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...?

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

A330neo vs. B737MAX and A320neo first flight

As always, yesterdays "Large Aircraft Panel" at the ISTAT Europe conference was very amusing. Unfortunately I can not attend in person this year, but what you can read via twitter and in the press is almost as good as being there. Here you can read what Boeing's VP Marketing Randy Tinseth thinks about the A330neo:

"It is a 1970 fuselage which is heavy and was abandoned for the A350 family. The wing was built in the 1980s while the Boeing 787 engine is not optimised for the A330neo."

Well, maybe he should have had a chat with his own folks at Boeing - what is the B737MAX?
In Tinseth's words I would say:

A 1960s fuselage with a 1990s wing with an 2010s engine compromised by a 1960s engine fan diameter.

In other news, Airbus COO John Leahy told the audience that we will (weather permitting) see the first flight of the A320neo with PW1100G-JM engines on Thursday - a 1980s fuselage and wing (with 2010s "sharklets") and a 2010s engine by the way...

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.

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..

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...

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