Leeham News and Analysis
There's more to real news than a news release.
Leeham News and Analysis
- The BWB has a long way to go before flying passengers, freight May 12, 2025
- Bjorn’s Corner: Air Transport’s route to 2050. Part 21. May 9, 2025
- Does an A220-500 need a new wing and engines? Part 2. May 8, 2025
- Embraer downplays tariff impact on 2025 results May 6, 2025
- JetZero readies effort for private equity fund raising May 5, 2025
Bjorn’s Corner: Flight tests
By Bjorn Fehrm
19 February 2016, ©. Leeham Co: Last week I described how Mitsubishi Aircraft Corporation (MAC) issued a press release on Christmas day communicating MAC would be doing structural reinforcements on their test airframes before continuing flight testing. MAC was perhaps overzealous when informing the world that they would do minor reinforcements to two ribs and a few stub spars in order to pass Ultimate strength tests for the aircraft.
I rightfully thought this is the Japanese culture at play; there must not be a big problem behind it.
There was one more area of that press release that intrigued me. Here what it said: “The first flight and the subsequent flight tests have confirmed the basic characteristics to be satisfactory. However, we also have recognized several issues as we attempt to accelerate our development.”
Time to decrypt this as well and compare to what has become standard industry practice.
Bjorn’s Corner: Communicate or not?
By Bjorn Fehrm
19 February 2016, ©. Leeham Co: Mitsubishi Aircraft Corporation (MAC) announced on Christmas Day that they delayed the entry into service of the MRJ90 regional airliner by over a year. At the same time, they also announced that they had to reinforce the aircraft’s wing and fuselage.
The market’s reaction to the news was with disappointment. A further delay to a new aircraft from a new player in the market was not good news, but it was not that surprising. Bringing new aircraft to market on time is tough for the established players. Other new entrants, COMAC/AVIC and Irkut, are also running late with their programs, and Sukhoi was late with its SSJ100.
What worried many more was that the aircraft needed reinforcements, directly after its first flights. After only three flights, the aircraft was grounded and was scheduled for changes to its airframe. That was really bad news. “It’s going to be heavier.” How could MAC miss to gravely was the common reaction.
Having worked in a 50% Japanese company for many years, I wondered what was behind this all. Was the aircraft really in dire straits or did we witeness a cultural mismatch I’ve seen many times?
Bjorn’s Corner: Efficient systems, Part 2
By Bjorn Fehrm
12 February 2016, ©. Leeham Co: Last week we looked at what could be done to the aircraft’s systems to increase the aircraft’s efficiency. But it does not stop with systems which can improve the aircrafts internal efficiency. Modern avionics and flight procedures can improve the efficiency of an airliner’s flight operation.
Ever since the Second World War, the navigation of civil airliners has been done by flying straight leg routes with the help of special ground-based radio beacons. The most elementary of these is the Non-Directional Beacon, NDB. It requires the pilot to read bearings to the beacon and is difficult to use.
A directional beacon called VOR, that went operational after WW2, changed the way that airliners could navigate (over large un-inhabited areas like the Atlantic or the Oceans, different low precision wide area navigation systems were used like LORAN). While the VOR was a big step forward, it still required navigation in straight leg routes between VORs, and this was not 100% efficient.
The development of powerful navigation computers (FMS) and the use of GPS is now changing this.
Bjorn’s Corner: Efficient systems
By Bjorn Fehrm
05 February 2016, © Leeham Co: In recent Corners, we looked into technologies which have made the new breed of airliners more efficient.
We’ve talked about how new engines can raise efficiency by about 15% and how aerodynamic improvements, like more efficient split winglets, can add another 1%-2% over single blade winglets. We have also looked into modern ways to manufacture the more resilient and lighter composites structures that designers want to use to increase aircraft efficiency.
There is one area which we have not covered: the aircraft’s systems and how these can be made more efficient. An improved system architecture can add the efficiency improvement of a split winglet. So let’s have a look at the trends in aircraft systems.
We start this week with power distribution.
Bjorn’s Corner: Exciting 2016
By Bjorn Fehrm
29 January 2016, ©. Leeham Co: In the corner of two weeks ago we did a retrospective of 2015. Time for looking ahead. The year of 2016 will be quite interesting. We had entry into service of the first re-engine single aisle aircraft this week, the Airbus A320neo, the same week as we expect first flight from its main competitor, Boeing’s 737 MAX 8. We will also see first flight of the Embraer E190E2 and A350-1000 before the year is over.
The Mitsubishi MRJ shall go test flying in earnest and Bombardier’s CSeries 100 and 300 shall enter service. On top of that, the COMAC 919 will probably start ground roll tests this year and we should see roll out of Irkut’s MC-21. I would say 2016 is a busy year for civil aviation.
In the 2015 corner we talked a lot about engine technology as a key driver to further efficiency of air transportation. Now will dissect the airframe technology that all these new projects will bring us. Read more
Bjorn’s Corner: The coin has two sides
By Bjorn Fehrm
22 January 2016, ©. Leeham Co: Today’s Corner should have been about something else. But we learned yesterday that yet another order did not go Bombardier’s way, the 125 seat aircraft order of 40 units for United Airlines.
Normally I don’t care about who gets a single aisle order; the players that are active are all producing very good products and which one that gets chosen in not a big deal.
Boeing took this business with its smallest 737NG member 737-700. The 737NG was scheduled to take on aircraft like the CSeries and the re-engined A320neo while Boeing perfected a clean sheet single aisle for the end of this decade.
This corner is about national characters and what happens when this character gets under pressure. It’s also about the fact that the coin has two sides.
Bjorn’s Corner: What did we learn in 2015; engines
By Bjorn Fehrm
15 January 2016, ©. Leeham Co: Last week we looked back on what happened in 2015 on the airframe front. We finish the retrospective by looking at what turbofan engine technology came to market in 2015. New engine technology is vital, as it is on the engine side that the quest for higher fuel efficiency has the largest successes.
While advances on the airframe side might bring an additional 5% per generation, the engines typically increase their efficiency per new generation with up to three times that value. Fuel efficiency per delivered thrust unit was improved with a whopping 15% over the engine it replaces for the Pratt & Whitney Geared Turbofan (PW GTF). It was certified for use on the Airbus A320neo in Q4 2015
The competing CFM LEAP-1A shall deliver the same improvement level to the A320neo once it is certified in the summer of this year. This engine has a smaller sister that started ground tests last year, the LEAP-1B, which is developed for the Boeing 737 MAX series.
The engine that is easily forgotten is the Rolls Royce Trent XWB. It entered service on the Airbus A350-900 during the year. It brings an improvement level of around 10% compared to the engines of the aircraft that the A350 replaces (Airbus A340/A330ceo and Boeing’s 777-200 range).
Bjorn’s Corner: What did we learn in 2015?
By Bjorn Fehrm
08 January 2016, ©. Leeham Co: It’s the first Corner for the year and a look at 2015 as a year of technology advancements is due. 2015 will be remembered as the year when three clean sheet airliners passed important milestones. This will not happen for many years to come, so it will be worth to look at what they brought to world of aviation.
I’m thinking of Bombardier’s (BBD) CSeries getting certification for its first variant; the Mitsubishi MRJ doing its first flight’ and COMAC’s C919 being rolled out. Going forward, we will only have derivatives progressing through such milestones for years except for the roll-out of United Aircraft’s MS-21 single aisle airliner in 2016.
The Airbus A320neo was certified in 2015 and Boeing’s 737 MAX rolled out, but these are derivatives of in-service aircraft.
Embraer’s E-Jet E2 will roll out in February but this is a further development of today’s E-jet and Airbus A350-1000 is a variant of the in-service A350-900.
It will be a long time before we see so much new in a year, so it can be instructive to look at to what extent did these new aircraft bring the state of the art of airliners forward.
Bjorn’s Corner: Engine efficiency revisited
By Bjorn Fehrm
18 December 2015, © Leeham Co:Part of the discussion following last week’s article around quad or twin engine airliner designs was about engine efficiency and specifically around the engine’s thermal efficiency as a function of Pressure Ratio, PR.
I got the question, if an engine working at a higher pressure ratio was therefore working at a higher thermal efficiency. I knew enough on the subject to know I did not have a good answer without doing a bit of checking; jet engines are no simple contraptions.
I have previously written about turbofan efficiency in a Corner. The article was focused around propulsive efficiency. Now we will have a look at the other part of overall engine efficiency, the thermal efficiency or the efficiency of the core.
Bjorn’s Corner: Twins or quads?
By Bjorn Fehrm
11 December 2015, ©. Leeham Co: The debate over two or four engines for long range aircraft is as old as the jet airliner. A number of myths have been pedaled over the years over the virtues of the one over the other. The myths have even been presented by airline CEOs as “facts that are known in the industry.”
Having done several in-depth comparisons of two-vs-four engined long range aircraft, we can’t find the patterns that these myths propel: that a quad is less efficient than a twin and should have higher maintenance costs. What we see is that it is all dependent on what one compares and to what technology generation the one or the other aircraft belong.
When we didn’t get the same results as the myths on a number of areas, we started to wonder what could have created the myths in the first place. Looking at what four engined airliners could have been the source of the rumours, we started to see a pattern. It was a pattern of apple-and-oranges being compared and wide ranging conclusions being drawn.
Here is what we found. Read more