Two different concepts for a B757 successor emerged over the last few weeks.
First, there was an article by "The Motley Fool" (not exactly an aviation expert website) speculating about a B757MAX (and Scott Hamilton from Leeham Co. confirming these rumours), with composite wings and a new engine. Although this rumour was quickly dismissed by Steve Wilhelm from the Puget Sound Business Journal and another "Fool" and Boeing itself assured that they are not planning any B757MAX, it would be a relatively straigthforward and easy way to fight against the A321neo, as the numbers and the market already showed that the B737MAX-9 will be an inferior aircraft (I expect some announcements in the not too distant future that will further show that Boeing has a problem here). A new wing, new wingbox and new engines (which would be a few percentage points better in SFC than the PW1100G and the LEAP-1A) would provide enough improvement to be a very good aircraft for thin transatlantic routes. But then what? Airbus would not stand by and could develop a A322 with a similar fuselage length, also a new wing and wingbox and the same engines. And with successors for both of the narrowbody families planned for 2030+ that will likely start at today's B737-800 size, an EIS around 2022 would provide a production run of 10 years at best. So that concept does not really make sense.
Meanwhile also Scott Hamilton wrote another article about the subject, making clear that the "757 replacement" can only be part of a new family of aircraft, starting at the B737-800NG/B737MAX-8 size and topping at about 240 passengers, set by the aspirations from Airbus regarding the A321neo and that an EIS would be not anytime soon, i.e. not 2022.
The other concept emerged from an article by Aspire Aviation and this is completely different. Daniel Tsang proposes a small twin aisle family with a 2-3-2 seating configuration, comprising of two models between 200 and 240 seats. This of course would be a clean sheet design with the associated high development costs. The B737MAX family would still sell, he thinks, for shorter routes, as the "NSA" (New Small Airplane, not the other one...) would be optimised for routes around 4000nm in a 200-220 seat 2-class layout (where a B737MAX-9 and a A321neo would have to trade range versus payload).
But would the market be large enough for such an aircraft to justify a completely new aircraft, built from (today) very expensive carbon fibres? I think: yes and no! No, as I think the seat count of 200-240 would not cover a market potential large enough. And yes, if this NSA (albeit then not so "small") would occupy a larger part of the market, ranging from the B757-200 all the way up to the B767-300, say, from 220-280 passengers and a range around 4,500nm, to cover transatlantic flights between the US East Coast and Europe. This aircraft would have the potential to replace all the B757-200W, B767-300ER, A330-200/300 and maybe also some B787-8 that are used on these routes today (and more then).
Now: could this aircraft be the first Boeing to be powered by a geared engine?
A few weeks ago Rolls Royce very openly committed themselves to the geared technology and pursues such an engine for 2025. As I do not believe we would see the "NSA" (I would call it "NST", for "New Small Twin") before 2025, that could fit in Boeing's time planning.
Now with two of the big engine companies in the "geared camp" what will GE do? My bet: the next generation of narrowbody engines (beyond the A320neo/B737MAX generation) will be "geared only" - including GE! Of course nobody from GE (or Safran) will say so openly today, because that would mean to admit concede against the "gear". But I am sure that behind the scenes GE is working closely with their new affiliate Avio Aero in Italy (providing the Fan Drive Gear System for the PW1100G) to have a an engine architecture ready for the mid 2020's. And Snecma is working on a geared open rotor in the Clean Sky project.
4/29/2014
4/02/2014
Everyone's a winner, baby...
Boeing‘s
Randy Tinseth can’t resist to screw every statistics in his (i.e. Boeing’s )
favour. This makes him of course no different from John Leahy, head of sales at
Airbus. Now, after Air Canada firmed up their order for 61 B737MAX yesterday,
Tinseth claimed that the B737MAX gained more than 50% of the market since it’s
first order. Granted – Boeing has now 1908 firm orders for the B737MAX in the
books and Airbus sold “just” 1521 A320neo since the first order for the B737MAX
from Southwest Airlines. But does that really matter? Boeing’s first firm order
for the B737MAX from Southwest Airlines in December 2011 came more than one
year after the launch of the A320neo on Dec. 1st, 2010 and Airbus
booked the first order for the A320eo from Virgin America in late December that
year. By the time of the first B737MAX order Airbus already had 1,176 firm
orders for the A320neo family and so they had 89.55% of the market (“Neo vs.
MAX”).
In 2012, the first full year where the B737MAX was available,
Boeing had the upper hand: 949 firm order for the B737MAX meant a 66.5% market
share for that year with Airbus being in the overall lead with 61.6% (1,764 vs.
1,099 orders).
In 2013 the picture reversed in favor of Airbus –they sold another
937 A320neo aircraft where Boeing gained “only” 703. Overall Airbus held a
market share of 59.7%.
Until today in 2014 Boeing sold 117 B737MAX – Airbus sold 57
A320neo. So one could conclude that the market lead for Airbus dwindles away. But
there are a few large already won campaigns for Airbus to be firmed up: Tigerair (37 A/C), China Eastern
(70 A/C), ANA (30 A/C) and a few others – like Monarch – are waiting for their
winner. So I guess Airbus’s John Leahy will soon have an answer for Tinseth’s
anaylsis with his own statistics.
The better choice than throwing with statistics would maybe be that both gentlemen would unite to sing the Hot Chocolate song "Everyone's a winner" - although I cannot imagine them singing together the line "Making love to you is such a thrill..."...
In retrospective, the decision by Airbus to launch the A320neo brought record full order books for both and helped both to fend off Bombardier's CSeries. And there is some truth of course in the claim that SVP Andy Shankland from Airbus made at the ISTAT America this year, that it would be fair to say that the B737MAX was launched in Toulouse. So Randy could bring a bottle of wine to the party to celebrate their appearance in front of the aviation audience. I would give a fortune to see and hear them...
3/28/2014
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.
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.
2/27/2014
Who needs Qantas?
Sorry for this rhethorical question! And of course it would be bad if another iconic name in aviation history would disappear. But reading the news from "down under" today, I am coming to the conclusion that the best solution would be to drop the Qantas brand altogether and just to continue with Jetstar. To "save" the Qantas brand name Jetstar could then be renamed Qantas and join oneworld (again).
At least with the alliance with Emirates the international operations of Qantas itself became irrelevant. It looks more like a feeder for Emirates. And now that Emirates will start codesharing with the Qantas LCC offshoot Jetstar, there is no real need for a domestic Qantas. Concentrate all domestic efforts on Jetstar and act as a feeder for Emirates in markets like Singapore, Ho Chi Minh and elsewhere in south east and north asia.
At least with the alliance with Emirates the international operations of Qantas itself became irrelevant. It looks more like a feeder for Emirates. And now that Emirates will start codesharing with the Qantas LCC offshoot Jetstar, there is no real need for a domestic Qantas. Concentrate all domestic efforts on Jetstar and act as a feeder for Emirates in markets like Singapore, Ho Chi Minh and elsewhere in south east and north asia.
Rolls Royce looking ahead...
Yesterday Rolls Royce surprised the aero engine world at a briefing about it's strategic roadmap by looking ten and more years ahead and revealing, what the company plans as their next steps in engine development.
In the 2020 timeframe we could see a further evolution of the Trent 3-spool engine family for now called "Advance" (I am sure the name will change once it should evolve from being a technology project and becomes a real program). This engine should deliver an SFC that is 5% better than the Trent XWB. As aspire aviation pointed out, the GE9X for the B777X should be about 5% better than the Trent XWB, so it is clear who is the "enemy" here.
The time frame and the SFC goal puts this engine concept in the position to be a good candidate to power the A380neo, if the project goes ahead. But Airbus could also ask for a version with more thrust than the roughly 70klbf needed for a re-engined A380 to power a A350-1100 and then have a formidable competitor to the Boeing B777-9.
A first test engine based on the Trent XWB, but with a new core with a higher OPR - up to 60 and thus being on the same level as the GE9X - should run as early as next year.
The second engine does not necessarily build on the Trent 3-spool architecture as it - potentially - could use a gear as we currently have on the PW1000G family from Pratt&Whitney. Of course also a 3-spool GTF is possible, but I doubt that makes real sense, so I would guess it would have 2 spools. This engine should then be another 5% better than the "Advance" engine.
This engine concept should not only target the widebody market but also future narrowbodies. In the light of recent discussions about a possible B757 replacement and a successor to the B737MAX family with an EIS around 2025 this is an interesting move of course. After selling their stake in the IAE to P&W, both companies announced a partnership for future narrowbody programs. This partnership was later canceled. But for any future narrowbody we should expect a choice of two engines, not three. And CFM seems to be the frontrunner in any case (unless the LEAP engines will fail completely, what I doubt), so either RR or P&W would be out of the game. So is this move aimed at P&W begging for a new try of the partnership? Who knows...
Anyway, the above SFC comparisons are true for widebody engines in the GE9X class - for narrowbody engines we have to scale the SFC values, as for example the tip clearances are not scaling with the physical smaller components of the engines. Relative clearances are larger and so are aerodynamic and parasitic losses. Therefore all engine components have lower efficiency levels. And as the core components (high pressure compressor and turbine) get smaller and smaller with increasing bypass ratio (BPR) and overall pressure ratio (OPR) for a given thrust, it gets harder and harder to maintain a decent efficiency level. Also surge capability of the compressor might not be easy to control. In the end, to achieve an OPR of 70(!) for this engine I predict this will only be achievable with a radial compressor stage at the back and of the compressor. And at temperatures that will be reached at such a high OPR this wheel has to be out of a material that can only be found in turbines today. Maybe CMC? Then good luck producing such a complex piece out of that material? The other possibility would be to have an intercooler between the low and high pressure compressors. But that would add weight and complexity, counterproductive for a narrowbody engine. This is why I see that concept better suited for a long range application, where (engine) weight does not have such an immediate effect on fuel burn, The same argument could be, but must not be necessarily true for the envisioned variable pitch fan system. This idea goes back to the ADP concept from P&W from the 1980's. The variable pitch system has two great advantages versus non-pitch fans: there is no need for a thrust reverser (which save weight) and the whole nacelle can be shortened, also saving weight. On the other hand, the pitch system itself is complex and needs additional maintenance. As these maintenance cost are mainly cycle driven, I also see this technology better suited for long-range, low cycle operations.
But who knows what "white rabbits" Rolls Royce will pull out of their hat by then - it is a great company and I would not be surprised if they find ways to handle all these challenges.
In the 2020 timeframe we could see a further evolution of the Trent 3-spool engine family for now called "Advance" (I am sure the name will change once it should evolve from being a technology project and becomes a real program). This engine should deliver an SFC that is 5% better than the Trent XWB. As aspire aviation pointed out, the GE9X for the B777X should be about 5% better than the Trent XWB, so it is clear who is the "enemy" here.
The time frame and the SFC goal puts this engine concept in the position to be a good candidate to power the A380neo, if the project goes ahead. But Airbus could also ask for a version with more thrust than the roughly 70klbf needed for a re-engined A380 to power a A350-1100 and then have a formidable competitor to the Boeing B777-9.
A first test engine based on the Trent XWB, but with a new core with a higher OPR - up to 60 and thus being on the same level as the GE9X - should run as early as next year.
The second engine does not necessarily build on the Trent 3-spool architecture as it - potentially - could use a gear as we currently have on the PW1000G family from Pratt&Whitney. Of course also a 3-spool GTF is possible, but I doubt that makes real sense, so I would guess it would have 2 spools. This engine should then be another 5% better than the "Advance" engine.
This engine concept should not only target the widebody market but also future narrowbodies. In the light of recent discussions about a possible B757 replacement and a successor to the B737MAX family with an EIS around 2025 this is an interesting move of course. After selling their stake in the IAE to P&W, both companies announced a partnership for future narrowbody programs. This partnership was later canceled. But for any future narrowbody we should expect a choice of two engines, not three. And CFM seems to be the frontrunner in any case (unless the LEAP engines will fail completely, what I doubt), so either RR or P&W would be out of the game. So is this move aimed at P&W begging for a new try of the partnership? Who knows...
Anyway, the above SFC comparisons are true for widebody engines in the GE9X class - for narrowbody engines we have to scale the SFC values, as for example the tip clearances are not scaling with the physical smaller components of the engines. Relative clearances are larger and so are aerodynamic and parasitic losses. Therefore all engine components have lower efficiency levels. And as the core components (high pressure compressor and turbine) get smaller and smaller with increasing bypass ratio (BPR) and overall pressure ratio (OPR) for a given thrust, it gets harder and harder to maintain a decent efficiency level. Also surge capability of the compressor might not be easy to control. In the end, to achieve an OPR of 70(!) for this engine I predict this will only be achievable with a radial compressor stage at the back and of the compressor. And at temperatures that will be reached at such a high OPR this wheel has to be out of a material that can only be found in turbines today. Maybe CMC? Then good luck producing such a complex piece out of that material? The other possibility would be to have an intercooler between the low and high pressure compressors. But that would add weight and complexity, counterproductive for a narrowbody engine. This is why I see that concept better suited for a long range application, where (engine) weight does not have such an immediate effect on fuel burn, The same argument could be, but must not be necessarily true for the envisioned variable pitch fan system. This idea goes back to the ADP concept from P&W from the 1980's. The variable pitch system has two great advantages versus non-pitch fans: there is no need for a thrust reverser (which save weight) and the whole nacelle can be shortened, also saving weight. On the other hand, the pitch system itself is complex and needs additional maintenance. As these maintenance cost are mainly cycle driven, I also see this technology better suited for long-range, low cycle operations.
But who knows what "white rabbits" Rolls Royce will pull out of their hat by then - it is a great company and I would not be surprised if they find ways to handle all these challenges.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)