tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-81184609379289587572024-02-06T22:09:51.778-05:00aeroturbopowerThe blog about aeroengines and what they powerUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger237125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8118460937928958757.post-20154927522839616972023-01-15T08:23:00.002-05:002023-01-15T08:23:54.524-05:00Bavarian Airlines! Bavarian... What???<span style="font-family: arial;">This week a "new airline" was announced: <a href="https://www.bavarianairlines.com/">Bavarian Airlines</a>, to be based in Munich. According to founder Adem Karagöz the airline wants to offer better service than their competitor(s). Looking at the routes the new airline wants to start with (MUC to FRA, BER, DUS, AMS) there is almost only LH and their affiliates (KLM as well in case of AMS) the compete with.</span><div><span style="font-family: arial;">For LH and KLM these flights are important as feeder flights for their longhaul routes from MUC, FRA and AMS and these will fly with LH and KLM anyway. So Bavarian Airlines could only shoot for business travelers which want to go from MUC to FRA, BER etc. for a day-trip and for leisure traveler. Not too much to gain here I think.</span></div><div><span style="font-family: arial;">But there is another doubt I have: the airlines wants to fly with leased E195E2, getting their first of planned twelve plane(s) this year. Now I tell you something: there is no chance Bavarian Airlines will get a E195E2 this year unless other customers jump from Embraers customer list! I even doubt that Embraer will fulfill their delivery commitments they gave to their existing customers (Porter for example wants to have their full first batch of 30 aircraft until the end of this year.</span></div><div><span style="font-family: arial;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-family: arial;">So for now I take Bavarian Airlines as a very early April fools joke!</span></div><div><span style="font-family: arial;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-family: arial;">And I can only wonder why there are so many press articles out there (especially in the german press) which are reporting the airlines and their CEO's plans without any critical question!<br /></span><p> </p></div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8118460937928958757.post-36422764087427509762021-06-04T07:56:00.002-04:002021-06-07T14:40:59.993-04:00Boeing's big gamble<p><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: 16pt;">A recent article by </span><a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-05-24/airbus-backs-lightweight-wing-to-preserve-its-lead-over-boeing" style="font-size: 16pt;">Bloomberg</a><span style="font-size: 16pt;">
about the new composite wing that could replace the current wing on the A320neo,
a project called “The Wing of Tomorrow” by Airbus, spurred some discussions
about the future Airbus narrowbody product line and how Boeing would/could
react.</span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 16pt; line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;"><span style="font-family: arial;">The subject, <a href="https://leehamnews.com/2021/05/31/pontifications-the-wing-of-tomorrow-and-airbus-future/">as
Scott Hamilton writes</a>, is not new at all. I heard about it in 2013 for the first
time. Airbus at that time thought that Bombardier would launch a CS500 (today
discussed as the A220-500) and thought that the CS300 was about 5% better in
economics than even advertised by Bombardier to customers. This gives us a first indication of how good an A220-500 could be, as the A220-300 has at least the same
costs per seat than the A320neo, if not better. A stretched aircraft always
tends to have better seat costs than the original one, so the A220-500 has better
seat mile costs than the A320neo “by definition”.<o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 16pt; line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;"><span style="font-family: arial;">If the A220-500 it would be an
A320neo and B737-8 killer, as Scott Hamilton thinks, is another question though
and depends on how the A220-500 exactly would look like and what the mission is
an airline is looking for.<o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 16pt; line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;"><span style="font-family: arial;">Start with the current
payload-range diagrams of the A320neo and the A220-300.<o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 16pt; line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;"><span style="font-family: arial;">Looking at the payload-range
diagram we see that indeed with 165 x 220lbs per passenger = 33klbs of payload
the range is in the 3400nm range.<o:p></o:p></span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 16pt; line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;"></span></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEieAzdzsL0J2QROo5cEkxWHZOgCy8Q3mgKVAhdkJTQJJSMcbNiKZLLn-3MiqYYtdZFLfc2_ZCD2A8My2LbjLiu9WXC6u12Xq_PLjxHL0TuMTtKPMtY05s_1wJr9V9g58wy4fK6Hf3kgumFi/s1064/A320+r-p.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="860" data-original-width="1064" height="518" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEieAzdzsL0J2QROo5cEkxWHZOgCy8Q3mgKVAhdkJTQJJSMcbNiKZLLn-3MiqYYtdZFLfc2_ZCD2A8My2LbjLiu9WXC6u12Xq_PLjxHL0TuMTtKPMtY05s_1wJr9V9g58wy4fK6Hf3kgumFi/w640-h518/A320+r-p.jpg" title="A320neo payload-range diagram (Source: Airbus)" width="640" /></a></div><br /><span style="font-family: arial;"><br /></span><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 16pt; line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;"><span style="font-family: arial;">The payload-range diagram of
the A220-300 is not yet updated by Airbus (at least not for the “flying public”)
and still shows around 3100nm range with 140 passengers and 149000lbf MTOW. If
we believe in the <a href="https://www.flightglobal.com/air-transport/airbus-extracts-more-range-from-a220-300-with-further-weight-increase/143001.article">Airbus
claim</a> that with the new MTOW of 156000lb range would be 3550nm we get the
new range-payload line approximately as a parallel line to the old one. Now let
us seat 165 in that aircraft (knowing that it would not work of course) and we
see that range would fall to around 3000nm by the addition of the extra 25
passengers of payload.<o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 16pt; line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;"><span style="font-family: arial;">To seat these 25 passenger we
would need to stretch the aircraft by five rows of about 4m of 13ft. This is
about the same difference in length than between the A220-100 and the A220-300.<o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 16pt; line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;"><span style="font-family: arial;">For simplicity, let us
consider that the difference in OEW between the A220-300 and a potential A220-500
with unchanged MTOW would be same as the difference between the OEW of the
A22-100 and the A220-300: 4100lb. Then we would get a range of the stretched A220-500
aircraft of around 2500nm.<o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 16pt; line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;"><span style="font-family: arial;">On one hand, this is enough
for probably around 95% of all flight a A320neo of a B737-8 is used for today.
On the other hand, flexibility is key for many airlines, so the limited range
of an A220-500 would be a problem for many airlines.<o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 16pt; line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;"><span style="font-family: arial;">Now we can increase the MTOW
of the A220-500 to increase range.<o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 16pt; line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;"><span style="font-family: arial;">Start with a comparison of the
wing loading: the A220 wing has 112.3 square meter, the A320neo 122.6. To get
to same wing loading we could increase the MTOW of the A220-500 by about 3500lb.
This would increase the range by approximately 300nm to about 2800nm. The original
CS300 was advertised with this range. With the same wing loading and the same
generation of engines, especially with a bypass ratio that is in the same range,
runway characteristics should be comparable as well then.<o:p></o:p></span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 16pt; line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;"></span></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgg7SiE-kHz-UQosaTvxryS7CeAqkimFrxBG3HVRUk8N_ATHrYRkiWeLTchoMncOGWwfxT3z-Hxs0nIAt4_MehwG5CuM4eUoVZ7lztPlD7Sp6zoLoMpvVJFTxhEO4ssHm2WfqjVTJWPo4LR/s1459/range+payload.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="830" data-original-width="1459" height="365" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgg7SiE-kHz-UQosaTvxryS7CeAqkimFrxBG3HVRUk8N_ATHrYRkiWeLTchoMncOGWwfxT3z-Hxs0nIAt4_MehwG5CuM4eUoVZ7lztPlD7Sp6zoLoMpvVJFTxhEO4ssHm2WfqjVTJWPo4LR/w640-h365/range+payload.jpg" title="A220-300 payload-range diagram (Source: Airbus)" width="640" /></a></div><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: 16pt;">So would the A220-500 be a
A320neo and B737-8 killer? If you definitely do not need more range than 2800nm
it could be.</span><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 16pt; line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;"><span style="font-family: arial;">For Airbus, with their “Wing
of Tomorrow”, this would not be such a big problem. They could do the
A320.5neo++ (or whatever it will be called). For Boeing, not having a competitive
product against the A220-100 and -300 to begin with, the A220-500, together
with a A320.5, could turn into a bigger problem. Both aircraft would squeeze
the B737-8 from both above and below, the A320.5 with better range and economics
and the A220-500 with dramatically better economics.<o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 16pt; line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;"><span style="font-family: arial;">But the ball is in Boeings court.
As it looks, they <u>have </u>to move first, either with an aircraft that aims at
the so called Middle of the Market, that is now captured by the A321XLR, but
leaving the B737-8 alone. Or by replacing the MAX family soon, which could counter
an A220-500 on the low end but leaving the A321XLR and even more a potential
A322 alone on the playground.<o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 16pt; line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;"><span style="font-family: arial;">Canceling the joint venture
with Embraer could have been a big failure going forward, as “Boeing Brazil”
could have worked on the lower end of the narrowbody product line.</span><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 16pt; line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: 21.3333px;">Disclaimer: these thoughts are just easy considerations without going through all the (engineering) steps necessary. But it gives us a hint where the different aircraft are relative to each other.</span></span></p>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8118460937928958757.post-52403998873401818412021-04-05T12:29:00.000-04:002021-04-05T12:29:20.722-04:005X – what 5X?<p><span style="font-size: 14pt;"><span style="font-family: arial;">During the last weeks Aviation Week had a few articles (<a href="https://aviationweek.com/aerospace/boeing-embraer-serious-about-new-conventional-aircraft-soon" target="_blank">here </a>and <a href="https://aviationweek.com/air-transport/aircraft-propulsion/must-win-program-engine-oems" target="_blank">here</a>) about an alleged new Boeing widebody aircraft code-named -5X. More or less a
NMA reloaded, this aircraft would be targeting the A330neo family, but in turn
as well the 787-8/9.</span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><span style="font-family: arial;">Stop –say what? The 787 is right now not selling like
hot cakes, but the A330neo not as well and the main reason is COVID-19,
although also without the pandemic both aircraft would see lower production
rates today than until 2019. So where is the point in developing a new aircraft
there? The NMA, which was not able to produce a business case for Boeing, was
shelved and was probably almost the same aircraft. Part of the problem back
then was that the engine companies did not see the market as attractive as
Boeing (officially) did and both CFMI and P&WA only wanted to develop an
engine as a sole source.<o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><span style="font-family: arial;">So where is the reason to believe that now, two years
later, it actually looks better for an aircraft like this?<o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><span style="font-family: arial;">The only thing Boeing should concentrate on is a new
Single Aisle aircraft family! If Boeing would start an aircraft like -5X now
with an EIS not before 2027, themselves as well as the engine companies would
not have the resources to be able to counter an A320neo++ family with a new
wing and engines that will then get a performance improvement package from the
-5X engine(s). Also, <a href="https://leehamnews.com/2021/04/05/pontifications-southwest-didnt-invite-airbus-to-bid/#more-36289" target="_blank">as Scott Hamilton from Leeham writes today</a>, the A220-500 is only a question of when, not if. So the lower end of the B737MAX would get increasing pressure once the - 500 is on the market. The B737MAX would be dead then, "killed" from the A220-550 from the lower end and from the A320neo++ and A321neo++ from the upper end – and in turn BCA would be dead! </span><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><span style="font-family: arial;">But is it possible to design an aircraft family that can compete with the A220-500 on the lower end and a future (possible) A322? No, but the Airbus narrowbody aircraft family has two wings, two fuselages and different engines as well. So a clever scaling of the fuselage and the wings could do the trick for Boeing. Starting with the larger (6 abreast) family, starting just north of today's 737MAX-8 up to a A322 sized aircraft. After that scaling fuselage and wings down to a 5 abreast aircraft with a second or third generation of the PW1500G for example.</span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><span style="font-family: arial;">Just my 2 cents of course - but I see less than these 2 cents of value in a -5X! </span></span></p>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8118460937928958757.post-55464592884861892532020-12-27T07:02:00.004-05:002020-12-27T07:02:41.300-05:00GE and the Geared Turbofan<p><span lang="EN-US">There was
quite a lot of hype in the last days around a story, first reported by <a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-12-23/airbus-seeks-jet-engine-proposals-for-new-plane-ge-case-reveals">Bloomberg</a>,
saying that GE talked with Airbus about a new engine for “a narrow-body
jetliner in development</span>”. In the article (and many that followed that
first story) there is a lot of speculation about the aircraft: If it would be a
successor of today's A320, a future stretched variant of the A220 or if that
aircraft would in the end be the ZERO E (E for Emissions) aircraft announced by
Airbus in September and the engine GE and Airbus discuss here would be an
engine that would be used for that aircraft until a ZERO E engine (technology)
would be available.</p><p class="MsoNormal"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">To make it
short: this last consideration is – sorry to say it that way – bullshit!
Whatever the source of energy of the future ZERO E aircraft would be – hydrogen
or electricity comes to mind- the aircraft has to look very different from the
design of a jet fuel powered aircraft and it would make no sense at all to hang
a Geared Turbofan on an aircraft designed and optimized for zero emissions.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">The fact
that GE and Airbus talk about a new narrowbody is not a big story in the first
place, as there are always discussions between airframers and engine companies
about all kinds of possible future projects. But Bloomberg made a lot of noise
due to the fact, that the design proposed by GE would be a geared turbofan,
which is the engine design that today only Pratt & Whitney uses. GE always more
or less dismissed the geared design in public because of the added complexity
of the gear. Rolls Royce began developing their own geared engine concept
called Ultrafan a few years ago.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">So does GE
not believe in the conventional turbofan anymore?<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">Not
necessarily: believe it or not, but it is not the first time that GE proposes a
geared design to an aircraft manufacturer. For the B777X, today's B777-9, GE
also pitched a geared design towards Boeing, as did P&W at that time (I
believe RR proposed a 3 spool design). But obviously Boeing went down the low-risk
path of the GE9X engine, an evolution of the GE90-115B and the GENx engines,
although the geared engines would have had a better fuel burn.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">For the now
(forever?) dormant NMA, Boeings reference engine was a geared turbofan. This
makes sense, as at least in the beginning two of the three possible engine
provider offered a geared design (P&W and RR), so we can only guess that GE
(or CFM) also offered both variants (geared and non-geared) to Boeing. Later RR
went out of the discussions as the aimed EIS timing was too early for the UltraFan.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">So when
today GE talks with Airbus about a geared engine, there is nothing sensational
in there. Most likely the geared engine is just one out of two or more designs.
And it most likely not more than a paper study, in which P&W and RR are involved
as well. It is not more than the usual business of the future concept groups of
all parties involved.</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">So do not expect an announcement of a new aircraft in the
near future. Even a stretched A220 (-500) seems not to be on the horizon too soon...<o:p></o:p></span></p>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8118460937928958757.post-4002230106715413932020-05-02T08:01:00.004-04:002020-12-25T10:54:49.906-05:00Next (new) airplanes<br />
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0cm;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="color: black; font-size: 13.5pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><span face="Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">After NMA is obviously no more, <a href="https://simpleflying.com/boeing-reimagines-757-767/">some people seem to
believe</a>, that Boeing could instead bring a refreshed B757 or B767 to
market.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0cm; orphans: 2; text-align: start; text-decoration-color: initial; text-decoration-style: initial; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="color: black; font-size: 13.5pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><span face="Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Is that viable? No, I would say, at least not for passenger traffic!<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0cm;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="color: black; font-size: 13.5pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><span face="Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Both aircraft are late 1970’s
aircraft, thus about ten years older than the A320ceo. Both were the first narrow-
and widebodies with a two-crew-glass-cockpit.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0cm;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="color: black; font-size: 13.5pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><span face="Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">But: the design of the airframe and
the wing keep to be from these days, aside from getting winglets, saving up to
4% fuel burn.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0cm;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="color: black; font-size: 13.5pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><span face="Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">So a new wing, along with the new
engines, would be inevitable. Along with that goes a new center wing box. That
means typically at least 50% of the development costs of a complete new
aircraft.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0cm;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="color: black; font-size: 13.5pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><span face="Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">But it does not stop here. A new
cockpit with all the technology of B787 or B777X would be needed to make these
airplanes attractive to airlines.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0cm;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="color: black; font-size: 13.5pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><span face="Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Now to the engines: for the B767
GEnx engines would be the likely candidate, and here the -2B version, as it has
the right thrust and also a bleed air system. The GEnx though is an engine
which was designed in the early 2000’s. The concept would me more than 20 years
old if Boeing would decide to start development now with an EIS in 4 to 5
years. The basic aircraft concept would then be 50 years old.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0cm;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="color: black; font-size: 13.5pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><span face="Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">The same is basically true for the
B757: with the difference that there would not be an “off the shelf” engine
with the right thrust available. But would any engine company spend $1bn for a
brand new engine for a 50 year old fuselage? CFM/GE and PWA for sure not, as
they have their engines in place on the A321XLR. So only RR could have an
interest, but with todays news that they are <a href="https://www.ft.com/content/027ce53d-8770-48a6-ba7b-000d979033b0">laying
off some 8000 people and delaying the development of their Ultra Fan</a> this is more than questionable. In fact, I see RR in danger as they are so heavily exposed to the widebody market, which, in the opinion of all experts, will be the last market segment to recover.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0cm;">
<span face="Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="color: black; font-size: 13.5pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><a href="https://www.flightglobal.com/airframers/boeing-ceo-dismisses-major-new-commercial-product-launches-amid-pandemic-uncertainty/138149.article">So
there won’t be a new aircraft from Boeing for the time being</a>. CEO Dave
Calhoun though says that the “true differentiator” of Boeing’s next aircraft
will be “the way we manufacture and the way we engineer, as opposed to the…
design of the airplane itself”</span><span style="font-size: medium;"> (quote from the Flightglobal article).
What does that mean? As I understand it: the B737MAX will stay the B737MAX,
Boeing will (just) look into the cost of production. Well, hopefully they will
get it right…</span><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0cm;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="color: black; font-size: 13.5pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><span face="Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">What does that mean for Airbus? A
great opportunity, if they are bold and can get money in a similar manner as
Boeing raised $25bn on the capital market. If Airbus can raise enough money
with a lower yield than Boeing did, Airbus could use that money to invest in
the so-called A320neo++, where the A320neo and the A321neo will get a new and
larger composite wing and a new cockpit and both would be stretched to a “A320.5”
(between todays A320 and A321) and a A322. Then Airbus would also need to
develop the A220-500 and would have the perfect product line for the rest of
the century and the early 2030’s.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0cm;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="color: black; font-size: 13.5pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><span face="Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Boeing meanwhile is stuck with the problems
of the B737MAX:<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm; margin-left: 36.0pt; margin-right: 0cm; margin-top: 0cm; margin: 0cm 0cm 0cm 36pt; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -18pt;">
<!--[if !supportLists]--><span face="Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="color: black; font-size: 13.5pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">1.<span style="font-size: 7pt; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: normal;">
</span></span></span><!--[endif]--><span lang="EN-US" style="color: black; font-size: 13.5pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">The grounded fleet at the airline
customers has to be upgraded.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm; margin-left: 36.0pt; margin-right: 0cm; margin-top: 0cm; margin: 0cm 0cm 0cm 36pt; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -18pt;">
<!--[if !supportLists]--><span face="Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="color: black; font-size: 13.5pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">2.<span style="font-size: 7pt; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: normal;">
</span></span></span><!--[endif]--><span lang="EN-US" style="color: black; font-size: 13.5pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">The undelivered fleet has to be upgraded
and to be delivered.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm; margin-left: 36.0pt; margin-right: 0cm; margin-top: 0cm; margin: 0cm 0cm 0cm 36pt; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -18pt;">
<!--[if !supportLists]--><span face="Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="color: black; font-size: 13.5pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">3.<span style="font-size: 7pt; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: normal;">
</span></span></span><!--[endif]--><span lang="EN-US" style="color: black; font-size: 13.5pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">Reacting to the potential A320neo++ would
lead to the B737MAX being a non-seller<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm; margin-left: 36.0pt; margin-right: 0cm; margin-top: 0cm; margin: 0cm 0cm 0cm 36pt; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -18pt;">
<!--[if !supportLists]--><span face="Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="color: black; font-size: 13.5pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">4.<span style="font-size: 7pt; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: normal;">
</span></span></span><!--[endif]--><span lang="EN-US" style="color: black; font-size: 13.5pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">The MAX is MAXed out: without a new wing,
a complete new, longer undercarriage and larger bypass engines (from the
A320neo) the B737MAX could not compete against the A320neo++. But would that
make sense? No, then a complete new aircraft would be needed. Means another
$15bn to be found somewhere, meanwhile back the $25bn bonds. Not easy…<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0cm;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="color: black; font-size: 13.5pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><span face="Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">So far for my theory…<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<br />Unknownnoreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8118460937928958757.post-91068268260056114122020-03-29T11:50:00.004-04:002020-03-29T11:50:47.808-04:00How Corona could change the future of Aviation<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue", arial, helvetica, sans-serif;">How perfect
aviation was just weeks before: the new corona virus (SARS COV-2) seemed to be
contained to be local chinese problem only, global growth seemed to be
unaffected. If the virus could have a negative impact, then it would be just a
very temporary dip like we saw when SARS (SARS COV-1) appeared in 2003. Then,
growth rates quickly came back to what they have been before.</span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">For now, we
should not count that to happen again after worldwide infections with the virus
have dropped significantly. The timing of this, of course, is the first open
question: some state leaders seem to think they can beat the virus by ignoring
it and tell their people they should not be cutie-pies just because they do not
get enough ventilators…<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">But let us
think what will happen after the crisis – whenever that may be:<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">A lot of
airlines will cease operations indefinitely – not just temporarily as just
right now. Even if many governments will throw a lot of money onto their
national airlines, I think it is fair to assume that many will not survive in
the long term, just because they lost too much money meanwhile.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">But what is
more important is what CEO’s of large and strong airlines say these days. CEO’s
of airlines which should survive the crisis. Let’s take a look at Lufthansa,
Delta Air Lines and United.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Lufthansa’s
Carsten Spohr said these days that after the crisis his airlines group will not
see the scale as it had before. Spohr is sure that after the corona crisis the
whole aviation industry will be a different one: “We have a smaller Lufthansa
group ahead of us.”<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">As for
Delta, CFO Paul Jacobson already said: “We’re going to be smaller coming out of
this” and Henry Harteveldt, president and founder of Atmosphere Research said
he would not be surprised if that will be also true for United and American. In
fact, also United CEO Oscar Munoz and president Scott Kirby warned in a
letter to employees, that “our airline and our workforce will have to be
smaller than it is today.”<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">If this
will be true, and not just for these particular carriers but for the whole
industry around the globe: what does it mean?<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">First: less
airplanes in the sky. The question is then, relative to today, where airlines
parked up to 95% of their fleet, which airplanes they will fly then. Will they
put their older aircraft out of storage again or will they grow only modestly,
getting only the younger aircraft out of storage and then grow slowly with
deliveries of new aircraft? That depends on if they can pay for new aircraft
and if the aircraft they own today are owned by themselves.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Airlines
with better financials may take new aircraft and benefit from lower operating
and maintenance costs. On the other hand, if they own their aircraft without
any debt on them and oil prices are staying low, it could be more economical
for some time to put at least some of the MD80, B757 and B767 out of storage
again.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Why is that
an important question?<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">First, it
is important for the fight against global warming – at least politically. As
most sectors were able to cut their CO<sub>2</sub> output in the last years,
aviation was not. In fact, the goal of climate neutral growth from this year on
was always questionable at best. Now, with the corona crisis, CO<sub>2</sub>
output this year will fall compared to last year for sure. It will probably
take some years to reach the level of 2019 again. And it will take longer, the
more of the older jets now in storage will be replaced with A350, B787, B777-9,
A320neo, B737MAX, A220 and the likes.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">But the
question is also important for the ones like Airbus and Boeing of course. If
airlines let their old aircraft in the desert, aircraft production will soar
again as new aircraft are needed for the growth after the crisis. But if older
aircraft be flown again, we probably will never see the rates of 60 aircraft a
month for the A320neo or B737MAX.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">For the
engine industry, it would be more of a financial problem when all the old(er)
aircraft will be scrapped. Too many engines would then be available for
part-out, flooding the aftermarket with used parts and destroying the then
anyway smaller, but today very profitable business with spare parts.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Sales of
the engine industry would then be heavily torted to the new engine business,
which is not profitable at best, not to say loss-making.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">So the
profitability of the engine industry would be hurt badly -<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>or the industry would have to change their
business model by shifting profits from the aftermarket business to the new
engine sales. Of course that could only happen if all engine makers would agree
to that and if airlines up to a certain point as well.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">In case the
profitability of the engine makers is hurt too much, they would not be able for
adequate research for the next generation of engines that would be needed for
an A320neo or B737MAX successor. The corona crisis could have shifted the
arrival of these new aircraft the right for a few years now anyway as also
Airbus and Boeing will probably have to scale back their R&D costs in the
next few years.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">So a good thing
- a more modern and CO<sub>2 </sub>efficient fleet in the short and mid term - could
lead to a bad thing in the more distant future: later introduction of
breakthrough technologies. </span><span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<br />Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8118460937928958757.post-2030997228750959492019-12-23T06:17:00.000-05:002019-12-23T07:51:55.719-05:00A small review of 2019 - and outlook for 2020Looking back at what happened at Civil Aviation in 2019 first of all there are two things belonging to Boeing: most important of course the grounding of the B737MAX. A lot was written about it, so I won't do... at least it was good for every lessor who had a B737NG or an A320 coming off-lease, making a good lease rate for the next lease. But bad for all the airlines which now has to pay the higher lease rates...<br>
Boeing now stops B737MAX production for some weeks or months, also the suppliers will at least slow their output. That could give some of them breathing room - at least all the casting houses for turbine blades were running over capacity...<br>
The second "important thing" from Boeing did not happen - at least so far: the NMA. Who knows if Boeing would have launched it if the B737MAX did not happen?<br>
Airbus meanwhile launched the A321XLR and now has a few hundred orders for it, some of them maybe only because NMA was not launched. A320neo family production is still a problem, this time not because of missing engines, but because of missing cabins. Airbus maybe should have launched a new-build freighter version earlier...😂<br>
Production of the A220 though went better than predicted by Airbus. According to the <a href="https://aibfamily.flights/" target="_blank">Airbus Family Flight Page</a> 44 aircraft were delivered so far and 48 had a first flight. I guess the four remaining aircraft will be delivered until the end of the year.That would be <a href="https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/air-transport/2019-06-11/airbus-commits-ensuring-a220-meets-full-potential" target="_blank">three more deliveries</a> than anticipated and about 45% more than in 2018 (33 deliveries). A welcome break from Bombardiers policy to forecast more deliveries than actually were delivered.<br>
But with the recent announcement from Airbus that building the so-called "pre FAL" I doubt that out of Mirabel there will be a big jump in delivery numbers out of Mirabel in 2020. Airbus made some progress in completing the aircraft, building more capacity in the "back part" of the assembly process. But as long as there is no capacity increase by building the "pre FAL", the input of new aircraft at the "front part" cannot be increased very much.<br>
Another six aircraft for Delta and one for Jetblue should be delivered from Mobile. I wait to see the combined delivery goal from Airbus...<br>
A little bit of a disappointment is the Embraer E2 Family: deliveries for the E190E2 and the E195E2 are still below 20! I doubt that Azul will get six E195E2 until the end of the year, so far they got four. Also Helvetic only got two of their anticipated four E190E2, with the second aircraft (HB-AZB) reaching Zurich only yesterday.<br>
At least Embraer managed to get the E175E2 in the air before the end of the year. But without a customer and with no changes in the US Scope Clauses in sight, where is the program heading to?<br>
Talking about orders, at the beginning of the year, John Slattery promised that 2019 would be the year of the big orders for the E2. Sure the order from KLM is good for the program but not really a new order as they take the aircraft from existing lessor orders.<div>Slattery also promised large orders for 2018. Maybe we have to wait until the merger with Boeing is finalized, but there are two questions to this theory:<br>
1. When will the merger be finalized: the EU is holding up the process and that might be e political response to the U.S. tariffs against Airbus.<br>
2. Will Boeing have any priorities to sell the E175E2. They have to rebuild trust in their own bread-and-butter product, bring the 777-9 into the air and through flight testing, maybe launch, market and sell NMA...<br>
<br>
Spacejet... I don't know. FTV10 is still not in the air and this is the aircraft which MITAC needs for certification flights. The main problem will be to build trust they can manage to build the M100, on paper a very good aircraft...<br>
<br>
So far, so good! I know, this review and outlook is incomplete, but these were the topics that came through my head this morning...<br>
<br>
I wish everyone (who wants one) a Happy Christmas!<br>
And really everyone a peaceful 2020 - the world needs it!<br>
<br>
<br></div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8118460937928958757.post-28127688595899101582018-11-01T06:46:00.001-04:002018-11-01T06:46:54.604-04:00A220 Deliveries in 2018How many A220 will be delivered this year? Well, if you read the Airbus Q3 Press Release, it will be 31. The press release said it will be 18 deliveries, counted from July 1st, when Airbus took over the program. There were 13 deliveries between January and June 30th, so in total that would be 31.<br />
But I would say this is the upper limit. It could also be "just" 30.<br />
Looking at specific customers it is unlikely they will get another four aircraft this year besides the first one delivered. Why: let's count:<br />
The first aircraft for Delta, MSN 50020, was the 23rd aircraft for this year. Next in line to be handed over is 55044, a A220-300 (CS300) for Swiss. This could happen as early as tomorrow.<br />
Then 55042 for Air Baltic should be the next one, having it's first flight on October 30th. Expect delivery in 2-3 weeks. Also 55045, again for Swiss, is waiting for the first flight - that should be every day now, as it is already a week late. We should expect a handover in late November.<br />
The second Delta aircraft, 50021, is just before the pre-delivery stage. If it moves to the flightline quickly and gets through the test and customer acceptance flights as smooth as the first one, it could be handed over to Delta in late November as well.<br />
That would be 27 until the end of November then. Then there is also 55037 for Korean Airlines and 55046, another one for Swiss. An the third one for Delta, 50022, could m ake it to the customer this year as well. These would be 30 then. I don't think that we will see 50018, on of the two remaining CS100 (A220-100) for Swiss getting ready this year. So Tanzania could be the customer of the 31st and final aircraft this year.<br />
Remember that Bombardier said that they would ship 40 aircraft this year... <br />
<br />Unknownnoreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8118460937928958757.post-42646552742793171902018-07-11T12:39:00.001-04:002018-07-11T12:39:30.114-04:00First A220 orderIt was just hours after Airbus officially renamed the CS300 to A220-300 when the first order under Airbus control came in yesterday. Jetblue ordered 60 A220-300 and took options for another 60 (per a MoU).<br />
Also, Jetblue converted their order for A320neo to the larger A321neo, now having 85 A321neo on order but no A320neo anymore.<br />
The 60 firm A220-300 will be delivered by H1 2025, the options would be delivered from 2025 onwards.<br />
by that time the oldest A320ceo in Jetblue's fleet are 25 years old - time to say goodbye maybe? But then what? Jetblue could have ordered A320neo again, of course. But what if there would be a A220--500 (formerly known as CS500) by then? Maybe we have already seen a (tentative) launch order for the A220-500...Unknownnoreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8118460937928958757.post-9195304966144188212017-10-21T08:07:00.001-04:002017-10-21T08:07:37.077-04:00The Bombardier-Airbus CSeries deal<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">I think it is not overstated when I say the last week changed the landscape of civil aircraft manufactures for years and probably decades to come.</span><div>
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">The deal between Bombardier and Airbus that most likely from 2019 onwards lets the CSeries to be a majority owned Airbus product has the potential to influence how the product landscape will look like in 2030. And that includes the products that will be there and also that will NOT be there.</span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Let's image two things:</span></div>
<div>
<ol>
<li><span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Airbus and Bombardier decide to do the "simple stretch" CS500, meaning no changes to the wing, the engines, the landing gear and the Max Takeoff Weight. That would be a roughly 2400nm aircraft with about the capacity of the A320(neo), but with significantly lower empty weight and thus lower trip costs for the typical ranges of up to 800nm. The (official) launch could come by early 2019, after the expected closing of the deal. EIS could then be in 2022 or 2023.</span></li>
<li><span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Airbus will adopt much of the cockpit and avionic technologies from the CSeries <a href="https://leehamnews.com/2017/10/18/airbus-got-cseries/" target="_blank">described here by Björn Fehrm </a>for the A320neo (+, ++ or whatever it is called then) and also scale the wing for an A322. Development of the wing could also start in 2019 with an EIS maybe 2024, leapfrogging the potential Boeing NMA.</span></li>
</ol>
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">That would leave Boeing with a big problem: they are in the middle of defining their NMA, or "Middle of the Market" aircraft. But with these potential developments from Airbus&Bombardier Boeing's B737MAX product line just would not be competitive enough. Boeing would have to react to that and instead of launching the NMA with an earliest possible EIS of 2025 they would have to focus on a B737 replacement first</span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Although a A322 would not be the perfect "Middle of the Market" aircraft it could take away to many sales from the Boeing NMA to let the business case look unattractive. And the shrinking market share in the mich larger traditional narrowbody segment would drain on the cash flow.</span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">So this past week has the chance of really becoming a defining moment...</span></div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8118460937928958757.post-2646353058938183612017-09-07T02:54:00.000-04:002017-09-07T02:54:49.840-04:00A320neo deliveries<a href="https://www.reuters.com/article/airbus-orders/airbus-posts-modest-august-deliveries-highlighting-engine-delays-idUSL8N1LN5K0" target="_blank">Reuters</a> reports that August (as well as full year) deliveries for the A320neo are disrupted by slow deliveries of PW's PW1100G. The goal is to deliver about 200 A320neo this year, only 78 have been delivered by the end of August.<br />
That deliveries with the PW1100G are slow and delayed is not particulary new. Not mentioned in the article though is the fact that alos deliveries with CFM's LEAP-1A slowed down in the last two months. After delivering 10 A320neo with the LEAP-1A in June, there were 6 in July and 7 in August. For the PW1100G the numbers are 1 for June, 3 in July and 3 in August.<br />
An indication for future delivieries is are the numbers of first flights with the respective engines:<br />
In June 12 A320neo with the LEAP-1A made their first flights, then 5 in July and only 3 in August.<br />
For the PW1100G the numbers are 0 in June, 4 in July and 8 in August.<br />
So it looks like the situation at PW gets (at least) a little bit better, but worse for CFM.<br />
<br />Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8118460937928958757.post-32495083946420931922017-07-26T04:21:00.004-04:002017-07-26T04:21:56.475-04:00Engine choices for NMA<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 13.5pt; line-height: 115%;">It looks increasingly likely that next
Boeing will launch the NMA - or MoM, or 797, or whatever you want to call it</span>.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 13.5pt; line-height: 115%;">One of the most interesting questions is
the engine choice(s) that Boeing will make:<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 13.5pt; line-height: 115%;">First of all, will the customer have an
engine choice? Here the questions are:<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 13.5pt; line-height: 115%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 13.5pt; line-height: 115%; text-indent: -18pt;">-<span style="font-size: 7pt; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; line-height: normal;"> </span></span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 13.5pt; line-height: 115%; text-indent: -18pt;">does Boeing want to give
the customers a choice</span></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 13.5pt; line-height: 115%;"> and</span></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="text-indent: 0px;">
<span style="font-size: 13.5pt; text-indent: -18pt;">- how large the engine </span>OEM<span style="font-size: 13.5pt; text-indent: -18pt;"> think the market for
the new aircraft will be</span></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="text-indent: 0px;">
<span style="font-size: 13.5pt; text-indent: -18pt;"></span></div>
<a name='more'></a><br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 13.5pt; line-height: 115%;">If Boeing does not want to give a choice
of engines, then we can see CFM as the most likely “winner”. Why? First of all,
of course, because their good relationship with Boeing in general. The also because
CFM would lose market share when the NMA is launched: the NMA would certainly
take some sales from the B737MAX-9, 10 and the A321neo/LR and therefore
business away from their LEAP-1A/B ( and from PW’s PW1100G as well). So if CFM
would not be the sole engine provider for the NMA, CFM would lose business.
Hard to see that CFM would not use their whole financial, technical and market
power to defend their market share.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 13.5pt; line-height: 115%;">Now, if Boeing does want to give their
customers a choice the question is if the engine OEM’s think they can build a
good business case around getting half of the NMA market. Boeing officially
claims that there is a <a href="http://www.popularmechanics.com/flight/airlines/news/a27055/797-boeing-nma-new-airliner/">market
for around 4000</a> of <a href="https://leehamnews.com/2017/05/10/airbus-can-kill-boeing-797/">even 5000
airplanes</a> in this category. Others are not so sure…<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 13.5pt; line-height: 115%;">If now Boeing selects two engine OEM for
the NMA and one of the thinks the market is not large enough for two, we could
see a sole source even if Boeing wants to have two engines. <a href="https://seekingalpha.com/news/3274296-ge-tells-boeing-will-share-797-engines-main-rivals">GE
seems to be a bit skeptical about too many engine options</a> – although they
later revised their tone, reportedly they initially persisted on a sole source
solution. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 13.5pt; line-height: 115%;">Now what kind of engine would we see for
the NMA?<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 13.5pt; line-height: 115%;">If EIS is in 2025 we should not expect
something radically new. With an engine choice in early 2019 and a certification
of the engine in needed 2024 for a one year flight test, there are five years
between the real start of the development program and certification. This is
about the same time that was available for P&W and CFM to develop their PW1100G
and LEAP-1A. The GTF was tested in flight from both P&W and Airbus before
(not the later PW1100G but a development engine based on the PW6000 core). The
technologies for the LEAP engine were developed starting around 2008, about the
same time P&W started building their GTF demonstrator.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 13.5pt; line-height: 115%;">So for the NMA engine there is less time
to get an engine developed and certified than for the A320neo and the B737MAX.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 13.5pt; line-height: 115%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 13.5pt; line-height: 115%;">We should therefore expect engines based
on the PW1100G and the LEAP engine family – no geared turbofan (or how they
would name it) from CFM. 2025 would just come too early…<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 13.5pt; line-height: 115%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 13.5pt; line-height: 115%;">And RR – they are working on their version
of the geared turbo fan, called UltraFan, <a href="http://designyoutrust.com/2012/02/nasa-unveils-future-aircraft-designs-stunning-models/">since
at least 2012</a>. <a href="http://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/air-transport/2017-04-06/rolls-royce-prepares-first-advance-engine-core-testing">The
first flight test is scheduled for 2021</a>. Potentially, they could be ready
by 2025, if the flight test would not reveal any major problems. But detailed
design would have to be in full swing by then and the first engine development test
for the NMA should be in 2022.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 13.5pt; line-height: 115%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 13.5pt; line-height: 115%;">So would
Boeing take the risk? Since the days of the B787 Boeing seems to be “risk
averse”, and with good reason!<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 13.5pt; line-height: 115%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 13.5pt; line-height: 115%;">The more likely RR engine that Boeing
would consider would be a 3 shaft engine based on the Advance 3 core – the same
core that would then later be used for the Ultra Fan - maybe for the Airbus
answer to the Boeing NMA? <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 13.5pt; line-height: 115%;">So the most likely engine types for NMA
would be<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
</div>
<br />
<ul>
<li style="text-indent: 0px;"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 13.5pt; line-height: 115%; text-indent: -18pt;">an advanced version of
the PW1100G from P&W</span></li>
</ul>
<ul>
<li style="text-indent: 0px;"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 13.5pt; line-height: 115%; text-indent: -18pt;">an advanced version of
the LEAP-1A/-B from CFM</span></li>
</ul>
<ul>
<li style="text-indent: 0px;"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 13.5pt; line-height: 115%; text-indent: -18pt;">a 3 shaft engine based on
the Advance 3 core from RR</span></li>
</ul>
<br />
<br />
<div>
<br /></div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8118460937928958757.post-49641167540814977852017-03-29T04:01:00.001-04:002017-03-29T04:01:04.594-04:00CFM A321neo noise levels revisedYesterday the EASA published new noise levels for the A321neo, which now include the "right" noise levels for the A321-251N and A321-253N, fitted with the CFM LEAP-1A engines. As for the A320neo, the A321neo with the LEAP-1A is a little bit better (read_less noisy) than the PW1100G. This is surprising, as P&W always claimed that the GTF concept has, beside better fuel burn, it's merits in extreme low noise because of the slower spinning fan and the better damping of the low pressure turbine noise due to better atmospheric dampening.<br />
I would be interested to hear how P&W and CFM explain the difference...Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8118460937928958757.post-92124647691150953572017-03-02T03:05:00.000-05:002017-03-02T03:05:23.117-05:00A320neo and A321neo noise levels
<span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Yesterday
the A321neo with the CFM LEAP-1A32 engine was certified by both the EASA and
the FAA. The EASA certification document for the aircraft family can be accessed
</span><a href="https://www.easa.europa.eu/system/files/dfu/TCDS_EASA%20A%20064_%20Airbus_%20A318_A319_A320_A321_Iss_26.pdf"><span style="color: blue; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">here</span></a><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">,
the noise certification document is </span><a href="https://www.easa.europa.eu/system/files/dfu/TCDSN%20EASA.A.064.4%20Issue10.pdf"><span style="color: blue; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">here</span></a><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">.
The FAA documentation is not online yet.</span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">
</span><br />
<span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">What strikes me is the high
noise level of the A321-251N. The LEAP-powered A321neo is not really less noisy
than the CFM56 powered A321ceo, which itself was considerably louder than the
V2500 powered A321ceo.</span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">
</span><br />
<span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">If you compare the highest
MTOW version (93.5t) you get a cumulated noise level of 281.7dB for the
A321-251N, the A321ceo with the<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>CFM56-5B4/3 is certified with a noise level of 280.1dB (there are also
versions of the CFM56 which have higher noise levels than the LEAP1A though.</span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">
</span><br />
<span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">The PW1133G in comparison
has a cumulated noise level of 268.5dB, more than 13dB less than the LEAP-1A32.
Both at the lateral and flyover noise points the GTF is less noisy by about
6dB, the approach noise, where the aircraft itself is the main source, is
almost the same for both versions.</span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">
</span><br />
<span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">I wonder if the values for
the LEAP-1A32 are real – or somebody at EASA put some wrong numbers in the
document.</span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">
</span><br />
<span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">The noise values for the
A320neo are telling a complete different picture: here, the LEAP powered
A320-251N is better than the PW1127G powered A320-271N by 1dB, mainly through
lower levels at the lateral noise point.</span></span><br />
<span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><span style="font-family: Arial;"><br /></span></span><br />
<span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><span style="font-family: Arial;">I wait for some good explanations...</span></span><br />
<br />Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8118460937928958757.post-61112384558025837702017-01-17T03:19:00.002-05:002017-01-17T03:19:26.763-05:00The future is geared!(?)The future in commercial aviation is geared, it seems:<br />
Of course P&W and it's partners in the PWW1000G engine thought so when they started to develop their engines for the Mitsubishi MRJ, the Bombardier CSeries, the A320neo and the Irkut MS-21 and the Embraer E2-Jets.<br />
But then, about three years ago, RR started developing their own engine with a geared architecture, calling their product (to be) the "Ultra Fan".<br />
No I read in an article from Aviation Week that also Safran is working on a geared fan engine, under the umbrella of the european Clean Sky initiative, the equivalent to NASA's CLEEN program.<br />
A cross section of the engine concept can be seen on page 17 of <a href="http://www.cleansky.eu/sites/default/files/documents/5-%20Tech%205%20-%20CfP04%20ID%20BRU%20-%20ENG%20v1.pdf" target="_blank">this presentation</a>.<br />
My guess is, all engine concepts that CFM, RR and P&W will eventually offer Boeing and Airbus for a replacement of today's A320 and B737 will have a gear between the LPT and the Fan!Unknownnoreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8118460937928958757.post-36546798265445268792016-10-28T02:18:00.001-04:002016-10-28T02:18:49.446-04:00A320neo start-up timesThe hype was huge when the problem around longer start-up times of the PW1100G-JM went public. Indigo stated that the ~2min. extra time that it took to start up the engines would threaten their Business model as a low cost carrier with high utilization and short turn around times between flights. As I showed in an <a href="http://aeroturbopower.blogspot.de/2016/05/indigo-business-model-threatened-by.html" target="_blank">earlier post</a> this was not very plausible from the beginning. But at airports with tight infrastructure (Frankfurt comes to my mind) it could cause some headache - more for the airport than for the individual airline though - as, if one aircraft blocks the way to the gates as it has to wait until the engines are started, other aircraft have to wait.<br />
Believing what Airbus, P&W and Lufthansa said recently the problem is largely gone now.<br />
Now we can read <a href="https://airwaysmag.com/traveler/onboard-frontier-airbus-a320neo-inaugural-revenue-flight/" target="_blank">in a report from airwaysmag</a> about the first revenue flight onboard on the first Frontier A320neo that the that the competing LEAP-1A engine has a "noticeably long startup time". What that exactly means we don't know yet. There was nothing official about that yet, showing <a href="http://aeroturbopower.blogspot.de/2016/07/the-cfm-leap-lpc-issue.html" target="_blank">once again</a> that the PR Folks at GE, CFM and Safran are doing a much better job than those at P&W.<br />
But maybe someone should tell Qatar Airways CEO Al Akbar about it as the LEAP-1B should "suffer" the same problem before he confirms his order for the B737MAX. Or maybe he already counts on compensations...?<br />
<br /><br />
<br />Unknownnoreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8118460937928958757.post-89726221165467478182016-07-27T02:39:00.001-04:002016-07-27T02:39:39.434-04:00A321ceo vs. B737-900ER deliveriesAfter yesterdays order from Jetblue for 30 more A321 (15 x A32ceo and 15 x A321neo with the right to convert to the A321LR), the order from Air Asia for 100 A321neo's and the conversion from Norwegian, now taking 30 A321LR, I looked into the delivery breakdown of Airbus und Boeing's narrowbodies.<br />
Airbus delivered 40% of their narrowbodies as the A321this year so far - Boeing delivered less than 10% of all their B737NG's as the B737-900ER version.<br />
The jury is still out if the pressure for Boeing is big enough to be forced to launch a B737MAX-10 or a clean-sheet MoM aircraft. GE Aviation CEO still has problems with the business case, as one could read in one of the latest editions of Flightglobal (sorry, I have no link, saw it on hardcopy only).<br />
Boeing said they still have time to decide what to do...Unknownnoreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8118460937928958757.post-53254599683188778332016-07-07T04:18:00.001-04:002016-07-07T04:18:05.237-04:00The CFM LEAP LPC issue<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">For the first time CFM acknowledged, though not directly but through Boeing's B737MAX chief engineer Michael Teal, that the <a href="http://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/aerospace/2016-07-05/boeings-737-max-8-program-proceeds-schedule" target="_blank">CFM LEAP-1B has an issue with the stall margin of the LPC</a>. This was widely known in the industry for months now and in online forums like airliners.net were some hints to that issue. It is alos clear, that not only the LEAP-1B </span><br />
<a name='more'></a><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">suffered from this problem, but also the earlier designed LEAP-1A. The announced "<a href="https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/cfm-reblading-low-pressure-compressor-for-leap-engin-424985/" target="_blank">reblading</a>" of the LEAP-1A LPC is meant to adress this issue rather than durability problems. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">But as the teething issues of the competing PW1100G were openly discussed in the public and early customers took advantage in getting compensation for longer start-up times, the shortfall in both fuel consumption and durability that come with the open bleed between the low and high pressure compressor in the LEAP-1B and the LEAP-1A never came up in the public until now. One, and in particular PW, can only be jealous of CFM's public relations department.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">As the new LPC for the LEAP-1A is only available in mid 2017, early customers will have to fly with the open bleed until their engines get fixed with the new LPC. This means higher fuel burn and higher temperatures in the turbine sections, as more fuel has to be injected to get the thrust. The whole engine is mismatched, which will have a knock-on effect on turbine durability.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Let's see how the first customers react to these issues. Probably CFM is not too unhappy with the fact, that Qatar Airways CEO "U-Turn Al" Akbar Al Baker is not their customer... </span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8118460937928958757.post-41888992845858558382016-05-10T07:56:00.001-04:002016-05-10T09:44:36.356-04:00A320neo engines compared<br />
<div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><span style="font-family: "arial";">Recently,
in March, CFM revised their </span><a href="https://www.easa.europa.eu/system/files/dfu/EASA%20E%20110%20TCDS%20Issue%202%20LEAP-1A_1C_20161103_1.0_0.pdf"><span style="color: blue; font-family: "arial";">certification
documentation for the LEAP-1A</span></a><span style="font-family: "arial";"> engine. There now is a G02 version and </span><a href="http://airinsight.com/2016/04/05/engine-wars-update/"><span style="color: blue; font-family: "arial";">Addison Schonland
from AirInsight already explained the differences</span></a><span style="font-family: "arial";"> between the original G01
certification standard and the G02.</span></span></div>
<div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><span style="font-family: "arial";">The higher stated
weight of the G02 is due to the fact that the EBU is now included in the
weight. If we now look at the </span><a href="https://www.easa.europa.eu/system/files/dfu/EASA%20TCDS%20IM.E.093_issue2_20152311_1.0.pdf"><span style="color: blue; font-family: "arial";">documentation
of the competing PW1100G-JM</span></a><span style="font-family: "arial";"> engine from P&W we see that the EBU is
included in it’s weight also.</span></span></div>
<div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><span style="font-family: "arial";">The weight
of the PW1100G-JM is 2857.6 kg or 6300 lbs.</span></span></div>
<div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><span style="font-family: "arial";">The weight
of the LEAP-1A (G02) is 3153 kg or 6936 lbs. </span></span></div>
<div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><span style="font-family: "arial";"> </span></span><br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
<div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><span style="font-family: "arial";">A stunning
difference of 636 lbs or 1272 lbs per aircraft. </span></span></div>
<div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><span style="font-family: "arial";">Now I guess
that the nacelle of the LEAP-1A is a little bit lighter as the fan diameter is
3” smaller (78” versus 81” for the PW1100G-JM). So the difference at aircraft
level would probably be more in the order of 1000 lbs.</span></span></div>
<div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><span style="font-family: "arial";">When the A320neo was launched in December 2010 <a href="https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/airbus-a320neo-will-be-heavier-than-existing-a320-models-350465/" target="_blank">Airbus expected that the GTF powered version would be 100kg heavier than the LEAP-1A powered aircraft</a>. So either P&W found a lot of weight saving opportunities or CFM underestimated their engine weight. To be fair, CFM later in 2011 introduced a seventh stage in the LPT and widened the fan Diameter from 75" to 78", so there are two changes that put more weight in the engine.</span></span></div>
<div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><span style="font-family: "arial";"><br /></span></span></div>
<div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><span style="font-family: "arial";">But 1000 lbs is no small
number: it is equivalent to the weight of <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>4-5 passengers. Or in other words: if both
engines would have the same fuel burn (according to John Leahy the LEAP engine
is not yet at spec fuel burn), a PW1100G-JM powered aircraft could transport 4
to 5 passengers more by burning the same amount of fuel for the trip. So the questions is who in the end pays for the difference when you have a LEAP powered aircraft? The passenger with higher ticket prices? The airline through either higher fuelburn or lower revenue? CFM through cost concessions at the maintenance side? Food for thougths...</span></span></div>
</div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com12tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8118460937928958757.post-86184529325795837542016-05-03T03:01:00.002-04:002016-05-03T07:17:10.990-04:00Indigo business model threatened by PW1100G?<br />
<div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<a href="https://www.blogger.com/null" name="_GoBack"></a><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><span style="font-family: "arial";">Yesterday I read that Indigo sees their <a href="http://www.livemint.com/Companies/1Zdu37lZTc5WiJjsFWvLPK/Biggest-A320neo-customer-IndiGo-weighs-rival-to-Pratt-engine.html" target="_blank">business model threatened by the engines</a> of their A320neo – because of <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>the
longer start-up times of the PW1100G (dependent on how long the engine was out
after shutdown) the aircraft has to wait up to 2 min. longer with their engines
at idle before the aircraft can begin to roll and taxi for takeoff.</span></span></div>
<br />
<div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><span style="font-family: "arial";">Now let’s
have a look if there is anything in this claim by looking at how Indigo actually
operates their aircraft:</span></span></div>
<br />
<div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><span style="font-family: "arial";">According
to flightradar24 the 3<sup>rd</sup> A320neo (VT-ITA) flew on May 2<sup>nd</sup>
from Delhi to Nagpur. The aircraft landed perfectly on time at 3:40am (UTC). It
took off again 52 minutes later, 7 minutes later than scheduled but early enough
to arrive back in Delhi 4 min. ahead of the scheduled arrival at 5:56am.</span></span></div>
<br />
<div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><span style="font-family: "arial";">The 2<sup>nd</sup>
leg of the day went to Bangalore with a scheduled departure at 7:30am (actual
departure time 7:55am). The aircraft arrived Bangalore 3 min. ahead of schedule
at 10:17am. Scheduled departure back to Delhi was at 11:15am, which was missed
by 9 min. Arrival in Delhi then was 5 min. ahead of schedule at 13:50am.</span></span></div>
<br />
<div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><span style="font-family: "arial";">So we can
see no delays stemming from the start-up times. The 2 min. longer start-up time
is an the maximum, which only occurs when the engine was off for about 2.5 hours.
But turn-around times for the two legs was below one hour, so the extra
start-up time should be </span></span><a name='more'></a><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><span style="font-family: "arial";">something between 1 and 2 minutes.</span></span><br /></div>
<br />
<div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><span style="font-family: "arial";">Now let’s
look at the extra costs: at idle, the engines would burn about 750lbs/hour each.
For the maximum extra time (2 minutes) this would be 2 x 750lbs/hour*(2/60) =
50 lbs, which is about 7.5gallons of fuel. The price of fuel according to Indian
Oil (</span><a href="https://www.iocl.com/products/aviationturbinefuel.aspx"><span style="color: blue; font-family: "arial";">https://www.iocl.com/products/aviationturbinefuel.aspx</span></a><span style="font-family: "arial";">)
is at $457/tonne. The 50lbs (22.7kg) therefore would lead to extra costs of
roughly $10. Compare this to roughly 9000lbs of fuel burned for a 800nm mission
(Delhi-Bangalore is 909nm Great Circle Distance), leading to fuel costs of $1877.
So the maximum fuel burn impact of the extra start-up time is 0.5% of the
mission fuel burn.</span></span></div>
<br />
<div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><span style="font-family: "arial";">I
understand that the daily utilization of the Indigo A320neo is limited at the
moment – although in the last week they were sometimes flying three legs a day
instead of two with daily flying times up to 12hrs. But that is probably due to
the fact that the A320neo are only flying from and to Delhi as the customer
field representative from P&W is probably located there and – similar to
Lufthansa at Frankfurt – technical capabilities from Indigo are concentrated at
Delhi airport. So we have to see how the aircraft behave once utilization
changes to more (and shorter) flights a day.</span></span></div>
<br />
<div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><span style="font-family: "arial";">But for now
I cannot see how the extra start-up time threatens Indigo’s business model –
not in terms of aircraft neither in costs.</span></span></div>
<br />
<div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><span style="font-family: "arial";">So my guess
is that Indigo uses this claim to negotiate more and higher compensations or lower
prices for the next engines and FMP rates from P&W.</span></span></div>
<br />
<div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><span style="font-family: "arial";">One has to
say that P&W did an awful bad job in communicating the start-up topic.
Instead of openly talking about it their customers were the first reporting about
it. and of course the question is why such a fundamental physics-based effect which
occurs in each and every engine was so greatly ignored by P&W. Obviously it
was not discovered as an issue before late last year, why it now takes half a
year after EIS to introduce the fix into the production line.</span></span></div>
<br />
<div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><span style="font-family: "arial";">Let’s see
what Qatar and others have to say after getting their first engines with the
fix…</span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">
</span><br />
<a href="https://www.blogger.com/null" name="_GoBack"></a><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">Another thing just caught my eyes. According to a
story in Flightglobal (sorry, I have no link) the dispatch reliability of the Indigo A320neo's was
99.02% between March 18 and April 24. When I look at the data I compiled from
Flightradar24, the three A320neo that were in the fleet during these days did
82 flights. Now, if there was just <strong><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif";">one</span></strong>
flight that was cancelled due to the engines, the dispatch reliability would
have been 98.78% - so how can Indigo mathematically get to 99.02%? </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">
</span></span><br /></div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8118460937928958757.post-86235726755603528962016-03-30T05:15:00.000-04:002016-03-30T05:20:30.856-04:00No MOM!You read it <a href="http://aeroturbopower.blogspot.de/2016/02/why-i-dont-believe-in-mom.html" target="_blank">here first</a>: there will (in all likelihood) be no so-called MoM.<br />
After my last post a few articles underline what I wrote. Richard Aboulafia wrote a commentary in the <a href="http://aviationweek.com/commercial-aviation/opinion-boeing-s-mom-jet-quandry-single-or-twin-aisle" target="_blank">Aviation Week</a> and <a href="https://leehamnews.com/2016/03/30/middle-market-mirage-market-boeings-lose-lose-situation/#more-19134" target="_blank">Scott Hamilton just posted a story</a> about notes from Buckingham Research, Bernstein Research and Goldman Sachs regarding Boeing and the MoM aircraft.<br />
Goldman Sachs still thinks Boeing could develop MoM, but concludes that Boeing is in a lose-lose Situation here.<br />
Bernstein thinks that MoM could be the "Mirage of the Market" rather than the "Middle of the Market".<br />
Buckingham concluded that the market is not big enough to justify the development.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />Unknownnoreply@blogger.com7tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8118460937928958757.post-46428438728679353192016-02-22T05:40:00.002-05:002016-02-22T05:41:01.940-05:00Why I don't believe In MoM...<br />
<div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<a href="https://www.blogger.com/null" name="_GoBack"></a><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><span style="font-family: "arial";">In the last couple of weeks a new discussion about the so-called „Middle
of the Market“ or “MoM” aircraft broke out. Apart from that nobody really knows
what this aircraft should look like (B757 successor or B767 successor or both,
narrowbody or widebody, scalable to cover the B737 market or not?) or every
potential customer wanting something different, I do not really believe in the
launch of such an aircraft in the near future.</span></span></div>
<br />
<div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><span style="font-family: "arial";">Why?</span></span></div>
<br />
<div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><span style="font-family: "arial";">Airbus has
no interest in such an aircraft. They have a good market position with their
A321neo, especially the LR version and the future A330-800, although I don’t
foresee large order volumes for that aircraft. For sure Airbus is studying the
MoM, but (for now) for the pure purpose of looking into what Boeing could do
and if and how Airbus would have to react to it.</span></span></div>
<br />
<div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><span style="font-family: "arial";">Boeing
would be the one to launch such an aircraft. But do they have to do it? Although
the B737MAX has less orders than the A320neo, the amount of orders the B737MAX
got is massive. The B737MAX8 is right in the sweet spot of the market and has a
small advantage in costs per seat against the A320neo – if the LEAP-1B engine
performs as advertised, what remains to be seen.</span></span></div>
<br />
<div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><span style="font-family: "arial";">The B737MAX8
just had it’s first flight. the –MAX9 and the –MAX7 have to follow. So why
unsettle your (potential) customers talking too much and eventually launching a
new aircraft that would at least partly overlap with the B737MAX family?</span></span></div>
<br />
<div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><span style="font-family: "arial";">Also,
Boeing will probably feel a drop in cash flow during the transition of the B777
Classic to the B777X between 2020 and 2022, just when the MoM would need large
sums of money for R&D spending.</span></span></div>
<br />
<div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><span style="font-family: "arial";">But there
is another aspect why I do not believe in a launch of MoM for a, say, 2024
entry </span></span><a name='more'></a><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><span style="font-family: "arial";">into service:</span></span><br /></div>
<br />
<div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><span style="font-family: "arial";"> </span></span></div>
<br />
<div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><span style="font-family: "arial";"><strong>It’s the
engines, stupid!</strong></span></span></div>
<br />
<div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><span style="font-family: "arial";"> </span></span></div>
<br />
<div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><span style="font-family: "arial";">To explain
this, let’s go back to 2010: both CFM and P&W committed brand new engine
developments to COMAC (CFM LEAP-1C) for the C919 and Irkut (PW1400G) for the
MS-21. For both engine companies it was clear that both of these applications were
not presenting a clear business case (to say it politely). So it was in the
best interest of both CFM and P&W that Airbus went forward with the
A320neo.</span></span></div>
<br />
<div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><span style="font-family: "arial";">What is the
situation today? Both CFM and P&W spend a hell lot of money to develop
these two new engines and in building the infrastructure to build these engines
for the announced production rates of the A320neo and the B737MAX and need to
sell these engines now in the thousands to get the money back. At least CFM should
have no real interest in MoM. P&W could see a potential to gain market
share from CFM if they get onboard MoM. But what would be the reaction from
Airbus if MoM would be launched? I would guess it would be a A320neo+ with a
new wing, a taller landing gear and maybe including a A322neo+. So P&W would
have to further invest into today’s PW1100G with another PIP (the first PIP is already
announced for 2019) or a 2<sup>nd</sup> generation GTF engine.</span></span></div>
<br />
<div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><span style="font-family: "arial";">And how
much better would a MoM aircraft then be? Would it justify to invest billions
of dollars into an aircraft that is maybe 5% better than the refreshed aircraft
of the competitor, who can sell his product for a better price then? I don’t
think so…</span></span></div>
<br />
<div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><span style="font-family: "arial";"> </span></span></div>
<br />
<div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><span style="font-family: "arial";">What about
Rolls Royce? They are working on their own version of the Geared Turbo Fan
called Ultra Fan. But a MoM launch decision by Boeing this year would definitely
too early for RR to get onboard. The risk for Boeing would be too high. To me it
isn’t even clear that we would see two different engine suppliers on a
potential MoM aircraft. The market could be not large enough for two engine
supplier to get a sound business case – and CFM likely would “force” Boeing
with money to be the one, because they would be the one to loose market share
if MoM would be launched with a second engine.</span></span></div>
<div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><span style="font-family: "arial";"><br /></span></span></div>
<br />
<div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><span style="font-family: "arial";">So I don’t
believe in MoM – until it flies…</span></span></div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com9tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8118460937928958757.post-35334730991988264302016-01-27T03:58:00.003-05:002016-01-27T10:57:14.818-05:00B777 Classic / B777X gap<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Scott Hamilton has a new projection regarding the production gap of the B777 Classis (see </span><a href="http://leehamnews.com/2016/01/26/boeing-777-classic-production-gap-closing/" target="_blank"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">here</span></a><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"> and </span><a href="http://www.forbes.com/sites/scotthamilton5/2016/01/25/its-time-for-hard-questions-on-boeing-earnings-call/#2715e4857a0b4e30fba76758" target="_blank"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">here</span></a><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">).</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Looking at my own model I come to similar conclusions. According to my information, which might not be the newest and most accurate any more, but should not be too far off the current planning at Boeing, the complete production rollover from the current B777 Classic to the B777X should be done by early 2023, as is shown in Scotts picture.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">According to my math and including the six aircraft which were booked in January I get a gap of 249 aircraft which needs to be sold to keep the production rate at 7.33 until the B777X takes over full production in 2023. I started the 7.33 rate in Q2 2019 here, when the B777X "feathers in" the production (using "Boeing tech talk" here).</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial";"><br /></span><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh0rysEg0Z6RB-KZasB-cVrlvVmC8fapRP_Xz3MFfsBeC8ic_w3-aLymJyXHaZHGciPaR-2NQCP34raMYXi4h0VfXyo_a4dWQVPgDhRJOivYYgOY3w3ly4UTfY4i82wuz0cRCuWpuXH6_Pe/s1600/b777_1.gif" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="388" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh0rysEg0Z6RB-KZasB-cVrlvVmC8fapRP_Xz3MFfsBeC8ic_w3-aLymJyXHaZHGciPaR-2NQCP34raMYXi4h0VfXyo_a4dWQVPgDhRJOivYYgOY3w3ly4UTfY4i82wuz0cRCuWpuXH6_Pe/s640/b777_1.gif" width="640" /></a></div>
<br />
<div style="border-image: none;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">If we go down to a rate of 7 aircraft a month in early 2018 we would end up with 214 open production positions.</span></div>
<div style="border-image: none;">
<span style="font-family: "arial";"><br /></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg1OhrZEUh0h0HkVS39CfWFBkY3Hqk5GNJqEoL6PI4BPeXZsQ2T1zv4Xwdq1p0LIzK09_6p7EvD1fM0DrlGh2LUIJvWvdW9rMb5toBMEUiaC1dLP5drcG7VYmfaruvQLp8zB-agEfRKRUj1/s1600/b777_2.gif" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="387" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg1OhrZEUh0h0HkVS39CfWFBkY3Hqk5GNJqEoL6PI4BPeXZsQ2T1zv4Xwdq1p0LIzK09_6p7EvD1fM0DrlGh2LUIJvWvdW9rMb5toBMEUiaC1dLP5drcG7VYmfaruvQLp8zB-agEfRKRUj1/s640/b777_2.gif" width="640" /></a></div>
<div style="border-image: none;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">I think this clearly shows the need of a rate cut for the B777 Classic and that this rate cut has to come soon. We will see </span><a href="http://www.forbes.com/sites/scotthamilton5/2016/01/25/its-time-for-hard-questions-on-boeing-earnings-call/#2715e4857a0b4e30fba76758" target="_blank"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">how hard analysts will question Boeing today</span></a><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"> on that. But meanwhile it seems that Boeing </span><a href="http://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing-aerospace/boeing-expected-to-announce-777-cut-wednesday/" target="_blank"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">acknowledged that need</span></a><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">...</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial;"><br /></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial;"><strong>UPDATE: </strong>Boeing just announced to cut production to 7 aircraft per month in <strong>2017</strong>. When I put that into my model, Boeing is still 198 oders short. This first production cut of the B777 Classic might not have been the last one.</span></div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8118460937928958757.post-61342606765694948722015-11-24T10:32:00.001-05:002016-05-10T02:36:29.359-04:00A320neo with PW1127G-JM certified!<br />
<div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<a href="https://www.blogger.com/null" name="_GoBack"></a><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Two important milestones for the A320neo program in one week: last week the LEAP-1A
and the identical -1C) got it’s certification, both from the FAA and the EASA. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Today, the A320neo got it’s Type Certificate
with the PW1100G-JM. The road to EIS is now free and we can expect that the
first aircraft will be delivered until the end of the year, almost exactly 5
years after Airbus announced the A320neo on Dec. 1<sup>st</sup>, 2010.</span></span></div>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"></span><br />
<div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">The A320neo
has about 4500 firm orders today, enough backlog for 7-8 years of production.</span></span></div>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"></span><br />
<div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Now the suppliers,
first and foremost the engine suppliers have to show that they can meet the ramp
up. This will be no easy Task!</span></span></div>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"></span><br />
<div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">In my last
post I wrote that there is a significant downturn in flying time of the two
A320neo equipped with the LEAP-1A. Since then it even got worse. In the last
week, there was only one flight from the D-AVVB, the 2<sup>nd</sup> LEAP-1A prototype.
The week before also saw less </span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"></span><a name='more'></a><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">than 10 hours of flying with F-WNEW and D-AVVB.</span></span><br /></div>
<div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">I plotted flight hours over calendar weeks, including only the two regular test aircraft here-not the F&R test plane (F-WWIV) equipped with PW1100G-JM. Also not included are the F&R test flights which D-AVVA is doing since November 14th (D-AVVA made 23.5hrs of F&R testing in cw 46 and 20hrs. in cw 47).</span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial";"><br /><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"></span></span></div>
<div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjm_84L_DHlK3Y_DbErLYTb8nzR3NjaSjKfqGAwkcU4OmVqJhG2kCekTuuYf2F5tnnE8MwzZ6LY5bXDYxqxMNhCIicHSzxMbUlG39yH1SV5YcqzRWwdiiX6Xy8pizuGfb-BWGU_zaWHRmK9/s1600/image001-3.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><img border="0" height="288" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjm_84L_DHlK3Y_DbErLYTb8nzR3NjaSjKfqGAwkcU4OmVqJhG2kCekTuuYf2F5tnnE8MwzZ6LY5bXDYxqxMNhCIicHSzxMbUlG39yH1SV5YcqzRWwdiiX6Xy8pizuGfb-BWGU_zaWHRmK9/s640/image001-3.png" width="640" /></span></a></div>
<span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><span style="font-family: "arial";"><br /></span></span><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Just the
day before the certification of the LEAP-1A there was an article published in the
</span><a href="http://aviationweek.com/technology/cfm-lifts-veil-leap-engine-test-details"><span style="color: blue; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Aviation
Week</span></a><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">, showing a lot of confidence from the program managers at CFM (but I
would not expect something different in such article and also the parallel
article about the</span><a href="http://aviationweek.com/technology/pratt-whitney-closes-gtf-service-entry"><span style="color: blue; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">
P&W GTF family</span></a><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"> was quite positive).</span></span></div>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"></span><br />
<div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">There are
some interesting points when we compare the EASA documents for the </span><a href="https://easa.europa.eu/system/files/dfu/EASA%20TCDS%20IM.E.093_issue01_20153010_1.0.pdf"><span style="color: blue; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">PW1100G-JM</span></a><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">
and the </span><a href="https://easa.europa.eu/system/files/dfu/EASA%20E%20110%20TCDS%20Issue%2001%20LEAP-1A_LEAP1C_20152011_1.0.pdf"><span style="color: blue; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">LEAP-1A</span></a><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">.</span></span></div>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"></span><br />
<div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"></span><br /></div>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"></span><br />
<div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Weight: </span></span></b></div>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"></span><br />
<div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><a href="http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/general_aviation/read.main/5003941/"><span style="color: blue; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">When
Airbus launched the A320neo</span></a><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"> Airbus said that the GTF powered version would
have a 1.8t higher OEW than the A320ceo and the LEAP powered version a 1.7t
higher OEW. </span></span></div>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"></span><br />
<div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">At the </span><a href="http://leehamnews.com/2015/10/07/airbus-and-boeing-swing-it-out-at-istat-europe-2015/"><span style="color: blue; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">European
ISTAT conference</span></a><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"> in October 2015 Airbus said that the GTF powered version
would only be 1.6t heavier but the LEAP-1A powered version 1.9t heavier.</span></span></div>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"></span><br />
<div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"></span><br /></div>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"></span><br />
<div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Part of the
explanation is that after the launch of the A320neo the LEAP-1A was redesigned
to be competitive with the PW1100G-JM. It got a 78” fan (raised from 75”) and a
seventh LPT stage to drive the larger fan with the higher bypass ratio. The GTF
on the other side is now lighter than expected probably due to the fact that
the variable fan nozzle was eliminated due to better than expected fan
stability.</span></span></div>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"></span><br />
<div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">If we look
at the EASA documents, we can find:</span></span></div>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"></span><br />
<ul style="direction: ltr; list-style-type: disc;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">
</span>
<li style="color: black; font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal;"><div style="color: black; font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0cm; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">2857.6kg
or 6300lbs for the PW1100G-JM</span></div>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">
</span></li>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">
</span>
<li style="color: black; font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal;"><div style="color: black; font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0cm; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">“not
to exceed 2990kg” or around 6578lbs for the LEAP-1A</span></div>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">
</span></li>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">
</span></ul>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"></span><br />
<div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Now it not
exactly clear how these two numbers compare as we do not know for sure what is in
these numbers and what is not. At least this only represents the engine without
the nacelle. But there seems to be a difference of at least 250lbs at engine
level in favor of the larger GTF. The numbers from Airbus seem to suggest that the difference on aircraft Level is about 300kg or 660lbs. Now a heavier engine also has some "knock down effects" on aircraft level. The pylon for the LEAP-1A for example is probably also heavier than the one for the PW1100G-JM. One can also suggest that the center of gravity of the LEAP-1A is more forward than the one of the GTF, leading to a higher bending moment in the wing. So maybe part of the wings had to be made stronger for the LEAP engine.</span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial";"><br /><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"></span></span></div>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"></span><br />
<div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"></span><br /></div>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"></span><br />
<div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Thrust:</span></span></b></div>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"></span><br />
<div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">The highest
thrust version of the PW1100G-JM (for now) delivers 33110lbfs.</span></span></div>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"></span><br />
<div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">There is
only one thrust version of the LEAP-1A today (as this is the basic certification,
others will follow as for the PW1100G-JM), the LEAP-1A35 and it delivers 32159lbf,
about 3% less than the GTF.</span></span></div>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"></span><br />
<div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">So why is
it called -35 then? I would have expected a 35klbf rating here. The PW1133G-JM
delivers 33klbf of thrust </span><a href="http://www.pw.utc.com/Press/Story/20140520-0902/2014/All%20Categories"><span style="color: blue; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">and
a 35klbf version delivering the equivalent thrust of 35klbf in non-static
conditions is announced</span></a><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">.</span></span></div>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"></span><br />
<div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">This is a
little bit confusing and we should wait for clarification.</span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial";"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><span style="font-family: "times new roman";">
</span><br />
</span></span><br />
<div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "arial";"><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">Noise</span></b></span></div>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">
</span><br />
<div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "arial";"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">For the
PW1100G-JM powered A320neo there are now also noise data. We can now compare the noise to the two "old " engines, the CFM56 and the V2500.</span></span></div>
<span style="font-family: "arial";"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">
</span></span><div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "arial";"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">For this comparison I took the heaviest variants (78t MTOW) with sharklets for the A320ceo engines and the heaviest variant for the A320neo (79t MTOW).</span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial";"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"></span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial";"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"></span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial";"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Accumulated Noise</span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial";"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">A320ceo with CFM56-5B/4 : 273.2dB</span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial";"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">A320ceo with V2500-A5 : 270.0dB</span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial";"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">A320neo with PW1127G-JM: 260.8dB</span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial";"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"></span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial";"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"></span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial";"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Compared to the accumulated Limit for a 79t MTOW aircraft of 289.6dB the A320neo has a margin of 28.8dB versus Stage 3 or 18.8dB versus the current Stage 4 and 11.8dB versus the future (2018) Stage 14.</span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial";"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"></span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial";"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"></span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial";"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Great news for Airbus and P&W. The first aircraft should get delivered in the coming weeks...</span></span></div>
<span style="font-family: "arial";">
<div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><br /></span></div>
<span style="font-family: "times new roman";">
</span></span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: "arial";"><br /></span></div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8118460937928958757.post-39978029989356982182015-11-13T07:31:00.001-05:002015-11-13T07:31:55.275-05:00A320neo flight test program<br />
<div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<a href="https://www.blogger.com/null" name="_GoBack"></a><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><span style="font-family: "arial";">After Airbus launched the A320neo program on Dec. 1<sup>st</sup>, 2010 we are now
close to entry into service, with Qatar Airways as the first customer. After
several - say - hick-ups in the test program it now looks as the PW1100G powered
version is successfully completing the last steps in the certification program.
The third aircraft with the GTF engines, an aircraft that will be delivered to
Indigo later, joined the test fleet and is doing Function and Reliability testing.
There were two hick-ups there two, one in Thessaloniki, were the aircraft was
on ground for several days and another in Kiruna, were the aircraft flew back
two days later. </span></span><a name='more'></a><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><span style="font-family: "arial";">Apart from that the aircraft was in the air up to 15 hours a
day.</span></span><br /></div>
<br />
<div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><span style="font-family: "arial";">Noticeable,
the two LEAP-1A powered aircraft are flying less often than in the beginning of
the test campaign. The first aircraft (F-WNEW) had very busy weeks at the
beginning, but then had to change both engines because of (already known) problems
with the rub strips in the compressor. After that it again flew regularly and
successfully completed the Hot Weather and Hot & High Campaigns in Al Ain
and Bolivia.</span></span></div>
<br />
<div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><span style="font-family: "arial";">The second
LEAP-1A powered aircraft did not fly really often since it’s first flight on
Sept. 29<sup>th</sup>. Until today it has been in the air for around 45 hours.</span></span></div>
<br />
<div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><span style="font-family: "arial";">Also, certification
of the LEAP-1A is somewhat behind schedule (as the PW1100G was). Originally
planned for end of the first half of 2015, CFM said it was only weeks away from
certification during the Paris Air Show in June. CFM now said they expect
certification “imminently” during the Dubai Air Show last week.</span></span></div>
<br />
<div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><span style="font-family: "arial";">Of course
it could be that Airbus decided that the PW1100G version for now has all
priority and therefore resources are concentrated on getting certification for
the PW1100G powered version. Let’s see if flight activities with the
LEAP-powered aircraft will pick up again once the GTF is certified and Qatar
received their first aircraft. </span></span></div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com2