„Premature“ engine upgrades

In the context of my last post I wondered why MTU now starts talking about an upgraded GTF to be delivered in 2019. We are one and a half years away from EIS of the PW1100G on the A320neo and the engine is  - well – not selling bad. Why announcing an upgrade now? To enhance SFC by 3% does not sound cheap - GE and RR needed two improvement packages to bring the engines for the B787 to SFC spevc level.
Furthermore MTU COO Rainer Martens told the press that these enhancements could also be implemented into the other PW1000G family members (PW1200G/PW1700G for MRJ/E175E2 and PW1500G/PW1900G for CSeries/E190E2&E195E2). So we can be sure that all aircraft OEM’s will sooner or later ask for the upgrades, just a couple of years after EIS of their respective aircraft – remember that the E175E2 should have an EIS in 2020, AFTER the PW1100G is available with the upgrade. Sounds like all the development engineers will have secure jobs at P&W, MTU, JAEC and the other PW1000G partners for the years to come. Good for them, bad for the "bean counters" in the companies and the financial breakeven of the engine programs.
For Airbus, the revelation has probably a good and a bad side. The good side is that the A320neo will enhance the competitive position against the B737MAX (and maybe later a CS500), but also the A319neo could be in a better position against the CS300. On the other side, remaining delivery positions for the A320neo in 2018 will be not that easy to fill without giving another discount for not getting the upgrade.

Embraer bridging between E1 and E2

Much hype there was during and after the Paris Air Show last year, when Embraer launched their EJet E2 family. 365 orders, MoU and LoI from Skywest, ILFC and five unannounced customers sounded like a good start and some media was quick to compare it to the current backlog of the CSeries, which had a similar amount of orders at this time – but 5 years the “launch” LoI from Lufthansa/Swiss.

Now, a few months later, there are “just” two the two orders that were announced at PAS13: 100 aircraft for Skywest (E175E2) with 100 further options and both 25 E190E2 and E195E2 for ILFC also with an equal number of options. None of the five unannounced customers came forward since June 2013 and no other customer was added.

Last week Embraer announced their numbers for orders and deliveries in 2013. Deliveries for the EJets were exactly at plan with 88 for the year. Orders looked great with American, United, Skywest ordering large numbers of E175 and taking even more options.

But let’s have a deeper look in the orderbook: Open Orders at the beginning of the year was at 279:

    1 E170

188 E175

  73 E190

  17 E195

The E170 is obviously one delivery away from dead. It is too small for the North American regional market, where the new sweet spot if 76 seats in two classes and this is where the E175 fits in ideally. The backlog of 73 for the E190 does not look too bad at first glance, but in fact you have to subtract the 24 E190 for Jetblue as they are deferred until after 2020, when the E2 version of the E190 is available and Jetblue made it already clear that they are aiming for a switch to the E2. It could also be that they will abandon the 100 seater altogether by that time and finally cancel the order.

The 7 E190 in the orderbook from flynas (or Nasair) are also questionable, as the airlines is phasing out their EJets they already have. Another shaky part of the order book are the 24 open orders for E175 from flybe. The carrier is deep in a restructuring phase and has to become profitable soon. But let’s keep them in for that following exercise:

Without the 24 E190 for Jetblue the backlog at Jan. 1^st, 2014 was 255 aircraft. With a constant delivery rate of 88 aircraft per year the backlog will be at zero in Q4 2017 2016. But the EIS for the E190E2 is slated for the middle of 2018, the E195E2 should come in 2019 and the E175E2 finally in 2020. So Embraer has

-          to find more customers for the current EJets

or

-          to speed up the development of the E2 family

Well, in essence, they have to do both, I would say!

Embraer first announced the EJet E2 with in January 2013 when they said that they will be powered by PW1700G and PW1900G engines by P&W. These engines are essentially the engines for the Mitsubishi MRJ (PW1200G) and the Bombardier CSeries (PW1500G). These engines are already existing, tested and, in the case of the PW15000G, certificated. This is the big difference between the EJet E2 reengine program and the A320neo and B737MAX program, where the engines are the pacing item.

The EJet E2 aircraft are getting new wings, new undercarriages, a new flight deck and a full fly-by-wire system: sure, these things take their time, but Embraer took a lot of time already to decide how to react to the MRJ, CSeries and the A320neo/B737MAX. So there should have been more than just a concept at the beginning of last year and Embraer is currently testing a full fly-by-wire system with their Legacy 500 Business Jet. In fact, they “learned” so much that they switched to Moog as a supplier for the FBW system for the E2 Jets, as the Parker system contributed a lot to the delay of the Legacy 500/450 program (there could also be another reason behind that switch, as Parker is part of the “GE World” and GE lost the engine contract…).

In short, I think Embraer has to bring forward the E2 program as much as they can – otherwise they would face a production hole – but wait: there is hope: if the Mitsubishi MRJ would be delayed even further, the two big customers (Trans States and Skywest) for the MRJ would be forced to look at alternatives. The only logical aircraft that could replace the MRJ90 deliveries in the 2016/2017 time frame with the same cabin comfort would be the E175E1. This might be the reason why Skywest took options for 100 E175E1 last year when placing the order for 40 E175E1. Also United, American Airlines and Republic took further options for the E175E1. It looks like there is a considerable “hedging” against a further MRJ delay and this might help Embraer to bridge to gap between the current E1 and the forthcoming E2.

The long wait...

Two days, two announcements, two delays: yesterday Bombardier told the aviation public that the CSeries will not fly in July for the first time, but in „the coming weeks“.

Today Mitsubishi Aircraft announced that the MRJ will not fly this year, but until the end of 2014  - a full one year delay (again). This is of course disappointing. According to the article Mitsubishi still has problems how to document the design and the production of the parts to be compliant with certification rules (this is my interpretation, based on what was the reason for the last delay). At least, it seems, there seems nothing wrong with the design of the aircraft itself.

The same can be said for the CSeries – hopefully! It seems that the integration of the software takes more time than planned. The question is why until now the Bombardier executives always build up pressure by announcing exactly when first flight will happen. Airbus with the A350 was smarter by only saying first flight would happen in the second half of 2013 and the surprising the aviation world by beating that target by two weeks. At least Bombardier has learned now by being vague. On the other side that does not build up confidence, especially because fixed dates were given three times before (end of 2012, end of June 2013, in July 2013). So everyone who waits for this first all-new narrowbody since the A320 first flew in 26 years ago in 1987 should hope that “in the coming weeks” does mean in the “next low single digit number of weeks”.

Geared Turbo Fan Backlog Secrets

The P&W press release revealing the selection of the PW1133G for the A321neo for Hawaiian Airlines states that the Geared Turbo Fan Family now has more than 3,500 announced and unannounced orders and options. I wondered how much unannounced orders there are and tried to do a breakdown of the announced orders.

PW1100G

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).

IndiGo launches the A320NEO

Well, here he is: IndiGo, the first customer for the A320NEO. A massive 150 aircraft order means a good start for the programme. Expect more big orders to come soon...
Coincidentally, Scott Hamilton talked about the prediction by Buckingham Research that Boeing will come out with two new models to replace the B717, B737 and B757 by 2018 and will launch this effort officially by late 2011 or 2012.
While Scott (or Buckingham) does not go into details, I guess this would be a single aisle aircraft for the reüplacement of the B717 and the lower end of the B737 and the "New Light Twin", which was briefly mentioned by Scott at the end of last year for the upper end of the B737 and the B757.
While it would be a good strategy in principle to replace three aircraft (families) with two new ones, I doubt that it will be that fast. How good can these aircraft be - or, in other words, how much better than the NEO? Engines for a 2018 EIS can only be slightly better than for the NEO with EIS 2016. And both CFM and PW have their hands full with developing the engines for the C919 and NEO (CFM) as well as the MRJ, CSeries, MS21 and NEO (PW). So one should not expect a completely new engine by the two manufacturers by 2018 but just minor improvements, which could also be sold to Airbus. And I do not expect RR to catch up in the 30k engine market by then - they lost the NEO competition and they have their hands full with their Trent programmes.
So the advantage has to come from the airframe. As of today, it is not clear if the A320/B737 successors will be build from carbonfibres. Bombardier opted for AlLi, apparently for good reasons.
To be clear, a new aircraft frame  by Boeing by 2018 would of course be better than the A320 frame, there would be 30 years between them. But would it be enough? - I doubt it!
The other question of course: does Boeing have the money to do it and the backing from their shareholders? Developing two aircraft takes a lot of ressources - manpower and money. If they do it, I expect the japanese to take over large parts of the responsibility for the smaller aircraft.
Another fascinating year in aviation just started!

The „war of words“ on the GLG website

The GLG website is a big fairground for those who wish to tell the audience what they think about the two engines currently in development for the new or re-engined narrowbodies. I found the most of the claims that are being made in the recent “expert contributions” as just plain wrong or as misunderstandings.


Take the contribution “CFM International LEAP-X Engine Anything But A Derivative” as an example. This article is nothing as plain anti-rhetoric against P&W’s GTF and pure PR for the LEAP-X, but has nothing to do with an objective analysis.

Both engines feature (or will feature) a complete new core, both will have a 2 stage HPT.

One can guess that the HPC of the LEAP-X is a scaled-down and advanced version of the GEnx HPC and the same is true for the HPT. New materials further improve the performance of the core, as less cooling is needed as with conventional materials. What we don’t know is if the HPT would basically need more cooling air than the GEnx HPT as it probably runs even a little hotter. This is unusually for a narrowbody engine, as maintenance costs play a significant role here in the equation.
The core of the GTF is all new and was already tested successfully (if you want to believe the PR from P&W).
Now take a look at the comparison the author makes:

He states that the baseline thrust of the GTF starts at 21,000lbs – wrong as the MRJ engine starts at about 15,000lbs for the MRJ70. The engine for the CSeries starts at 21,000lbs and the proposed engine for the A320NEO covers the full range of the thrust needed for the Airbus narrowbody family up to 33,000lbs. This engine would have an up-scaled core from the CSeries engine, as the NG34 (or TECH-X) from GE would get a scaled-down core from LEAP-X.

If the author would be right when he writes that the baseline thrust for LEAP-X would be 30,000lbs (for the C919), CFM would have a hard time to sell that engine to Boeing, as the B737 does not need more than 27,300lbs today and a downrated engine would be sub-optimal for the B737. So CFM might have to come up with a separate engine (maybe with a smaller core) to cover Boeing’s thrust needs.

If one claims that the GTF architecture is forty years old as the author does, he has to call the architecture of the LEAP-X at least forty years either, as it is nothing less but nothing more than a 2 spool turbofan.

SFC reduction for both is in the same range. CFM gives a certain number, P&W gives something like a range, but in the end they will end in the same area – it’s coming down to physics.

Please, bloggers, experts and who-else-writes-about engines: let’s do not just play CFM vs. P&W, just as others always play A. vs. B. on the aircraft side. It might be fun when you start but soon turns boring.