Dec. 7, 2020, (c) Leeham News: Embraer studies whether to develop a new generation turboprop to compete with and replace the ATR-72 and De Havilland Canada Dash 8-400. Both of these airplanes were designed in the 1980-90s, although each went through updates and modernization.
Developing a new turboprop has lots of challenges. Not the least is the size of the market.
LNA’s Scott Hamilton and Bjorn Fehrm discuss the Embraer “E3” concept in the next installment of the “10 Minutes About” series of podcasts.
Thank you for this podcast, nice format 🙂 I think a 7000-8000 shp new engine won’t have much competition. It seems Pratt is ahead herewith hthier NGTP project. Arjen Meijer indicates they need a financially strong partner. I think the most obvious one is Collins Aerospace. An already strong Embraer partner on all of their aircraft, that will most probably supply the TP new engines too.
China, has their own new TP, India would probably be a drag, Europe too ATR focussed.
Indonesia maybe? Big country with some aerospace pretensions and also lots of Islands that are suitable for turboprop connections.
Speculating if Embraer can develop a faster but still economic turboprop with the new engines that could make this plane suitable for US scope-claused regional flights. Need to get past American WW2 hangups about propellers. It could be the plane the Q400 wasn’t because it cost too much.
The properly renamed Dash 8 is plenty fast.
Or you can throttle down and be more economic, the ATR can only be anemic.
New engines on the Dash 8 will match any new TP, pretty much a no go area.
So my thinking is that you could use some of that new engine efficiency to go faster rather than cheaper, allowing a longer practical range. Range limiting speed has always disadvantaged turboprops compared with jets.
Embraer would also have to make the plane cheaper to buy than the Dash 8. I’m sure they will.
the current dash 8 tried to do exactly what you are suggesting and as a result lost out to the ATR because, while more capable than the ATR, it was heavier and more expensive and still slower and shorter ranged than comparably sized jets.
airlines were not willing to pay the premium in purchase price, maintenance and operating costs to shave 15 minutes off a long sector, especially when customers would overwhelmingly choose to go with a competitor’s jet service that was even faster.
Agreed to a degree
BBD had multiple issues, Price was one (those bigger engine do cost) but also failure to communicate.
A Dash 8 can be throttled back to close to ATR economics. They did not tell or teach operators that.
Sans flat country, engine out performance is another area, not just for takeoff but what routes you can fly. Dash 8 has more capability and more engine out options as far as flight patch to or from one airport to another (more direct if not direct)
There is a reason its the plane of choice for Ethiopia
Have to see how DH handles sales now and see where it goes.
If the ATR can do with 2700shp engines for 78 pax, The GE T408 at 8000shp might be an overkill unless you go up in size and range. The ERJ-195 E2 at 120 to 138pax is still an option for conversion, The Q400 with up to 90 pax has a 5000shp PW150A engine that might fit well if upgraded with PW1100G materials. By lowering trip cost, improving short field performance and make it pretty common with the E2 jets it can complement on shorter routes up to 2hrs and longer in pure cargo versions. Still it will cost the same or more and airlines will probably ask for lower prices than the jet version.
The comments on engines are incorrect. The D8 400 is a virtual clean slate design developed late 1998-2000 using engine PW(C)150. The ATR was an outgrowth the earlier stuff with a crap wing and a PWc 121 outgrowth to a 123 etc. engine.
PWc bid and won the engine competition for the A400M based on that PW150. The PW engine proposed, used the same core , diff FADEC as that on the 400 with the existing Fiat gearbox being an upgrade to handle the greater HP. (11,000 SHP now , at the time I recall it at 10,000).
The European folks played the home grow card taking the Europrop TP400 ,a (RR engine), rejected the contracted(?)PW150 and the result was multiple increases in cost with the very long delays.
The PW engine was well sorted out by DHC, Particularly by the time it would have been required by the A 400 M. That sorting is/was ongoing. The PW 150 is an outstanding engine. Result.. very bad decision from this POV.
PWc took it to court result unknown.
Any Increase in HP on a large turboprop will almost surely require counter rotating props as in the A 400 in order to meet stall requirements…. cost +
Geared fans with fan blade angle control????
Yea, the PW150 sort of derived from the 120 series but its a huge leap and shares nothing in common.
Ergo, it is a very modern design and to make another identical range engine?
Do a ground yip and you get another 5%?
Equally, ATR has 70% market share, DH has the rest and you are go0ing to slice this into another player with no serious gain.
There is a huge difference between what Embraer can do in their play space vs what they should do.
Doing nothing is not a bad strategy.
We have seen gone down the hole aircraft ala A380, Superjet and the Mitsubishi not to be jet.
At the the time it was announced in 1995 the PWC150 was described as a ‘growth version’ of existing engines.
“The PW150 is a growth version of the PW100-series turboprop, which powers the Dash 8-100, -200 and -300 models, with a thermodynamic rating of 4,800- 5,600kW (6,500-7,500shp). The engine will be rated at 3,670kW in the Dash 8-400. The most powerful PW100 now in service is the 2,050kW PW127.
P&WC says that the PW150 features a new three-stage axial low-pressure compressor (replacing a single centrifugal stage), increased turbine cooling and a high-power (5,000shp), low-speed (1,020RPM), reduction gearbox. The first engine is scheduled to run in mid-1996, with certification in mid-1998.” Flightgobal
As for the A400M turboprop competition a 5000shp class engine wasnt going to cut it as a minimum 9000shp was required.
It seems to have been forgotten that the orginal PWC offer was a ‘twin pac’ version of its in production PW150 driving the contra rotating propellors.
The TP400 selected for the A400 was intially based on the French ( not RR) M88 core but a rethink of this development meant Pratt then offered a wholly new TP based on then all new PW800 turbofan ( the non GTF version of the larger PW1000G series)
Its incorrect to claim that Pratt won the bid with a twin coupled PW150 engine version, the TP400 was always the selected engine.
The PW800 was not even on the Horizon
And yes, PW was awarded the A400 contract just o have it pulled away.
A400 was sold as a pure commercial take off and best system suppliers, not a national defense program
Airbus found out you can’t do that with a military program.
TP400 was a mess of a program. But that is what you get when you mish mash something together. Put enough money into it and you can fix anything (well other then a Trent 1000/Ten!)
I stand corrected on the PW800
It goes back further than the GTF (though it may have had it in view when developed)
It was designated as multi application core.
Having seen this occur, the term used is you call up the contractor and tell them to sharpen their pencil (on a bid) – its against policy and immoral at best (may be illegal in some jurisdictions)
The TP400 was allowed to revamp its bid, PW was not.
TP supposedly then underbid PW.
A400 project got what it asked for, a bust. PW had huge history of TP and kludging together an entity that did not was a disaster.
So much for the vaunted Commercial contract setup (dumb idea and still is) and the A400 or course a mess across the board and still is.
C17 is far better for strategic missions and the C-130 sells because its in the sweet spot for tactical.
National Guard groups, state governors and congressional delegations keep adding them. The USAF has no say, doesn’t ask, even though they’ve become too small. Legendary.
Yes. Its another one of those Lockheed programs that keep turning up in the order tray. Just like the Lockheed LCS version the Freedom class. And guess who wins the replacement FFX project , Lockheeds Marinette Wis partner Fincantiere.
You EU guys will just not be happy, its an Italian/French design for crying out loud (grin)
Yes it was political, someone wanted to win Wisconsin (they did not!) The Spanish F100 looked by far the better design.
It had the dual GE Turbines the US wanted, Aegis, and 48 missiles tubes and a decent main gun not that 57 mm pop gun ( Sheese, that a WWII 6 lb gun that has no HE. ). The aux gens were Caterpillar engines for crying out loud.
I think the Norwegian sinking had to do with a civie crew and they just abandoned it.
Sadly Bath Iron Works is in trouble so maybe Wisconsin Build is better to get something decent vs nothing but its going to take a hell of a lot more mods than the F100 would have.
The PW150A was not that great in the beginning, but eventually improved like most PWA Engines. We will see what Engine will Power the E3 and if they go for an UDF type of Engine with massive TO performance from short fields and super low TSFC at Cruise. Another option is LH2 powered competitor to what ATR now are designing that is a 100 seater and if the E3 is another 100 seater build on the ERJ195-E2 with tanks in the body and new super slender outer dry wings, by time of the virtual 2021 Paris Air Show we will know.
Yes. ATR was joint venture from Aeritalia and then Aerospatiale- now Leonardo and Airbus. That was the way to do a new airliner it, while DHC had already been in the turbo-prop field for a long time.
We can see now with hindsight more recent projects would have more successful from the beginning such as a joint venture for Bombardier and Mitsubishi on the Cseries and the Space jet ( they were closely involved on Bombardiers Global BJ range)
I think the E-jet fuselage is very optimized for passenger transport. The luggage belly is an asset there. With a new prop Embraer could solidify it’s dominant position around 100 seats.
ATR did a far reaching upgrade on the ATR’s the -600s, glass cockpit, new interior, better engines/props. And have dominated the market since 2012.
There is a significant Q400/ATR replacement market this decade and I don’t think ATR will sit on it’s hands to see what happens.
A stretched ATR to push seat capacity to just under 100 seats, more powerful engines to deal with that and improve climb and maximum speed might create a convincing low risk specification for many operators on short flights. And offer “unbeatable” economics. Also for parcel logistics.
It has been under consideration for some time:
Yes, the -600 upgrades really made the ATR-72 a reliable success, together with the dicipline of keeping costs low, like keeping the PW100 Engines from the ATR42 with upgraded gbx/prop and live with low Engine Power for the bigger size of Aircraft, many others going for big Engines to boost cruise speed let cost slip away , like Saab2000, DHC Q400 and other turboprops that became too small (saab 340, ATR42, EMB-120, ATP) still some utility turboprops are popular like Cessna Caravan models and Pilatus PC-12. Hence if Embraer manages to design a very cost effective and reliable pax/cargo 100 seater like a Giga-Caravan-Pilatus it can work, maybe team up with Textron and Pilatus to split the cost?
“I think the E-jet fuselage is very optimized for passenger transport. The luggage belly is an asset there”
Not for turboprops as the extra weight for a double bubble fuselage compared to existing 72 seaters would make it noncompetitive. Loading a main deck baggage area is quicker and uses space more efficiently
An ATR72 has an OEW of 12,500kg while the jet EMB175 is 21,700kg – a turboprop version wouldnt be so heavy but thats with new straight wings and empennage and heavier turbofans repleced by lighter turbo props.
By comparison the DHC Q400 is OEW of 17,100kg and doesnt compete with the ATR
details from https://www.airlines-inform.com/commercial-aircraft/
The fuselage accounts for about 25% of the aircraft empty weight, wings/engines / landing gears for around 60%. For a high wing TP a flat belly avoids long landing gears (Q400, ATR’s). For a low wing TP, the LDG is in the wing & the large props required the ground clearance anyway, so there’s room for the luggage belly, like on all NB’s. It makes them very exchangeable, flexible for operations and saves space main deck for passenger seats. The E-jet have an uncompromised standing cabin and can easily be stretched to 30-32 rows. Combined with Pratt NGTP 7500 shp engines that creates a very economical regional option. Not much competition either.
question: why not the GE T408 that is going on the CH-53K? it is in production, certified, new tech, where the PW is still in development.
is there really a market for two 7500hp turboshafts?
And a large fuselage is a weight penalty and a drag and the A320.737 do not make money on freight, is there really a need for it?
Helicopter engines don’t always make the best airplane engines. See CT-7 and Allison 250, excellent helo powerplants but not as well-regarded as PT-6, PW-127 etc are for airplanes.
Embraer ‘house style’ is to go low wing as it had for its previous TP offerings. Others like Saab- Fairchild had low wing, the engine arrangement still has ground clearance for propellers when the engine is on the upper wing.
The double bubble makes no difference to the undercarriage as its supported in the wing root or the engine nacelle not in the fuselage. Check out images of say the Saab 2000 with its undercarriage down. Same with the old BAE ATP/HS748
As I said before the main deck is quicker and more space efficient for luggage as the crew can stand up inside and the luggage is loaded to the full circumference. Crawling around an under floor space thats even smaller than a 6 across single aisle.
Theres a reason why all the regional jets and turbo props had main deck luggage. Even the new MRJ/Spacejet had that feature and was lighter than the E2-175.
A new prop on the horizon, maybe.
Thats the just a rejig of the Dornier 328, a capable 30 seater which also for a while had a jet version. But at 3 abreast seating its not going to play in the 50 plus seat market
Reality is splitting a small market 3 ways.
Airbus did that with the A380. Decent market for one big bird, not two.
The TP market is barely supporting two mfgs, a third means they all starve.
Embraer never gets the investment back and DH goes out of business most likely.
Lot of goofy stuff going out here. Appreciate the backup on the PWC A 400 history . My info came from the PWC rep on the assembly line for the 400. Way back when….
As to turboprops. DHC had history ATR did not. The two companies decided to conjointly design a turboprop, one to supply Europe ,one for NA. Anyone who has worked with the French knows how that goes. The two companies split over basic design issues. Wing airfoil, T tail and gear. ATR went cheap and were wrong on all 3 and that cost many lives. See flight international…That also came from the principle design engineer at dhc after the icing crashes and as part of a major pr effort to recover public confidence.
No ATR was ever sold to a major carrier in NA.
No dhc 8 ever had an icing related issue.
ATR could not clear the passes in the alps in the summer. Same engine. Ask tyrolean..
It’s all in the airfoil choices and compromises. . A good engine helps. So do engineers and test pilots that can say no.
Ps that brasilia came from Piper. ..the one in vero beach ….design crew from the “Pocono”. They ~ just took out the Lycomings and inserted pt6’s. The Tacano (s) also came from the same place. Same engine..
U all know that PT6. The source for the 120, ..the source for the 150.. all old stuff. Like really?.?
Thats interesting . The Piper Navajo was the twin assembled in a number of South American countries including by Embraer as the EMB820 of the Chieftan version. The PT6s were swapped in this version. So maybe they did start with a Navajo design for their first own product in 19 seat category the Bandeirante.
Pratt’ s all new TP was the Airbus choice in the reopened A400 powerplant selection, but in something they eternally regretted the choice was up to the countries buying. Likely PWC would have run into problems as well during development , so maybe they dodged a bullet and better their resources went into the GTF.
PW offered the PW180 product for the A400M, 100% new , powerpoint/ excel. Maybe it would have done great, maybe not. But nothing to get romantic about, many PW projects went bad those days.
Reading comments, articles on TP400 and A400M, the standard approach is a negative groundtone, highlighting delays, problems only.
The A400M has automatic terrain following, FBW, Mach .0.7, trans- atlantic unrefuelled, can put 30t onto unprepared runways, beaches, can refill helicopters and fighters, has full civil type certification, airway flexibility, fits serious armoured vehicles.
It really has impressive specs / multirole capabilities, not matched by any other platform. It is an extremely useful platform for it’s owners. Some air forces/services would get it asap, if it had another brand.
Good points, I would still take a cohesive program over a scatter shot thrown together one. P&W had a good solid TP background. Jet engines have tended to start off less than stellar but got better and were good. Equally a shame that Airbus could not stick with their get the best.
What impresses me is that PW was working on the PW800 further back than I had realized.
As for the A400, yea its got a lot of whiz bang cool ability, but the question is, if you are running a farm tractor, do you need a Stereo in it?
First issue is like a Swiss Army knife, it does so many things it costs hugely. It does them well but at what cost?
Are you really going to risk a large national asset going into a small contested air space field?
Anb in making it Trans Theater mach .7, you give up jet engine for the short field aspect. Anyone noted lately that the A320/737 have jet engines? Why? more economical, less maint, less complex (you don’t need prop system or a formally a gear box)
Have to think Airbus missed in the first use of the PW 1000 GTF there!
How many Puma can it haul from Berlin to that front line filed in Kandahar province? (One). And it takes how long? How about fuel and ammo for it? How about the up armor kid? How about spare parts?
Iraq ware 90% of the stuff went by sea (yep, even the US could not do a airlift to support 100,000+ and we have C-17s, C5 and a whole reserve fleet to draw on (by the way a C17 can haul an M1 Tank!)
Germany in particular loves making all that stuff, then they don’t maintain it. Amounts to a hugely costly jobs program and tech capability (though for what you have to wonder)
Sometimes advertised as “transport what the C130 cannot to places that the C17 can’t” it is becoming a very capable aircraft, and improving over time.
“first trial of an A400M tactical transport flying autonomously at 500ft in instrument meteorological conditions (IMC)” “Certification for the low-level IMC operating mode is expected to be secured during 2021, following further testing. The Atlas already has approval for flight at 500ft in visual meteorological conditions (VMC).”
The UK RAF has both C-17, C-130, and A400M, there are definitely occasions when a C-130 is too small (too slow, not enough range…), and a C-17 too big (or C-17 can’t land at the destination).
The USA is different of course, they have scores of air tankers that they can use to refuel handfuls of C-130s, some nations don’t have the luxury of dozens, and dozens of tankers (if any) so the extra range of the A400M is of benefit. Horses for courses as they say.
Both the C-390, and the C-2 are interesting, and I’m sure they all fit specific markets. It’s a pity both of the latter don’t have more recent engines, hopefully they have been designed with a NEO version in mind at some point.
To be successful in this market it is necessary that (1) there is a superlative gain in terms of comfort, range and speed – hence the need for new generation propellers and a larger fuselage (2) to have a development cost not much higher than 1 bi USD and a competitive production cost.
If anyone can achieve this feat, it will be the Embraer / PW duo. Neither is starting from scratch. That simple.
In the USA, there are still many markets served by ERJ-145 / CRJ-200 and that need newer aircraft and lower costs. In other countries the capacity of the current turboprops may not be sufficient, so a version of 100 passengers can bring more capacity while keeping costs competitive.
The TP niche keeps shrinking. Alaska Airlines was big into Dash 8, they are replacing them with E series. They replaced 737 on ANC to FAI with -8, now they have E175. That is 260 miles.
People like them better and the economics are down to 500 miles
A TP can’t do the long range stuff and a Jet can do the short range and long range and average out economically.
BBD jumping into TP just means 3 starving and failing entities not one ok, one struggling. Then China is the only one left with its junky design and support.
Off Topic, like Covd vacines, now we see
Also just in passing, first new MAX delivered to United this week with FAA certificate. Along with return to commercial service, things will build from here.
Bjorn said Russia didn’t have the technology, but doesn’t the D-27 open rotor engine count? And what about their non-autoclave CFRP capability?
No mention of Japan, South Korea, or Taiwan as technology partners?
My take is you have to seperate out the layers.
China and Russia are a non start layer. They never have been able to get into a market compe;taively so on the fiar part of that layers is zero epxeireo
You then take it down to support and what they have put out has failed. They don’t have the structure to compete. All their aircraft ops are within state owned companies.
Another layer is most of it is military derived (engines) and something like the D-27 3 shaft that might have viability on a Troop Transport, is not a civilian optimized nor reliability needed. You should notice not even the A400 went with a complex counter-rotating engine and C-130 newest build as well did not go there.
Add in the hostility situation, non starter.
As for Japan, South Korea and Taiwan? They don’t have the engine nor a successful commercial program. Not said is you add a player and the profit issue gets worse in a bad situation already.
To me its Embraer fiddling with stuff while they figure out their future.
“Counter rotating props are complicated”?
the TP has a gearbox anyway so it just not complicated to have a small gear change 2 prop engines on same side of wing to rotate in different directions.
The 1903 Wright Flyer and the Locheed P-38 had one on each side counter rotating
“This counter-rotation characteristic is known as Down-Between-Engines (DBE) and the A400M will be the first aircraft ever to use such a configuration. The advantages of DBE have far-reaching effects both aerodynamically and structurally. Firstly, airflow over the wings is symmetrical, improving lift characteristics and the lateral stability of the aircraft. Secondly, DBE allows for an optimum wing design by eliminating most of the effects of torque and prop-wash on each wing, concentrating the airflow over the most efficient portion of the wing located between the engines. DBE also reduces the “critical engine” effect of severe yaw in the event of an outboard engine failure. The result allows a 17% reduction in the area of the vertical tail surface.
Further aerodynamic advantages inherent in DBE have been found to give a 4% increase in lift from the wing at slow speed, which enables, for the same total lift, a simpler, lighter flap system to be employed. As a consequence of the lessening of the aerodynamic forces applied to the flaps, the surface area of the horizontal tail-plane can also be reduced by 8%. from A400M Countdown site . not official.
Contra-rotating propellors on the same shaft is a different matter
The reason why the C-130 didnt need them is that its RR AE2100 engine is 4600shp while the TP400 is 10,600 shp continuous.
The A400M was Airbus first carbon fibre wing so they were able to leverage that for the A350 wing
Off-topic, but relating to a very important issue in aviation:
“United Airlines says it is making a “multi-million-dollar investment in carbon capture and sequestration technology.”
Thank goodness someone is waking up to the fact that this technology needs to be expanded. The Paris Climate Agreement only addresses first- and second-order effects, whereas today’s climate change is being caused by today’s zero-order effect. CO2 capture/storage is the only technology that addresses this zero-order problem.
I have not followed it, will see if it goes anywhere.
” CO2 capture/storage “, another name for TREES!
That’s great, Lars…TREES are the usual Greenie knee-jerk reaction. However, TREES have 4 major problems:
(1) They’re SLOW when it comes to CO2 storage.
(2) They have a nasty tendency to burn and/or die…and both of those processes return the stored CO2 to the atmosphere.
(3) They require a lots of space, fertile soil and water…and those resources are in increasingly short supply.
(4) While we’re waiting for the trees to absorb CO2 at a ponderous pace, oceans are concurrently absorbing CO2 and acidfying. Unfortunately, there’s no “off” button to stop the oceans from doing this while we’re waiting on the trees to do their job.
Trees aren’t crops, they grow in all kinds of soil.
Trees are not “ponderous” absorbers, especially young ones.
There is plenty of space for forest regrowth.
Trees are much, much. much cheaper than manmade carbon sequestration.
CO2 release to fires is dwarfed by the amount of CO2 absorbed.
No manmade nethod can come close to removing the CO2 forests do for the foreseeable future.
Some more facts…
Planting trees and conserving forests could reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 6 gigatons a year through 2055.
“Forests and harvested wood products annually offset the equivalent of more than 14 percent of economy-wide carbon dioxide emissions in the Nation, however, almost 33 million hectares of productive forestland are understocked”
” letting forests regrow naturally has the potential to absorb up to 8.9 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere each year”
“That’s the equivalent of soaking up 23% global CO2 emissions from the atmosphere every year”.
The new study found that these generalized IPCC defaults underestimate carbon sequestration rates in young forests by 32% globally, and by a full 50% for tropical forests. ”
Again off-topic, but fascinating from the point of view of the anti-CoViD zeal in China, more specifically in aviation:
“China flight attendants advised to wear diapers for Covid protection”
“Going forward, a single positive test among passengers can see a carrier banned for two weeks (from Hong Kong) if it fails in screening requirements”
That latter sanction is fascinating in view of the fact that PCR tests return false negatives at a rate of 20-67%, depending on the number of days after onset of symptoms:
And while not a show stopper (at least yet) RR and its blade issues spread to all lines
Will this Trent saga ever end?
Methinks that Airbus will think twice before ever again entrusting an engine design to RR. But I’m sure COMAC would be willing to give it a go. And from Jan 1st, the Brits will probably take any business they can get…especially if it’s a lifeline to save a flagship brand like RR.
Truly a massive failure in the blades area. Never seen the like and its across all the engines other than the Trent 700 and maybe the original Trent 900.
Seems like a corrupted computer program, load it into any computer and it fails.
Some years back Intenations ala Navistart insisted that they could make a diesle without any aftertreament. They insisted it would work right up to the end and fell off tghe cliff (used up all their emsision credits doing so)
I could only assume that no one was allowed to question the head of engine design. Every other mfg agreed you needed after treatment, there was no in cylinder solution.
They fired the Chief engine guy and his staff, bought Cummins engines to fill in as well as Cummins after treatment.
Arrogance is the path to failure as Boeing has found out. You never stop questioning yourself if you want to be succesfull.
Meanwhile in other old news
With another issue in the one story
‘The fan midshaft cracking and fracturing incidents were traced last month to a new, lead-free coating that allowed the component to corrode rapidly under certain conditions. GE switched to a leaded coating already used on the GE90 to correct the problem.’
And premature blade wear , yep GEnx has had that too
GE has better PR through their ‘association’ with Bloomberg news and time after time passes off serious issues as ‘a production issue’ or ‘durability upgrade’ – which is when they replaced a large section of all GEnx in service. Why would some ask is a brand new engine having durability issues ?
“The new durability upgrade—which includes modifications to the GEnx-1B’s high-pressure turbine (HPT) first-stage nozzles and blades, as well as its combustor lining and fuel nozzles— will offer operators of GEnx-1B-powered 787s approximately 30 percent more time on wing, according to Mackenzie. It follows an earlier, less major durability upgrade that GE introduced along with its PIPS II performance improvement package for the GEnx-1B and PIP package for the GEnx-2B powering the Boeing 747-8 four years ago. GE managed to incorporate the first, incremental durability upgrade into every engine in the in-service fleet within two years and similarly expects to complete retrofitting the new durability upgrade package in all in-service GEnx-1B-powered 787s—there were 414 such aircraft in service by early June—within a two-year period, she said.”
Guys, look in your own glasshouse first before throwing stones!
Blade rubbing ? A minor issue exaggerated by US media reports.
Remember the two separate fuselage pressure ruptures on two separate 737s. Both were Southwest , Flight 1380, and Flight 812. That was some years back on 737-300s which were quickly pushed out of service and Southwest rushed to buy used 737-700s to replace them
Well it happened again, now on 737-700s, yes on Southwest again.
As usual, Bloomberg downplays any problems as it was a US made plane. Ominously they have discovered 2 other instances during maintenance. Everyone was earlier worried about pickleforks which had a different issue.
Boeing is just another 737 rupturing in mid air away from putting all 737 NGs at risk of grounding.
New regulations make it impossible to design high wing airplanes for passengers, only if it is hybrid electric without fuel tanks in the wings.
There have been low wing centre fuel tank explosions as well, some highly publicised. The other issue is the engines close to fuel which happens whether the wing is low or high. Does that mean engines at rear only well away from fuel tanks? I can’t see it ruling out high wings entirely.
Off-topic, but of general (and important) aviation interest:
“Do we need coronavirus ‘vaccine passports’ to get Europe moving again? Euronews asks the experts”
You would have to get what 200 countries and a bullet proof system.
Anyone going to trust Iran, North Korea, Syria?
In 4 months roughly, the vast majority of the EU, US, Japan etc will be vaccinated.
China and Russia? China may force it, Russia has its issues.
Various other developed countries will be up to speed.
Ergo, by the time you get a system in place that is not corruptible (or somewhere close) then you will be past the problem.
For the rest you put them on a do not fly list or once you have heard immunity you can just let them fly as their numbers won’t overcome the heard.
I hope you’re right. However, if regular re-vaccination turns out to be necessary (even if only for a few years) and/or if herd immunity is not achieved to a satisfactory level and/or if discrepancies persist between the epidemiological situation in different countries, then a system like this may still prove necessary.