Replies to post #4066 on Arcam AB fka AMAVF

[pdb2]

TOM, don't expect Trader to document or back up anything he concludes as almost all of his conclusions are based on flawed or weak premises. Examples all easily documented by looking at the posting history here and on the arcam yahoo board:

1. He states that the LEAP train has left the station. This was based on his statement that the leap was already in production, q3 last year, based on the fact that he alleged 30 were produced. Also questioned that there would be no bulk GE purchases based on the time lag since Rene hinted at such a buy. Then when the bulk order came, postulated that there would be thousands of printer sales, then when Ge confirmed that some of the printers would not be delivered till 2017 he resumed questioning how many printers would be sold.

2. Likewise, below he posts that he expects the GE order to be fulfilled, implying in the next few quarters when we all know some, most all???? will not be delivered till 2017.

3 Posts composites will leapfrog EBM, concluding that arcam will be hurt, whereas the info we are receiving now, and as I postulated then, is many part and OEM manufacturers are testing and planning to use ebm parts and some are planed for planes now. Composites will not leapfrog or trump ebm, there is a place for both.

4. Concluded that arcam's sales would be poor q4 because of the lack of announced sales. Will 19 sales, before the GE announced order, was good IMHO.

5. Posted that arcam would get to 10 and below based on his analysis of the market and technical analysis. Then when called on it, defended himself by saying 11.25ish was a rounding error. To me 11.25 on a 10 dollar prediction is not a rounding error.

6. Reads an article on competitors, many examples, but lets use ebAM as an example, then posts that the product will/might be a major competitor to EBM when others point out the technology is not even competitive.

I could go on and on and on with documented examples but the point is made. All the above were conclusions to the negative of arcam except for the 1000s of printers post, none of which have held true or were based on solid premises. Like the no announcement, poor sales, or the leap train left the station when Rene says no decision made, and the damaging competition when the technology are not even competitive conclusions. Anyone question whether the post topics were not conclusions in essence and anyone not agree that they were based on flawed premises. Like the ones where something is seen/not seen in a video causes trader to reach an arcam conclusion.

Myself, I try to wait till there are solid facts or information before I conclude or clearly indicate, like my ER estimates, that they are my own personal conclusions. But even then , I explain why I reach the conclusion set forth and others can agree or disagree with my reasoning process.

I do not, like the post I commented on, guess how long a leap engine will last, when every user differs on how the leap is used and has different policies on replacement, and then attempt to conclude that that will reduce the amount of arcam blades that will be needed and when. This on a leap engine that Trader already posted that arcam would not be involved in as he posted that the leap train left the station. Case made, they are conclusions and they are flawed.

[flying_trader]

Tom, please be clear about your complaints...

You say my post was poorly documented, well, lets take a look and see if we can see where the problem is.. I assume you did read the documentation provided..

The first assertion in the post was that Pre-LEAP commercial Jet Engines have a Time On Wing of about 25,000hrs before they are removed for service and to document that assumption I provided a link to a CFM data sheet where CFM states:


"A growing number of CFM56-3 engines reach more than 25,000 hours before their first shop visit removal"

And

"Expected first run life of more than 16,000 engine flight hours"

And

"CFM56-3 world record for high time on wing 38,736 hours"

While I did say "is 25,000" hrs I should probably have said "average is about 25,000 hrs" (but they only give you 8 words in the title) I am sure some get more and some get less... pick your number between "more than 16,000" and "record" of 38,836... or perhaps you don't feel CFM is a good source of information on this ? So who would know better ? Keep in mind the LEAPs are suppose to have a better maintenance cost than the CFMs they replace..

The second assertion was that Commercial Jets fly about 3,500 hrs per year and to document that assumption a link was provided to a USA Today article by John Cox who is a retired airline captain with U.S. Airways and runs his own aviation safety consulting company, Safety Operating Systems. He states in the article:

"3,500 hours a year as an average"

That number seemed reasonable to me as I saw other articles which quoted 3,000 and 4,000 but it depends greatly on how the plane is used e.g. Long Haul or Domestic, the operator Delta or say Alaska Air... This article explains the differences...

https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-typical-lifecycle-of-a-commercial-passenger-airplane


That brings us to my POV at this point (not a conclusion to the elimination of all other possibilities) that currently produced LEAPs and GEnXs MAY not see the shop for a long time (here again I am assuming, perhaps wrongly, that LPT blades don't get replaced while the engine is still mounted on the plane). Now to me a long time is more than 5 yrs and you may disagree that is a long time, so we can just agree to disagree on that point. But if you do the above implied math which I omitted as I thought it obvious, you get 25,000 hrs before a shop overhaul / 3,500 hrs run time per year = 7.14 yrs...

Or maybe you believe those LPT blades are replaced while the engine is still on the plane... I hadn't even considered that possibility but maybe...

Finally you may just disagree with the whole premise that replacement blades for the LEAPs and GEnXs is a material peice of business for Arcam via their customers and so none of this even matters... well, I would disagree...

But here i am guessing at what you found so deficient in my post on this topic and so I will just let you tell me... if you want to...

Cheers