Compare and Contrast
Based on the most recent configuration data collected from each manufacturer and other industry sources, early calculations show that the PW1000G should have a maintenance cost advantage over LEAP of 10-20% (Pratt & Whitney, 2020). Of all, cost estimates are based on scant preliminary information. The GTF is undergoing engine testing in preparation for a 2013 launch, and the first LEAP engine has not yet been completed; thus, things may and will change. However, given two considerations – fewer components and somewhat lower temperatures – we would anticipate the GTF to have a maintenance cost advantage over the LEAP. The underlying issue is whether either engine can meet its stated targets of matching the CFM56-maintenance 5B’s costs or being 20% less expensive than the V2500 (AirInsightGroup, 2011), the benchmarks on which their estimates are based. Despite new coatings and cooling technology, it will be impossible for either engine to sustain today’s levels of maintenance costs due to greater temperatures and pressure ratios. Even if the components wear and or better than the previous generation, they will almost certainly be more costly due to the unique coatings.
While the GTF should maintain an edge over the LEAP, each engine manufacturer’s ambitious maintenance targets will be tough to satisfy. Both corporations have a history of meeting their obligations, either via breakthrough technologies or by decreasing profits if the technologies fail. Commercial considerations may probably come into play, given the novel technology in these engines.
