Thomas Enders CEO from Airbus says: "Airbus will rethink investments in the Uk

[MarkusS]

Do Airbus use Rolls Royce engines on their airplanes?

No, Airbus does not use R&R engines on their airplanes since Airbus is no Airline. The engine contract is done between Airline and producer of engines.

 

[ChineseTiger1986]

Unlike Snecma, MTU cannot build all the components of a jet engine.

Snecma is below Pratt and Whitney in engine tech, never mid anywhere near Rolls Royce and General Electric.

The core of Snecma's engine belongs to the P&W.

The only countries that has developed their own engine core are US, UK, Russia, and China.

 

[MarkusS]

Unlike Snecma, MTU cannot build all the components of a jet engine.

Snecma is below Pratt and Whitney in engine tech, never mid anywhere near Rolls Royce and General Electric.

You do realize that Germany, France and basicly evry other leading industrial nation can produce anything?

A jet engine is a rather primitive technology. The fuel pumps used for LRE are far more complex for example.

But as i said i´m debating with noobs here. Its quite obvious that Siemens for example as well as any other turbine producer can produce engines. But what for? Its only important to hold the technology. Investment costs are high and do not interfer with airbus business since the manufacturer does not make contracts for engines.

 

[UKBengali]

The core of Snecma's engine belongs to the P&W.

The only countries that developed their own engine core are US, UK, Russia, and China.

I believe Snecma used their M-88 core to develop the Sam 146 engine that powers the Sukhoi Superjet. But that is only a small airliner and Snecma will find it impossible to make competitive engines for medium size airliners, let alone large airlines.

You do realize that Germany, France and basicly evry other leading industrial nation can produce anything?

A jet engine is a rather primitive technology. The fuel pumps used for LRE are far more complex for example.

But as i said i´m debating with noobs here. Its quite obvious that Siemens for example as well as any other turbine producer can produce engines. But what for? Its only important to hold the technology. Investment costs are high and do not interfer with airbus business since the manufacturer does not make contracts for engines.

Please keep this up as you are producing too much comedy in this thread.

 

[livingdead]

No, Airbus does not use R&R engines on their airplanes since Airbus is no Airline. The engine contract is done between Airline and producer of engines.

so how does it matter what airbus thinks.. if an airline wants RR engine will airbus say no, we dont deal with RR.. take GE or gtfo?

 

[ChineseTiger1986]

I believe Snecma used their M-88 core to develop the Sam 146 engine that powers the Sukhoi Superjet. But that is only a small airliner and Snecma will find it impossible to make competitive engines for medium size airliners, let alone large airlines.

The M-88 is not powerful enough, its thrust is even smaller than the WS-13.

To independently develop a core that equivalent to the F-110/AL-31/WS-10; only US, Russia, China, UK can do that.

 

[MarkusS]

The core of Snecma's engine belongs to the P&W.

The only countries that has developed their own engine core are US, UK, Russia, and China.

Guess the Messerschmidt was propeleld by fairy dust then

I debate with absolute noobs here

so how does it matter what airbus thinks.. if an airline wants RR engine will airbus say no, we dont deal with RR.. take GE or gtfo?

Airbus gives a shit. It delivers the airplane. You get it? The airline can screw a RR a GE or a chair under its wings. You get it?

If an airline wants an airplane it orders the airplane from airbus and the engiens from whoever it ants and who is certified.

 

[ChineseTiger1986]

You do realize that Germany, France and basicly evry other leading industrial nation can produce anything?

A jet engine is a rather primitive technology. The fuel pumps used for LRE are far more complex for example.

But as i said i´m debating with noobs here. Its quite obvious that Siemens for example as well as any other turbine producer can produce engines. But what for? Its only important to hold the technology. Investment costs are high and do not interfer with airbus business since the manufacturer does not make contracts for engines.

Look at Japan, a self-proclaimed industrialized powerhouse, but they can only develop a 50kN thrust jet engine, which is equivalent 2rd generation aircraft.

Not every industrialized powerhouse is automatically an aerospace powerhouse.

 

[MarkusS]

I believe Snecma used their M-88 core to develop the Sam 146 engine that powers the Sukhoi Superjet. But that is only a small airliner and Snecma will find it impossible to make competitive engines for medium size airliners, let alone large airlines.




Please keep this up as you are producing too much comedy in this thread.

come back when you start producing quality DNA first

 

[UKBengali]

The M-88 is not powerful enough, its thrust is even smaller than the WS-13.

To dependently develop a core that equivalent to the F-110/AL-31/WS-10; only US, Russia, China, UK can do that.

France is not as technologically advanced as US or UK. It's technology is always not as good whichever high-tech field you look at.

Germany has been castrated since WW2 and it will take many decades of effort for it to reach the top-level again.

 

[livingdead]

Guess the Messerschmidt was propeleld by fairy dust then

I debate with absolute noobs here




Airbus gives a shit. It delivers the airplane. You get it? The airline can screw a RR a GE or a chair under its wings. You get it?

If an airline wants an airplane it orders the airplane from airbus and the engiens from whoever it ants and who is certified.

alright alright.. gosh you are about to bite me or what...

 

[MarkusS]

Look at Japan, a self-proclaimed industrialized powerhouse, but they can only developed a 50kN thrust jet engine, which is equivalent 2rd generation aircraft.

Not every industrialized powerhouse is automatically an aerospace powerhouse.

It can if the political will would be there. Development costs are very high so many are afraid to go that step. In the end its no magic.

France is not as technologically advanced as US or UK. It's technology is always not as good whichever high-tech field you look at.

Germany has been castrated since WW2 and it will take many decades of effort for it to reach the top-level again.

They rule entire europe and ae leading in science and technology. But what do i say. I talk with someone whose only accomplishment is...wait...what does bangladesh actually produce?

@flamer84 @Vauban

stop liking my posts. You either support me and contribute to the discussion or not.

 

[UKBengali]

They rule entire europe and ae leading in science and technology. But what do i say. I talk with someone whose only accomplishment is...wait...what does bangladesh actually produce?

Stop talking about BD here.

We are wanting to know how the EU can threaten UK, as it relies on UK jet engines to power Airbus planes and also has a trade deficit with the UK?

 

[MarkusS]

Stop talking about BD here.

We are wanting to know how the EU can threaten UK, as it relies on UK jet engines to power Airbus planes and also has a trade deficit with the UK?

Why you say "threaten"? I think you understand something wrong. Airbus says it will withdraw from the UK. Thats no threat. It said so before Brexit and the voters knew this would happen. We live in a free market world. Or do you want force Airbus to stay in the Uk and act like North Korea?

I actually dont understand where you see a problem here?

Morgan Stanley and otehr banks announced they will leave London and head for Frankfurt. Thats free market and also said before. Why are you angry now if corporations make business decissions?

 

[ChineseTiger1986]

France is not as technologically advanced as US or UK. It's technology is always not as good whichever high-tech field you look at.

Germany has been castrated since WW2 and it will take many decades of effort for it to reach the top-level again.

Yep, France has probably sunk as technologically the weakest out of P5 nations.

- Its Barracuda class SSN isn't deployed yet, while China has already deployed several 9000 tons class Type 093B SSNs, it is better than the 688i and probably closer to the earliest block of the Virginia class.

- It doesn't have the core jet engine technology that equivalent to the F-110/AL-31/WS-10.

- Its M51 SLBM was not as successful as it touted to be, and now it is going back to the test stage in a water pool.