Leeham News and Analysis
There's more to real news than a news release.
Leeham News and Analysis
- Boeing 3Q deliveries up despite strike October 8, 2024
- Strike slows Boeing’s march toward improving safety culture October 7, 2024
- Aerospace supply chain still ailing; Sustainable Aviation Fuel isn’t the answer to go green October 4, 2024
- Bjorn’s Corner: New engine development. Part 27. Long developments October 4, 2024
- Longshoreman strike adds to Airbus, Boeing woes October 1, 2024
A320neo replacements needs to be ~25% more efficient
By Scott Hamilton
Sept. 11, 2024, © Leeham News: The replacement for the Airbus A320neo family should be 25% more efficient, says CEO Guillaume Faury.
“The priority for the next generation of single line, the one that will replace the very successful A320 family, will be to reduce the fuel burn by around 25%,” he said. Further reduction in carbon emissions has to come from the use of decarbonized fuel. This is primarily sustainable aviation fuel. “This is something we’re going to achieve working on the propulsion system,” he said.
Faury made his remarks during the annual US Chamber of Commerce Aviation Summit in Washington (DC).
Faury said that the CFM RISE Open Fan engine appears, so far, to be the best hope for a new engine. “It’s been very interesting to see the RISE engine as a successor of the LEAP to continue to improve fuel efficiency. Part will come from the propulsion system, as usual, and a large part will come as well from the plane itself.”
The split between airframe and engine
Typically, the engine provides the vast majority of the economics benefits and the airframe is limited to single-digits. On the Airbus A320neo and Boeing 737 MAX families, the engines reduced fuel consumption by about 15%. Aerodynamic improvements on the airframe and wings provided about 5% more (with winglets and sharklets generating the most improvements of the airframe/wings). Engine installation and heavier engine weights ate up some of these gains, for a net economic improvement of around 16%.
But Airbus, Boeing and CFM say the next new single aisle airplane needs 20%-30% improvements for step-change reductions in carbon emissions.
Faury said that the next new airplane must have more aerodynamic improvements. This includes “weight efficiency for the wings, for the airframe, for the aerodynamics at large. And if we manage to prove that the open rotor of RISE, this architecture can work, then it’s a lot of changes because it’s a much bigger fan.”
Because the fan is so big—about the diameter of the propeller on the turboprop Dash 8-400—and more exposed supporting structure, there are more “interferences.” It’s more difficult to integrate the engine on the plane, so it requires a lot of additional work and studies, he said.
“It’s a significant change, but it could really be a game changer. That’s what we’re targeting,” Faury said.
Carbon reduction
In terms of carbon reduction, there are two main levers. “One is to have planes and engines that need less fuel to fly. Then it’s to use fuels that put less carbon in the air or carbon recycles the lifecycle of the fuel. “I’m very optimistic on the first one, because it’s mainly normalizing. It’s too slow on the other one. The ramp-up of production and use of Sustainable Aviation Fuel (SAF) is behind the curve compared to what we were expecting.”
Faury said government support and mandates are required.
“Airlines want and need more efficient planes,” he said. “Planes that are more fuel-efficient are also more competitive. Competitiveness and sustainability are aligned. It’s the opposite for the fuels. SAF is more expensive than jet fuel. So, if you’re an airline and you would like your competitors to use SAF, that’s a problem. That’s a problem we need to overcome.”
Mandates have been adopted by Europe and Singapore, for example. “If we force a mandate for everybody at a certain pace, then it’s slightly more expensive,, But there’s a level playing field for everybody,” Faury said.
But In the US, there aren’t mandates. “It’s for subsidies, to make SAF at a similar price than jet fuel.”
We don’t need subsidies for SAF, we need regulation. British Airways, KLM, Air France and others want to achieve a 10% SAF share of fuel consumption by 2030. Ryanair has set itself a target of 12.5%. So what has the EU done? Set a target of 6% SAF share for 2030. Half of that. Unbelievable. And then the EU always presents itself as a leader in the fight against climate change. In the meantime, even Japan and the UK have set an official target of 10% SAF share for 2030.
Unlike nuclear fusion, there is no need to develop completely new technology for SAF. The technology for producing synthetic kerosene from green hydrogen and carbon is already there. It’s just a matter of triggering broad investment in this technology and then reducing costs through learning effects from practice and economies of scale.
And the EU target for 2050 is also only 70% SAF share. More than a quarter of a century is not enough time for the EU to move away from fossil fuels. We would need 15-20% SAF share in the EU and the US as the target for 2030 and 100% SAF for 2050.
Interesting read, thanks. Looking forward to the next program launch cycle in commercial aerospace, it’s about time we get some new models out there.
25% is code for Airbus to say “not anytime soon”
And why would they. Airbus faces no meaingful threat to sales except its own supply chain’s ability to make parts.
Right, Airbus will not launch first, they have no reason to. But Boeing will have to launch something the coming years if they want to stay relevant.
Airbus will then take a close look at that design and then launch something slightly better…
If modern history serves as any guide, no later than the end of 2028 (following the end of the next labor contract for Boeing) and EIS no earlier than 2035 (modern day planning for EIS timelines). But slipping to ~2038 because of certification delays (at least).
Would also point out Airbus probably can squeeze another PIP out of the current A320 if it really wanted to blunt the gains from a Boeing moonshot.
… which means Airbus would sort out all early problems, immaturity, delays in certification of the engines, deal with nagging customers, get the bad press so that when Boeing puts them on their shining new planes they would work flawlessly.
Really?
Sorry, you said PIP. Ok.
I hereby concede that my comment in response to that of the distiguished contributer Casey is utterly rubbish and shall be deleted.
No problem Chris…I have been guilty of that myself.
You can scroll down and see what I would think for Airbus should do…not that they are asking me. There is more runway left in the current airframe, and I really dont see a whole let left in the development hopper once the XLR enters service.
slightly better……………a tube with ultra long wings, and waiting for next gen engines……………But one is slightly better?
+1 to Casey’s comment.
Casey has it spot on that its self serving.
Boeing can do a TTBW and a GTF and get at least 15% (new GTF engine).
Then PW will improve THAT new engine and get another 5% over the course of 10 years.
And the RISE will still be spinning like a top going no where.
RISE is nothing more than CFM using EU money to get a gear box and a core so they can do a GTF.
hmm..
I think Faury might have forgotten a few motivators:
– avoiding investment to maximize short term profit
– maximizing orders for the existing A320/321 cash-cow
– lack of competition
IMO “25%” is creating an imaginative barrier, like Boeings moonshot technology requirement a few years back. https://leehamnews.com/2014/06/02/no-more-moonshots-stifles-innovation/
If e.g. Embraer, KAI and Raytheon would create a JV and launch a 149 seat NB 15% more efficient than an A220-500, I think Faury would change this 25% vision within 25 seconds..
You’re forgetting the after market support a new airline manufacturer has to provide. To say nothing of organizing such an endeavor. After all, Airbus is the creation of such a thing and that took quite awhile to get the non-engineering things worked out.
Keesje:
Good comment but I hate that moonshot stuff.
That was Calhoun speak that we don’t put money into aircraft, it interferes with liquidating the company.
The 787 was not a moonshot. It was setup to fail. Much to McNeneary disgust it succeeded.
Boeing has $12.5 bill in cash/securities as of mid 2024.
Plus $85 bill in inventory ie planes made plus WIP under way
Theres also $56 bill in customer deposits to offset against the value of inventory , buts its a $30 bill revenue parked.
Not to forget the revenue FY23 for non commercial aircraft side was $44 bill which exceeds that of BCA at $34 bill
The deposits are already spent (long ago).
And, when talking about inventory, don’t forget to quote the earnings value (i.e. zero) instead of just the revenue value.
“SAF is more expensive than jet fuel.”
Not if you include the costs of cleaning up after using the jet fuel; if one were to stick airlines with the CO2 capture costs associated with their Jet-A fuel burn, SAF would become a lot more interesting.
And it’s not just CO2 cleanup: fracking in the Permian Basin has caused some pretty severe problems with ground water — with (worsening) contamination, subsidence and earthquakes as a result. The current cleanup bill is $800B in Texas alone. If US carriers had to foot that bill — and similar bills in other states such as Colorado, North Dakota and Wyoming — would SAF suddenly become a more attractive option?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbus_A320neo_family#Composite_wing
“The current A320neo family wingspan of 36m with an aspect-ratio of 9 … semi-aeroelastic hinges could lead to 52m wingspan with an aspect-ratio of 18, still fitting in a standard 36m airport gate…. In June 2023, GKN Aerospace announced a further progress by delivering the first fixed trailing edge for the “Wing of Tomorrow”.”
Looks like the neo may get a new lighter, higher aspect ratio wing potentially the airframe efficiencies improvement mentioned.
16,500 metric tonnes of jet fuel contains 3,340 TWh of energy, 380 1GW power stations would be required to produce the equivalent energy per year. SAF from CO2 capture has potential, but the distorted thinking around wind and solar needs some factual debate.
To get 380GW from wind or solar, at least 3-5x is required because of the capacity factors, so about 1000 GW of wind or 2400GW of solar This is roughly 100 million tonnes of nacelle and blades and 400 million tonnes of foundations – with a life span of 20 years…
@Mark
Re-winging option is why I’m putting my money on another PIP for A320. They could launch that ahead of any new Boeing offering and somewhat gut the gains from a new aircraft. Boeing will have only just finished certifying the Max7 and Max10 and probably want to recoup some sales.
Expect the A220-500 to launch at rhe same time and now Boeing is now bracketed on both sides. They would need to respond with two new aircraft to really counter.
Airbus is pushing for Openfan because they know the Boeing truss layout won’t be efficient with it.
How will airlines have it ?
Airbus’ unproven engine from a single manufacturer on a flexible wing with 25% fuel burn gain?
Or
Boeing’s evolutionary engine from 3 manufacturers (counting RR ultra fan in here) on a truss braced wing with 20% gain ?
Why would the Truss not be efficient with an open fan? The same re-enforcements for splintering blades will be needed on both OEM’s products.
Something about how the airflow interacts with the truss as I understand it. can’t find the source if anyone has it ? Apparently Boeing does not like the open fan. at all.
Also easier to design a cowl that contains that a whole fuselage protected and as has been pointed out, entire length?
Assumptions with blades is a seriously bad thing.
RR and Airbus had all the right ideas on the A380 and it still took them by surprise.
Regulators keep tightening up specs and with no history on a RISE type? Go very conservative.
How would Airbus know something something that hasnt even flown as a typical turbofan yet?
The reason for the prototype is the modelling wind tunnel work shows promise, but its needs full scale in a flying trials where you can validate the modelling ( Nasa-Boeing, not Airbus) and check on other extremes such as icing
Maybe those validated airflow models can check on an UDF type engine
Hurel Dubois HD.31 with truss wing propeller twin seemed to fly pretty well.
I am sure Boeing is at work to steal the one in the museum!
Definitely a template for the current efforts though a lot missing speed wise.
Wouldn’t the aim of the Airbus CEO’s communication be to encourage PW and RR to spell out their development plans for 2035, in order to measure the airframe development cost differential linked to RISE, not to mention risks linked to a single engine source and acceptability to passengers of a turboprop look. I remain perplexed by the overall risk incurred by AI without the RISE concept having first been matured in another military or regional aviation application. AI has already made big mistakes with the A380 and A340-500/600. The TBW concept with an improved GTF seems to me much less risky, for a similar gain in SFC and a much lower risk in terms of maturity at EIS. Good luck to future AI CEO.
In the US we have a (or did) a thing called MAD magazine that had some cartoon characters in it they called Spy vs Spy vs Spy (they got to twisted no one had any idea who was doing what)
With a new wing Airbus does not need a new engine. They only need a new engine if GTF is the choice for Boeing (be it PW and or RR though not sure RR wants to try to get into that small segment again, really never were full players as V2500 was a joint RR/PW/MTU and Japan entities)
On the other hand trying to lure Boeing into the RISE (which seemed to work initially) would make sense.
I think a TTBW bird and a new GTF with all the lessons learned (which is not incremental in my view) would get you 20% out of the box and 25& inside of 5 years once they fine tuned the PW with a Pip or 2.
I continue to not see any airline wanting to risk a RISE. Its pie in the sky and deliberately while CFM scrambles to catch up on GTF. Bait so far out as to deter a new aircraft (or the attempt).
CFM has a LOT to loose. Even with a GTF PW has the history now on a large one and CFM does not (and RR has not put out an operational one) – CFM could easily be left out in the cold.
Reuters: Airbus CEO told reporters “deliveries of the current generation of LEAP engines built by CFM International continue to be late.”
I am not sure that the flying public is ready to go back to a what is essentially a turboprop propulsion system for their medium and long-haul passenger fleets.