Leeham News and Analysis
There's more to real news than a news release.
Leeham News and Analysis
- Another One Bites the Dust; alternative energy gives way to realities February 18, 2025
- Howmet tariffs to be paid by customers: CEO February 17, 2025
- Safran hails ‘landmark’ 2024 with record results February 14, 2025
- Bjorn’s Corner: Air Transport’s route to 2050. Part 9. February 14, 2025
- Politics and the FAA February 13, 2025
Maeve, P&W Canada team for new hybrid propulsion system airplane
By Bjorn Fehrm and Scott Hamilton
July 24, 2024, © Leeham News at Farnborough International Airshow: Start-up airplane company Maeve and Pratt & Whitney Canada (PWC) have teamed for the design of a new eco-airplane driven by a new type of hybrid electric propulsion system with a target service entry date of 2032.
The M80 aircraft is the latest iteration of a design conceived by Maeve of the Netherlands. It is a 76 to 96-seat twin-engine aircraft that is compliant with the restrictive US pilot Scope Clauses, which limit the size, number, and weight of airplanes operated on behalf of US major airlines. Maeve originally designed a four-engine, 44-passenger electric aircraft called the M01.
Figure 1. The Maeve M80 combines an all-new powerplant from Pratt & Whitney Canada and downward wing droops instead of upward winglets. Source: Maeve.
Designed for the US Scope Clause market
The M80 passenger capacity was up-sized to target the US regional Scope Clause market, the largest regional market in the world. PWC is optimizing its new hybrid electric propeller powerplant to suit the M80 in this new, larger configuration.
The new hybrid propulsion system is the first new propeller-based powerplant for regional airliners in decades. Using advanced propeller technology, similar to an Open Fan engine, it has cruise speeds close to a regional jet.
If Maeve successfully proceeds to production and delivery, the M80 will be the first all-new regional propeller airliner in decades outside of China and Russia. Embraer created a new turboprop airliner concept seating 70-90 passengers called the TPNG, but it froze the program because a powerplant with the needed efficiency wasn’t available in the program’s timeframe.
Maeve and PWC, which is working on a project with a more extended time plan, claim the M80 will cut fuel costs by up to 40% over the Embraer E175-E1 jet and be cheaper to operate than the ATR-72.
Specifications
The M80 will have a range of 1,200nm with 76 passengers in a Scope Clause compliant variant—more range than the ATR72 carrying 72 passengers but less range than the E175-E1 in the same 76-seat configuration. About 90% of typical regional operations are less than 900nm, says Maeve. The M80 will cruise at over 400 knots at typical jet altitudes of up to 37,000 ft.
Maeve’s evolution of the M80
Martin Nusseler, Maeve’s Chief Technology Officer, said the final M80 evolved from meetings with airlines that gave feedback on passenger capacity, range, and operating costs. The M80 comes in under the Airbus A220-100 but directly competes with the E175-E1.
The E175-E2, with advanced Pratt & Whitney Geared TurboFan engines vs the previous generation CF-34 on the E1, is on indefinite hold. The E175-E2 weighs more than allowed under the Scope Clauses, and pilot unions at American, Delta, and United Airlines show no signs of being willing to up the weight to allow for the more efficient E2.
The M80 design is well under the Scope weight limits. It has a new, slightly swept wing to allow higher cruise speeds. It has drooped wingtips instead of upward winglets. A key feature of the propulsion system is its improved power at altitude compared to a classical turboprop engine, which loses substantial power with altitude.
The PWC propulsive system is optimized for efficient operation at typical jet plane altitudes, which allows for jet-like cruise altitudes and speeds while burning less fuel than a gas turbine-engined jet. However, this characteristic can make the engine underpowered for aircraft takeoff and initial climb or at one engine inoperative situations. This is where the electric hybrid comes in with a power boost for these phases of flight.
Pratt and Whitney Canada says that numerous ongoing research programs with NASA and other partners support the development of the new hybrid propulsion system.
Well, I wish them best of luck – airliner (even regional) manufacturers market is in a dire need of new blood. Hoewever Maeve is 3 year old startup, so the most probably result is that they run out of money way before certifying anything. Still, I hope to be wrong here.
I really don’t see the dire need for new blood aspect.
There is plenty of upside to the A175-E2 but it can’t be used due to scope clause not the tech aspect.
Its possible that environmental pressure changes that if it reaches the national (US) radar. Right now they are flying under it.
But a hybrid that adds stuff that is only used on takeoff and rejected landings looses efficiency from the altitude benefit and updated engine.
Maybe the answer is small jet pods. Back in the day they were used on transport aircraft
(C-123 and maybe the C-82)
Still weight and drag but small and simple
Is this the same hybrid engine that will supposedly power the planned next version ATR Evo?
“and pilot unions at American, Delta, and United Airlines show no signs of being willing to up the weight to allow for the more efficient E2.”
Thats misleading. The roadblock is because the airlines dont want a ‘single variation’ to the contract on weights only.
The want additional concessions over numbers of scope planes flying which are often a fixed number or % of the mainline fleet
The airlines in the past have used all sorts of tricks under outsourcing- like the time American outsourced a code share partner Aer Lingus to fly from Dallas to Madrid ( thats Spain not Missouri)
Duke:
I don’t disagree, but I also think its a conundrum and I have no ready answer (the earth shook!)
Pilots are that odd area that either you are a rated pilot or not and you can fly the aircraft or not. So, the pay should be the same across the scale.
But the pilots unions do have scales and the more seniority you got the more .
So will the airlines cut the throats of the regional pilots if they can? Sure. Clearly its got a basis in economics that the main carriers no longer can make money in the smaller airports.
Delta is the rare or unheard of in the US carrier that flies under 140 seat aircraft in mainline service. How they manage it and the other big two can’t? Beyond me.
So, Pilots union are not going to give, they have their reasons that are valid and massive layoffs are at the top (at least in the past).
But in the meantime, we don’t get the most efficient aircraft on the smaller routes either.
The 1500 hour rule plays into it. Flying circles in the air or instructing students is not valid flight experience.
I would like to see answers for a better way
Flight Instruction is valuable experience. My first few thousand hours contributed immensely to my understanding of how both aircraft and people operate. It gave me a great platform on which to fly for the airlines.
I suspect each of our takes on that the better.
I spent a number of hours just flying to get the hours required.
I prefer a performance based metric. You can do the air work or you can’t yet.
My instructor asked me if I was nervous when he let me do my first solo. No, I was glad to get rid of you. I knew I could do the take off and landing, you weren’t adding to anything. It may not have been the best landing but it was a decent one and safe.
I was far ahead of my peers on instruments. Some related to boats and compass courses when I was in my teens, some was just my mentality. I took to instruments like a duck takes to water.
One of my peers had my admiration as he got into a downdraft on one of those odd airports that are elevated (on one end). He had read the warning and thought he was ready, but it snagged him.
He knew he had to push the yoke down regardless of his instincts screaming otherwise. He did a somewhat graceful touchdown between the taxi way and the runway.
Flip side is the AF447 pilots never figured out till the last second they were in a stall. The PF first move was to pull back. Those guys had thousands of hours and lots of training time.
It turns out that is not an uncommon reaction.
Its pretty clear that the AF447 guys were never challenged in sim flights/training other than standard what they were expecting.
Non routine emergencies are the way to train. My instructor got bored with my handling the upsets and asked if he could really turn it loose. We had a blast.
Again I was no Chuck Yeager flight wise but he never could get me to make a mistake on instruments. Often comments about how can you maintain a compass course to a degree? Well when your dad is yelling at you to steer 270 or else , you learn to use a compass in varying degrees of rough seas (where we were it was always some rough).
I just don’t believe hours are a good metric. Throwing the kitchen sink at people and see how they handle it. Some can, some can be trained and some cannot at all.
the compromise for increased MTOW for regionals should be both restricted seat capacity and restricted segment length.
keep the seat limit the same, but limit the maximum segment length to <1000 nm (or something like that).
today there are no limits on segment length and it was pretty clear that the airlines were looking at the EMB175-E2 for 2000nm legs.
this would protect the mainline pilots, while letting the airlines continue to fly their existing RJ routes with RJs. no real scope creep for the regionals, just better economic and environmental performance.
The real roadblock is US airlines -and many other large industries -dont want any union involvement or restrictions in their business decisions
The extreme example is a 6 passenger aircraft and a $200,000 a year pilot.
You can’t make any money and so many of those services are gone.
Its easier to drop them than do the hard work to maintain them. So, Anchorage to Cordova you eeek out say $1000 a year profit and ANC to SEA you make $100,000 and it takes the same amount of management time.
In the case of ANC to Cordova, no real options. So Part 135 can make that pay. But then that guy wants the better pilot seat as soon as he can get it.
Other places its, nope, you just drive to a regional airport.
Airlines execs want easy answers and pilots don’t want to give them an inch because its not collaborative just like Boeing and its union.
Reminds me of The Good, The Bad and The Ugly.
3 way standoff.
I wish them success. But I think we all know the reality.
Yea, not happening.
How long would it take for them to roll out an aircraft?
The term “hybrid-electric system” seems very ambitious to me for what is being described. It is more of a mild hybrid as a starter booster, analogous to a passenger car.
RR is developing a “real” hybrid system with us and other partners, and the electric drive will begin test runs in September. In the configuration there will only be a gas turbine as a radial compressor in the rear. Where the auxiliary engines would normally be.
The target market is of course commuter rather than regional.
so the ATR-72, the only western turboprop still in production, uses the PW127, which is an engine core that goes back to the late ’70s (so a 45+ year old baseline design)
yes it has been updated over time, but has not gotten the full modern materials, coatings, combustors and 3d aero treatment that modern engines have. most of the updates have been time on wing related.
ballpark what kind of SFC improvement could be gained with a fully modern engine?
for instance the T900 and T901 engines for replacing the T700s in Blackhawk and Apache helicopters gained 50% on SHP while giving a better than 25% improvement on SFC while being restricted to suboptimal sizing and design constraints as they had to be direct plug in to the existing helos with no allowance for extra volume, weight or even fuel line connection points. the selected engine was actually the lower performance engine of the two, but was a single shaft design and deemed to be lower maintenance.
given that you don’t have the same physical restrictions, it ought to be reasonable to expect a fully modern PW127 replacement engine to get much better than 25% improvement in SFC.
Im pretty sure the PW127 has had a makeover to improve its technology, but cost and what the airlines want pay comes into it. They want low cost , reliability and compatibility first
What you are talking about is a much more expensive engine (maybe heavier) , that in the turboshaft class is only afforded by the military
As fuel used by a typical TP flight is fairly low to start, 24% of a low baseline isnt that attractive for an airline. Military is different as they have to haul fuel to odd places
Yes there was a recent upgrade to that engine , PW127XT.
Consider that ATR is making something like 60-70 a year and the payback needed for an all new engine. And a limited use outside of ATR production wise.
For the US military its thousands of those power plants.