Answer

Comparison and Contrast of Pratt & Whitney’s Geared Turbofan Engine to GE’s LEAP Engine

Recent years have witnessed a novel class of engines associated with narrow-bodied planes entering the service. Contrary to the previous generations, the contemporary manufacturers of aircraft engines have demonstrated a divergence within their employment of technology, thereby leading to two noticeably distinct configurations (Crane, Fortier & Michmerhuizen, 2018). These two distinct engine technologies are the geared turbofan configuration developed by Pratt & Whitney (PW) and the GE’s LEAP. The GE’s LEAP engine in an all-novel engine developed as a replacement of the venerable CFM56 employed on the Airbus A320 and Boeing 737NG families (AirInsightGroup, 2011). On the other hand, the geared turbofan engine developed by PW incorporates a gear system of fan drive that permits the fan to function at reduced speeds relative to the compressor associated with low pressure as well as the turbine (Norris & Torres, 2017; Crane et al., 2018). This paper compares and contrasts Pratt & Whitney’s geared turbofan engine with GE’s LEAP engine, which is largely traditional direct-drive arrangement having a high-pressure turbine characterized by two stages, by focusing on the aspects of maintenance and utilization of advancements in design and technology to realize their cost target of maintenance.

The two engine designs exhibit significant improvements in performance. The two engines possess a range of aircraft uses, lower emissions, limited noise, and limited fuel burns relative to the contemporary engines. Manufacturers have attained a 16 percent decrease in fuel consumption for the novel engines. Besides, each of the engines provides a sophisticated combustor associated with a 50 percent decrease in discharges nitrogen oxides from CAEP/6 volumes (AirInsightGroup, 2011). When compared to the modern engines, the two engines are quieter with a 15 dB decrease on A320 neo, thereby implying that the two engines will produce lower than 50 per cent of the quantity of noise generated by the current engines (AirInsightGroup, 2011). According to the manufacturers, the noise footprint of these engines is decreased by 75 percent (AirInsightGroup, 2011).

Apart from resembling each other in the aspect of performance improvement in terms of lowering emissions, fuel burn, and noise, the two engine technologies also resemble each other in the maintenance cost reduction designs such as low pressure compressor (LPC) and combustor. The two engines possess a 3-stage LPC, which lowers the cost of maintenance. It is also vital to note that the two engine technologies employ the novel advanced combustors associated with similar features like the dual annular blueprints (AirInsightGroup, 2011). While the combustor designs in the two engines are more efficient relative to the former versions, they are more sophisticated relative to the contemporary machinery, and potentially costlier to substitute than the cost incurred in replacing today’s combustors.

Whereas the two engine designs are similar in the design aspects of combustor and LPC, which are meant to reduce maintenance cost, they differ from each other in other design elements targeted at reducing the maintenance costs such as gearbox, fan section, and engine configuration. With over half of novel engines registered under power-by-the-hour repairs agreements, the engine’s dependability will directly affect the program’s productivity (Crane et al., 2018). As the payment on the part of customers is fixed, the costs of advancements in the reliability of the engine will be shifted to the engine manufacturer.  The two engines have embraced different designs to accomplish maintenance cost reductions in areas such as engine configurations, fan section, and gearbox. In relation to engine configuration, it can be noted that PW’s engine employs a geared turbofan design, incorporating a gearbox that permits a slower rotation of the fan relative to the other engine components, which rotate at elevated speed to ensure performance optimization (AirInsightGroup, 2011). On the contrary, LEAP employs a more traditional direct-drive pattern.

When it comes to the fan section, it can be noted that LEAP incorporates or integrates the foreign-object damage (FOD) technique within its design and has a centrifugal style meant to eject FOD via doors. On the other hand, the PW’s blueprint employs a transforming sleeve in providing an optional means of blocking FOD (Norris & Torres, 2017). Moreover, the engine’s lower fan pressure ration limits the amount of debris brought into the engine (Norris & Torres, 2017; AirInsightGroup, 2011). Even though the two engines reveal a sharp contrast in their fan section, in both engines, the fan section contribute significantly to the lowering of the maintenance costs by eliminating FOD, which is detrimental to engines. In relation to gearbox, it can be noted that LEAP lacks a gearbox, which in turn greatly limits the maintenance cost. On the other hand, PW” s engine possesses a gearbox, and despite its innovative features lowering the gearbox’s maintenance cost, it can still be noted that the cost of maintenance of PW’s engine is still higher than that of LEAP as it has a gearbox (AirInsightGroup, 2011).

In conclusion, this paper has effectively compared and contrasted GE’s LEAP engine to Pratt & Whitney’s geared turbofan engine. The two engine technologies bear a resemblance with each other in terms of performance in various areas including noise reduction, lower fuel burns, lower emissions, and multiple aircraft applications. Nonetheless, there exist sharp differences between the two engines in the designs of engine configurations, fan section, and gearbox targeted at reducing maintenance cost.