GTF engine: Game-changing efficiency and sustainability | Paris Air Show 

At least you know about this issue and PW is NOT making excuses...unlike Boeing.

spot ON. at least this mess of an engine didn't kill any Go First Airline PASSENGERS.

Go for CFM-leap much better than this sh*t.

Lol

"Teething?" You're kidding?? Hope they fix the fucking SAFETY issues. Better continue to hope it don't BLOW UP like the oil seal problem in its PW1500G spewing pieces all over the ramp in Mirabel, or the high compressor knife-edge HCF in the PW1100G, or the one-pipe-out cooling of the high turbine, or why most of the thrust load on that big fan is carried by only TWO of the planetary gears, or the highest RPM turbine in the world working right on the edge of material limits ("certified" like an engine from 30 years ago). Just wait a bit longer for the NEXT failure and hope that "performing extremely well" doesn't equate to deaths.

They have certainly learned from the shortcomings of the PW1000G, that's for sure.

The phrase 'Game Changing' leads to many outcomes not always positive. Performing well but with teething problems which will 'hopefully' be fixed. If you know they are teething problems why the need for hope? How does that combination hang together? Putting a gearbox in to what was a reliable power source because of its essential mechanical simplicity is a whole new world. A constant speed propellor in a turboprop has extra benefits with the jet engine not needing to spool up with the re-stabilisation of gas flow for extra power. But putting in a gearbox just for more optimised bypass is entering the realms of trading safety for cost efficiency.

@@michaeld5888 And you think the technology can't improve to compensate for the shortcomings? You think engineers don't learn from their mistakes? I'm pretty sure P&W has been taking a good, long, hard look at the data of previous PW1000G failures to determine the cause of each failure, and work to address them.

@@mrunning10 Stop complaining. I do agree with the marketing shit though. You do realize other engine manufacturers have problems too huh? Sounds like someone got fired or just doesn't like a good (but maybe slightly corrupt) company.

NOPE. Just wait. Poor reliability = poor safety.

@@mrunning10 You think engineers don't learn from their mistakes? I'm sure P&W has taken a good, long, hard look at the data of previous geared turbofan failures, particularly with the PW1000G, and are looking to fix the root cause of those issues by building this new engine, the GTF, from the ground up.

@@MilesEdgeworth129 Matt is salty. You can guess why. Look at how much comments he has on this channel.

Wow! And you survived!!

Silent because they are sitting parked on the ground. And in flight they are quieter than the CEO but they have a low frequency hum that can not be synchronized with autothrust. Autothrust has to be switched off and engines synchronized manually. Waaahhhh......waaaahhhhh.......waaaahhhhh....

OK, your first sentence is spot on. The remainder is wanker I don't know shit commenting. I guess you're TRYING to make a sarcastic joke. @@joe-p9k4n

You don't know shit about this engine dude.

nobody cares about the global warming scam.

I can think of even less interesting things.

Of course it's a great engine, when it ain't sitting on the ground you dumbshit. The ISSUE is the problems that PW KNEW were there BEFORE Certification and yet the FAA Certified this Piece of Shit anyway.

2 airlines and again ruining any future relation with Airbus for the next 50 years.

who the fuck is making a prop-fan? anyone? there is a fundamental engineering problem with such a design and you say "decline?"

I’m guessing you got made redundant recently…?

No dude. Read the news. This engine put an Indian airline out of business. And, another major airline has grounded its aircrafts with P&W engines

what the fuck YOU know about it?

It’s roughly the same except Pratt is having so many problems while CFM is only having a few. PLUS the GTF has better fuel efficiency and thrust which airlines will most certainly choose over the leap in the coming year Especially when those reliability problems are solved and Proven to work.

Probably because the airline that trusted P&W are now headed to bankruptcy in India

PW tried a decade ago, the GTF doesn't scale up, way fucking too heavy. Do you have ANY fucking clue what you're talking about when you say "military?" Fighters or Cargo?????? Fighters NO Cargo YES.

Hardly, why not fucking learn something BEFORE you make a stupid-ass comment?

Go away bot, you KNOW shit.

Nope, run by "50% gender parity" by 2020. (direct at the time from David Hess in the Gold Building) NOTHING to do with ENGINEERING. If a company focuses on SHIT you get a SHIT engine. Here's another direct quote from a PW Manager ( a Fellow !!) at the time: "...she's new to this but I guess she'll pick it up over time..." when yet another "gender parity" Manager dropped down like bats in the belfry. Hiring people and placing them in positions of decision with NO fucking EXPERIENCE.

Just more reliable.

Not really. The GTF is more efficent, higher bypass ratio, more thrust, lower noise. BUT, the reliability still needs some work. Basically they are both the same at this moment.

@@Roboseal2oh

Nope, Pratt tried, the GTF does not scale up. Think of the weight of that big fan gearbox getting bigger and bigger.

You an A&P?

How the fuck would YOU know?

@@mrunning10 I fix them this is how I know 😀

​@@Nosferatu295 Ahh, excellent. I analyzed the certification compliance to the Type Certificate. It shouldn't need "fixing" if it were designed correctly. All is good for now, until that fan gear comes apart due to asymmetric loading (Pratt "thinks this will be contained) or the turbine blows up like the kinetic bomb that it is because it's the fastest high spool ever flown and lives right on the virtual edge of material properties and the FAA skimmed right over 14 CFR 33.29 (and PW didn't complain about this because the KNEW the engine did not comply (will be an un-containment, KABOOM). All known by Pratt & Whitney and NOT openly communicated to the FAA during Certification of this engine. (h) The applicant must provide instrumentation enabling the flight crew to monitor the functioning of the turbine cooling system unless appropriate inspections are published in the relevant manuals and evidence shows that: (1) Other existing instrumentation provides adequate warning of failure or impending failure; (2) Failure of the cooling system would not lead to hazardous engine effects before detection; or (3) The probability of failure of the cooling system is extremely remote. --> incorrect number given to the FAA for certification. ​ Captain "Joe" is just a horseshit salesman and YOU are "fixing" and engine that is un-safe per the CFRs. (ever fucking hear of the "CFRs?"

This is posted by the p&W page. They just paid him to say whatever they like

@@cjmech9156 If the world were free of un-ethical (money) liars things would be better.

The worst engine design MANAGEMENT in the history of mankind.

Sarcasm doesn't work in print you fool.

แล้วไง

Schmuck.

ha ha hee haw