THE COMMERCIAL-ENGINES business is among the biggest of big-risk businesses, and the risk is seldom bigger than when a new engine is required for an as-yet-unproven large airliner. So it should come as no surprise that two engine manufacturers should pool resources to minimise the risk of participating in such a programme. What might come as a surprise to many is that it is the two US manufacturers joining to build an engine for the stretched Boeing 747, not a partnership which embraces one US manufacturer and either Rolls-Royce or Snecma. Surprise or not, most people will breathe sighs of relief that this is one large-airliner programme which will not be blighted by a surfeit of engine choice.
It is a matter of technical need that a new engine will be required for the 747-500/600 family. The target thrust is around 330kN (75,000lb), with growth potential to 378kN. The engines on the existing 747 are too small for the growth aircraft, as are the engines used on the Airbus A330 twin. While the new-generation engines developed for the Boeing 777 could be downrated to match the thrust requirement, they would not be optimum choices. (General Electric concedes that, for this task, its GE90 would need a new, smaller, fan attached to the existing large core, resulting in a low bypass ratio and consequent poor fuel consumption, to say nothing of the packaging problems under a wing never designed for that class of engine.)
It is a matter of financial need that GE and Pratt & Whitney have decided to form a joint venture. Any new engine will be costly, even if it uses only technologies derived from those of existing engines. Both have ploughed billions of dollars into their engines for the 777 and are unlikely to see a payback for many years.
It is a matter of business need that they have decided to join together. Boeing, it is rumoured, would have been far happier if it could offer the 747-500/600 with just one engine type, but the airlines would not wear that. (Without an engine competition, they argue, they have little room to beat the engine makers down on price.) Having three engines on offer for the 777 has proved expensive both for Boeing and the engine makers - none of their products is ever likely to be made in truly economic numbers on the strength of 777 orders, but, equally, none of these is likely to find a home anywhere else for the foreseeable future.
The logic may be impeccable, but it is still a surprise that it was GE and P&W which decided to join forces, as their product ranges and market philosophies largely clash head-to-head elsewhere. P&W already has a joint venture with R-R in International Aero Engines. GE has joint ventures with Snecma in CFM International and on the CF-6 and GE90 programmes, although Snecma does not have the resources available to sink into this new venture. GE and R-R once tried to get together as a complete engine business and, certainly, one of the two was willing to try again on this project.
No matter. GE and P&W have made their choice and, apparently, Boeing is not displeased by the effective drop in the number of engine makers competing for its approval. The airlines will probably be pleased, because (assuming that R-R goes ahead with an engine for the 747-500/600) there will still be that all-important engine competition to help keep prices down.
The engine-makers might not be so happy, however. No doubt each would be happier if its product was the exclusive offering. There is no guarantee that the -500/600 will be as startling a success as have been 747-100s through to -400s. That precedent may be enough to convince the engine makers' bankers that this new project is a good enough bet to justify the investment - but, if the 747-stretch market reaches just a few dozen aircraft (and if Airbus does not launch an A3XX competitor), a lot of people could still be in for a very nasty surprise.
Source: Flight International
