A320neo deliveries

Reuters 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.
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.
An indication for future delivieries is are the numbers of first flights with the respective engines:
In June 12 A320neo with the LEAP-1A made their first flights, then 5 in July and only 3 in August.
For the PW1100G the numbers are 0 in June, 4 in July and 8 in August.
So it looks like the situation at PW gets (at least) a little bit better, but worse for CFM.

CFM A321neo noise levels revised

Yesterday 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.
I would be interested to hear how P&W and CFM explain the difference...

A320neo and A321neo noise levels

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 here, the noise certification document is here. The FAA documentation is not online yet.

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.

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  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.

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.

I wonder if the values for the LEAP-1A32 are real – or somebody at EASA put some wrong numbers in the document.

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.


I wait for some good explanations...

A320neo start-up times

The 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 earlier post 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.
Believing what Airbus, P&W and Lufthansa said recently the problem is largely gone now.
Now we can read in a report from airwaysmag 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 once again that the PR Folks at GE, CFM and Safran are doing a much better job than those at P&W.
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...?

The CFM LEAP LPC issue

For the first time CFM acknowledged, though not directly but through Boeing's B737MAX chief engineer Michael Teal, that the CFM LEAP-1B has an issue with the stall margin of the LPC. 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

A320neo engines compared

Recently, in March, CFM revised their certification documentation for the LEAP-1A engine. There now is a G02 version and Addison Schonland from AirInsight already explained the differences between the original G01 certification standard and the G02.

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 documentation of the competing PW1100G-JM engine from P&W we see that the EBU is included in it’s weight also.

The weight of the PW1100G-JM is 2857.6 kg or 6300 lbs.

The weight of the LEAP-1A (G02) is 3153 kg or 6936 lbs.

 

A320neo with PW1127G-JM certified!

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.  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^st, 2010.

The A320neo has about 4500 firm orders today, enough backlog for 7-8 years of production.

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!

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^nd LEAP-1A prototype. The week before also saw less

A320neo flight test program

After Airbus launched the A320neo program on Dec. 1^st, 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.

CFM LEAP-1B missing SFC

The revelation by Aspire Aviation about the performance shortfalls of the CFM LEAP engine family did not came totally unexpected. Rumours have been around for a long time. But the severity of the shortfall in the LEAP-1B engine is somewhat shocking, at least for Boeing customers. The shortfall of 2% in the case of the LEAP-1A is relatively unspectacular: the shortfalls of recent engines at EIS like the GEnx and the Trent 1000 were higher. A shortfall of 2% can be corrected with a suitable performance improvement program (PIP), but a

Three in a row, two in a week..

There is some movement in the A320neo engine market right now, it seems. P&W scored three "wins" in a row recently. After BOCA announced an order for 15 A320neo to be powered with the PW1100G-JM, this week both Tigerair and ANA selected the Geared Turbo Fan for 37 and 30 aircraft.
I would expect that we will see more decisions about A320neo engine options being taken this year as EIS is now less than 20 months away. The PW1100G-JM should gain certification this summer so that it will maybe have an advantage in customer confidence (and this is badly needed by P&W after the PW6000 disaster).
Right now the GTF has a slightly larger market share with 896 aircraft (866 shown here by pdxlight plus 30 by ANA) to be powered versus 827 to be powered by the LEAP-1A. But there are large campaigns waiting for a winner, like Lion Air (174 aircraft), American Airlines (130 aircraft) and easyjet (100 aircraft), so the picture can turn by any of these campaigns decided.

Paris Air Show 2013 Recap

The Paris Air Show 2013 is history – and it wrote (at least a little bit) of aviation history:

Embraer

On the opening day it was Embraer to launch it’s highly anticipated EJet E2 family. Not surprisingly, the E195-E2 will be a stretch of the current E195. Also no surprise that the E170 will not be continued and that the E190-E2 will stay where it is, sizewise. The E175-E2 will be a little bit larger in capacity, stretching it’s fuselage by 0.62m or 24.4inches. The effect is that two more seats can be fitted and in a 1-class 31” layout there are now 88 seats compared to 86 seats in the current E175. This is exactly the figure that Mitsubishi gives for the MRJ90 – any questions? With the same engine as the MRJ will get, the same cabin capacity and a new wing (even larger now than the MRJ wing) the fuel efficiency of the two aircraft should be very close to each other. The MTOW of the E175-E2 is a little bit higher (44.33 t vs. 42.8t), but the Embraer has more range, too (1920nm vs. 1780nm).

A320neo engine orders at Paris Air Show

The ever-entertaining story about market share on the A320neo family goes into another round at the Paris Air Show. Two years ago CFM hit back hard at P&W during the Air Show. P&W had won the first round of orders back then with ILFC first committing to the PW1100G for 60 of their 100 aircraft strong A320neo order. Also Indigo choose the Geared Turbo Fan as well as Lufthansa.

Then CFM came back after redesigning the LEAP-1A with another (7th) stage of low pressure turbine and a slightly larger fan (78" instead of 75") to gain SFC. CFM then won SAS, Republic, Air Asia, GECAS (no surprise here), the remaining 40 aircraft from ILFC and Virgin America and was in a comfortable lead. During the last two years each of the two manufacturers won a deal here and there and the CFM consortium is still ahead with about 53% of the engine orders. So let's take a look at the A320neo orders which do not have an (announced) engine decision yet and how the picture could change after the Paris Air Show.

LEAP leaps ahead...

After Qantas announced that that they choose the LEAP-1A for their 78 A320neo, the CFM engine has a clear lead in the neo engine race. The first A320neo to be delivered will be operated by lowcost subsidiary jetstar. This is a blow to P&W and it's allies, as jetstar is a current IAE V2500 customer. But obviously GE's and CFM's leverage was better - GE supplies the GEnx for Qantas B787 and CFM of course has it's stakes at Qantas on the current 64 aircraft strong B737 fleet. Also the A330 fleet is equipped with the CF6-80.
This deal shows again that despite of current rumours about the LEAP engine being up to 4% behind the GTF in fuel burn (and I personally doubt that the number is actually that high), there are always other considerations driving business decisions at airlines. Fuel burn might have become more important in these days, but there is more to consider for an airline...

Even more doubts about B737MAX

I obtained a very interesting article from "Airline Economics", a publication from Aviation News. As it is a subscriber only magazine, I cannot upload the full article, but I will quote some interesting statements of the story called "A question of circumstance":

1. Regarding the engine competition on the A320neo between the GTF and the LEAP-1A: "The end result is that you've got a really big gap between a P&W Neo and a CFMi Neo." To clarify: the gap is in favor of the P&W GTF and Airline Economics is quoting an senior industry expert here, who expects the LEAP to have a 4% disadvantage (what in my eyes is maybe a little bit too much).
2. Regarding engine competition in the marketplace: "Airline Economics learned early last year that

Doubts about MAX

Last month I wrote a short entry about Ryanair's Michael O'Leary and what his thoughts are about the B737MAX. Well,  when he talks about aircraft, it barely has to do with physics and what the aircraft can or can not do - it always has more to do with the price for his next deal...
But when the "Godfather of Aircraft Leasing", Steven Udvar-Hazy

Airbus A320Neo Engine Race

It is just another "intermediate result" in a race that could last for 20 years or maybe more (and we are just at the beginning): but now that the PW1100G-JM scored another two sales (TransAsia for six aicraft plus six options and GoAir for 72 aircraft), the Geared Turbo Fan is in the lead over the LEAP-1A again. The LEAP engine scored big during the Paris Air Show, taking the lead by a wide margin then after announcing a design change with a seventh LPT stage and a larger fan diameter. With these changes CFM claimed to be as good if not better than the GTF in fuel burn. That claim was dismissed by John Leahy last week when he said that the GTF would be about 1.5% better in fuel burn.
The GTF has now announced orders for 488 aircraft, the LEAP-1A has announced orders for 465 aircraft.

UPADTE:  CFM just annouced that ALAFCO choose the LEAP-1A for the 35 additional A320neo orders. So LEAP-1A is in the lead again:
LEAP-1A:         500
PW1100G-JM: 488

Airbus: GTF better than LEAP...

I obtained an interesting note from Forecast International, itself claiming to be the "Leading Provider of Aerospace, Defense, Electronics and Power Systems Intelligence. Here it is:

Norwegian goes the American way...

That was a surprise this morning - it was long rumored that Norwegian is one of the airlines that already committed for the B737MAX (100 firm orders plus 100 purchase rights in addition to a follow-on order for 200 B737-800NG), in that case the -8 model. But that they also would order the A320neo (MoU for 100 aircraft plus 50 purchase rights) could not have been expected.
There are two possible explanations that come to my mind as reasons for that decisions to go away from a single-type fleet:

1. They went the AA way (of negotiating), meaning they negotiated with both Airbus and Boeing until they got a deal from both they could not resist to close them both.
2. Their anticipated growth is too large that one of the OEM's could deliver aircraft fast enough to satisfy that growth.

On the other hand it is a little bit discussable if a mixed fleet of B737-800NG and B737MAX-8 would be a single-fleet type anyway. The engines (CFM56-7BE and LEAP-1B) do not have anything in common and Boeing itself talks about 85% commonality between the NG and the MAX. So Norwegian would have had a two-type fleet anyway until the last -800NG would have been phased out. Now that Norwegian gets aircraft from both Airbus and Boeing the last -800NG will be phased out earlier so that the (at that scale) marginally higher costs through having a two-type fleet will be (probably) more than offset by the lower fuel costs.

The next interesting question will be the engine choice for the A320neo. Although the selection of the LEAP-1A to complement the LEAP-1B on the MAX-8 fleet would be the most logical choice, they maybe also go the AA way and buy from both engine manufacturers, like AA did it recently for their A319 (CFM56) and A321 (V2500). So the PW1100G could come into play - the factsheet that Norwegian provided with their press release shows the fan diameter of the PW1100G (81"), but that does not necessarily say anything...

Technology Credibility

During the SWA web press conference about their B737MAX order, the CFM EVP Chaker Chahrour made an interesting statement. Leeham News and Comments has the quote here: "We believe we have much more credible technology than GTF."
Well, apart from that this might have been only some PR talking, I think we should shed some light on the credibility of the quote itself.

Embraer decides in favor of EJet's

Embraer decided to abandon plans for a new 5 abreast aircraft for now and instead opted to reengine to EJet's in the latter half of the decade - EIS could be in 2018. Given that Embraer could not do both at the same time - financially, but also due to manpower restrictions, as the KC-390 is in development also, this seems to be a wise decision.

Let us look at the timeline: in 2018 all new engines currently under development for the MRJ, CSeries, the A320neo, the B737MAX, the C919 and the MS-21 will be in service. Of course one could ask at least in case of the latter two if the EIS dates for these will stay where they are now. But Embraer will have a good idea how the engines - two versions of the LEAP (the C919 LEAP-1C will have the same turbo machinery as the A320neo LEAP-1A) and three types of the GTF (MRJ, CSeries and A320neo/MS-21) - are doing during development. An EIS in 2018 would probably mean an engine selection about 5 years earlier, around 2013, maybe 2014. By that time the PW1200G and PW1500G are flying at least on the respective aircraft prototypes and the first PW1100G engine should run on ground (the LEAP-1A seems to be a bit behind).