Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
COMPETITIVE ASSESSMENT OF TECHNOLOGY 121 change and major investment in new tools to reduce costs and increase production runs so that BAe could participate in the A300 program. BAe investment in new machining equipment and tooling for the Airbus Industrie program will total over $150 million by 1984. Messerschmitt-Boelkow-Blohm (MBB) of West Germany opened a new facility in 1979, which makes extensive use of numerically controlled machining. As a result, MBB productivity on A300/A310 parts has improved significantly. It appears to be on an 83 percent learning curve, which compares well with the best American practice. New investment in facilities and tooling is estimated by MBB to be $250 million (1979 dollars) with about a 30 percent increase in factory floor space. Aerospatiale, in addition to building the cockpit, forward fuselage sections, and wing-carry-through structure of the A-300/A-310, has the responsibility for final assembly. Aerospatiale has recently invested some $200 million over a two-year period and will continue to invest at this rate. To the existing large final assembly plant at Toulouse is being added the equally large assembly hall formerly occupied by Concorde. An additional hall is also being built alongside, essentially tripling the existing A300 factory space. Aerospatiale has now moved to a two-shift operation, which required a significant change in the habits of the French work force. Third-shift operations are not envisioned. The Japanese should not be underestimated. Although they lack the technology or capability to initiate a new large commercial aircraft program on their own, they would be formidable competitors as partners in an international joint venture. Major involvement in programs such as the F-15 and Boeing 767 transport is helping Japanese aeronautical production technology to become more competitive with the United States. PROPULSION TECHNOLOGY Status of Technology The three free-world engine manufacturers currently producing large commercial transport turbofan engines are Pratt and Whitney, General Electric, and Rolls Royce. In addition to the three principal manufacturers, several European and Japanese manufacturers participate in licensing, coproduction, and codevelopment through agreements with the three principals. These participating companies are SNECMA (France), MTU (Germany), Volvo Flygmotor (Sweden), FIAT Aviazione (Italy), and Ishikawajima-Harima (IHI), Mitsubishi (MHI), and Kawasaki (KHI) in Japan.
COMPETITIVE ASSESSMENT OF TECHNOLOGY 122 This section assesses the U.S. manufacturers of large commercial transport engines compared with current and potential future foreign competitors. Areas of comparison discussed are: engine technologies and programs, development and production capabilities, and international joint ventures. Among the most important technologies for turbojet and turbofan engines are the following: aerodynamics of rotating machinery (fans, compressors, and turbines); combustion; lightweight, high-strength and high-temperature materials; design and configuration; and engine controls. An overview assessment of U.S. and foreign technological strengths in these areas can be inferred by comparing the end results of the application of these technologies to resultant commercial turbofan engines. Figures 5-7 through 5-9 chronologically compare three important overall parameters reflecting technology content in engines. Figure 5-7 Commercial Transport EnginesâCruise Specific Fuel Consumption (manufacturer's quoted performance) Source: Pratt and Whitney, from data supplied by manufacturers.
COMPETITIVE ASSESSMENT OF TECHNOLOGY 123 Figure 5-8 Commercial Transport EnginesâThrust-to-Weight Ratio (manufacturer's quoted performance) Source: Pratt and Whitney, from data supplied by manufacturers. Decreasing Thrust Specific Fuel Consumption (TSFC) at Cruise (Figure 5-7) A measure of fuel efficiency of the engine. Advances in aerodynamics, high- temperature materials, and combustion technologies are important contributors to this parameter. Additionally, engine controls technology can contribute to overall aircraft-mission fuel efficiency by helping to minimize fuel consumption during taxing, descent, and low-altitude holding. For example, on a flight from Chicago to Miami this noncruise fuel use can be as much as 11 percent of total trip fuel. Increasing Engine Thrust-to-Weight Ratios (Figure 5-8) Technologies contributing significantly to this parameter are lightweight, high-strength, and high-temperature materials, as well as design and configuration. Increasing Turbine Inlet Temperature (Figure 5-9). This parameter influences the fuel efficiency of the engine and is a con
COMPETITIVE ASSESSMENT OF TECHNOLOGY 124 tributor to lighter weight. Improvements in combustion and high-temperature materials, along with turbine blade cooling design, are major contributors to this technology. Projections have been extended into the 1990s by including published engine data for future designs from the respective engine manufacturers. Figure 5-9 Commercial Transport EnginesâTurbine Inlet Temperature (manufacturer's quoted performance) Source: Pratt and Whitney, from data supplied by manufacturers. Figures 5-7 through 5-9 include SNECMA's participation as a 50 percent codevelopment partner in the CFM56 and study engines such as the M56-2000, which it considered developing with 100 percent French financing and contracted technical assistance from General Electric. Also shown in the figures is the FJR710, an engine under development in Japan since 1971 and scheduled to power a four-engined, short-takeoff and-landing demonstrator aircraft in May 1984. The aircraft is being developed in Japan by the National Aerospace Laboratory. For the time period of its potential commercial availability, the FJR710 is not considered competitive in technology.
