https://aviationweek.com/aerospace/boeing-embraer-serious-about-new-conventional-aircraft-soon

Boeing And Embraer Serious About New Conventional Aircraft Soon

Jens Flottau Guy Norris March 17, 2021

The parameters were set for what could have been a lost decade. Airlines went through a superprofitable supercycle until 2019, enjoying growth rates way above the historical average translating into previously unheard-of aircraft orders, backlogs and production rates, with the latest versions of the Airbus A320 and Boeing 737 each securing several thousands of orders. Then the COVID-19 pandemic turned what had felt too good to be true into the industry’s worst nightmare and its new reality.

The dominating factors—large, young, in-service fleets combined with big backlogs and airlines and aircraft manufacturers in financial distress—are not good conditions for initiating multibillion-dollar investments in new development programs. Add in the accelerating disruption by emerging technologies such as hybrid-electric and hydrogen propulsion, and successful business plans become difficult to achieve. Despite all that, indications are that two of the remaining three Western OEMs—Boeing and Embraer—are seriously considering launching new, conventionally powered aircraft based on current technology.

• OEMs proceed with conventional aircraft designs

• Boeing pursues -5X project with key suppliers

• Embraer targets 2022 launch of new turboprop

The aircraft, if launched in the next 1-2 years, would be available well before 2030. That they are being pursued at all shows a fundamental difference in thinking among the major aircraft-makers. Boeing and Embraer contend it will take longer for disruptive technology to play a major role in aviation’s efforts to become carbon-neutral by 2050 and massively reduce emissions early in the effort. Instead, they will focus on whatever technologies are available and combine them with extensive use of sustainable aviation fuels (SAF). Boeing targets full compatibility with its aircraft by 2030.

Airbus, by contrast, has no plans to launch a new, conventionally powered aircraft for the time being. Its A320neo family is dominating the narrowbody market. The A220 is a superior offering in the small narrowbody market in competition with the Boeing 737-7, and it provides strategic options should the OEM decide to stretch the airframe further. The A321XLR had begun to eat into the traditional widebody market before the pandemic.

Airbus can wait to see what Boeing decides and react accordingly. Boeing’s -5X project is directed at much of the same market in which the A330neo has underperformed. Reinvigorated competition from Boeing in that space may force Airbus to reconsider its options, but any action will depend on the -5X’s specifications and market success.

Almost a month after Aviation Week broke the news that Boeing was taking the first steps toward launching its first all-new airliner since the 787 (AW&ST Feb. 8-21, p. 12), the company has quietly begun recruiting a team of cockpit design engineers—providing further clues that work is beginning on development of the aircraft’s flight deck.

Although Boeing continues to update and support the flight decks of the current product line, the rash of new job postings in this specialization is thought to signal a significant increase in work on a new product development. The flight deck is traditionally an early area of design focus for new aircraft, and this, coupled with the unusual timing of the recruitment drive during a downturn for the company, strongly suggests the move is associated with the new midsize project.

Thought to be dubbed the -5X, the aircraft project draws on the new midmarket airplane (NMA) initiative that Boeing shelved in early 2020 in favor of a direct competitor to the A321XLR. Although a subset of the NMA, the aircraft is expected to be a “really differentiated product,” says Boeing CEO Dave Calhoun.

While the chief focus of development is an advanced production system, the aircraft itself is expected to feature an innovative twin-aisle cross-section and all-composite construction. The program also offers Boeing an opportunity to introduce evolutionary flight deck advances that likely will build on 787/777X display formats, control interfaces, flight management systems, panel layouts and other elements.

The original NMA-family concept focused initially on a 757 replacement but later expanded to include a successor to the 767. By early 2019, the NMA family consisted of two main versions: the 225-seat NMA-6X and 275-seat NMA-7X, with the larger expected to be developed first. However, the plan was derailed by the market’s lukewarm response to the proposals and by the 737 MAX accidents and the model’s subsequent worldwide grounding. In the interim, Boeing revised its plan to study a shorter-term, current-technology project aimed at entry into service as early as 2027, and a longer-term effort with more advanced technology for the 2030 time frame.

The drive toward the -5X reflects Boeing’s subsequent decision in favor of the nearer-term choice and, according to sources, potentially includes the NMA-like option of adding a later, smaller 225-seat stablemate. Aside from flight deck, systems and propulsion, the remaining long-lead determinants for the program are dominated by Boeing’s continuing attempts to drive down production costs for the aircraft.

The critical importance of these efforts was underlined in January by Calhoun. “Differentiation at the airframe level itself is really, really important in the next run,” he said, “which means that these technologies we are working with and trying to demonstrate to ourselves at scale with determinant assembly—those are the things that will differentiate [the next product]. And believe it or not, that becomes the most important criteria for us with respect to announcing that next airplane.”

But is Boeing preparing the right aircraft? “That aircraft cannot compete with the XLR, except at extreme ranges,” Agency Partners aerospace analyst Sash Tusa says. “And it does not solve Boeing’s biggest problem.” In his view, the main problem is that the MAX is turning into a “single-point design,” with only the 737-8 accepted by the market as a competitive product, while the -7, -9 and -10 are going to be commercial failures. Airbus will “beat them at volumes, efficiency and pricing,” Tusa says. Because of the higher volumes, the Boeing rival can expect to see 10% lower pricing from suppliers. “That is the brutal truth of the family concept,” he says.

Tusa’s argument is that Boeing is slowly nearing the fate of McDonnell Douglas, which did not have a competitive single-aisle family in the 1990s. He agrees that the -5X could turn into a serious problem for the A330neo, but the Airbus widebody is only a minor issue for Boeing. “Sinking $15 billion into an A330neo-killer is like using a sledgehammer to crack a nut,” he says. “[Boeing is] failing to see their product weakness.”

Nonetheless, Boeing continues to narrow down key design decisions for the -5X. One big unknown is whether Boeing will stay with conventional pilot controls for its new airliner design or consider sidestick inceptors. The company resisted the move for the 787, despite the more recent availability of active sidesticks for commercial aircraft, preferring to retain the familiar control yoke for fleet training commonality and interoperability.

Unlike the passive sidesticks used in Airbus flight decks, active side-sticks provide force, or tactile, feedback to the crew and are in service on business jets and transports. But according to industry sources, the program goals stress design simplicity and low cost—both of which may mitigate against consideration of such a move.

The flight deck team now being beefed up with new recruits in Everett, Washington, will be bolstered with engineers specializing primarily in human factors and flight deck crew operations. The additional challenge facing the team will be which design factors to consider for a future product destined to fit between the 737 MAX and the 787. Key lessons are likely to be borrowed from the original common cockpit design concepts of the 757 and 767, which were developed in parallel to enable common type ratings for pilots flying both models.

That approach would be particularly apt, as the -5X appears to be targeting the 250-275-seat category in a two-class, twin-aisle configuration and would effectively be a replacement for the 757-200/-300. With a likely range of up to or beyond 5,000 nm, the program also will build on much of the early propulsion and systems work already performed for the NMA.

Given the huge success of the A321neo and its longer-range variants, Airbus can enjoy its “second-mover advantage,” as Tusa calls it. It can simply wait and see what Boeing does and otherwise focus on its longer-term hydrogen projects, for which it has substantial funding support from the French and German governments. And should Airbus feel the need to react, it can do so faster. Why? “Because it will be a derivative,” Tusa says.

There are two main paths Airbus could pursue prior to 2030. It could stretch the A220 to finally build the A220-500 that it and previous owner Bombardier have been exploring for years. The aircraft would compete with the 737-7 and -8 and make the A319neo obsolete, a problem Airbus can ignore, since the smallest family member is not selling well anyway. Design work would have to go into the fuselage and more powerful engines and an adapted wing, representing a relatively limited investment. That covers the lower end of the narrowbody market.

Probably the more important options lie with further upgrades to the A321neo, what colloquially has been called the A322. That aircraft could be slightly larger than the A321neo and would provide the opportunity to introduce a composite wing to narrowbodies. But, Tusa points out, there are technological challenges involved: The traditional autoclave curing process would not be an option because of the high production rates. Instead, Airbus would have to introduce room-temperature composites.

Overall, the A322 could become a “very substantial upgrade” to the A321neo, with the technological wor