In his latest interview, the CEO of TEI said that over 200 engineers are working directly on TFX engine. What I want to know is if there's a rough industry standard on human capital needed to develop engines of different classes. I realize it depends on the case and there are many variables involved. So without bringing TEI into the equation, with the experience that GE, PW or RR have, how many engineers would those companies would assign to a project to develop an engine like F110 or F119 typically. Total production volume is 1000. And from scratch, I mean it won't be based on an already-developed core. I'm looking for an off the top of my head kind of answer(if such a thing's possible).
From my experience at PW, these days we typically have anywhere around 100 to 1000 high level engineers involved during jet engine design phase (and the later deployment, support and optimisation phases) in these times.
Each of these engineers can have sizeable number of mid level engineers and so on for lower level work along with tech and fab people. Anywhere from 1:1 to 1:5 ratio or even more (if timeline really is intense, funding is little issue and supply of engineers can be scaled easily)
That ratio depends on the iteration feedback loop of the specific project (steady path vs unsteady path spectrum.....more unsteady/unproven it is , the more need for "mid level" people to scope things like scouts in front of you and then higher level guy makes decisions).
Like changing an engine from X1 to X2 (some refinement, enhancement etc) is more steady project....it wont need so many iteration scouts. You already invested all that in project X0 etc.
But developing a fundamentally new engine (in whichever way) with little experience say engine Y and you have only done engine X type before will need lot more mid level engineer ratio (for same amount of time and for same supply of high level engineers/experts you can muster) as theres lot more nooks and crannies and dead ends you will have to find the hard way.
Exact number depends on the current project ramp, funding and other things I mentioned earlier on the project "curve" trajectory (starting conditions, what you can harness and save time not reinventing wheel etc).
So thats why its hard to compare between even the big 3 in the West as they have organised HR noticeably different in the end according to what they did before and what they want to do now. GE for example doesnt need as many mid level engineers as PW does in many classes of commercial engine design, as they pushed early on what proved to be instrumental work (and now IP) regarding this in lubrication lines and bearings in the 80s and 90s. PW plays catch up here now and has to commit lot more today to make up for that given value of MRO efficiency savings to airlines (this is also why GE has vast competitive edge in commercial field and market share).
Overall these numbers were a lot higher back in the day when lot of the core aspects of the engines you mention were developed....given computer aided productivity was still nascent back then so it needed lot more engineers at every level especially the mid level.
So I would say 200 could very well be optimal balance for what TEI has working at high level engineer role...and however many mid level engineers etc that portends to in the larger employee pool.
i.e to go to say 500 or 1000 there (if say supply was no bar) could end up consuming more resources for little gain (compared to spending that on the middle ranks and non labour capital)....just like having too high general and officer count ratio in field army when its operation needs more grunts at particular stage of campaign etc.
But later it can change and it could very well need lot more engineers than that at high level....either for same project (simply the curve position and slope changes for these needs) or the next follow up project that harnesses the work done.
