la participation de Pierre Condom
de la rédaction d’Intervavia
Vice-President of Boeing Commercial Airplane Group
As your previous Chairman, I too am happy to be here as a
representative of an airplane manufacturer. This is one of those
relationships that is often a love-hate relationship. We know that we need
engines and they know we need airplanes. My favorite comment about engine
manufacturers was from Joe Sutter who was a former executive of Boeing
Commercial Airplane Group. Joe said, "The best engine manufacturer is
usually the last one that you've encountered." Actually, it was the
worst is the last one you've encountered, the best one is the one you
haven't seen for a while.
But this afternoon we will hear
much about developments in commercial engines.
As you can see from these
presentations each engine manufacturer has a superior product, a superior
service, the best fuel burn, and is the easiest to deal with for airplane
Before going to questions from
the audience, I turn now to Mr. Pierre Condom.
Je trouve que M. Albrecht a beaucoup de chance car il
y a trois motoristes qui l’aident à vendre son avion, ce qui contribue
financièrement à la chose.
J’aimerais toutefois savoir
comment trois motoristes arrivent à faire un succès sur un avion, cela ne
suppose t-il pas que cet avion a un succès considérable ?
I think the question of having alternate engines available on a given
model of an airplane is one that is a changing one. We have on wide-bodies
traditionally offered the engine of any manufacturer who had a suitable
engine. In the case of the 737 family, the most successful airplane ever
produced, we have had different engines at different times, but never
alternative engines at the same time. The cost of developing an engine and
the cost of certifying an airplane with an alternate engine may suggest that
the 777 may be the last airplane developed with three alternative engines.
While I would not like to make that prediction because competition does work
as you heard from the prior presentations and we always do provide more
value to the customers when there are alternates available.
Would any of the engine
manufacturers like to comment?
I would only comment in maybe two regards.
First of all, the competition
with three engine manufacturers for a single airplane is very difficult and
becoming increasingly difficult as we go forward. The airplanes as the 737,
the A 340 which we like very much since we have the engine on those
airplanes, probably will not be the rule, but it will be a mixture of some.
I think the cost of developing an engine for a single airplane will far
outweigh the payback period if there's only one particular aircraft
application and three engines for that application make it very difficult
economically and will continue to.
I guess I would like to comment also. Our opinion is three engines on
an airplane is not a sustainable strategy. I think what you are going to see
going forward is I don't know if we will ever see three engines on a wing
again. I think there is incentive for both the engine manufacturers and the
airplane manufacturers not to have three. If you can get it from Boeing's
perspective and, Dick, I hope you'll let me go, it's very difficult to keep
track of three sets of engines, three different sets of inventory, three
different sets of hardware when you in fact are trying to reduce cycle time,
production time, its inconsistent. I think there's arguments on both sides
to suggest why three engines on a wing probably is not sustainable in the
I think from our point of view, the engine business has been more
competitive for a longer time than perhaps the airframe side has been. We
really have had many years now of head-to-head battle. It isn't just a
matter of three engines even when we have only two engines on an airplane
and the 757 is a classic example between Pratt & Whitney and
Rolls-Royce, where the battle is no less fierce on a number of occasions
than it is when there is three. Somehow, as an industry, we have got to find
ways of making money out of this business. And that applies to the airlines
as well, and they struggled. It is a growth business because you can see the
traffic there. But making it a growth business that actually provides
revenue to all the partners is the challenge that we are all facing. I think
there is no simple solution to that. I can't see any of the major
manufacturers giving up its position to anybody else without having an
immense fight for it.
J’espère que les relations entre les avionneurs et
les motoristes suivront la voie que nous suivons, par exemple avec un
certain nombre de nos fournisseurs, à savoir le développement du
partenariat qui a remplacé la concurrence sauvage entre le maître d’œuvre
et plusieurs fournisseurs. Je souhaite que le partenariat se développe
entre avionneurs et motoristes. Je tiens à dire combien nous sommes
satisfaits, je crois que nos clients aussi, du 737 équipé du CFM 5-3 et
demain par le -7.
Thank you. I think we will move on to another question, although I
would invite you, David, that is, if you think that engine competition is
more severe than airplane competition, why don't we change assignments for a
month or two ?
I have a few questions with respect to the CFM 56 program. One of
which was why was the CF put in front of the M 56 and I understand the CF
has a General Electric prefix and the M was a SNECMA prefix and they
combined them to make CFMI. Very logical.
I have been asked the question : Would the 737 have been a success
without the CFM 56 and do you think the next generation 737 with the CFM
56-7 will be the same success ? The answer to the question is
"obviously" or we would not have launched it.
But, to the first question, I don't think there's any doubt that if
we had not had an excellent engine with great reliability the 737-300, 400
and 500 programs, would not have been nearly as successful as they were.
I think they also came on the market at the right time. If you
I'd like to skip around a little bit so that we make sure we get
questions to each of the engine manufacturers.
So there are a series of questions dealing with the ADP. One
addressed to Mr. Chadwell, did you experiment with the ADP versions of the
CF 6 ? Have you drawn paper
engines in that category ? There are also questions to each of the engine
manufacturers, so perhaps Chuck you comment and then ask any of the rest of
the manufacturers to comment on.
That will be a fairly easy one for me to look at. Like everybody in
this industry, we have looked at geared fans and we continue to look at it
on a very preliminary basis. It is not a high priority from our standpoint
right now in terms of the next developments. But we have looked at and
continue to study it, but that's as far as we have gone with it.
We do the same so that not only because we want to understand it, but
we also want to understand what our competitors see in it from time to time.
There's some undoubted SFC
advantages available from a geared fan.
In all the studies that we have done, we have not been able to
rationalize the weight penalties of getting that, and the reliability issues
of getting that and therefore our general feeling for it is that it is
something that's there but it's not there yet.
I guess since I spent 500 million dollars on it since 1987, maybe I
ought to answer this question.
We have a fundamental philosophy
that says if an ADP produces X amount of thrust it has to weigh the same as
the conventional turbofan producing the same amount of thrust. We believe
between our advanced composite work, our flight weight gearbox work, and the
latest configuration which we can come up with that engine, we meet that
goal. So there is no weight penalty as we're concerned with the ADP. We've
also addressed a lot of the reliability concerns, particularly on the part
of Airbus over the last several months as part of the installation studies
we have been doing with them as I alluded to before.
The only thing that would
prevent us from launching an ADP is that we have a fundamental rule
in-house. And that is, it has to make business sense, it would probably have
to be sole source or exclusive position on the airplane. If we can't secure
that, we will not launch the ADP. We will get value pricing for it or we
will not launch it.
Snecma étudie, en avant-projet, des formules ADP depuis quelques années
mais pour l’instant, nous n’avons pas trouvé, en faisant le bilan
complet sur l’avion, des avantages pour cette formule par rapport à un
Most of those questions were addressed to the ADP. Would the answer
be any different for unducted fans? And a related question here is, where
are the gains in fuel consumption to come from if not from something such as
I'll speak from the unducted fan. It obviously did give us the fuel
efficiency and is still there as proven technology from our standpoint. We
put it on the shelf as fuel prices starting coming back down and made the
advance in terms of the fuel consumption less attractive from an economic
standpoint. But the technology works, it's available and it is a way to
improve fuel consumption and that I think will depend a lot upon fuel prices
as we go forward.
We would echo those comments. Our
experience with the propfan in fact proves that the fuel burn, SFC benefits
are there, but unless we see a significant increase in fuel price, we don't
think the benefits are there for the unducted configuration.
This is a question for Chuck and David. After the ETOPS 180 minute
certification of the Pratt & Whitney 4084, do you feel that you're
arriving too late with the GE 90 and the Trent 800?
No. Recognize that. As Dick well recognizes, the speed with which we
are bringing the
First thing I would like to say to Bob is, congratulations. Like you
and Rolls-Royce, this is a very demanding program from the standpoint of
what we are going through with Boeing and the agencies relative to
qualification and certification. However I think this is a long race. We are
at the very beginning of it and a lot of the time sequence has been
dependent on customer and customer orders, so I don't feel like we are at
any disadvantage with where we are at the program and we think this is going
to be a very good product for a very long time for us and for Boeing.
I think I should add that from the Boeing standpoint, David, you are
partly right, the timing is somewhat dictated by Boeing but it's really
dictated by our customers because when we decided to offer all three
engines, we left the party who ordered the first airplane choose the engine
and we took them in sequence. We did say that we would like to space them at
least 4 months apart and we got them at approximately that.
I would also say that I believe
the early ETOPS program that was launched for the 777 is sufficiently
comprehensive that when the airplane enters into service with anybody's
engine, it will be reliable and the related systems airplane and engine
systems, will be sufficiently reliable, that perhaps the whole issue of
ETOPS would go away because it really is a holdover from the reciprocating
engine and we have to remind ourselves as we celebrate a 50-year anniversary
of Snecma and 100 years of aircraft engines, that it is a relatively young
industry, and we do have some holdovers from the days of less reliable
The next question for Pierre
Alesi : Do you think you will launch the CFM XX very soon ? If yes, where
will you get the financing and who is the launcher, who will be the leader ?
Les travaux ont commencé depuis une petite année entre General
Electric et Snecma. Des contacts et des études s’effectuent aujourd’hui
avec l’avionneur qui est Airbus. L’avancement technique est satisfaisant
entre CFM et Airbus. Nous entamerons prochainement des discussions plus détaillées
sur les spécifications techniques et commerciales du moteur. Le calendrier
de l’opération n’est pas définitivement fixé mais nous sommes prêts,
à CFM, d’offrir ce moteur au tout début des années 2000.
En ce qui concerne le
financement, c’est un moteur CFM donc à 50 % General Electric et 50 %
Snecma. Le leader sera tout naturellement CFM International qui assurera,
comme cela a été fait sur le CFM 56, le leadership technique et commercial
Le financement ne pourra être
lancé que si, et seulement si, la Snecma obtient une aide du gouvernement
français sous forme d’avances remboursables, c’est ce qui s’est fait
sur les différents programmes CFM. Pour le CFM XX, nous avons reçu
quelques assurances de la part du gouvernement français.
Thank you. The next question for Mr. Leduc, do you consider composite
fan blades on the PW 4000, if not, how will you reduce the weight of the
We have no plans to put composite fan blades into our engine. I can
only, I guess I'll infer that the question relates to the 112-inch motor.
We've got hollow titanium
shroudless fan blades. They have been superb, both in 8-pound bird testing,
fan containment testing. They have shown great resistance to fog and hale
and ice congestion. We are very very pleased with the performance of them.
We do not pay a significant weight penalty for having hollow, shroudless
titanium fan blades in the engine relative to composite. We have looked at
it as much as can look at it. We're obviously not as proficient at it as
Chuck is. We don't know as much about the manufacturing process and we
haven't done as much work. But our cursory numbers suggest that hollow
titanium is very competitive from a weight basis. So we have no intention of
introducing a weight reduction program any time soon.
Next question is for Mr. Chadwell. Do you see potential developments
of the GE 90 for example derated versions to replace the CF 6, or
applications on Russian aircraft ?
As far as derated versions to replace the -6, no we don't see that
this engine is a bigger engine and in a different thrust class. I think the
future for this engine is in the larger thrust applications which will go we
believe obviously up to the 98,000 pound range and 95-98,000 pound thrust
range, and then eventually, even though this is not where Boeing is today,
I'm sure that eventually this aircraft or at some point in its life, it will
grow and this engine is postured for that, and that's how it was designed.
Any comment on the question about application for Russian aircraft ?
At this point we haven't seen any application for Russian aircraft
for this engine.
OK, that leads to the next question which is addressed to Pratt &
Whitney. Bob, what is the commercial status of the IL 96 M, how many firm
orders inside and outside of the CIS ?
Today, there is one IL 96 M flying with PW 2000 power. By the end of
this year the number 2 airplane will be completed and around the middle of
1996, we will begin certification testing. As we said here today we've got
20 firm orders from Aria, for the IL96M. That sale is pending the approval
of Eximbank and financing.
As long as we are on the subject of
We would put the V 2500 on any aircraft that we could. It's as simple
as that. The whole trick in this business is to spread your range to as many
applications as possible. And I totally agree with one of the other answers
given that if you actually only want to try and get on one application, then
you're in for an economic hiding really.
Yes, we also in Rolls-Royce, we
have the 535 engine on the Ilyushin 204 which has been flying for some time
and is scheduled, the aircraft itself, with a Russian engine has already
been certificated. And it is scheduled to be certificated with a 535 engine
at the end of this year.
OK. I think it's only fair since some of the questions are addressed
to me that I take one of them. Do you consider Snecma as a real engine
manufacturer or is it only for you a partner in CFM International?
I think that the real answer to
that question is to look at the composition of CFMI. CFMI is a 50-50
partnership between GE and Snecma and as a consequence we consider both of
those partners as real engine manufacturers and I think the fact that we are
here observing their birthday would suggest that we believe that they are.
Another one for Mr. Wicks. We perfectly understand the advantages of
the family concept on the RB211. How do you apply it to the V2500 with only
one element in the family?
We didn't. We know that the V 2500 is the collaborative project with
Pratt & Whitney and ourselves as the two senior partners on it with some
30 % share each of that program. It is extremely difficult to shrink engines
down in size as it is difficult and was proved difficult in the past to
shrink airplanes down in size. We did however do that with the 535 engine
because it was based originally on a 524 core and we came down in size. When
we wanted to go for what originally was a 25,000 pound thrust engine, we
really had nothing there with which we could do with the family and we had a
desire and a will to do a collaborative project. We had already started work
on an RJ 500 with the Japanese industry. And the opportunity of joining with
Pratt & Whitney when they didn't have a competitive powerplant in that
size really led to the establishment of the V 2500.
This is a question if I can read it properly I think is for you,
Chuck. What about the GE 45 program sometimes mentioned in the press ?
I think that GE 45 that's mentioned in the press is the CFM XX that
we are working with Snecma on.
OK, I'll use that to lead to another question addressed to me. Is
Boeing interested in a new engine such as CFM XX in order to re-engine an
existing airplane or equip a new airplane ?
I think you'll forgive me if I
just won't answer that question because we have a lot on our plate right now
in developing and certifying two additional engines on this 777 and then
developing the 737 family of 600, 700 and 800 airplanes. And I don't think
we are looking for another engine at the moment.
Here's a question for you Pierre. What about Snecma's studies on SST
engine for the future ? Would you like to comment on
La seule précision que je peux donner, c’est que les études
d’avant-projet continuent sur différentes formules de moteurs adaptées
au vol supersonique et, parmi celles-ci, il y a celle du Mid Tandem Fan, étudiée
entre Snecma et Rolls, dont les caractéristiques sont données aux
avionneurs Boeing, Aérospatiale, de façon à faire des projets d’avions
autour de ces moteurs. Mais, pour l’instant, aussi bien chez Rolls Royce
que chez Snecma, nous nous limitons à des études d’avant-projets.
This one is addressed to everyone except
As soon as Boeing asks for it !
I think Bob, you’ve covered it very well.
I keep asking that question at Boeing and I don't get an answer.
For Mr. Leduc, what were the
developments and development costs necessary to adapt the PW 2000 engine for
the C 17 ?
I don't know the answer to that question, but Mr. Bylciw who spoke
earlier may. So whoever wrote it, if they get a hold of Walt, perhaps we can
answer that for you.
I believe that a question similar to this one was raised to the last
panel, but this one is addressed to you, Bob, so I'll address it to you and
let other people comment. Do you plan any merger with other aircraft
manufacturers ? This particular one is on new versions of the PW 4000.
I can't envisage any scenario where we would look at a collaborative
agreement on the PW 4000. We have basically 30 % of that motor partnered out
now. We can certainly afford any advanced variants so I honestly don't see
any need to do it on that particular engine family.
This question is for General Electric and it has to do with market
share, Chuck, so what are the market share for the CFM 56, the CF6-80C and E
and for the GE 90 ?
You know, if you ask each one of us you'll get a different answer. We
think we're doing very well on market share on all those programs, more than
50 %. But everybody on this panel will have a different view of that.
Another one for you, Pierre. Could you say some words about
reengining of KC 135, AWACS, etc., and about cooperation between
industry and official sources for such projects.
Nous éprouvons une grande satisfaction avec les programmes de
remotorisation Boeing KC 135, C 135 et AWACS. J’espère que nous aurons
encore beaucoup de ces avions à remotoriser, en particulier ceux de l’Air
National Guard. La coopération entre CFM, les services officiels français
et américains se passe sans problème. Pourvu
que cela dure !
One further question on the CFM56, why did you change from tip shroud
to mid shroud ? And that's a technical question that I don't even
Sur le CFM 56-2, nous avions des nageoires à l’extrémité de
l’aube de soufflante (périphériques). Sur les autres versions, les
nagoires sont dites « intermédiaires » parce que nous savons
aujourd’hui les faire. Nos aérodynamiciens ont fait de réels progrès.
Sur la dernière version du CFM 56-7 nous avons une aube large corde qui améliore
d’un point ou deux encore le rendement de la soufflante mais qui surtout
donne une résistance aux impacts, aux oiseaux et donc un meilleur
comportement en service
We have covered a lot of questions on a wide variety of subjects
here. At this stage, Pierre Condom, would you like to pose any further
questions or make some comments to the panel?
Quelle est la réaction du marché face aux problèmes
d’environnement. Les quatre motoristes ici présents voient-ils une évolution
de la demande de leurs clients ?
Cela fait partie des qualités de nos moteurs, que nous devons améliorer
et que nous améliorons sur les dernières versions, sur le moteur CFM
56-5B. La pression de l’environnement ne faiblira pas, entraînant une
diminution des niveaux de pollution. L’autre pollution, c’est la
pollution acoustique, les moteurs de demain devront être encore plus
silencieux que ceux d’aujourd’hui.
do you have anything to add.
No, other than as you said, Swissair, one of the key issues in that
campaign was to make sure that we had a combustion technology that gave them
the emissions that they required. But I think that's true for both the
emissions and noise and we're spending a significant part of our development
dollars in those two areas to make sure that we are complying, not only with
the standard of today, but the standard that we think will be around after
the year 2000, and I think that's important for all of us.
I really don't have anything to add to that. I think the industry is
spending an enormous amount of money and time worrying about the environment
and recognizing the positions in that cycle of events. We as are our
colleagues are concerned about the number of different regulations that are
coming out in all these areas that I think the whole industry is paying
terrific attention to the environment.
I think that's probably true that it may be that one of the reasons
you didn't hear a lot of discussion about it is that each of the engine
manufacturers recognizes not only the necessity because of regulation, but
the environmental responsibility to make engines as quiet and as
pollution-free as is technically possible.
And on that note, I think we
will bring the question and answer session to an end.
I do believe that engine manufacturers have done an outstanding job
of producing engines that are dramatically more reliable than they were a
decade or two ago. Certainly than 50 years ago. They are now more reliable,
they are more fuel-efficient. They are indeed quieter. They are indeed more
environmental friendly. And they are easier to put on our airplanes. Thank
you very much.
But once again, congratulations
to Snecma for its 50 th anniversary. I believe that the conduct of a seminar
such as this to observe that anniversary and that at the same time to
commemorate 100 years of aircraft engines is an appropriate way to recognize
the important place that Snecma as a company plays in our industry.
I thank you all for your participation, your attention and your
challenging questions to the panel.
Copyright www.stratisc.org - 2005 - Conception - Bertrand Degoy, Alain De Neve, Joseph Henrotin