`If you have one engine problem at the beginning of the day, the entire schedule is
`
`off. That leads to unhappy customers and can tarnish an airline's reputation.
`
`“CFM is the benchmark for reliability in this market — no one does it better — and every technical
`
`decision we make for our products goes through that filter. We will sell no engine before its time
`
`and we have no intention of maturing our technology on the wings of our customer's airplanes.
`
`Before the first LEAP engine is ever delivered, we will have completed 18,000 cycles so that they
`
`will have mature reliability (99.98°/o departure reliability) at entry into service (EIS)," Jewell
`touts.
`
`http://www.aspireaviation.com/2011/05/10lpw-purepower-engine-vs-cfm-leap-x/
`
`UTC-2004.002
`
`

`
`4/3/2016
`
`Special Report The engine battle heats up (Update1) |/spire Aviation
`
`Meanwhile, critics of the P&W’s PurePower engines are quick to point to the notoriously unreliable
`
`Honeywell Lycoming LF507 and LF508 geared turbofan engines on BAe’s Avro RJ regional jet as
`
`well as the futile attempt on the PW8000 that there will be no difference this time around and the
`
`P&w PurePower engines are going to spell yet another moment of deja vu.
`
`“Our approach gets us to the same place in terms of benefits, but the CFM Leap-X is based on a
`
`lower-risk, proven architecture that does not incorporate added complexity with could have a
`
`serious negative impact on reliability,” GE spokeswoman Jamie Jewell laments.
`
`However, Aspire Aviation understands that the design of the gearbox, not the fundamental
`
`operating principles behind the gearbox, was at fault with the LF507 and PW8000 engines and in a
`
`technological breakthrough, the gearbox in Pratt & Whitney (P&W)’s PurePower engine only
`
`consists of 7 moving parts with journal bearings and operates in a simplistic manner.
`
`“We are all conscious of some of Pratt's engine development experience, but now we think they
`
`are very well advanced in building demonstrators. If we look at all the test rigs they have been
`
`running on the gearbox - and the gearbox is clearly the critical technical question in this -
`
`running it in all conditions with degraded oil, temperature variations, with gears out of alignment
`
`etc, every failure mode, they've done a lot to convince themselves and to convince us they've got
`
`a technological solution,” Airbus executive vice president (EVP) programmes Tom Williams was
`
`quoted saying in an Orient Aviation article (http://www.orientaviation.com/section.php?
`
`currenyIssue=I20110415160401-
`
`lS19A&currentSection=newsbackgrounders&currentArtic|e=A20110428110440-0f79E&).
`
`Importantly, Lufthansa has spent a lot of time and efforts in understanding how the P&w
`
`PurePower engine's gearbox works before committing to it, the Europe's third-largest carrier by
`market value said.
`
`“We have spent a lot of time with Pratt & Whitney to thoroughly understand the Geared TurboFan
`
`architecture, and we are convinced that the engine will deliver significant benefits," executive vice
`
`president (EVP), fleet management of Lufthansa Group Nico Buchholz commented.
`
`What is more, Pratt & Whitney (P&W) contends, its experience in gearbox design of turboprop
`
`engines manufactured by other United Technologies subsidiaries for helicopters and turboprop
`
`aircraft helps laid the ground for its PurePower geared turbofan (GTF) engines.
`
`“The PurePower Geared TurboFan engine design benefits from more than 400 million hours of
`
`geared engine experience within United Technologies and includes lessons incorporated from Pratt
`
`& Whitney Canada and our sister division, Sikorsky. Simply stated, our fan drive gear system
`
`uses a different bearing configuration than conventional turboprop gearboxes,” Pratt & Whitney
`
`(P&W) spokeswoman Katy Padgett explains.
`L
`'44‘
`
`Image Courtesy of Volvo Aem
`
`Maintenance cost saving
`
`Maintenance cost has been another subject under contentious debate. CFM claims that Pratt &
`
`Whitney (P&W) PurePower Geared Turbofan (GTF) engine is unproven and its gearbox increases
`
`httpj/www.aspireaviation.com/2011/05/10/pw-pu'epower-engine-vs-cfm-leap>x/
`
`3/18
`
`UTC—2004.003
`
`

`
`4/3/2016
`
`Special Report: The engine battle heats up (Update1) | Aspire Aviation
`
`the engine's maintenance cost significantly, whereas Pratt & Whitney counters its gearbox
`
`eliminates 7 stages, or 20°/o, of life-limited parts (LLPs).
`
`“The PurePower engine gearbox contains no life limited parts and requires no special maintenance
`
`on or off wing. During testing, we simulated conditions of more than 60,000 takeoffs under
`
`various conditions — equivalent to around 30 years of use — with no required maintenance and
`
`very little wear to the gear,” P&W spokeswoman Katy Padgett declares.
`
`“Less parts = less cost: When you compare a typical conventional two spool turbofan and the
`
`PW1000G geared turbofan engine, there are up to seven more stages of life-limited parts (LLPs)
`
`in a conventional architecture as compared to the GTF — that means the GTF has 20% less life
`
`limited parts than the competition. The final configuration of the PurePower engine will have a
`
`third fewer blades and vanes than current CFM56 engines and potentially around half that of the
`
`Leap-X.
`
`“We have built the PurePower engine for maintainability.
`
`In addition to the reduced part count,
`
`we have worked extensively to incorporate customer feedback and our broad MRO experience in
`
`the engine design — simplifying maintenance and reducing total cost of ownership,” Padgett
`elaborates.
`
`Understandably, CFM disagrees.
`
`“On today's product line, CFM has the lowest maintenance costs compared to the current V2500,
`
`on which Pratt is a partner. Pratt claims that the GTF will for ‘20°/o lower than the CFM56—5B.’
`
`If
`
`that is true, it would mean that GTF maintenance costs would have to be close to 50% lower than
`
`the V2500. We are skeptical that they can achieve that technically,” GE spokeswoman Jamie
`Jewell contends.
`
`“More than 90% of an engine's maintenance costs comes from the core, or hot section. With
`
`Leap-X, we are raising the pressure ratio as well as the air temperature to achieve higher
`
`thermal efficiencies. Through advanced coatings and cooling technology, though, we are keeping
`
`the metal temperature - which is what causes wear and tear - the same as today's CFM56
`
`engine. As a result, we are bringing a lot more technology with Leap-X but we are committing to
`
`customers that they will have maintenance costs comparable to the current product line,’’ Jewell
`says.
`
`Though the CFM International Leap-X engine is not without risks either. The prerequisite for CFM
`
`International to raise the air temperature while keeping the metal temperature constant is the
`
`emergence of ceramic matrix composite (CMC), which may not be mature enough to be brought
`
`to the markets until the end of this decade, analysts warn.
`
`“A key application of new materials will be the use of ceramic matrix composite (CMC) blades in
`
`turbines for the LEAP-X. It appears that these blades are now to be ready to go into service in
`
`2020 (we understand that this slipped from 2018). This timing is four years after the engine
`
`should be service. Our concern is that greater cooling requirements will reduce fuel burn
`
`performance and higher temperatures will reduce blade life on the early engines,” Bernstein
`Research cautioned.
`
`http://www.aspireaviation.com/2011/05/10lpw-purepower-engine-vs-cfm-leap-x/
`
`UTC-2004.004
`
`

`
`4/3/2016
`
`Special Report: The engine battle heats up (Update1) | Aspire Aviation
`
`Shh! (Noise reduction)
`
`In light of the increasing environmental awareness and the increasing demanding and stricter and
`
`stricter environmental regulations, noise reduction is important for the airline industry,
`
`particularly so as a very quiet aircraft many enable airlines to operate night-time flights into
`
`airports which have curfews in place, thereby opening up new market and revenue opportunities.
`
`Aspire Aviation thinks Pratt & Whitney (P&W)’s PurePower geared turbofan (GTF) engine is
`
`advantageous vis-a-vis noise reduction, primarily owing to its slower-turning fan which has a
`
`speed 1/3 of the low-pressure turbine (LPT) or a 3:1 gear ratio, that allows its PW1000G engines
`
`to be 50% quieter than existing engines.
`
`Interestingly, CFM International boasts a 75% reduction in noise for the Leap-X engines, its higher
`
`fan speed notwithstanding, which Aspire Aviation is highly sceptical of and will be very
`
`challenging to achieve while utilising higher bypass ratio and CMC advanced material alone.
`
`“Regarding noise, we are reducing it by 75%. Depending on the application, we will reduce the
`
`noise signature by 10 — 15 dB compared to the current ICAO Chapter 4 regulations," GE
`
`spokeswoman Jamie Jewell declares.
`
`“CFM has never designed a fan that runs faster than it needs to. LEAP will actually have a slower
`
`fan tip speed than the current CFM56 product line, which is helping to reduce noise. Other
`
`technologies that are reducing noise include the higher bypass ratio — more than double today's
`
`engines — along with the composite fan and fan case.
`
`“The thing to remember about noise, though, is that there is a direct trade-off between noise and
`
`fuel burn and you have to have a balanced approach that gets you the best possible results for
`
`each. LEAP will meet planned noise requirements with significant margin (the 10 dB to 15 dB I
`
`mentioned earlier).
`
`If you talk to any airline, they will tell you that this is all they really care
`
`about.
`
`It doesn't matter to them if the margin is 5 decibels or 50 decibels, as long as you meet
`
`the requirements. You don't get ‘credit’ for a huge margin because you may very well have
`
`sacrificed fuel burn,” Jewell claims.
`
`http://www.aspireaviation.com/2011/05/10lpw-purepower-engine-vs-cfm-|eap-x/
`
`UTC-2004.005
`
`

`
`Special Report: The engine battle heats up (Update1) | Aspire Aviation
`
`Image Courtesy of Airbus
`
`The fuel burn trade-off
`
`Notwithstanding the above debates, fuel burn saving is arguably the most eye-catching as well as
`
`headline-grabbing points as European Union (EU)’s emissions trading scheme (E|'S) goes into
`
`effect in 2012 and oil prices remained high despite last week's 10% drop from US$109 a barrel to
`
`US$97 amid tepid US labour market recovery.
`
`Pratt & Whitney (P&W)’s geared turbofan (GTF) initially targeted a 12% fuel burn saving, then the
`
`third-largest engine manufacturer in the world raised the target to 15% and now a 16% fuel burn
`
`saving target as the PurePower GTF engine continuously exceeds its fuel-burn saving expectations
`
`during tests.
`
`According to Aspire Aviation‘s source who is close to the East Hartford, Connecticut-based engine
`
`manufacturer, the fuel-burn saving on the PW1000G engines is believed to be slightly higher than
`
`the official 16% figure.
`
`Interestingly, CFM International has initially targeted a 16°/o fuel-burn saving as well but trimmed
`
`it to 15% due to the timeframe issue and surprisingly, CFM International is also concerned over
`
`the maturity of the ceramic matrix composite (CMC) itself.
`
`“When we launched the program in 2008, we were targeting a 2016 engine certification and a
`
`16°/o fuel burn improvement. Now that we have two applications set to enter service that year, we
`
`need to certify in 2014. We were concerned that the ceramic matrix composites we planned to put
`
`in the engine would not be mature enough so we took them out of the technology suite for now.
`
`This technology brought a 1°/o improvement," GE spokeswoman Jamie Jewell clarifies.
`
`http://www.aspireaviation.com/2011/05/10lpw-purepower-engine-vs-cfm-|eap-x/
`
`UTC-2004.006
`
`

`
`4/3/2016
`
`Special Report: The engine battle heats up (Update1) | Aspire Aviation
`
`Moreover, CFM International argues that the Leap-X engine is more “thermally efficient” than Pratt
`
`& Whitney (P&W)’s Geared Turbofan (GTF) engine.
`
`“Now, a quick lesson: there are three elements that come into play in reducing fuel burn.
`
`The first is propulsive efficiency, which contributes about 45% of the improvement. This is
`
`achieved through a higher bypass ratio, and you get that by putting a bigger fan on the front of
`
`the engine to pull in more air. The bigger the fan, the higher the bypass ratio. There are limits,
`
`though, because when a bigger fan is installed on an airplane, it brings with it both weight and
`
`drag. As with noise, you have to maintain an optimum balance so that you don't negate the
`
`benefits of a higher bypass ratio.
`
`The second element is thermal efficiency, which also contributes 45°/o of the fuel burn
`
`improvement. Thermal efficiency comes from your core operating temperatures. The basic laws
`
`of physics dictate that, in an aircraft engine core, hotter is better. This law applies to any turbofan
`
`engine,” GE spokeswoman Jamie Jewell emphasises.
`
`“The LEAP core will absolutely run hotter. That is a good thing; it is how you get fuel efficiency.
`
`Whether they admit it or not, the GTF is also running hot, probably as hot as LEAP. If it's not, then
`
`Pratt is building a very inefficient core,” Jewell declares.
`
`“Higher operating temperatures could lead to higher maintenance costs, but that is not the case
`
`with LEAP. There is a big difference between the air temperature in the core and the metal
`
`temperature in the core. Despite the higher air temperature, which is giving us the thermal
`
`efficiency, the metal temperature in LEAP will be the same as the current product line.
`
`“In fact, we are using the same metal in the LEAP high-pressure turbine (the hottest part of the
`
`engine) as the current product line. But we are bringing state-of—the—art coatings and cooling
`
`technology to maintain the same temperature profile. That is how we are able to say that LEAP
`
`maintenance costs will be comparable to the current product line. Remember that more than 90
`
`percent of an engine's maintenance costs come from the core (compressor, combustor, high-
`
`pressure turbine).
`
`“GE does the core for all CFM engines, while Snecma provides the low-pressure system (the fan
`
`and low-pressure turbine). LEAP has the benefit of a legacy of core technology that is unrivaled
`
`in the industry, including the GE90 and the new GEnx. These are the most fuel-efficient, reliable
`
`engines the in the widebody segment.
`
`“Combining that technology with more than 525 million flight hours of experience on the CFM56
`
`product line, as well as the revolutionary composite technology Snecma is bringing, make LEAP a
`
`truly formidable engine and a worthy successor to the CFM56 family.
`
`“The final element of improved fuel burn comes from nacelle technology. We are doing some
`
`work with Airbus on the A320 neo, but they own that hardware and you don't have a much
`
`latitude on a re-engined airplane. Where it will really come into play on the C919. COMAC opted
`
`for a full-integrated propulsion system, which means that CFM will provide everything from the
`
`wing down. This is an industry first,” Jewell comments.
`
`http://www.aspireaviation.com/2011/05/10lpw-purepower-engine-vs-cfm-leap-x/
`
`UTC-2004.007
`
`

`
`4/3/2016
`
`Special Report The eng‘ne battle heats up (Update1) |/spire Aviation
`
`Aspire Aviation contests General Electric (GE)’s view over the thermal efficiency of P&W’s
`
`PurePower geared turbofan (GTF) engine, however. Aspire Aviation understands that an aircraft
`
`engine with high thermal efficiency does not necessarily translate into significant fuel-burn saving
`
`and if P&W were able to achieve a 16% fuel-burn reduction, similar benefits when compared to
`
`the CFM Leap-X engines without raising engine air temperature, the need for achieving the highest
`
`thermal efficiency is negated.
`L
`In
`
`Image Courtesy of CFM International
`
`Growth potential & Conclusion
`
`Growth potential for the P&W GTF engines is bright, Aspire Aviation believes. The gear ratio of
`
`Pratt & Whitney (P&W)’s PurePower geared turbofan (GTF) can be easily raised from 3:1 to 5:1 to
`
`significantly improve fuel burn, implying the low pressure turbine (LPT) can eventually run at 5
`
`times faster than the engine fan does.
`
`Furthermore, Pratt & Whitney (P&W) could utilise the emerging ceramic matrix composite (CMC)
`
`technology when it is ready and mature enough to be brought into the market, which further
`
`reduces fuel burn in addition to the fuel burn reduction brought by the gearbox. Unfortunately,
`
`Aspire Aviation is unable to understand the materials used in the fan blades and fan discs on the
`
`P&W PurePower engine at press time.
`
`Make no mistake, there is unquestionably growth potential on the CFM International Leap-X
`
`engine, though Aspire Aviation is concerned this growth potential may be limited as it stretches
`
`the limit of the conventional engine architecture.
`
`On the other hand, both engines are undoubtedly going to sell, particularly if Air France orders the
`
`Airbus A320 neo following its evaluation which is currently underway, the largest European carrier
`
`by market value is very possible, if not certain, to order the CFM International Leap-X engines for
`
`its re-engined aircraft.
`
`In conclusion, Aspire Aviation believes P&W’s PurePower GTF engine delivers more direct
`
`operational saving and delivers a significant maintenance cost saving versus the CFM Leap-X
`
`engines. Though both engines will nevertheless have a bright future as Boeing mulls its options in
`
`whether to re-engine its best-selling 737NG (Next-Generation) or launch a new airplane
`
`altogether (“Boeing faces important strategic decisions on 737X
`
`(http://www.aspireaviation.com/2011/03/21/boeing-twin-aisle-737x/)“, 21st Mar 11), by which
`
`time the “second-generation” CFM Leap-X or P&W PurePower GTF engine will deliver even more
`
`game-changing economics than the early engines. For the time being, however, a looming fierce
`
`engine battle is about to begin.
`
`Here are the highlights of points made by Pratt & Whitney (P&W) vice president (VP) Next
`
`Generation Product Family Bob Saia, on a webinar on 11th May:
`
`—
`
`-
`
`3000 tonnes less CO2
`
`50% reduction in audible noise, 75% less noise footprint
`
`httpj/www.aspireaviation.com/2011/05/10/pw-pu'epower-engine-vs-cfm-lear>x/
`
`8/18
`
`UTC-2004.008
`
`

`
`4/3/2016
`
`Special Report: The engine battle heats up (Update1) | Aspire Aviation
`
`no limitation on fan drive gear system
`
`with time, 100,000 lbs category
`
`250 hours of PW1524G FE'l'l'
`
`no special oil required for gearbox, fan drive gear system
`
`we actually have parts to show airline the integrity of the engine
`
`we've taken airlines from very skeptical, neutral and very favorable
`
`the gearbox It's removable on wing
`
`the gear system adds 300 lbs, the engine is about 10% shorter, we've a very significant
`
`weight reduction on low—pressure, probably by 600 lbs
`
`the gear engine would be 5% lighter
`
`fan blades: we've actually played a competition between metallic and composite blades
`
`—
`
`fan blades: metal chemistry, lightweight hollow metallic fan blades, titanium leading edge,
`
`1/10 lb within a composite blade
`
`aerodynamically, the metallic blade is significantly better
`
`the turbine discs are made from conventional material
`
`all-new, high-technology core
`
`low-compressor is at higher speed
`
`we can distribute work efficiently
`
`because of propulsive efficiency, we don't have to try to have significant impact on
`
`serviceability [by going to higher temperature]
`
`—
`
`we've a roadmap — lightweight materials, gear ratio above 3:1, composite technology,
`
`boost fuel efficiency 1°/o per year, introduce improvement package
`
`—
`
`We are confident that we have enough runway to bring further improvement with
`
`fundamental architecture of #PW1000G (http://twitter.com/#!/search?q=%23PW1000G) engine
`
`—
`
`P&W is developing CMC, the difficulty is affordable, CMC are very expensive, another one is
`
`repairability
`
`CATEGORIES: AIRBUS (HTTP://WWW.ASPIREAVIATION.COM/CATEGORY/AIRBUS-GROUP/AIRBUS/), AIRBUS GROUP
`(HTTP://WWW.ASPIREAVIATION.COM/CATEGORY/AIRBUS-GROUP/), BOEING
`(HTTP://WWW.ASPIREAVIATION.COM/CATEGORY/BOEING/), BOMBARDIER
`(HTTP://WWW.ASPIREAVIATION.COM/CATEGORY/BOMBARDIER/), GENERAL ELECTRIC
`(HTTP://WWW.ASPIREAVIATION.COM/CATEGORY/GENERAL—ELECTRIC/), PRATT & WHITNEY
`(HTTP://WWW.ASPIREAVIATION.COM/CATEGORY/PRATT-WHITNEY/)
`TAGS: 737 NG (HTTP://WWW.ASPIREAVIATION.COM/TAG/737-NG/), A320NEO
`(HTTP://WWW.ASPIREAVIATION.COM/TAG/A320NEO/), AIRBUS (HTTP://WWW.ASPIREAVIATION.COM/TAG/AIRBUS/),
`
`http://www.aspireaviation.com/2011/05/10lpw-purepower-engine-vs-cfm-leap-x/
`
`UTC-2004.009
`
`

`
`Special Report The eng‘ne battle heats up (updatei) | Aspire Aviation
`4/3/2016
`BOEING (HTTP://WWW.ASPIREAVIATION.COM/TAG/BOEING/), BOMBARDIER
`(HTTP://WWW.ASPIREAVIAT10N.COM/TAG/BOMBARDIER/), CFM (HTTP://WWW.ASPIREAVIATION.COM/TAG/CFM/),
`CSERIES (HTTP://WWW.ASPIREAVIATION.COM/TAG/CSERIES/), GENERAL ELECTRIC
`
`(HTTP://WWW.ASPIREAVIATl0N.COM/TAG/GENERAL-ELECTRIC/), LEAP (HTTP://WWW.ASPlREAVIATION.COM/TAG/LEAP/),
`PRATT & WHITNEY (HTTP://WWW.ASPlREAVIATION.COM/TAG/PRATT-WHITNEY/), PUREPOWER
`(HTTP://WWW.ASPIREAVlATlON.COM/TAG/PUREPOWER/), PW1024G
`(HTTP2//WWW.ASPIREAVIATl0N.COM/TAG/PW1024G/), PW1100G (HTTP://WWW.ASPIREAVIATION.COM/TAG/PW1100G/)
`
`TRACKBACKS AND PINGBACKS
`
`1. Boeing continues to optimise 737 MAX | Aspire Aviation
`(http://www.aspireaviation.com/2012/04/09/boeing-continues-to-optimise-737-max/)
`[...] (CMC) mature over time and become cheaper to make the PurePower engine more fuel
`efficient (“Specia| Report: The engine...
`2. Interview: Virgin America chief executive David Cush | Aspire Aviation
`(http://www.aspireaviation.com/2011/09/16/interview-virgin-america-chief-executive-
`david-cush/)
`[...] by eliminating 7 stages of life-limited parts (LLPs) when compared to the CFM56
`engines (“Special Report: The engine battle heats...
`3. Shifting sands: Revisiting Boeing's narrowbody strategy | Aspire Aviation
`(http://www.aspireaviation.com/2011/07/28/shifting—sands-revisiting-boeings-narrowbody-
`strategy/)
`[...] PW1100G PurePower engine in addition to the offering by the GE-Snecma joint venture
`(“Special Report: The engine battle heats...
`4. Boeing's clarity provided at BCC meeting « Leeham News and Comment
`(http://leehamnews.wordpress.com/2011/05/09/boeings-clarity-provided-at-bcc-meeting/)
`[...] Aspire Aviation has this thorough analysis of the PW GTF vs the CFM [...]
`
`9 COMMENTS
`
`Airline Investor
`
`MAY 10, 2011
`
`Quite frankly, as a US legacy carriers investor, I don't pretty much care which engine they
`
`select. As long as they deliver significant fuel burn saving which is good for airlines, I'll
`support it.
`
`Though I'm skeptical over PW's ability to execute, such as PW6000 engines. Whether thse
`air-“nae at-A I-nn\Iir\r~nr‘| nr nnf Han ‘inn: 5: CH" nul-
`..-- _.- --..
`..--.. -.
`..--, -..-J_., .- --... -..-.
`‘REPLY (H1'|'P'.l/WWW.ASPlREAVIATlON.OOMI20I 1/05]IOIPW-PUREPOWER-ENGNE-VS-CFM-LEAP-X/?
`
`REPLYTOOOM=l278RESPOND)
`
`httpj/www.aspireaviation.com/2011/05/10/pw-puepower-engine-vs-cfm-leap-x/
`
`10/18
`
`UTC-2004.010
`
`

`
`4/3/2016
`
`Special Report The eng‘ne battle heats up (Update1) |/Spire Aviation
`
`Boeing's clarity provided at BCC meeting « Leeham News and Comment
`
`MAY 11, 2011
`
`f...l Aspire Aviation has this thorouah analvsis of the PW GTF vs the CFM l...l
`REPLY (l-l'lTPI/WWW.ASPl REAV|AT|0N.COMI20l l/0511OIPW-PUREPOWER-ENGNE-VS-CFM-LEAP-XI?
`
`REPLYTOOOM=l 28#RESPOND)
`
`aerotrubopower
`
`MAY 12, 2011
`
`Verv aood article - matches oerfectlv mv own understandina of the enaines!
`REPLY (l-l1TP'.//WWW.A.SPlREAVlATlON.OOMI2OI 1l05l'I0/PW-PUREPOWER-ENGNE-VS-CFM-LEAP-X/?
`
`REPLYTOO0M=l ZQSRESPOND)
`
`Andy Eppink
`
`JUNE 05, 2011
`
`This seems like a good idea tho we'll see how the red gear holds up. Hopefully it will as max
`
`tork, rpm occurs only at t/o, falling considerably at cruise. The real proof of the pudding for it
`
`and the whole turbine (whole engine) will be utility/industrial/marine applications where
`
`continuous full load svc is req'd.
`
`If things work out for Pratt it loox as tho they might knock GE off their pedestal as the best
`
`light duty turbine maker.
`
`I wonder how it compares to turboprop efficiency efficiency? Apples to apples comparison.?
`
`As to hi hp turbine nozzle inlet temps with consequent better thermal efficiency but more
`
`manta problems, how far can this go? After there's no aircraft nozzle, blade, disc etc. steam
`.........., ..,......... vie u.-.. H- -.._ ..
`.... ...........
`V" ...
`ya.
`.
`.-. 3.,
`.
`I-r\r\I;r|rI nnl-inn an null-H O-I-n (EC Ll
`:-ru—iru- I-urn-un: Fr-u-v-an I-up-I-sir-an Ll:-uu F-up a--an if run.)
`REPLY (I-nTi>./AM~wAsPiR'E}xwATioN.o5r7/2o'1V1/o§}'oIl=i/3/-Funepowsn-ErlauE-vs-cI=M-LEAP-X/7
`
`REPLY'l'OO0M=130#RESPOND)
`
`'
`
`Daniel Tsang
`JUNE 05, 2011
`
`.
`
`httpj/www.aspireaviation.com/2011/05/10/pw-pueoower-engine-vs-cfm-leap-xl
`
`11/18
`
`UTC-2004.011
`
`

`
`4/3/2016
`
`Special Report The eng'ne battle heats up (Update1) |/Spire Aviation
`
`Re Andy,
`
`Would you like to clarify your comments?
`
`Did you want to ask how does the P&W GTF's gearbox compares to that of the turboprop
`
`engines, right?
`
`Thanks for your comment.
`
`- Daniel,
`
`_I\_S'r_\Ere _A_\Ii:l-inn Toaqu
`f_W_n I-\aha!F cf
`REPLY (H1'i1>./lWWW.ASPIREAVlATiON.OOM-I‘;-01 ‘1-/O5/10/PW-PUREPOWER-ENGINE-VS-CFM-LEAP-XI?
`
`REPLYTOOOM=132cRESPOND)
`
`Andy Eppink
`
`JUNE 05, 2011
`
`m ai nte na nce
`
`REPLY (HITPJIWWWASPI REAVIATIONDOMIZOI 1/05/‘I OIPW-PUREPOWER-ENGNE-VS-CFM-LEAP-XI?
`
`REPLYTOOOM=1 31 ORESPOND)
`
`Shifting sands: Revisiting Boeing's narrowbody strategy | Aspire Aviation
`
`JULY 28, 2011
`
`[...] PW1100G PurePower engine in addition to the offering by the GE-Snecma joint venture
`/“Cnnri-2| Dnnnn-Ow Tho nnninn I-u-:9-O-In Inn-:9-r nun“
`1f“-I-\ Man:
`1 1\ I"
`'l
`\ wry».-. ....'.v..-..
`.3.
`..... ..
`.... gr...-~-... us...» our
`, —v...
`. ...,, ——, L.--_l
`REPLY (H1'|'P'J/\MNWASPl REAV|AT|ON.COMI20‘I 1/05]‘IOIPW-PUREPOWER-ENGINE-VS-CFM-LEAP-X/?
`
`REPLYTOOOM=133IRESPOND)
`
`Interview: Virgin America chief executive David Cush | Aspire Aviation
`
`SEPTEMBER 16, 2011
`
`[...] by eliminating 7 stages of life-limited parts (LLPs) when compared to the CFM56
`
`engines (“Specia| Report: The engine battle heats up“, 10th May, 11). Cush responded by
`
`httpj/www.aspireaviation.com/2011/05/10/pw-puepower-engine-vs-cfm-leap-xl
`
`12/18
`
`UTC—2004.0l2
`
`

`
`4/3/2016
`
`Special Report The eng‘ne battle heats up (Update1) |/Spire Aviation
`
`CikviiiiiiflEi1‘iDfi&iv{}i)0’£si3i§dA\ifix‘rYoiiiE2i29iH&ii¥iYo‘sfi6i9W$tii9iflJ£fiiei+eiaus-vs-cm-Leap-m
`
`REPLYTOCOM-J38IRESPOND)
`
`Boeing continues to optimise 737 MAX | Aspire Aviation
`
`APRIL 09, 2012
`
`[...] (CMC) mature over time and become cheaper to make the PurePower engine more fuel
`
`efficient (“Special Report: The engine battle heats up“, 10th May, 11), hedging between them
`
`Wfl?fiH$ i$|§)£l}IR‘Fi<$}2EE9H&o'Wi>3')foliawbunepowsn-ENGNE-vs-ci=M-LEAP-xn
`
`REPLYTOCOM=2753#RESPOND)
`
`LEAVE A REPLY
`
`Connect with:
`
`(http://www.aspireaviation.com/wp-|ogin.php?
`action =wordpress_social_a uthenticate&mode= Iogin&provider= Facebook&redi rect_to= http°/o3A%2F%:
`
`(http://www.aspireaviation.com/wp-Iogin_php?
`purepower-engine—vs—cfm—leap-x°/o2F) p.
`action = wordpress_social_a uthenticate&m ode= login&provider= Goog|e&redirect_to= http°/o3A°/o2F°/o2F\
`purepower-engine-vs-cfm-leap-x°/o2F) (http://www.aspireaviation.com/wp-login.php?
`
`action=wordpress_sociaI_authenticate&mode=Iogin&provider=Twitter&redirect_to=http%3A%2F%2F\
`purepower-engine-vs-cfm-lea p-x°/o2F)
`
`COMMENT
`
`NAME *
`
`httpj/www.aspireaviation.com/2011/05/10/pw-puepower-engine-vs-cfm-leap-xl
`
`13/18
`
`UTC—2004.0l3
`
`

`
`Special Report The engne battle heats up (updatei) | Aspire Aviation
`
`4/3/2016
`
`EMAIL *
`
`WEBSITE
`
`Search for
`
`CALEN DAR
`
`May 2011
`
`M
`
`2
`
`9
`
`16
`
`T
`
`3
`
`(http://www.aspireaviation.com/2011/05/03/)
`
`10
`
`(http://www.aspireaviation.com/2011/05/10/)
`
`(http://www.aspireaviation.com/2011/05/ 16/)
`
`23
`
`(http://www.aspireaviation.com/2011/05/23/)
`
`30
`
`(http://www.aspireaviation.com/2011/05/30/)
`
`17
`
`24
`
`31
`
`W
`
`4
`
`11
`
`18
`
`25
`
`(http:/
`
`httpi/www.aspireaviation.cornf2011/05/10/pw-pu'epower-engine-vs»cfm-Ieap-x/
`
`14/18
`
`UTC-2004.014
`
`

`
`4/3/2016
`
`Special Report The eng‘ne battle heats up (Update1) |/Spire Aviation
`
`« Apr (http://www.aspireaviation.com/2011/04/)
`
`ARCHIVES
`
`Archives
`
`Select Month
`
`RECENT COMMENTS
`
`David Leo (http://www.aspireaviation.com)
`
`on Changi boosts capacity to combat competition
`(http://www.aspireaviation.com/2016/03/31/changi-boosts-capacity-to-combat-
`competition/#comment-2721 1)
`
`Fernando Bussalino
`
`on Changi boosts capacity to combat competition
`(http://www.aspireaviation.com/2016/03/31/Changi-boosts-capacity-to-combat-
`competition/#comment-27191)
`
`sabena (http://bwI.com.au)
`on Optimism and more good news (http://www.aspireaviation.com/2016/03/07/optimism-and-
`more-good-news/#comment-26571)
`
`David Leo (http://www.aspireaviation.com)
`on United versus Singapore Airlines: The race for non-stop USA-Singapore connections
`(http://www.aspireaviation.com/2016/02/15/united-Singapore-airlines-race-usa-
`singapore/#comment-26527)
`
`Christopher D. Dye
`on United versus Singapore Airlines: The race for non-stop USA-Singapore connections
`(http://www.aspireaviation.com/2016/02/15/united-singapore-airlines-race-usa-
`singapore/#comment-26431)
`
`TAG CLOUD
`
`737 MAX (http://www.aspireaviation.com/tag/737-max/) 737 NG
`
`(http://www.aspireaviation.com/tag/737-n