Leeham News and Analysis
There's more to real news than a news release.
Leeham News and Analysis
- Airbus forecasts that almost three times more aircraft needs to be produced by year 2044 June 12, 2025
- Paris Air Show preview: Don’t look for big news June 11, 2025
- P&W: the troubled GTF will be the best engine for the next single-aisle airplane June 11, 2025
- Boeing’s 737 North Line and the Everett factory: in transition now June 9, 2025
- Bjorn’s Corner: Air Transport’s route to 2050. Part 25. June 6, 2025
Paris Air Show preview: Don’t look for big news
By Scott Hamilton
June 11, 2025, © Leeham News: Don’t look for big news at the Paris Air Show, which begins on Monday and runs through Thursday.
There won’t be any program launches. Orders from ATR, Airbus, Boeing and Embraer shouldn’t be anything huge. The engine makers won’t have anything new to announce, except perhaps Pratt & Whitney Canada. PWC has quietly been developing a small version of the Open Fan engine for MAEVE, a start-up Netherlands/German company.
The obvious question is whether the sibling, “big” Pratt & Whitney, is developing a full-size version for mainline jets. At big PW’s air show briefing, president Rick Deurloo vowed it’s only interest is an evolution of the Geared Turbo Fan engine.
Maeve and Pratt & Whitney Canada revealed a re-design by Maeve of its proposed 76-100 seat, five-abreast regional airliner powered by a new-design Open Fan engine. Credit: Maeve.
MAEVE is developing a 76-100 seat, five abreast aircraft aimed straight at the US Scope Clause-restricted market. It went public this week with its concept, which has operating specifications that directly compete with Embraer’s older generation E175 E1. MAEVE’s airplane is a hybrid-electric aircraft.
Downsized air show
Boeing won’t have any of its current passenger jets on display. This is a reflection of Boeing’s cost cutting this year and focus on completing certification of the 737 MAX 7/10 and 777X. It will have a mockup of the 777X interior, however.
In fact, a few manufacturers are increasingly questioning the worth of an air show vs the cost. The Paris and Farnborough Air Shows (and others) were suspended during the COVID-19 pandemic. The industry got along just fine without them. Boeing’s presence at Farnborough last year was smaller than pre-COVID, for cost reasons.
Boeing is not the only company wondering whether continued participation in the show is worthwhile. In private conversation—hence, no names here—the oft-repeated complaints about cost and benefit arises. Additionally, the fourth day of the industrial part of the air show—a Thursday—is usually a day when few announcements are made.
Leeham News will be at Paris
LNA will be at the air show. For a news organization, “everybody” is in one place at one time. In our case, we tend to work the supply chain more than the manufacturing side. But there are plenty of press briefings set up by Airbus, Boeing, GE, Pratt & Whitney, suppliers and defense industry companies.
We’ll not be paying daily attention to announced orders—plenty of other outlets will cover these. But we will have plenty of coverage during and after the show.
The UAM and Loyal wingmen companies should be there as well as the turbo-generator companies competing to be selected for the UAM manufacturers. The PWC Canada picture above shows a 10 blade prop that might be a natural progression from todays 8 bladed ones.
It is a prop with de-swirler vanes similar to RISE, hence unknown blade count prop system from RTX Hamilton Sundstrand I assume. It looks to make Heart Aerospace ES-30 uncompetitive and they need to restart with a bigger but still scope compliant aircraft.
The MAEVE looks interesting, though I’m pretty dubious of “hybrid” aircraft. A solution in search of a problem, perhaps.
On board with that. Interesting PW has at least been developing the idea.
Even in a conventional power train setup, I don’t see a market for a prop job.
The ATR and Dash 8 have more than proven the economics, the big guys want all jet fleets and are willing to charge what it takes (Horizon had horrendous pricing the last time I flew them).
RR is developing a demonstrator engine for the Single Aisle Market. Use of GTF of course aka Advance.
Its a bold move but it for sure spans the range of the RR Advance system, if it works as expected, then they can make an engine for any segment.
https://simpleflying.com/airbus-eyes-new-rolls-royce-engine-for-more-efficient-narrowbody-planes-by-late-2030s/
Hard to see where there will ever be too many conventional two-shaft engines developed again. GE on widebody might be all that is left.
@Casey:
RR has tried to make a case that its a 2.5 or 3 shaft engine, but as I understand it, PW GTF is a two shaft. RR is no different.
Clearly the days of 3 shaft having better SFC is done and gone.
GE has beat them to a pulp on the 787 engines.
GTF is a 2 shaft design with a reduction box in the low spool. Longer run will be making higher gear ratios and/or going to a planetary gear system.
If you are getting really fancy…always wondered whether you could squeeze a dual speed transmission into this configuration to contemplate a higher gear ratio at cruise altitude.
RR counts the fan, LPC and HPC as 3 spools(rotors) at different RPM’s but the turbines are just 2 spools HPT and LPT, hence 2.5 spools on average for the Ultrafan. RR often make big gas turbines with many expensive parts and now and then “hit gold” with a very competitive big engine like the T700/T-XWB. To be competitive on a 25-40k engine they must be lighter and cheaper to operate with good time on wing. Like a bigger geared Pearl 10X with Ultrafan technology.
The gearbox is another solution to the problem the 3spool layout solves.
To wit the blade tip speed limits that depress possible turbine rpm and thus require a higher diameter turbine ( with more surfaces ) to extract energy.
GTF has HP and LP turbine sections at similar rpm.
the lower RPM required for the fan is realized in the transformative gearbox.
I don’t see the 3 Spool solved that GTF aspect.
If it did RR would have continued on with 3 Spool
I am no engineer, but obviously PW went GTF as has RR because it has more return than 3 spool.
The V2500 was two spool. Under a 757 size I suspect it is a deficit.
Currently GE beats RR 3 Spool engines with a two spool. SFC, on wing time, repair.
A direct comparison is the GenX and Trent 10 (75% new from 1000). GE is exceeding their specs they committed to for the 787, RR is just about making them.
RB211 is an amazing engine. Some solid home runs with it (A330). Back then 3 Spool while costlier had offsets that made it worth it and it became very reliable.
Again the in depth details of how a two spool beats a 3 I am not capable of answering, but I can see the evidence.
ANA, NZ and BA have all given up on the Trent for the 787. The only reason for the 10 was to fix the 1000 which it failed to do and the base for the 7000 which did succeed, but without and competition.
Reports are its not as good as the RB on the A330CEO yet. No question they will get there. They may never sell a TEN engine on a 787.
@TW
GTF is fundamentally a simpler design and takes a lot of weight out of an engine.
Evolution shifts solutions.
TW regularly cannot grasp that time and the environment change.
Here the shift is in the growth ( and reliability ) evolution of gearbox solutions.
I will point out my own mistake here.
I referred to the RR GTF as Advance, its the Ultra Fan.
I agree with the paywalled Leeham post that the next NB
will likely be powered by a GTF, and I hope RR (with all their
research on Ultrafan) are in the mix. RISE/GE likely
to be the odd men out.
Agreed.
Not sure why PW is messing with an open rotor. Maybe insurance.
I don’t think anyone is going to buy an aircraft with RISE.
Turbo Props are taking a powder. One mfg left and they sell 50 a year?
An open rotor by PW keeps a foot in both configurations. I am assuming Airbus wants two choices. GE has an open fan option, RR an underwing option. Those two options are not going to be on the same aircraft
My thinking on it is if Airbus is faced with two jet options and one RISE type, they go with the jet.
While I can see RISE getting a core and a gearbox developed that can go into a jet engine, I don’t see any application that PW does not have.
RR has done the LEAP (pun intended) to a single aisle Demonstrator GTF.
That said, no one has the large engine GTF real world experience that PW has.
They spun the GTF core off in the form of the PW 800.
Embraer gave up on that rear engine aircraft and they were going for more economy with even shorter range.
I have flown the E175, it was fine. Twin seat setup vs 3 x 2? Unless its more width its just one row harder to get out of and in with the inner two seats.
I hear the A220 is nicer but do they have any more seat width?
Regardless the MAEVE thing is not going anywhere. Its morphed so many times now.
The only thing on the horizon is Jet Zero and I know they are fooling the investors in what they claim as a timeline.
Might be that Airbus requirements point to a 60:1 bypass ratio and 55:1 pressure ratio engine, 100% SAF with electrical power generation for electrical taxi.
Hence to meet that it points heavily to an open fan. With an open fan of the size of a DC-7 prop you need to be involved in the wing aero design.
CFM RISE is a GOR design.
as in Geared Open Rotor. 🙂
The power range for gearboxes will continue to grow upward.
Some good news for Boeing
https://archive.ph/Mq05T
Nice order.
Speaking of on the horizon: how’re things going at Boom™?
Haven’t heard from ’em lately.
😉
Politics has to come into play on the shrouded/unshrouded choice, due to the inherent protectionsim of both the USA & EU and the elevating risk of things getting worse. So to me CFM looks exposed both ways, and any market advantage would need to be siginifcantly higher now than when CFM elected to go RISE.
A perfect opportunity for RR — and other European engine makers, outside of JVs — to start taking market share.
Globalization has shown itself to be a dangerous indulgence.
“Airbus looks at transferring XLR wing to earlier A321neo variants”
“Airbus is looking to use the A321XLR’s wing on earlier models of the A321neo, to improve performance and simplify its industrial system.
“The long-range A321XLR – which entered service last year – features a number of aerodynamic changes including a single-slotted inboard flap design.
“Airbus originally developed the A321 with double-slotted flaps because the longer fuselage over the A320 meant a need for increase lift capability at rotation.
“Speaking during a technical briefing in Toulouse on 11 June, A320-family chief engineer Marc Guinot said the airframer is analysing a transfer of the XLR wing design to its predecessor variants.
“He estimates that such a measure would be implemented before the end of this decade.”
“He says the change would result in a performance improvement, although measuring it “is a difficult art” because it depends on circumstances and conditions.
“Guinot says the change could result in “better flying techniques” – in terms of commonality – between the XLR and other A321neos.”
https://www.flightglobal.com/aerospace/airbus-looks-at-transferring-xlr-wing-to-earlier-a321neo-variants/163317.article
Air India Boeing 787 crashed on take off In India bound for the UK.
“The aircraft, carrying 232 passengers and 12 crew members, had just lifted off the runway around 7:30 AM local time when it encountered trouble at an altitude of approximately 600 feet. Flight tracking data shows a brief climb before a sharp descent. Moments later, the plane crashed in a densely populated neighborhood near Meghani Nagar, just beyond the airport perimeter.”
“Captain Sumeet Sabharwal, an experienced pilot with over 8,000 hours of flight time, was in command of the aircraft. First Officer Clive Kundar had logged more than 1,000 hours. According to early reports, a MAYDAY call was made, indicating the crew was aware of a critical issue. The nature of the problem remains under investigation.”
https://www.aviation24.be/airlines/air-india/tragedy-in-ahmedabad-air-india-flight-ai171-crashes-after-takeoff/
Simple Flying: Ch-aviation says that the aircraft in question was VT-ANB, 11.5 years old, with 259 seats onboard.
BA stock currently down more than 7% in pre-market trading.
There’s a video of the crash in this link:
https://www.indiatoday.in/india/video/video-captures-moment-air-india-ahmedabad-london-flight-crashed-after-take-off-2739732-2025-06-12
And this link contains another video, from a different angle:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-14806401/Terrifying-new-footage-shows-Air-India-jet-fall-sky-seconds-later-lose-power-exploding-deadly-fireball.html
Engine failure?
“While the cause of the crash is yet to be confirmed, the pilot’s last words could point to a possible source. The last words heard over the radio during a Mayday call to Air Traffic Control were “engine failure”, the Express reported.”
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/air-india-crash-terrifying-expert-35380467
Hindustan Times is reporting a survivor: a 40-year-old Briton in seat 11A.
““Thirty seconds after take-off, there was a loud noise and then the plane crashed. It all happened so quickly,” Vishwash, who received “impact injuries” on his chest, eyes and feet, told HT.”
https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/40yearold-man-in-ahmedabad-hospital-says-he-survived-air-india-crash-101749734358509.html
Just seen a clip of the aircraft it looks like the flaps was not down
“The 787 utilizes an automated system for flap deployment before takeoff. The Flight Management System (FMC) automatically calculates and sets the appropriate flap configuration based on factors like aircraft weight, runway length, and other performance parameters. Pilots still have the option to override the automatic setting if necessary, but the system is designed to optimize takeoff performance”.
Thanks I got the info from a pilot speaking on SKY news UK.
Your source may be correct.
In that case, the question then becomes: why weren’t the flaps deployed?
Did the FMC malfunction?
Or was the FMC given incorrect data as regards aircraft weight (for example)?
Or: maybe the flaps are too difficult to discern from that video?
Whatever emerges: this is a major headache for BA and/or for AI.
Or did the pilot lifted the flaps instead of the landing gear as it happened before on a British European Airways at Heathrow along time ago.
“‘Engines and lavatories’: Airbus lays blame for slow start to annual deliveries ”
***
A320/321 neo: shortage of LEAP engines.
““We are missing engines from CFM International. We have nearly 40 gliders, as we call them, parked at our sites,” said Scherer, according to L’Usine Nouvelle. “Some are visible here, and many more are in Hamburg, Germany. Without these engineless aircraft, our deliveries would be slightly higher than currently forecast.” ”
***
A350 / A330 neo: shortage of cabin equipment / lavatories (!)
“Scherer also reportedly said that delays to A330 and A350 deliveries were being caused by bottlenecks in aircraft cabin equipment and lavatories. ”
““It’s a bit embarrassing to admit, but right now the biggest bottleneck we’re facing on wide-body aircraft, especially the A350, is the lavatories,” explained Scherer according to Le Figaro. ”
https://www.aerotime.aero/articles/airbus-delivery-aircraft-scherer