The International Civil Aviation Organization’s (ICAO’s) Committee on Aviation
Environmental Protection (CAEP) proudly tells us that they achieved agreements for future CO2 and noise regulations. Nothing particular is said about the CO2 standards, although they were already heavily criticized by Dimitro Simos, author of the Aircraft Performance Software PIANO when a draft of the plan was outlined in mid 2012.
Showing posts with label MS-21. Show all posts
Showing posts with label MS-21. Show all posts
12/12/2012
Narrowbody Review 2012
Slowly, but
inevitably, the year 2012 is coming to an end. Here are some thoughts about the
current situation of the narrowbody market:
Orders
Boeing now has not yet
fulfilled its own prophecy and has “only” 969 firm orders for the B737MAX in its
books (with 819 orders in 2012), shy only 31 from the goal to have 1,000 by the end of 2012 and I
guess that there will be another order (or more) in December to fill that gap..
11/11/2011
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).
1/17/2011
The "order battle"
Today Airbus did their yearly press conference to review the past year. The media does get over-hyped days before it and writes about the "order battle" between Airbus and Boeing and speculates about who won the "order race" - as if it would matter if one or the other got a few more orders than the other. For years now the number of orders are close at the end of the year, showing that there is some kind of natural balance in the civil aircraft duopoly. If there were not a balance, there would not be a duopoly.
That brings us to the future, there were will be no more a duopoly: Bombardier will be the first to break into the territory with the CSeries - I still believe we will see one or two orders until the BBD financial year ends at January 31.
Then the next one could be Embraer, if they decide to build an aircraft similar in size to the CSeries - or probably a little bit larger to undercut seat mile costs.
The chinese will take a little bit longer to make a difference, I think. Even if they would be able to bring their C919 to market in 2016 - and I doubt that - it would be limited either in numbers, as initial production numbers will be low in comparison to the A320(NEO) and B737 and geographically as I do not think that western operators will take that aircraft until reliability is proven and an acceptable maintenance network is in place.
The russian MS-21 will face the same problems - EIS in 2016 is an amitious goal and Irkut will have to work hard to sell aircraft outside the russian area of influence. I wonder to whom the first firm customer, Crecom Burj, a new leasing company in Indonesia, will lease their 50 aircraft. Reportedly they want to serve the whole southeast asia market...
So at least in the narrowbody segment there is an end of the duopoly in sight. For the widebody sector the end is far further out. One day the chinese will do a C929 or C939 or whatever it will be called, but I would expect they will go through a second round with their C919 first, trying to make it really competitive to the (then) established products from Airbus, Boeing, Bombardier and Embraer.
That brings us to the future, there were will be no more a duopoly: Bombardier will be the first to break into the territory with the CSeries - I still believe we will see one or two orders until the BBD financial year ends at January 31.
Then the next one could be Embraer, if they decide to build an aircraft similar in size to the CSeries - or probably a little bit larger to undercut seat mile costs.
The chinese will take a little bit longer to make a difference, I think. Even if they would be able to bring their C919 to market in 2016 - and I doubt that - it would be limited either in numbers, as initial production numbers will be low in comparison to the A320(NEO) and B737 and geographically as I do not think that western operators will take that aircraft until reliability is proven and an acceptable maintenance network is in place.
The russian MS-21 will face the same problems - EIS in 2016 is an amitious goal and Irkut will have to work hard to sell aircraft outside the russian area of influence. I wonder to whom the first firm customer, Crecom Burj, a new leasing company in Indonesia, will lease their 50 aircraft. Reportedly they want to serve the whole southeast asia market...
So at least in the narrowbody segment there is an end of the duopoly in sight. For the widebody sector the end is far further out. One day the chinese will do a C929 or C939 or whatever it will be called, but I would expect they will go through a second round with their C919 first, trying to make it really competitive to the (then) established products from Airbus, Boeing, Bombardier and Embraer.
1/12/2011
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!
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!
9/01/2010
Don’t consider Pratt being dumb…
Again the “usual suspect”, writing on the GLG website, tries to tell us that P&W would be dumb enough to develop separate engines for the MS-21 and the A320NEO. He believes to know that the MS-21 (still – more or less – in the definition phase) needs 32klbf of thrust - and the fact that the A321 has a max. thrust of 33klbf drives him to the conclusion that P&W would have to start the design of a fourth engine to cover the A32XNEO thrust range.
Now – if you would be an engine maker: would you do that? Or would you design one engine that covers the full range up to 33klbf – especially as Airbus seems to be the far more important customer than the Russians?
Interestingly he does not see the need for CFM to come up with two different engines for the C919 and a potential B737 re-engining – just because a CFM official told him that the LEAP-X1C would fit under the wing of the B737. The C919 needs around 30klbf of thrust – the stretch version to be introduced later even more, far more than the B737 needs, so that the LEAP-X1C would be far being the optimal solution for the B737 – it seems that it would be better matched for the A32XNEO needs.
This might be an explanation why Boeing seems so skeptical about the re-engining.
But let’s wait what we hear out of Chicago after Airbus announced what they will do – I expect this to happen in late September or October…
aeroturbopower
Now – if you would be an engine maker: would you do that? Or would you design one engine that covers the full range up to 33klbf – especially as Airbus seems to be the far more important customer than the Russians?
Interestingly he does not see the need for CFM to come up with two different engines for the C919 and a potential B737 re-engining – just because a CFM official told him that the LEAP-X1C would fit under the wing of the B737. The C919 needs around 30klbf of thrust – the stretch version to be introduced later even more, far more than the B737 needs, so that the LEAP-X1C would be far being the optimal solution for the B737 – it seems that it would be better matched for the A32XNEO needs.
This might be an explanation why Boeing seems so skeptical about the re-engining.
But let’s wait what we hear out of Chicago after Airbus announced what they will do – I expect this to happen in late September or October…
aeroturbopower
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)