JPRS mon blog !
| Auteur | Message | |
|
Vector
Inscrit le 26/06/2007 |
# 16 mai 2010 21:10 | |
|
J'ajouterai que même si les décisions de l'OMC sont partagées entre la chèvre et le chou, les Américains n'en ont rien à cirer et l'achat d'avions étrangers est hors de question politiquement. Alors souvenez-vous de la Ferme des animaux : tous sont égaux, mais il y en a qui sont beaucoup plus égaux que d'autres (et j'aurais aussi pu évoque Le loup et l'agneau !).
(Dernière édition le 16 mai 2010 21:10) _________________ " Des trolls, n'en jetez plus, la cour est déjà pleine !" Vector |
||
 
|
||
|
pascal83
Inscrit le 18/07/2007 |
# 16 mai 2010 21:14 | |
|
bon je reviens sur un sujet plus d'actu .Allons nous voir un RR NG sous les ailes de l'A320/321 ou une association de deux motoristes. LHU se dit interessé par une remotorisation de l'A320/321 je pense qu'AF aussi a part que pour AF se serait plus CFM. |
||
|
|
||
|
Beochien
Inscrit le 13/02/2007 |
# 16 mai 2010 21:43 | |
|
Dit Pascal ! Il y a un fil ... 320 Remot, faut farfouiller dedans, tout n'est pas à prendre, et chez les copains aussi ! Et chez Sévrien aussi ! De quoi lire et avoir tous les avis ... très variés tu verras ! Pour moi, RR n'est pas prêt et ne s'est pas mis d'accord avec P&W chez IAE, donc assez peu de chances de les voir sur A320 NEO, sauf revirement et accord de dernière minute ! Chez IAE, ce serait ou le GTF ou un RR pas vraiment prêt, mais je ne les vois pas accoupler leurs techno, du moins à temps, c'est trop tard Airbus est pressé maintenant (C'est nouveau) ! Donc, l'un serait le super-sous-traitant de l'autre, chez IAE, et ça accroche côté RR, comme avec P&W, les deux veulent imposer leur matos ! P&W pense y aller seul, sans IAE, et Airbus semble s'y faire ... RR est capable aussi seul, avec le RB 282, mais risque 1 ou 2 ans de retard, peut être sur le 737, qui sait, à côté, et aprés le Leap56 C'est le résumé spécial, pour Mr Pascal, qui devrait chercher un peu ! Il y en à partout depuis 8 jours ! JPRS _________________ JPRS |
||
|
|
||
|
Beochien
Inscrit le 13/02/2007 |
# 17 mai 2010 12:17 | |
|
Bonjour ! Remarquable publication de Aviation Week ! La part du rêve ! La NASA à payé (Partiellement) des équipes Universitaires, et des BE des Avionneurs US, et 4 motoristes, dont RR, pour imaginer ce que pourraient être les avions vers 2030-35 (Ajuter 5-10 ans, pour être sérieux ...) La génération N+3 ! La N étant l'actuelle ... sans précision à partir du 787, je suppose! Oublier les Y1, Y2 (le 787? ou le sonic cruiser ?), et Y3 de Boeing, (terminologie aux oubliettes chez Boeing depuis longtemps, entre autres, ils sont passé à autre chose) Des résultats ahurissants, sur des concepts, pratiques, pas trop de délires, presque du concret, ca fait plaisir à voir ! Un défaut, pas d'argent pour continuer côté NASA, les Airframers promettent de poursuivre côté aéro ! Tant mieux ! Noter que le N° du projet, N+3 est un peu incongru, dans la mesure ou on ne voit pas dans le temps imparti, comment 2 générations ... N+1 et N+2 y trouveraient leur insertion, ya pas le temps ... sauf si on ajoute 10 ans de plus ! Cela rejoint le PB des remotorisations des monocouloirs, et les NG pour pour 2020-25 et plus, ca se bouscule, les améliorations resserrent les différences et il faut sans cesse rehausser la barre pour essayer de maintenir le GAP à 15% de progrès ! Sisyphe et son pavé s'est installé sur les planches à dessin, ce n'est plus un mythe !! Et les nouvelles générations tous les 10 ans, déjà presque obsolètes en démarrant, qui va pouvoir payer tout cela ! Pas la NASA en tout cas ! Noter quand même que certaines études à 20-25 ans obtiennent de superbes résultats, tout en restant assez conservatrices, c'est un point très positif, des projets disons "Plus Atteignables" C'était d'ailleurs le but de ces études demandées, qu'elles soient "Réalistes" 3 pages de Aviation Week, et il faudra attendre la dispo publique, ou d'autres sources du rapport NASA, pour avoir plus de données, et toutes les photos (Juste le projet d'un petit Cessna ici!) Bon, j'édite 3 projets, parmi les 4 ! Des écos dans les 50-60%, comme s'il en pleuvait ! De quoi faire largement re-considérer les buts actuels de la génération 2020-25 (Et les lancer quand ... hum!) Noter les SUGAR séries de Boeing (Plus de Y1, c'est du siècle passé) Noter que les principales études tournent autour d'avions de 150-200 places, proches des 737-320, en capacités, silencieux, et décollant assez court ! Noter les 45 000 pieds, omniprésents ! -------------------- Aviation Week Extraits de 3 Pages !--------------- http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/ ... 0By%202030 Intro / Commercial aircraft have the potential to become dramatically cleaner and quieter in the next 25 years, but manufacturers will have to decide how far they want to push technology, and airlines must decide how much they are willing to pay for efficiency. The potential for improvement is outlined in studies completed for NASA by four design teams led by Boeing, General Electric and Cessna, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Northrop Grumman. The teams defined configurations to meet NASA’s aggressive environmental goals for an “N+3-generation” subsonic airliner entering service in 2030-35 (N is today’s aircraft). They then developed road maps to mature the required technologies. In parallel, Boeing and Lockheed Martin conducted similar studies into N+3 supersonic transports, defining configurations and developing technology road maps for a quiet, efficient high-speed airliner (see p. 43). The intent of all these studies is to help NASA shape subsonic and supersonic research within its resurgent aeronautics program. “The studies had three objectives,” says Ruben Del Rosario, principal investigator for NASA’s subsonic fixed-wing project. “Define a future scenario for 2030-35, develop advanced aircraft concepts for that scenario, and assess technologies and provide road maps for their development. Overall, the studies provide a clear path for research in aerodynamics, propulsion and materials.” NASA’s subsonic N+3 goals include reductions exceeding 70% in fuel burn, 75% in emissions and 71 dB. in noise relative to today’s aircraft. The teams struggled to meet all the goals in one design. Some proposed new aircraft and propulsion concepts. One got close to the goals with a conventional configuration, through the synergistic application of new technologies, but it cautions such an aircraft would be expensive. “Our N+3 strategy is to simultaneously address all the goals. Clearly, from the results, they fell short of addressing them all simultaneously,” says Del Rosario. Projet Boeing SUGAR itérations/ Boeing’s Subsonic Ultra Green Aircraft Research (Sugar) team, which included GE and the Georgia Institute of Technology, selected a 737-class 150-seat aircraft and developed a series of increasingly advanced concepts as it strived to meet the N+3 goals. Nicknamed Refined Sugar, its conventional 2030 configuration has reduced sweep, laminar flow and advanced turbofan engines and achieves 44% lower fuel burn and 16 dB. less noise. Nitrogen-oxide (NOx) emissions are 42% of current limits set by the International Civil Aircraft Organization Committee on Aviation Environmental Protection (CAEP/6). These figures are well short of NASA’s goals. This led to Sugar High, a configuration with a long-span, strut-braced wing for higher aerodynamic efficiency. The design also taps additional technologies expected to become available in the N+3 time frame, including more efficient turbofan or open-rotor engines. The result is reductions of 39-46% in fuel burn, 22 dB. in noise and NOx at 28% of CAEP/6. And this configuration comes with a caution—the uncertainty in estimating the weight of the long, thin wing. Still short of NASA’s goals, the team turned to Sugar Volt, Sugar High with electric propulsion. They studied battery-only and fuel-cell/gas-turbine hybrids, but selected a turbine-electric hybrid in which a high-bypass turbofan runs on jet fuel and/or batteries. Short missions are flown on electric power, while for longer flights jet fuel takes over. The result is a fuel-burn reduction exceeding 63%, close the NASA’s 70% target, but at the expense of carrying 20,900 lb. of batteries. The Boeing team also studied a hybrid wing-body (HWB) configuration, Sugar Ray, with the emphasis on reducing noise through airframe shielding of the advanced turbofans. Noise is reduced by 37 dB., the lowest of all the Sugar configurations studied, but still well short of NASA’s N+3 goal. NG RR Aussi, le plus pragmatique / In contrast, Northrop Grumman’s team, whose other members were Rolls-Royce, Sensis Corp., Spirit AeroSystems and Tufts University, came within a hair’s breadth of achieving NASA’s fuel-burn, noise, emissions and field-length goals with an outwardly conventional configuration. The team selected a 120-seat aircraft capable of operating from reliever airports with 5,000-ft. runways to provide additional capacity. “We demonstrated you can achieve some pretty dramatic improvements if you apply reasonable technology and allow them to cascade one on top of the other,” says Sam Bruner, configuration design manager at Northrop Grumman Aerospace Systems. “It’s not revolutionary in appearance but has very revolutionary improvements in fuel burn, noise and NOx through the contributions of many things.” Northrop Grumman’s N+3 configuration achieves a 69.6-dB. reduction in noise, 63.5% in fuel burn and NOx emissions 90.6% below CAEP/6—almost meeting or slightly beating NASA’s targets. Technologies include an advanced three-shaft turbofan, swept-wing laminar flow, large integrated composite structures, active aeroservoelastic control, carbon-nanotube electrical cables, and advanced acoustic treatments. “The advanced-technology, three-shaft engine contributes quite a lot in reduced fuel consumption and jet velocities,” says Bruner. “When you reduce fuel burn, you reduce aircraft weight, reduce noise, and things snowball.” Flying at higher altitude requires lower wing loading, which improves field performance without elaborate high-lift devices, and eliminating leading-edge slats reduces noise, he says. “To our advantage, NASA specifically said cost was not a consideration,” says Bruner. “This will be a slightly more expensive aircraft, with bigger engines for a 45,000-ft. cruise and bigger wings for a 5,000-ft. field length.” Manufacturers and airlines will have to decide the trade between cost and efficiency and the environment, he adds. Despite the dramatic improvements projected, Northrop Grumman’s team used “fairly conservative technologies” in its configuration. “We drew a firm line at TRL [technology readiness level] 6 by 2025,” Bruner says. Et le plus avancé, peut être moins réaliste ,avec P&W et Aerodyn/ MIT’s approach was more outside the box. The team, which included Aerodyne Research, Aurora Flight Sciences and Pratt & Whitney, selected 180-seat domestic and 350-seat international airliners and proposed two unconventional configurations. The 737-sized D8 Series has a “double-bubble” lifting fuselage, slender low-sweep wing and three turbofans atop the aft fuselage. The 777-sized H3 Series is a hybrid wing-body with embedded, distributed propulsion. MIT says the D8.5, with an advanced composite airframe, ultra-high-bypass engines and laminar-flow wing, narrowly beats NASA’s 70% fuel-saving target, exceeds the NOx goal with an 87% reduction from CAEP/6, but falls slightly short on noise, coming in 60 dB. lower. All the D8 configurations could operate from 5,000-ft. runways. The largest part of these improvements is attributed to the basic configuration. “The study allowed some clean-sheet thinking,” says Jim Hileman, principal research engineer at MIT. “It’s a challenge to get real improvements at 737 size. The D8 design captures aspects of the hybrid wing-body—like the lifting fuselage—but without all the unused white space.” The D8’s fuselage cross-section is like two conventional “tubes” placed side by side to provide twin-aisle seating. This allows the aircraft to have a lifting nose and reduces the size of the wing and tail. Another key design feature is the location of the engines—embedded in the rear fuselage where they ingest the boundary layer over the upper fuselage, improving propulsive efficiency, and between the twin vertical tails, shielding noise. The turbofan engines for the D8.5 have a bypass ratio of 20, compared with five for the 737’s CFM56s, but their constrained size requires small high-performance cores. “It was a big surprise that we met the goals at 737 size,” says Hileman. “We assumed that if we made it big enough, the HWB would do it, but the 777-size HWB did not get there.” MIT also looked at turbine-electric hybrid propulsion. “We thought that would be a big winner, but it did not turn out to be that beneficial.” Le Cessna-GE dans le lien/ Conclusion / “The goals served their purpose. They are not unattainable,” says Wahls. “But instead of talking fuel burn, it needs to be energy consumption so we can compare different types of propulsion using different energy sources.” Bruner says Northrop Grumman’s study showed the goals to be valid, adding, “We will be energy-constrained globally by 2030, so anything we can do to reduce fuel burn will help conserve resources.” Bonne lecture, de quoi rêver ! JPRS (Dernière édition le 17 mai 2010 12:25) _________________ JPRS |
||
|
|
||
|
Beochien
Inscrit le 13/02/2007 |
# 17 mai 2010 13:26 | |
|
Bonjour ! Noter que dans le post précédent un alliance bizarre (Sur le projet) In contrast, Northrop Grumman’s team, whose other members were Rolls-Royce, Sensis Corp., Spirit AeroSystems and Tufts University, came within a hair’s breadth of achieving NASA’s fuel-burn, noise, emissions and field-length goals with an outwardly conventional configuration. The team selected a 120-seat aircraft capable of operating from reliever airports with 5,000-ft. runways to provide additional capacity. Il n'y a pas de constructeur "Majeur" Associé ... les plus gros ... NG, et RR ... qui construirait ?? Même cas pour la 3eme étude ! In contrast, Northrop Grumman’s team, whose other members were Rolls-Royce, Sensis Corp., Spirit AeroSystems and Tufts University, came within a hair’s breadth of achieving NASA’s fuel-burn, noise, emissions and field-length goals with an outwardly conventional configuration. The team selected a 120-seat aircraft capable of operating from reliever airports with 5,000-ft. runways to provide additional capacity. Dans les 2 cas pas de vrais constructeurs ... Plus qu'à se chercher des alliés, qui sait ... Embraer, Bombardie, Airbus ... voire en Asie ?? NG et Airbus ne sont pas en guerre, loin de là ! Bon ce sont des projets US financés partiellement par la NASA, et il n'y a qu'un gros constructeur aux USA, donc, retombées US à priori ! C'est peut être pour cela que le document "NASA" n'est pas accessible pour l'instant ... JPRS (Dernière édition le 17 mai 2010 13:26) _________________ JPRS |
||
|
|
||
|
Beochien
Inscrit le 13/02/2007 |
# 17 mai 2010 13:49 | |
|
Tiens ... un extrait ! "Spécial" pour Lightweight “The advanced-technology, three-shaft engine contributes quite a lot in reduced fuel consumption and jet velocities,” says Bruner. “When you reduce fuel burn, you reduce aircraft weight, reduce noise, and things snowball.” Flying at higher altitude requires lower wing loading, which improves field performance without elaborate high-lift devices, and eliminating leading-edge slats reduces noise, he says. Et une trés prometteuse contribution en trois arbres , pour un Turbofan ! Pas un open rotors, semble t'il ! Northrop Grumman’s N+3 configuration achieves a 69.6-dB. reduction in noise, 63.5% in fuel burn and NOx emissions 90.6% below CAEP/6—almost meeting or slightly beating NASA’s targets. Technologies include an advanced three-shaft turbofan, swept-wing laminar flow, large integrated composite structures, active aeroservoelastic control, carbon-nanotube electrical cables, and advanced acoustic treatments. Et deux solutions originales, plus futuristes, du côté P&W, Spirit ! Des fuselages extra larges, qui portent un peu, probablement ! Le 8 en forme d''infini (Horizonta), pour le twin aisle, et une Aile volante partielle, du moins ! MIT’s approach was more outside the box. The team, which included Aerodyne Research, Aurora Flight Sciences and Pratt & Whitney, selected 180-seat domestic and 350-seat international airliners and proposed two unconventional configurations. The 737-sized D8 Series has a “double-bubble” lifting fuselage, slender low-sweep wing and three turbofans atop the aft fuselage. The 777-sized H3 Series is a hybrid wing-body with embedded, distributed propulsion. JPRS (Dernière édition le 17 mai 2010 13:59) _________________ JPRS |
||
|
|
||
|
LightWeight
Inscrit le 28/12/2006 |
# 17 mai 2010 16:18 | |
|
Voilà, dans ce que j' ai cité de ces études dans "supersonique civil", les objectifs sont comparables, il faut aller vers des charges alaires plus faibles associées à des aérodynamiques plus efficaces en gagnant sur les consomamtions,le tout en essayant de simplifier la machine (pas d' hypersustentaion, pas de reverses par exemple), pour économiser du poids et les coûts à l' entretien... Tous ces gains rendus possibles à moyen terme paraissent encore plus énormes quand on les applique au supersonique... |
||
|
|
||
|
Beochien
Inscrit le 13/02/2007 |
# 18 mai 2010 18:20 | |
|
Bonjour ! La même qu'hier, cette fois avec des photos ! La proposition (Pour plus de budget d'études .. de MIT) The MIT-led team also includes Aurora Flight Sciences Corp. and Pratt & Whitney. Tiens, il n'y a pas de constructeur ! Des désigns un peu décalés, comme d'hab, le 8 horizontal, et la semi Aile volante ! et des ECOS intéressantes ! De quoi faire rêver Lighweight ! Bon, on est dans les projets ! Un peu comme hier, mais avec les photos ! QQ 'un sait les éditer .... ? ----------------------- Le Seattle time , L'article --------------------------------- MIT's proposed jet could cut fuel use by 70 percent Picture MIT's D "double bubble" concept modifies the classic "tube-and-wing" structure with a wide fuselage to provide extra lift and could carry 180 passengers on domestic flights, with more room than a Boeing 737-800. (MIT/Aurora Flight Sciences) An MIT-led team has designed an airplane it estimates would use 70 percent less fuel than current airliners while also reducing noise and emission of nitrogen oxides, the university announced Monday. The 180-passenger D "double bubble" series would carry 180 passengers on domestic flights, filling the role now played by Boeing's 737 and Airbus' A320 families. It is one of two designs that the team presented to NASA last month as part of a $2.1 million research contract for concepts that would help guide the agency's aeronautics research over the next 25 years. The D series would replace the tube in the conventional tube-and-wing structure with two partial cylinders side by side, creating extra lift. The design also moves the engines from the wings to the rear of the fuselage -- allowing intake of slower-moving air and using less fuel for the same amount of thrust -- and further reduces drag and fuel use with longer, skinnier wings and a smaller tail. To mitigate potential design drawbacks, such as extra engine stress, the jet would travel about 10 percent slower than a 737, although its wider size would allow for quicker loading and unloading. The team devised a higher technology version that would cut fuel burn by 70 percent and a near-term alternative that would cut use in half, while using conventional aluminum and current jet technology. Carl Burleson, the director of the Federal Aviation Agency's Office of Environment and Energy, praised the D series use of a design similar to current airliners. "You have to think about how an airport structure can support it," he said in MIT's news release. "For some other designs, you could have to fundamentally reshape the gates at airports because the planes are configured so differently." Picture MIT's H "hybrid wing body" series features a triangular-shaped hybrid wing body aircraft, improving aerodynamics and creating a forward lift that eliminates the need for a tail to balance the aircraft. It would carry 350 passengers on international flight The team's other proposed design for NASA is the H series, a hybrid wing body aircraft that would carry 350 passengers on international flights, filling the role now dominated by Boeing's 777. The design improves aerodynamics and creates a forward lift that eliminates the need for a tail to balance the aircraft, MIT said. It also allows for different propulsion systems, such as a distributed system of multiple smaller engines. MIT said that, while the design "meets NASA's emissions-reduction and runway-length goals," researchers "will continue to improve the design to meet more of NASA's objectives." NASA also awarded similar research contracts for subsonic commercial planes to four other teams, led by Boeing, GE Aviation and Northrop Grumman, respectively, and two contracts for supersonic planes to teams led by Boeing and Lockheed-Martin. The MIT-led team also includes Aurora Flight Sciences Corp. and Pratt & Whitney. Members expect to hear within the next several months whether NASA has selected it for a second phase, where one or two teams will continue research on and development of their concepts. MIT said it planned to continue work one way or the other. JPRS (Dernière édition le 19 mai 2010 15:35) _________________ JPRS |
||
|
|
||
|
Beochien
Inscrit le 13/02/2007 |
# 19 mai 2010 15:28 | |
|
Bonjour ! Re-engine or not Re-engine ! Pour les B737 ?? Les investisseurs douteux .... rien n'est écrit ! Des chiffres et des avis d'investisseurs, durant des journées dédiées à ceux ci, chez Boeing ! Morgan Stanley au créneau, pour ses investisseurs ! Un article de Leeham qui s'appuie sur une note de Morgan-Stanley (Non dispo sur le net now) Bien, qq numéros en "Petits" Billions de $ ! 2 - 3 milliards, pour la re-motorisationdu 737, la moitié peut être pour pour le A320 (C'est moi qui le dit) Mais beaucoup plus grave ... 8-10 % d'efficacité , une différence en faveur d'Airbus ... Et un coût de développement de 13 milliards pour Boeing, pour une NG, qui ne disposera que des moteurs en développement actuellement (Pas des open rotors, qui ne seront pas prêts) Ca, c'est à considérer aussi ... un 1/2 NG en quelque sorte pour remplacer le 737 ! Va falloir inventer dur ou attendre un peu chez Boeing ! Ne pas oublier non plus les qq pistes publiées précédemment, qui montrent que, à côté des open rotors"... Eh bien, les turbo-fan de très haute dilution (Bonjour les pas variables de RR ??? ou des Russes, qui sait ), vont très loin aussi dans les économies ... mais lesquels ... ce n'est pas encore la génération qui arrive ! Va falloir patienter 5 ans au moins, pour voir les solutions réalistes, sortir de chez les motoristes ! C'est le gros dilemme de Boeing ! A voir sur la fin qq slides de JL Airbus, et autres rapportées ! Pas toujours clair en l'absence des explications ... ------------------------ Extrait de la Com Leeham Tout frais -------------------------------- http://leehamnews.wordpress.com/2010/05 ... o-nothing/ A second aerospace analyst has weighed in with the opinion that Boeing is likely to choose a replacement for the 737 rather than a re-engine solution. Heidi Wood of Morgan Stanley published this note today, as Boeing’s investors’ day begins. The bottom line – Another New Plane Ahead – BA’s Going To Do A New Single Aisle: We believe Boeing will be announcing a new narrowbody replacement to the well-worn and highly popular 737 instead of the less costly, but inferior solution of re-engining. This means a $13B-type R&D effort ahead in lieu of a possible $2-3B R&D for re-engining, which was previously in our model. We are now lowering outyear estimates to reflect a projected new narrowbody 2012 launch and 2017-2018 entry into service (EIS, first delivery). We believe consensus earningsexpectations will be revised down significantly on higher R&D. Why An All New Plane? We expect Airbus to announce an A320 re-engining sometime before yearend; BA will likely announce its plans around the same time. It is not generally known, but on a re-engine to re-engine equivalent basis, we believe the Airbus A320 ends up w/ a 8-10% better fuel burn than the 737, rendering the $3B R&D cost to re-engine largely ineffective. The 737 has been refreshed three times already since its first inception in 1967. And with 5 low end single aisle competitors ~mid-decade, we think BA is prudent to be pre-emptive with an all-new airplane. Joe Nadol of JP Morgan and Joe Campbell disagree, thinking a re-engine is more likely. So does Boeing rival Airbus, where COO-Customers John Leahy suggests all the talk about a replacement 737 is Boeing disinformation aimed at muddying Airbus’ waters. Leahy believes Boeing would be foolish to proceed with a new airplane with a 2019-20 EIS (that predicted by Buckingham Research; Wood predicts 2017-2018, which we think is perhaps a year or two two soon), only to be followed by an all-new, much more efficient A320 replacement in the 2025-27 period. Airbus is betting that the Open Rotor engine will be the solution rather than the PW GTF or CFM Leap-X engines, which are being considered for re-engine solutions. At the Airbus Innovation Days, Leahy displayed several charts that showed fuel burn improvement and residual value data to make his case for a re-engine program. Utiliser le lien , pour la suite ! JPRS (Dernière édition le 19 mai 2010 15:37) _________________ JPRS |
||
|
|
||
|
Beochien
Inscrit le 13/02/2007 |
# 19 mai 2010 18:48 | |
|
Bonsoir ! Ramené de Avia. Le CF34 NG est annoncé ! Bien, GE procède à l'inverse de RR, et P&W, 3 Coeurs pour la future génération, en commençant pars le haut ! Le premier, c'est le Leap X, avec SNECMA, à travers l'alliance CFMI , les suivants à compte propre ! Démarche contraire à RR qui part du petit, prévu pour Dassault et qui traîne un peu ... De même pour P&W qui à commencé par le bas, côté Mitsu et Bombardier, a peu prés en même temps ! Intéressant, 3 constructeurs sur le même créneau ! avec 3 coeurs, dans le même échelonnement ! Gagnant sur ce coup .... Embraer vers 2005 ! Un client de lancement possible pour GE qui réponds enfin à sa demande (C'est moi qui l'anticipe) Noter, une techno non dévoilée pour gagner du poids sur les Blisk ! Tant mieux! Et une décentralisation des Fadecs et de l'électronique vers la nacelle .... Toujours cela de gagné en fiabilté "Climatique" Conclusion ... ben nos 3 grands motoristes avancent sur un même front, dans une quasi même génération, va falloir monter un Excel pour les départager ! Grand perdant ... le Superjet et son "SNECMA" SAM 146 , qui vont faire pâle figure ! ---------------- L'article Flight Global --------------------- http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/20 ... ofans.html GE TechX engine set to lead new generation of turbofans By John Croft GE Aviation says the turbofan that will result from its TechX development programme for large-cabin business jets will be among the first of the company's three new next-generation engine types to be certificated. "Milestones and tests are already under way and we think we can have the engine certificated in 2015," says Shawn O'Day, marketing manager for GE's business and general aviation unit. No customer has yet signed for the powerplant, but O'Day says "very detailed design work is under way for all aspects of the engine". GE is building a fuel and emissions-cutting common core technology that applies to the 10,000-20,000lb-thrust (44-89kN) range for TechX, a 14,000lb-thrust class CF34 successor, provisionally known as the NG34, that is being marketed to the 70- to 100-seat regional airline market and, through its CFM 50/50 joint venture with Snecma, a 33,000lb-class Leap X turbofan for the single-aisle airline market. To date, the only version to have a launch customer is the Leap X1C, which has been selected by Comac for the 150-passenger C919. Comac says the aircraft will enter service in 2016. GE builds the core for CFM products while Snecma builds the low-pressure sections and fan. Testing of the first of three engineering cores was expected to be complete by mid-May, with a second more representative core set to start testing by mid-2011. The eCore2 will feature a 10-stage high pressure compressor and two-stage high-pressure turbine, elements common to the core for all three next-generation engines. For the low-pressure turbine, O'Day says GE is looking at "unique technologies" to reduce the weight, particularly for blisks. In a nod to maintenance providers, GE is also studying an option to mount the full authority digital engine controller on the nacelle rather than on the engine itself for easier access and lower temperature operations. JPRS _________________ JPRS |
||
|
|
||
|
Beochien
Inscrit le 13/02/2007 |
# 24 mai 2010 10:11 | |
|
Bonjour ! Un article de today du WSJ ! Produire or not produire ... Après la sortie des analystes de l'UBS, prévoyant qq centaines d'avions de trop sur le marché, le WSJ, paraît plus nuancé ... mais ! Il est certain que produire des avions commandés dans les délais (C'est le cas pour les mon-couloirs) pour des clients que l'on voit sur le fil du rasoir d'une part ! Et d'autres clients qui vont se poser pas mal de questions, entre les possibles re-motorisations, et les éventuelles NG à venir ... Ben les décisions ne doivent pas être faciles à prendre chez les constructeurs ! Entre le désir légitime de livrer un maximum avant que les questions stratégiques ne se posent pour les Airlines ... Et le risque de se retrouver avec un joli trou de qq années côté facturation, avant de faire la soudure pour la production, entre les programmes NG, re-vampés etc ... Surtout avec des séquences pouvant largement se décaler dans le temps (Attention aux avions tout neufs, c'est parfois en retard) , en fonction des décisions respectives de Boeing et Airbus, lourdes de conséquences pour chacun des transporteurs ... les cash-cows sont en cause, et c'est grave ! J.Albraugh et T.Enders, ne vont pas dormir tranquilles, cette année, avant de prendre leurs décisions, après non plus d'ailleurs ! ----------------------- L'Article du WSJ, Extrait ----------------- http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 ... 06842.html Cautious Course at Airbus As Demand for Jetliners Returns, CEO Enders Aims to Keep Manufacturer in Check By DANIEL MICHAELS Fresh from grappling with the aviation industry's biggest slump in years, Airbus Chief Tom Enders now faces the tricky task of nurturing the company's return to growth while making sure it doesn't get ahead of itself. AIRBUS Bloomberg News Airbus's Tom Enders, shown in Frankfurt last week, said in a recent interview that the jet manufacturer has learned from its past mistakes. Although many airlines world-wide are still struggling financially, demand for jetliners is robust. Some carriers want to prepare for a budding uptick in traffic, while others want to cut costs by replacing old gas-guzzlers with more efficient new models. Both Airbus and U.S. rival Boeing Co. recently announced plans to boost output of their popular single-aisle models, and executives at both say they're considering additional increases. The two are also moving to start or raise production of larger planes that have faced development problems. But there's a fine line between seizing an opportunity and overstepping, said Mr. Enders in a recent interview. When Airbus, a unit of European Aeronautic Defence & Space Co., starts building a plane for an airline, the customer's ability to pay for it on delivery many months later can become uncertain. Each slight change in output is a multimillion-dollar bet. "It's important that we don't become greedy," Mr. Enders said. Ramping up production draws management resources that are already stretched, Airbus officials say. Some bankers who finance airplane production question the wisdom of boosting output when airlines are still reeling financially from three years of rising fuel prices and plunging demand. Accelerating output may also put pressure on suppliers, who have been squeezed financially by delays building the Airbus A380 superjumbo and the Boeing 787 Dreamliner. The two flagship projects, and other less prominent ones, are several years behind schedule. Mr. Enders and Boeing Chief Executive Jim McNerney have both conceded their companies got overly ambitious in recent years. JPRS (Dernière édition le 24 mai 2010 10:43) _________________ JPRS |
||
|
|
||
|
Beochien
Inscrit le 13/02/2007 |
# 24 mai 2010 10:15 | |
|
Bonjour ! Au milieu des rumeurs, concernant les projets, et les nouvelles générations à venir, Michelle Dunlop, du Evertt Harald, soulève ces problèmes de Ressources Humaines, à Everett, comme aux Etats Unis, Image détériorée pour cause d'externalisation, manque de vocations, clearance pour les ingénieurs étrangers , et sauts de générations, le tout, devant une vague de retraites qui se profile ! Des inconvénients sérieux, qui peuvent expliquer les déboires du B787, et expliquer le peu d'enthousiasme de Jim Albraugh, à se lancer si vite dans une NG de 737 ! --------------------- L'article du Herald, Extrait ----------------- http://www.heraldnet.com/article/201005 ... challenges Brain drain among Boeing's biggest challenges By Michelle Dunlop, Herald Writer Will it be enough? It’s a question that likely goes through the minds of Boeing Co. executives as well as state and local governmental leaders. Will their efforts to combat the upcoming slew of aerospace worker retirements be enough? Will there be enough engineers and skilled Machinists to design and build the next all-new aircraft? Over the next decade, the state anticipates a need for 21,000 aerospace workers to replace the tide of Baby Boomers getting ready to retire. Twenty-two percent of Boeing workers could retire at any moment. They’ve already reached the company’s eligible retirement age of 55. But the shortage of skilled aerospace workers doesn’t stop with Boeing and Washington state. Nationwide, aerospace companies anticipate a need of 129,350 workers over five years. Over the decade, aerospace giant Lockheed Martin alone said it would need 140,000 workers, according to a study published in late 2008 by the Aerospace Industries Association. Jim Albaugh, president of Boeing Commercial Airplanes, considers the wave of retirements as “the intellectual disarmament” of this country. “We don’t have enough young people getting interested in math and science,” he said. Boeing’s challenge is to build the depth and breadth of engineering resources it needs to sustain a variety of aircraft programs. While the company puts its 787-8 and 747-8 Freighter through flight testing this year, Boeing has a lot more on its engineering plate with the 777 and 737 replacement or re-engined jets. But those opportunities are the ones that will enable Boeing to attract new talent, even if a shortage of workers occurs, said Mike Delaney, vice president for engineering at Boeing Commercial Airplanes. ------------------------ Chilling effect of economy The economic downturn has discouraged some aerospace workers from retiring. Robin Johnston, a composite repair mechanic, has worked at the Boeing Co. for 25 years. Johnston turns 65 this November and plans to retire next year. He’s waiting to turn 65 to retire for the health benefits. But the economy didn’t help matters. The Machinists’ strike, which coincided with the downturn in the economy in 2008, meant Johnston’s Voluntary Investment Plan with Boeing took a hit. With older workers holding out longer for retirement, aerospace companies aren’t hiring and training young workers, a move that potentially will create an even worse gap in skilled and unskilled workers. The state’s new apprenticeship program can’t find enough companies willing to hire even at the apprentice level. At Boeing, Johnston worries about having time to bring new workers up to speed. Eight to 10 years ago, experienced Machinists like Johnston were ready to train new employees. “Now, we really don’t have the time,” Johnson said. “It’s really hard to keep up with your job and train these kids, too.” The Machinists and Boeing, however, have an apprenticeship program that is managed jointly. The two also coordinate a peer-to-peer mentoring program that is gaining traction on the shop floor. The economy is taking a toll on the engineering side, too. The state’s budget crunch meant that last year the University of Washington turned away four out of every 10 qualified engineering students at a time when a shortage of engineers is expected. During tough economic years like the one the state is experiencing, “sacrifices are going to have to be made. But the last place they should cut funding is education,” Boeing’s Albaugh said. “Ultimately, what drives an economy is a skilled work force,” he said. Nationwide, the United States isn’t graduating enough engineers for aerospace, especially given that some projects at companies like Boeing require employees to have security clearance. Albaugh has changed the company’s recruiting strategy to make hiring new engineering graduates smoother. He believes the company grew complacent in its recruiting. “We’ve downsized over the years. We forgot how to recruit aggressively,” he said. But Boeing’s Delaney remains confident the company will find the talent it needs. “It becomes incumbent on Boeing to become a preferred employer,” he said. “If there are 100 engineering graduates and we need 10, we need to be out there making sure we get the top grads.” The younger generation Young people across the nation are either not interested in aerospace careers or don’t have the math and science skills for it. The problem doesn’t just start in college. Only about 8 percent of Washington high school students expressed an interest in engineering as a career when they took the SAT in 2008. Nationally, “there really isn’t that visionary statement” to get the younger generation interested in engineering and science the way there was when Albaugh was growing up. “It was hard not to be excited by going to the moon,” he said of the space program. The lack of interest also could be tied to a bad image of the aerospace industry, according to the Interagency Aerospace Revitalization Task Force. Layoffs, labor strife and outsourcing have tarnished aerospace’s reputation over the years. Eighty percent of aerospace workers who responded to a 2002 study said they wouldn’t encourage their children to pursue careers in the industry. On the outsourcing subject, Albaugh believes the company has done too much off-loading of engineering. He’s asked Delaney to assess which functions should be pulled back in. “Once you outsource (a core competency) to someone else, you decide that’s something you aren’t going to compete on,” Delaney said. Going forward, Boeing will retain engineering in the areas that really give the company an edge, he said. In all levels of Boeing, from Albaugh to Delaney to Duane Schireman, a human resources director, managers are promoting a better company image. -------------- ET http://www.heraldnet.com/article/201005 ... 3146s.need ET http://www.heraldnet.com/article/201005 ... retirement ET http://www.heraldnet.com/article/201005 ... is.a.start JPRS _________________ JPRS |
||
|
|
||
|
Beochien
Inscrit le 13/02/2007 |
# 25 mai 2010 19:07 | |
|
Bonjour ! Ca bouge beaucoup côté Nacelles ... aussi vite que pour les moteurs ! Les reverses électriques, l'électronique qui se déplace vers la nacelle (Fadecs) pour que la T° moteur les affecte moins .... Aircell, Nexcelle des cies dans le sillage Safran ou de GE, s'animent beaucoup, en ce moment ! Normal, elles sont associées à des moteurs en développement avancés, que ce soit pour les Re-motorisations, ou les futures NG ! Donc du grain à moudre, et surtout les éléments moteurs assez avancés pour construire les projets avec les nacelles ... et tous les nouveaux éléments à incorporer ! Côté RR, ce n'est pas avec un moteur en papier, et une montagne de techno dormant sur l'étagère qu'ils vont y arriver à temps ... et cela me peine beaucoup ! Bon, 10 pages de devoirs en plus pour Sévrien, sur 4 où 5 colonnes ! Allez on poursuit ! L'alerte me viens d'un Français : Thierry Marin-Martinod is named Technical Director of Nexcelle ! Un connaisseur des systèmes et un électricien, ce choix réflétant bien, les nouvelles complexités des nacelles ! Et d'un petit tour ensuite dans les Air-Cellistes ! Bon, à lire je pose la doc ! ------------- L'article de Market-Watch -------------- http://www.marketwatch.com/story/thierr ... 2010-05-25 Thierry Marin-Martinod is named Technical Director of Nexcelle CINCINNATI, May 25, 2010 (BUSINESS WIRE) -- Nexcelle has expanded its executive management team with the appointment of Thierry Marin-Martinod as the company's Technical Director. Marin-Martinod is from Aircelle -- which is one of Nexcelle's two parent companies -- and he brings extensive experience in jet engine nacelle engineering, integration and systems. "Thierry's expertise will be extremely valuable as Nexcelle positions itself in the future as an industry leader in integrated propulsion systems," said Nexcelle President Steve Walters. "Of particular importance is his electrical system knowledge, as the integrated propulsion systems of tomorrow will take the 'electric nacelle' concept to the next level." Prior to his appointment at Nexcelle, Marin-Martinod was the director of systems engineering at Aircelle, and previously held the managing director responsibilities for the company's systems center of excellence from 2005 to 2007. In these positions, he played a key role in the development, production and service entry of the pioneering electrical thrust reverser system (ETRAS(R)) on Aircelle's nacelles for the Airbus A380's GP7200 and Trent 900 jet engines. Previously, Marin-Martinod was the managing director of the cabin interior and electrical seat business unit at Messier-Bugatti, and as a technical manager at Labinal. His other career experience includes weapons system engineering at Dassault and project engineering at Gilson Medical Electronics. Marin-Martinod is a graduate of France's ESTACA (Ecole Superieure des Techniques Aeronautiques et de Construction Automobile). In his new role as Nexcelle's Technical Director, Marin-Martinod will be based at the company's Cincinnati, Ohio headquarters About Nexcelle (wwwnexcelle.com) Nexcelle is creating smart nacelle systems for tomorrow's world travel. Headquartered in Cincinnati, Ohio, USA, the company is a joint venture of the Safran Group's Aircelle and GE's Middle River Aircraft Systems (MRAS), which are leading suppliers of engine nacelles, thrust reversers and aerostructures. Through Nexcelle's relationship with CFM International, the company brings unparalleled expertise in the design, development, production and support of integrated propulsion systems for a wide range of aircraft. Nexcelle is a key partner on the world's first truly integrated propulsion system, providing a highly capable nacelle, thrust reverser and exhaust system for the new CFM International LEAP-X1C engine, which has been selected as the sole western powerplant to launch China's COMAC C919 jetliner. SOURCE: Nexcelle ----------------------------- Et Ce que fait Nexcelle pour le Comac 919 ! En Français de plus ! A lire http://www.nexcelle.com/news-press-rele ... -pr-FR.pdf ----------------------------- Middle River Aircraft Systems de baltimore, une Cie GE ! Associé aussi aux affaires de CFMI et du LeapX ! http://www.mras-usa.com/company.html Middle River Aircraft Systems has been designing, building and servicing the world's best aircraft for seventy years. Located on Maryland's Chesapeake Bay, Middle River Aircraft Systems (MRAS) operates a 1.7 million square feet facility on 180 acres. One of the country's biggest suppliers of aircraft during World War II, today MRAS is dedicated to meeting the aircraft industry's specialized needs. MRAS works with the industry's major airframers and engine producers to design, build and support the structures that complement their products. MRAS is one of the world's leading suppliers of jet engine thrust reversers -- the brakes of a jet engine - providing reversers for both General Electric and Pratt & Whitney, the world's largest aircraft engine manufacturers -------------------- Tout bouge très vite côté mono-couloirs NEO ! Celà débouchera ? Je ne sais pas encore ! Mais, ceux qui ont le champ libre devant avancent comme CFMI ! Avec : 1 client signé, Comac, et ... 2 clients potentiels pratiquement "Imperdables" s'ils se décident ! Ben ils foncent, et ça va chauffer, comme leurs moteurs en général (Mais ça finit par marcher aussi !) Et RR qui est assis sur ses étagères à côté de sa techno, sans rien "To Put Together" ni à l'essai, grandeur nature, ! des démo au 1/3 et plutôt dirigés open rotors Grrr ! C'est bien à mettre sur le compte de la surcharge ... il y a le XWB à sortir pour bientôt ! Mis sur le coup des re-motoridations si celà se confirme, comme pour les avions nouveaux, MS21 et Comac 919, ils .... regardent le train passer ... Tout en présentant d'urgence, les derniers "Tech insert" de type RB 282, pour les agréger au V2500 à Airbus .... et essayer de prouver qu'ils le peuvent et qu'ils l'ont ... c'est bien sympa mais ... le PB n'est plus là ! Ca m'énerve presque autant que Sévrien, mais pas dans le même sens, moi je râle ... JPRS (Dernière édition le 25 mai 2010 21:45) _________________ JPRS |
||
|
|
||
|
Beochien
Inscrit le 13/02/2007 |
# 4 juin 2010 11:44 | |
|
Bonjour! Une déclaration de Jim McNerney faite "Speaking at the 26th Annual Sanford C. Bernstein Strategic Decisions Conference in New York" et concernant plusieurs sujets d'actualité pour Boeing ! -------------- La remotorisation du 737, peut être, cela dépend de la date de sortie de son remplaçant ! En gros .... 2020, on ne re-motorise pas 2025, on remotorise ! Pour les Tankers ... Airbus va tirer les prix vers le bas ... Boeing restera raisonnable (Éviter un boulet pour 10 ans, avec des prix fixes, hou là ) Côté 787, ça va, le 789 devrait prendre le pas sur le 788 avec le temps, et les progrès côté poids font revenir doucement la question du 787-10, en n'excluant toujours pas l'option 777 re-vamp ! En conclusion, rien de bien nouveau, mais la ré-affirmation un mois aprés, des grandes lignes des projets et espérances de Boeing par Jim Mac Nerney !! Noté quand même, Boeing laissera tomber certainement la capacité 100-130 pax ! Peut être une ouverture pour ATR (Alenia-Airbus)?? vers de plus gros turboprop qu'annoncé, 120 pax et 6-7 000 HP ? En tout cas de l'air pour bombardier ! -------------------------- Le lien du Seattle PI Extrait concernant le 737 ----------------------- http://blog.seattlepi.com/aerospace/archives/209025.asp ----------------- Boeing's decision on whether to equip its moneymaking 737 with new engines or replace the single-aisle airliner depends on how soon the company could deliver a new plane that customers want, Boeing Chairman, President and CEO Jim McNerney said Thursday. Speaking at the 26th Annual Sanford C. Bernstein Strategic Decisions Conference in New York, he also addressed the risk that EADS North America could underbid it on the U.S. Air Force's $35 billion aerial refueling tanker competition, despite the fact that EADS' tanker is larger, and the possibility Boeing might not even bid for the tanker. On the 737, McNerney has previously said Boeing executives will decide this year between re-engining and a new airplane. Airbus' decision regarding its A320 won't bear much on that, he said Thursday. "The No. 1 thing I want to know is: During what time frame we can get an all-new airplane done that our customers will pay for?" he said. "If that answer is 2025, then the case for re-engining strengthens. If the answer is 2020, no matter what Airbus does I think customers will wait for us." (Re-engined single-aisle airliners would be expected around 2016.) One factor is that the 737 now accounts for a huge part of Boeing's order backlog, McNerney acknowledged. "I'd rather not put the backlog at risk twice unless we have to." Responding to a moderator's comment that airlines are looking for direct operating cost savings or 15 or even 20 percent from a new jet, McNerney said: "I think that level or a little above is sort of the test that we're looking at for what the new airplane has to be so that it would be good enough, so there would be enough economics in it for us to share it with our customers." The development cost for a new airliner could exceed that of re-engining by by "a factor of four or five," he said. While Airbus is the most-important competitor factoring into the decision, at least one other plane maker will be a significant factor in coming decades, McNerney said. "The one thing I do know about new entrants is that the Chinese will be there. When I say 'there,' I mean a competitive narrow-body airplane in the 150-, 160-, 170-" seat range, he said. "The argument is around: Will it be 10 years, 20 years?" McNerney expressed less interest in other plane makers -- such as Bombardier, with its CSeries -- that are moving into the low end of the 737 and A320 turf. "The CSeries and the other regional jets that are getting a little bigger, that's not JPRS _________________ JPRS |
||
|
|
||
|
lequebecois
Inscrit le 11/02/2007 |
# 4 juin 2010 20:23 | |
|
Salut Beochien, Concernant la remotorisation du 737 ou de l'A320, combien d'avions pour rentabiliser l'opération ? Entre 200 et 300 ? Selon moi, même avec un EIS vers 2020, la remotorisation pourrait facilement être rentabiliser (autant pour A que B). Il me semble que 4 ans de production (1500 avions chacun au rythme actuel) c'est amplement suffisant. Surtout que je ne crois pas que Boeing peut se permettre de ne rien faire jusqu'en 2020 (même 2022-2023 pour avoir un niveau de production décent) et perdre des clients pour Airbus, Comac ou Bombardier. C'est mon avis. Merci (Dernière édition le 4 juin 2010 20:24) _________________ Le bonheur est une pause entre deux emmerdes ! Adepte de la discutaille du coin du comptoir du café de la gare |
||
|
|
||
Ajouter une réponse
Vous devez être inscrit et connecté sur AeroWeb pour pouvoir ajouter une réponse à ce sujet !
