Whining? You sure you're using the right word?

10 Billion? 30 years? Holy crap! making a better engine is a good idea but if innovation takes this long and costs this much, what does that mean for the future of jet engines?

For some perspective, the Joint Strike Fighter program costs are approaching $400B.

UTC has yearly sales of $65B. This new engine is about $300M per year in development, or about 0.5% of sales.

Mike C.

A question worthy of a P&W stockholder or board member.

It means competitors capitalized on the opportunity to displace P&W as the leading engine manufacturer for large and small turbine powered airplanes. Safran & GE now dominate the big engine market while Williams is the king of the hill for the smaller engine market with the Silvercrest and Honda/GE engines becoming better alternatives soon. For their sake, I hope this long and costly development helps P&W get back on the saddle.

And that is why modern "jets" are so much slower than the good ol' 707.... Lots of power to lift close to a thousand sardines in 10" seat spacing into the air, but once in cruise the drag of that giant wind tunnel dragged under the wing prohibits any speed close to Mach1.

The old biz jets were junk compared to the rides people can buy today.

The fact the gear is already about 3 seconds into the up cycle suggest a really anemic climb!

The large amount of smoke is due to a "wet" takeoff, using water/alcohol injection to allow higher engine power. A consequence is lots of carbon in the exhaust from unburned fuel when the water affects the combustion. Note how similar a KC-135 looks doing a "wet" takeoff:

Mike C.

"So, less pollution and quieter. This is what we call innovation and technology in 2015?

45 years ago we had a supersonic transport aircraft flying passengers, we had the SR-71 running around at Mach 3 and 80,000 feet, we had spacecraft capable of landing on the moon, we had the first business jets with climb performance better than their modern competitors ...

I'm sorry, but this is NOT groundbreaking or innovative. This just furthers the proof that we have become a society of spineless pansies.[/quote]

That's an interesting thought. I would just add it is not just pansies, but practical pansies. It's not about raw brute force, being the fastest or sticking out your chest anymore. The age of the muscle car is gone. I have good friends at Safran and visited their amazing state of the art plant in Queretaro recently where they overhaul the CFM engine (1980s/90s technology). Average TBO is upward of 20-30 thousand hours. The record is a whopping 48,000 hours. Their research investment dollars are going at improving these numbers and lowering the cost of ownership which includes fuel burn. The Silvercrest engine they are about to launch will be a worthy competitor to what you perceive as P&W's boring breakthrough. It will be quieter, incredibly efficient and reliable, but will not set any world speed records.

The financial guys who pay the bills and their accountants have taken over. That is the world we live in."

Obviously, you're right, but still...it makes me want to "-1" the world. I often feel like I was born about 20 years too late.

Nobody does a barrel roll on demo flights anymore either.

Because wimps Jim. You can barrel roll most anything. Hell,I basically did a split S in the Hummer on an FCF.

I want to go faster.

Especially today, as I am booked middle seat, middle bank of seats on United from Dulles to Dubai.

The need for speed is real. I would like to have been involved in flight test in the 1960s.

I think we have stagnated. I think the people crushing innovation for a 0.5% increase in shareholder value.

Or as HD would call us, SAFETY VIOLATORS.

It means that the design is mature. 3 billion years of evolution and fish are still ... fish shaped. The jet engine is pretty close to perfect already.

I always wanted to post something on BT that gets Theodore, John L, Mike C, JC, Alex G et al to weigh in. I am not shocked that the subject involves business, pace of innovation, shareholder value issues. Takes me back to my days at B-School discussing a case study. Nostaligic.

Yup.

Kinda like how cars still roll around on 4 wheels. We're overdue for an anti gravity device. Pretty fitting on Back to the Future Day.

Too much government regulation is my opinion for the total lack of real innovation. The government and the liability crisis have made making really cool things very expensive and difficult AND time consuming. Too many bureaucracies to please resulting in too much compromise.

Innovation is now a politically correct term. Take the Prius for example, possible the world's ugliest car (no offense meant, my mother in law has one) behind the Pontiac Aztec but it became "cool" to have one, very innovative. Or adding ethanol to motor fuels, there's innovation for you; more corrosion, expense and worse gas mileage.

I don't think there has been much real innovation in aviation in the last 70 years other than avionics. Garmin experimental stuff is VERY innovative; even revolutionary.

Back to TR's comment, an old Lear 23 will smoke pretty much any modern business jet at the cost of high fuel burn; just not PC any more to do this. Modern business jets are bigger and have more luxury but are not terribly innovative. A new G36 isn't really that much different or innovative than a 1947 v tail. The government kills innovation in aviation just as it does in other sectors. Perfect example is the Beech Starship where the FAA made them add flaps to reduce the stall speed 3 knots at the cost of 800lbs.

Then again, perhaps we have learned all we can about aerodynamics and there is isn't really much left to figure out on the airframe side. I hope this is not true though.

Regardless, I can't really say I blame a corporate board today for not wanting to rock the boat. Boeing bet the entire company on the 707 and 747; I'm not sure shareholders would allow such a thing today.

Lear 23 does two things well, crash and climb.