June 14, 2015, Paris Air Show: While waiting for the Bombardier “reveal” of its new CS100 and CS300, each at the air show for the first time, LNC’s Bjorn Fehrm and I walked the ramp. Many airplanes had not yet arrived. As we strolled down the ramp, Fehrm provided some commentary in the videos below.
But before going to the videos, on June 13, there was a little news about the prospective Airbus A380neo. The Sunday Times of London reports that Airbus has asked for repayable launch aid for development of the A380neo. Most of the article is behind the paywall, but the gist is in the preview.
Now to the ramp walk.
Posted on June 14, 2015 by Scott Hamilton
June 1, 2015, c. Leeham Co. The Paris Air Show begins in two weeks. One thing that won’t happen is the launch of the Airbus A380neo.
We still think it will happen, though at a later date.
Re-engining the A380 is highly controversial. The A380 is the plane critics love to hate. You can argue whether it should have been built in the first place. You can argue whether it was 10 years too soon. You can argue whether Airbus misjudged the size of the market. You can even argue its passenger appeal. I haven’t flown on the A380 yet, so I can’t speak from personal experience on the latter. I’ve previously discussed the other points.
You can argue whether the airplane should be re-engined. Leeham News concluded in January 2014 Airbus really had no choice but to re-engine the A380 if it wants to continue offering the model. If done inexpensively (a relative term, to be sure), it makes sense given the arrival around 2020 of the Boeing 777-9. It’s when design creep happens that trouble arises. Just ask Boeing on the 747-8.
Emirates Airlines says it will buy up to 200 A380neos if Airbus proceeds. Qatar Airways expresses interest. Lufthansa Airlines said a neo is needed to keep the A380 viable in the future, though it hasn’t taken the next step of saying it will buy more.
Re-engining is hardly new. Let’s take a look. Read more
Posted on June 1, 2015 by Scott Hamilton
Airbus, Boeing, CFM, Douglas Aircraft Co, Emirates Airlines, GE Aviation, Paris Air Show, Pontifications, Pratt & Whitney, Qatar Airways, Rolls-Royce
737 Classic, 737 MAX, 737 NG, 747-500, 747-600, 747-8, 747X, A320NEO, A330neo, A380, A380neo, Airbus, Boeing, Bristol, Britannia, Constellation, Convair, CV-240, CV-340, CV-440, CV-540, CV-580, CV600, CV640, DC-7, DC-7D, DC-7T, DC-8-61, DC-8-71, Douglas Aircraft Co., L-1449, L-1549, Lockheed
Subscription required.
Introduction
June 1, 2015, c. Leeham Co. It could be called the Qatar Airways Air Show.
Qatar Airways plans to have five airliners on display at the Paris Air Show in two weeks: the Airbus A319, A320, A350, A380 and the Boeing 787. The carrier hasn’t announced whether it will provide an aerial display as it has at previous air shows, but Qatar may well have more airliners there than Airbus or Boeing.
As for manufacturers other than Airbus and Boeing, we don’t expect anything of consequence from these.
Summary
Posted on June 1, 2015 by Scott Hamilton
Airbus, ATR, Boeing, Bombardier, CFM, Comac, Embraer, Emirates Airlines, Irkut, Mitsubishi, Paris Air Show, Pratt & Whitney, Premium, Qatar Airways, Rolls-Royce, Sukhoi
787, A319, A320, A350, A380, Airbus, ATR, Boeing, CFM, Comac, Emirates Airlines, Engine Alliance, GE Engines, Irkut, Mitsubishi, Paris Air Show, Pratt & Whitney, Qatar Airways, Rolls-Royce, Suhkoi, Tim Clark
Introduction
28 May 2015, C. Leeham Co: I am in Toulouse today attending Airbus Innovation days for Leeham News. It has been a good day’s briefings and I have presented what was perhaps the biggest change since we last met Airbus in the article “Airbus A350-1000 getting real”.
Apart from this program, there were more standard updates on Airbus other activities and programs. Here follows a rundown on these updates in a more paraphrased form.
Posted on May 28, 2015 by Bjorn Fehrm
May 7, 2015: The CFM LEAP-1B has entered flight testing on GE’s company-owned Boeing 747. The engine is for the Boeing 737 MAX. Aviation Week has a story and one section in particular caught our eye, as it relates to the controversy over the test results of fuel consumption.
“When we build development engines they are heavily instrumented and built to accomplish extreme test conditions and durability,” he explains. “They are intentionally deteriorated and have open clearances because they are built for the ‘corner point’ in the test effort. We do pre-test predictions and we are within 0.5% of every one, so we are right on track. We fully expect to be right on our commitment as we enter into service.”
Aspire Aviation reported last month that the LEAP-1B was coming up 4%-5% short, a huge number that Boeing immediately denied; CFM declined comment at the time. Airline Economics later reported the same figure. Our information from our sources was conflicting: we were told by one that the shortfall was 2%, a figure we had been hearing for some time and which was characterized as not unusual at this stage; and one other that reported the 4%-5% figure. There it sat. We did a “what-if” analysis of the effect on the MAX at the 2% and 4% numbers.
Last week, we received a clarifying explanation that appears to track with the Aviation Week article and the excerpt above. We were told that the 4%-5% number came from a test stand test in which the tolerances of the engine were much looser than the optimal performance engine. The clearances, we were told, were not to specification–and the result was the 4%-5%.
Posted on May 7, 2015 by Scott Hamilton
By Bjorn Fehrm
Introduction
May 4, 2015, c. Leeham Co. The other day one of our readers asked something along the lines, “now that Airbus has the A320neo 20% more efficient than today’s A320, how shall Boeing’s 737 MAX fair in the market? It is only 15% more effective and there are question marks around the LEAP-1B?”
This made me realize that marketing works. I decided to write about the phenomenon that the OEMs seem to find further improvements all the time and how these continually higher improvements seem to work beyond the physical laws as we know them.
The answer boils down to the fact that there is more than meets the eye around how much fuel an aircraft uses to transport people from A to B. In fact, the OEMs’ marketing departments excel within the complexity of the task and can always find a way to say “my mousetrap has now improved another x% and is therefore Y% better than yours”.
To cut through these marketing moves one need a bit of background and first grade math. Let’s see how they do it. Read more
Posted on May 4, 2015 by Bjorn Fehrm
By Bjorn Fehrm
Subscription required
Introduction
14 April 2015, C. Leeham Co: There have been persistent reports that the CFM LEAP engines should be behind their fuel consumption targets. We commented on these rumors recently. It’s normal for engines to be behind final SFC to varying degree during development, this is part of the gradual development and fine-tuning of an engine until its entry into service point.
As we commented before, the key is not where an engine is two thirds through its development but if the engine would fill specification at Entry Into Service (EIS). Gaps to final specifications are normal during development, should there remain any gap at EIS it would also not be the first time this happened. Engines where target specifications are met from day one are historically in the minority. As we are in the unique situation to have a complete airliner performance model, we have modeled how any engine performance gaps would actually affect aircraft performance.
Summary
Posted on April 14, 2015 by Bjorn Fehrm
By Bjorn Fehrm
Subscription required.
Introduction
12 April, 2015: In our study of the options for Boeing’s market study called Middle of the Market (MOM), we could conclude that the most likely aircraft to cover their 200-250 seat 4750nm range requirement would be a seven abreast twin aisle aircraft using their patented new oval construction, thereby saving weight and drag.
After finishing the series, Readers requested that we conclude the work by showing what market segment a family of such airliners would cover and how they would relate to the Boeing 787-8. As it is pretty straight forward to see with our aircraft performance model how much of a range of aircraft variants one can make from one base development of aircraft and engine, we decided to fulfill the wish from our Readers.
We have therefore looked at how far the concept MOM airliner could be stretched and what segment in the market would be covered by it. We also studied how much such a family would encroach on Boeing’s 787 Dreamliner market.
Summary
Posted on April 12, 2015 by Bjorn Fehrm
Airbus, Boeing, CFM, GE Aviation, Premium, Rolls-Royce
757, 787, Airbus, Boeing, CFM, Pratt & Whitney, Rolls-Royce
By Bjorn Fehrm
Subscription required
Introduction
March 29, 2015, c. Leeham Co: Bombardier’s big bet in the aeronautics sector, CSeries, is well into flight testing, now more than half way toward the 2,400 hours required by Transport Canada before certification can be granted. The first aircraft to be certified will be the smaller 110 seat CS100 but the market is most interested in the larger 135 seat CS300, which has 63% of present orders and commitments, Figure 1.
Bombardier’s new CEO, Alan Bellemare, told reporters last week that the CS100 would be certified during 2015 with entry into service slipping into 2016. The CS300, which is a direct challenger to Airbus’ A319neo and Boeing’s 737-7, should follow six months after CS100. With the CS300 in flight testing and going into service next summer, we decided to have a deeper look at CS300 and its competitors.
Summary
Posted on March 29, 2015 by Bjorn Fehrm
Airbus, Boeing, Bombardier, CFM, China, Comac, CSeries, Embrarer, GE Aviation, International Aero Engines, Pratt & Whitney, Premium, Sukhoi, United Aircraft, YAK
737, 737 MAX, 737-7, 737NG, A319neo, A320, A320NEO, Airbus, Boeing, Bombardier, CFM, Comac, CSeries, E-195 E2, E-Jet E2, Embraer, GTF, LEAP-1A, Leap-1B, Pratt & Whitney
March 25, 2015: When the early Boeing 787-8s emerged overweight and falling short of the marketing claims, Boeing said that nonetheless the fuel burn and performance guarantees to customers would be met.
When we revealed the first flight test performance results for the Bombardier CSeries, BBD acknowledged fuel burn and noise results were better than guarantees and meeting the “brochure” numbers.
With questions raised over the CFM LEAP-1B fuel burn at this stage of development, Boeing responded by saying it will meet customer “commitments.”
What does all this jargon mean? We interview a Marketing Executive, experienced in aircraft evaluations to find out. Read more
Posted on March 25, 2015 by Scott Hamilton