Pro ALL

HINDUSTAN UNIVERSITY: PADUR, CHENNAI 603 103
BONAFIDE CERTIFICATE
Certified that this project report titled A-320(NEO)

GENERAL DESCRIPTION&ENGINES is the bonafide work
of ASHIK HUSSAIN.F (0014343011) who carried out the
project work under my supervision. Certified further that to the
best of my knowledge the work reported here does not from the
part of any other project/research work on the basis of which a
degree or award was conferred on an earlier on this or any other
candidate
HEAD OF THE DEPARTMENT SUPERVISOR
Dr. DILIP A SHAH Ph.D. I.L. AYYAVARU,

Senior Professor Deputy Chief Instructor
Department of Aeronautics Engineering Aviation College

HINDUSTAN INSTITUE OF HINDUSTAN INSTITUTE OF
TECHNOLOGY AND SCIENCE ENGINEERING TECHNOLOGY

PADUR PADAPPAI
The project phase I viva-voce examination is held on _____________
INTERNALS EXAMINAR EXTERNAL EXAMINAR
1

of RIZEN ALDRAN.M (0014343014) who carried out the
project work under my supervision. Certified further that to the
best of my knowledge the work reported here does not from the
part of any other project/research work on the basis of which a
degree or award was conferred on an earlier on this or any other
candidate



PADUR PADAPPAI
2

of VINEETH.S (0014343002) who carried out the project
work under my supervision. Certified further that to the best of
my knowledge the work reported here does not from the part of
any other project/research work on the basis of which a degree or
award was conferred on an earlier on this or any other candidate



PADUR PADAPPAI
3

of KARTHICK.P (0014343015) who carried out the project



PADUR PADAPPAI
4

of LAKSHMI.J (0014345021) who carried out the project



PADUR PADAPPAI
5

of PRASANTH.N (0014343018) who carried out the project



PADUR PADAPPAI
INTERNALS EXAMINAR EXTERNAL EXAMINA
6
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
First and foremost, I would like to thank the Lord Almighty for His
presence and immense blessings throughout the project work.
Its a matter of pride and privilege for me to express my deep

gratitude to the Vice Chancellor DR. S. RAMACHANDRAN for giving
me this opportunity to bring out and implement my ideas in this project.
I wish to express my gratitude to DR. DILIP A SHAH, Head of the

Department of Aeronautical Engineering for much of this valuable support
and encouragement in carrying out this work.
I would like to thank my guide MR. AGNI SARAN SAHOO for

continually and actively participating in my project, giving valuable
suggestion to complete the project work.
Last but not the least, I am deeply indebted to my parents and

friends who have been the greatest support While I worked day and night
for my project to make it a success.
7
Airbus A320neo family
A320neo family
A319neo/A320neo/A321neo
An A320neo about to land from indigo the largest operator
Role Narrow-body twin-engine jet airliner
National origin Multi-national Narrow
Manufacturer Airbus
First flight 25 September 2014
Introduction 25 January 2016 with Lufthansa
Status In service
Primary users IndiGo

Pegasus Airlines
Azul Brazilian Airlines
Produced 2012present
Number built 94 as of 31 March 2017
Unit cost A319neo: US$99.5 million, approx. 94.5 million (2017)

A320neo: US$108.4 million, approx. 103.0 million (2017
8
A321neo: US$127.0 million, approx. 120.6 million (2017)
Developed from Airbus A320 family
The Airbus A320neo family is a re-engine development of its A320 family of narrow-body airliners,
launched on 1 December 2010 by Airbus, where "neo" means "new engine option", with a choice of CFM
International LEAP-1A or Pratt & Whitney PW1000G engines.The original family is now called A320ceo,
for "current engine option".
The first flight of the A320neo took place on 25 September 2014. It was introduced by Lufthansa on 25
January 2011 Airbus has 5,056 firm orders as of March 2017.
Contents
1Design and development
o 1.1A320 improvements
o 1.2Sharklets
o 1.3Cabin
o 1.4New Engine Option
2Variants
o 2.1A319neo
o 2.2A320neo
o 2.3A321neo
2.3.1A321LR
3Orders and deliveries
o 3.12011
o 3.22012
o 3.32013
o 3.42014
4Operators
5Specifications
o 5.1Engines
6.PW development
7.landing gears
8.wheels and brakes
9.system equipments
10.fly by wire system
11.future developments
12.more information on engines
13.LEAP-X
1.Design and development

A320 improvements
In 2006 Airbus started the A320 Enhanced (A320E) programme as a series of improvements targeting a
4-5% efficiency gain with large winglets (2%), aerodynamic refinements (1%), weight savings and a
new aircraft cabin.At the time Airbus' Chief Operating Officer and executive member John Leahy said
"Who's going to roll over a fleet to a new generation aircraft for 5% better than an A320 today? Especially
if another 10% improvement might be coming in the second half of the next decade based on new
engine technology".
Engine improvements reducing fuel consumption by 1% were fitted into the A320 in 2007 with
the CFM56 Tech Insertion[8] and in 2008 with the V2500Select (One)
9
Sharklets
A320 Enhanced (A320E) and A320neo sharklet detail at ILA 2012
Airbus launched the sharklet blended wingtip device during the November 2009 Dubai air show, their
installation adds 200 kilograms (440 lb) but offers a 3.5% fuel burn reduction on flights over 2,800 km
(1,500 nmi) Manufactured by Korean Air Aerospace Division, the 2.5 metres (8 ft 2 in) tall devices
permits an annual carbon dioxide reduction of 700 tonnes per aircraft. The winglets increase efficiency
by decreasing lift-induced drag.
In December 2011, Airbus filed suit in the western district of Texas over Aviation Partners' claims of
infringement of its patents on winglet design & construction which were granted in 1993. Airbus' lawsuit
seeks to reject responsibility to pay royalties to Aviation Partners for using its designs, despite work
performed together with both parties to develop advanced winglets for the A320neo. The first Sharklet
equipped A320 was delivered to Air New Zealand at the June 2013 Paris Airshow, offering a 450
kilograms (990 lb) payload increase or 100 nautical miles (190 km) longer range at the original payload.
Cabin
Virgin America Airbus A320 Enhanced economy class cabin with LED lighting
The new aircraft cabin offers a more modern look and feel, a new Air purifier with filters and a catalytic
converter removing unpleasant smells from the air before it is pumped into the cabin and Light-emitting
diodes for ambience lighting and passenger service unit. It offers better and larger luggage storage]The
flight crew controls the cabin through touchscreen displays.
The new "Space-Flex" optional cabin configuration increases space-efficiency by a new
rear galley configuration and a "Smart-Lav" modular lavatory design allowing an in-flight change of two
lavatories into one accessible toilet. With larger, "Cabin-Flex" relocated exit doors, it allows up to 20
10
more passengers for the A321neo without "putting more sardines in the can", and up to 9 more
passengers for the A320neo]
Fuel efficiency per seat is increased by 6% with this option, in total exceeding 20% together with the new
engines and the sharklets. The moved and enlarged exit doors are estimated to add 100 kg empty
weight.
New Engine Option

At the February 2010 Singapore Air Show, Airbus said its decision to launch was scheduled for the July
2010 Farnborough Air Show. It wasn't still decided in August but the choice for new engines included
the CFM International LEAP-1A and the Pratt & Whitney PW1100G.Though the new engines will burn
16% less fuel, the actual fuel efficiency gain on an A320 installation will be slightly lower since 12% is
typically lost upon installation on an existing aircraft and Airbus was comfortable with the 20% lower
maintenance cost projections for the Pratt & Whitney's PW1000G compared with today's engines.
On 1 December 2010, Airbus launched the A320neo "New Engine Option" with an additional range of
500 nmi (950 km) or 2 t (4,400 lb) of extra payload, planning to deliver 4,000 over 15 years]Initially
scheduled for spring 2016, introduction was advanced to October 2015.Airbus announces a 15% fuel
saving thanks to those latest-generation engines and large sharklet wingtip devices, keeping over 95%
airframe commonality with the current A320.
In March 2013, airlines' choices between the two engines were almost equal. Its commonality helped to
reduce delays associated with large changes] A rearranged cabin allows up to 20 more
passengers enabling in total over 20% lower fuel consumption per seat.]The first Airbus A320neo rolled
out of the Toulouse factory on 1 July 2014 and first flight was scheduled to September 2014.Its first flight
occurred on 25 September 2014. Its Pratt & Whitney PW1100G-JM geared turbofan engine was certified
by the Federal Aviation Administration on 19 December 2014. A first flight on schedule is unusual for
most recent airliner developments like competitors
First delivery slipped to early 2016. Lufthansa has taken delivery of the first A320neo on 20 January
2016.
The 320neo is half as loud than an A320 at take-off with a 85 decibel noise footprint. The LEAP powered
A321neo is even quieter at 83.3 dB for flyover noise, substantially lower than the
older CFM56 and V2500.
2.Variants
For the previous Airbus A320 family variants, see Airbus A320 family Variants.
Airbus offers three variants of the A320neo family : the A319, A320 and A321. A New Engine Option for
the Airbus A318 is not expected but can be developed if needed.
A319neo
Qatar Airways was originally scheduled to be the launch operator of this shortened fuselage varian tIt
upgauged its order to the larger A320neo in late 2013. No new launch operator has been named since.
It made its first flight on 31 March 2017, powered by LEAP Engines but PW Engines are also available.
11
A320neo
Lufthansa Airbus A320neo
Lufthansa is the launch operator of this standard variant. The first A320neo rolled out of the Airbus
factory in Toulouse on 1 July 2014[It first flew on 25 September 2014.A joint type certification from
the European Aviation Safety Agency and the Federal Aviation Administration was received on 24
November 2015.
Nearly 28 years after the first A320, on 25 January 2016, the A320neo entered service with Lufthansa,
the type's launch customer.Six months later at Farnborough Airshow, John Leahy reported that the 8 in-
service aircraft fleet had achieved a 99.7% dispatch reliability. After a year in service, Lufthansa
confirmed the 20% gain per passenger with up to 180 seats, along reduced noise and CO2 emissions.
By the end of February 2017, 28,105 scheduled flights had been performed by 71 A320neo aircraft with
134 cancellations for a 99.5% completion rate. Spirit faces Pratt & Whitney PW1000G issues on four of
its five A320neos and don't fly them above 30,000 ft because the bleed air system froze shut on
occasion due to cold temperatures, the same problem facing IndiGo.
By March 2017, 88 A320neos had been delivered to 20 airlines, 49 with the PW1000G and 39 with
the CFM International LEAP-1A, and the fleet had accumulated more than 57,600 flight hours and
37,500 cycles (1.5h average); over 142 routes the average stage length is 900 nm and like the A320ceo
the neo flies an average of 8.4 block hours and up to 10 cycles a day with Lufthansa operating 45 min.
sectors from Frankfurt to Hamburg or Munich to China Southern Airlines flying close to 6 hr
sectors. Operators confirm the 15% per seat fuel-burn savings even counterbalanced by the added
weight on short sectors, which can rise to 16-17% on longer routes and to 20% or more like for Lufthansa
with 180 passengers up from 168 with two more seat rows; and Airbus plans to deliver about 200
A320neos in 2017.
A321neo
An A321neo prototype in flight
ILFC is the first customer for the A321neo. This lengthened fuselage variant have structural
strengthening in the landing gear (undercarriage) and wing, increased wing area and other minor
modifications due to higher weights.
The Airbus A321neo prototype, D-AVXB, first flew on 9 February 2016. However, the plane suffered a
tailstrike three days later, requiring that the aircraft be flown to Toulouse for repairs and Airbus estimates
a delay of several weeks for the certification programme due to the time required for repairs. It received
its type certification with Pratt & Whitney engines on 15 December 2016,and simultaneous EASA and
FAA certification for the CFM Leap powered variant on 1 March 2017.
12
Leased by GECAS, the first one was delivered in Hamburg to Virgin America configured with 184 seats
and LEAP engines, it should enter service on May 31 ; all leased from the same lessor, five A321neos
should be delivered to Virgin in 2017 and five in 2018 if its buyer Alaska Airlines keeps two fleet types.
A321LR
In October 2014, Airbus started marketing a 164 seat, 97 t (214,000 lb) maximum takeoff weight variant
with three auxiliary fuel tanks called the A321neoLR (Long Range) with 100 nm more operational range
than a Boeing 757-200 configured with 169 seats, 27% lower trip costs and 24% lower per seat costs; it
would be scheduled for introduction in the second half of 2018, two years after the A321neo.
Airbus launched the A321LR on 13 January 2015 with Air Lease Corporation as the launch customer,
hoping to sell 1,000 examples of the variant. The initial layout of 164 seats (20 in business, 30
in premium economy and 114 in economy) is replaced by a 206-seat configuration (16 in business and
190 in economy) and range is 4,000 nmi (7,400 km), 500 nmi (930 km) farther than the regular 93.5t
MTOW A321. The A321LR is taking the place of the B757 in the middle of the market.
3.Orders and deliveries

Main article: List of Airbus A320neo family orders and deliveries
The A320neo family received over 2,000 orders in a little over two years following launch in December
2010, making it the fastest selling commercial aircraft in history.
A320neo orders and deliveries
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Total
A319neo 26 19 2 3 5 55
A320neo 30 1,081 378 387 824 583 343 -10 3,616
Orders
A321neo 119 81 341 183 301 363 -3 1,385
Total 30 1,226 478 728 1,009 887 711 -13 5,056
A319neo
Deliveries A320neo 68 26 94
A321neo
13
Total 68 26 94
As of 31 March 2017
Cumulative A320neo orders and deliveries
Orders
Deliveries
As of 31 March 2017
2011
Virgin America became the launch customer with a firm order of 30 A320neo aircraft as a part of a 60
aircraft order on 17 January 2011. IndiGo ordered 150 aircraft At the Paris Air Show 2011, Airbus
confirmed orders from GECAS, Scandinavian Airlines, TransAsia Airways, IndiGo, LAN
Airlines, AirAsia and GoAir. Airbus also received commitments for 83 A320neo aircraft from Air Lease
Corporation and Avianca. In total, the 2011 Paris Air Show endowed the A320neo with a combined 667
orders and 83 commitments, including 200 aircraft for Malaysian low-cost carrier AirAsia, which was
hailed as the largest-ever deal in Airbus history.
A month later, American Airlines ordered 130 A320neo's, which would cause the airline to cease having
an all-Boeing fleet, and Lufthansa became the aircraft's first German customer, ordering 30
examples. The Dubai Airshow in November 2011 saw a further total of 130 orders and 105 commitments
by several customers. On 25 January 2012 Norwegian and Airbus confirmed an order of 100 A320neo.
2012
In November 2012 Virgin America deferred the deliveries of the A320neo aircraft until 2020,
making ILFC the new launch customer along with the A321neo.In December 2012 Pegasus Airlines, the
second largest airline in Turkey, signed a deal for up to 100 A320neo family aircraft, of which 75 (57
A320neo and 18 A321neo models) are firm orders.
2013
Lufthansa ordered an additional 70 A320neo and A321neo aircraft in March 2013easyJet, who already
operates 195 A320ceo family aircraft, intends to acquire 100 Airbus A320neo for delivery between 2017
and 2022. As part of the deal, easyJet have options on a further 100 A320neo aircraft, and the Japanese
carrier ANA is to order the A320neo and A321neo. Lion Air ordered 183.
2014
On 15 October 2014 IndiGo signed a memorandum of understanding (MoU) with Airbus for the purchase
of 250 A320neo family aircraft. The deal would be worth over $25.5 billion as per the list price per
aircraft. This order will also be the largest by the airline, marking the largest number of jets ever sold by
14
the European planemaker in a single order. The airline had earlier ordered 100 aircraft in 2005 and
another 180 aircraft in 2011.
4.Operators
Lufthansa Airbus A320 at Frankfurt Airport, Lufthansa was the launch customer.
As of 31 March 2017, 94 Airbus A320neo family aircraft were in service with 20 operators
with IndiGo and Pegasus Airlines operating the largest A320neo fleets of 19 and nine aircraft
respectively.
5.Specifications
Airbus Family figures[70]
A319neo A320neo A321neo
Cockpit crew Two
140 (2-class)
165 (2-class) 206 (2-class)
Seating capacity 160 (1-class,
195 (1-class, maximum) 240 (1-class, maximum)
maximum)
max density : 2829 in max density : 28 in (71 cm)

Seat pitch
(7174 cm)
16B @ 36 in (91 cm) + 190Y @ 30 in (76 cm
Seat width Economy at 6 abreast: 18 in (46 cm)

51 m (1,88 ft)
Cargo capacity 27 m (976 ft) 37 m (1,322 ft)
A321LR: < 51 m (1,828 ft)
Length 33.84 m (111') 37.57 m (123'3") 44.51 m (146')
Wingspan 35.80 m (117'5")
Height 11.76 m (38'7")
15
Cabin width 3.7 m (12'1")
Cruising speed Mach 0.78(447 knots (828 km/h) at cruising altitude)
Max. zero-fuel
60.3 t (132,900 lb) 64.3 t (141.800 lb) 75.6 t (166.700 lb)
weight
Max. landing
63.9 t (140.900 lb) 67.4 t (148.600 lb) 79.2 t (174.600 lb)
weight
Max. takeoff 93.5 t (206.100 lb)
75.5 t (166.400 lb) 79 t (174.200 lb)
weight A321LR : 97 t (213.800 lb)
23,700 l (no ACT) to 3 ACT (A321LR) :
Jet fuel capacity 26,730 l (7,060 USg) 26,730 l (7,060 USg)
32,940 l (6,261 - 8,700 US gal)
6,500 km / 3,500 nm]
Typical range 6,950 km / 3,750 nmi 6,500 km / 3,500 nmi
A321LR : 7,400 km / 4,000 nmi
Engines (2) CFM International LEAP-1A or Pratt & Whitney PW1100G[74]
Fan diameter PW1100G: 81 in (206 cm) LEAP-1A: 78 in (198 cm)
PW1124G : 107.82 kN PW1127G : 120.43 kN
(24,240 lbf) (27,075 lbf) PW1133G : 147.28 kN (33,110 lbf) /PW1135G
Thrust
LEAP-1A24 : 106.8 kN LEAP-1A28 : LEAP-1A32/33 : 143.05 kN (32,160 lbf)
(24,010 lbf) 120.64 kN (27,120 lbf)[
5.1Engines
Type certificate
Aircraft model Type Certification Maximum

Engines Take-off Thrust
designation Date continuous
12 043 daN (27 11 718 daN (26

A320-271N PW1127G-JM 24 November 2015
075 lbs) 345 lbs)
CFM LEAP- 12 064 daN (27 11 868 daN (26

A320-251N 31 May 2016
1A26 120 lbs) 680 lbs)
14 728 daN (33 14 581 daN (32

A321-271N PW1133G-JM 15 December 2016
110 lbs) 780 lbs)
CFM LEAP- 14 305 daN (32 14 096 daN (31

A321-251N 01 March 2017
1A32 160 lbs) 690 lbs)
A321-253N 03 March 2017

CFM LEAP- 14 305 daN (32 14 096 daN (31
16
1A33 160 lbs) 690 lbs)
6.Development of PW1100G-JM Turbofan Engine
SATO Atsushi : Deputy General Manager, PW1000G-JM Department, Japanese Aero Engines
Corporation
IMAMURA Mitsuo : General Manager, PW1000G-JM Department, Japanese Aero Engines

Corporation
FUJIMURA Tetsuji : General Manager, Engineering Department, Civil Aero-Engine Division, Aero-
Engine & Space Operations
The PW1100G-JM is one of the next-generation turbofan engines selected to power the
Airbus A320neo (New Engine Option). IHI participated in the PW1100G-JM program as a
member company of the Japanese Aero Engines Corporation (JAEC). The PW1100G-JM
adopts the Geared Turbo Fan (GTF) system and delivers improvements in fuel efficiency,
emissions, and noise by applying state-of-the-art composite materials and component
technologies. This paper presents an overview of the PW1100G-JM.
1. Introduction
Airbus (France: Airbus SAS) is currently developing the A320neo (New Engine Option), and is aiming to
achieve a 15% higher fuel efficiency, a double-digit reduction in NOx emissions, and a 50% reduction in
airframe noise by replacing the engine of the A320 currently in service with that of a state-of-the-art design
and keeping the airframe converting cost to a minimum. Figure 1 illustrates a next-generation narrow-body
commercial aircraft Airbus A320neo. The PW1100G-JM (Fig. 2) has been selected as one of the engines
to be installed on the A320neo.
Development of this engine began as an international
(Image credit : Airbus)
Fig. 1 Airbus A320neo aircraft
17
(Image credit : P&W)
Fig. 2 PW1100G-JM cutaway view (1
collaborative project under IAE, LLC, a consortium of Pratt & Whitney (P&W, USA), the Japanese Aero Engines
Corporation (JAEC), and MTU Aero Engines Holdings AG (MTU, Germany). IHI participated in the project as a
member company of JAEC. In addition, JAEC is developing this engine with financial assistance from the
International Aircraft Development Fund (IADF).
The PW1100G-JM adopts a Geared Turbo Fan (GTF) system with an advanced gear system, and the bypass ratio
has been increased to approximately 12 to achieve high propulsion efficiency. Furthermore, state-of-the-art
composite materials and component technologies have been combined to deliver improvements in fuel efficiency,
emissions, and noise.
This paper presents an overview of the PW1100G-JM development program, as well as the engineering features of
the components being developed by IHI.
2 Overview of PW1100G-JM development

Development history
The A320neo family of narrow-body aircraft being developed by Airbus provides great improvements in cost
effectiveness and environmental friendliness by replacing the engines of the existing A320 aircraft family (the V2500
and the CFM56) with state-of-the-art engines. A320neo aircraft are scheduled to enter into service in the fourth
quarter of 2015. Meanwhile, major American and European engine manufacturers proposed their own new engine
designs, and in December 2010, the PW1100G-JM by P&W and the LEAP-1A by CFM International (a joint venture
between Snecma of France and General Electric of the United States) were selected.
Creating these new engines requires the latest technologies in order to meet stringent demands while ensuring safety.
In light of the position given to PW1100G-JM as a V2500 successor engine, P&W asked JAEC and MTU, co- partners
in the V2500 international collaborative project,
to participate in the development work, based on their past achievements and latest technologies. After detailed
discussions with P&W and MTU, JAEC decided to participate in the development work, and the companies signed a
joint agreement in September 2011.
JAEC is contributing 23% of the PW1100G-JM (the same share as with the V2500), and is responsible for the fan,
low pressure compressor, low pressure shaft, and part of the combustor. MTU has an 18% share, and is
responsible for the low pressure turbine and part of the high pressure compressor, while P&W is responsible for all
other components. IHI is responsible for the main fan module parts in the V2500 program, and has a 60% share of the
Japanese contribution. For the new engine, IHI is responsible for the main fan module parts as was the case for
the V2500, and has a 65% share of the Japanese contribution.
Predicted market volume
In the present market for narrow-body aircraft in the 120- 220 seat class, approximately 12 000 existing models such as
the Boeing 737 and the Airbus A320 are in service. When the ages of these aircraft are taken into account, it is
believed that the market volume over the next 20 years for this class will show a replacement demand of
approximately 6 000 of the 12 000 aircraft currently in service. Furthermore, new demand due to market growth in
this class is anticipated, and the volume of the overall demand is expected to reach 15 000 aircraft or more. Currently,
Airbus is conducting development of the A320neo as an aircraft for this market. In the future, in addition to
existing aircraft such as the Boeing 737, new models such as the 737 MAX are expected to enter the market, and
new competing designs may also be developed. Airbus is also considering putting an A320 successor with a
redesigned airframe on the market around 2025. Assuming a 14-year sales period (from 2015 to 2028) for the
18
A320neo, even a conservative estimate of the market volume for narrow-body aircraft during this period is
approximately 7 000 aircraft. If the A320neo receives orders for approximately half of this market, orders for
approximately 3 500 aircraft would be acquired, and assuming that the PW1100G-JM is selected as the engine
Start testing
Pre-design
Preliminary first prototype engine
/study Acquire
Detailed
design
Prototyping type certification
design
Prototype engine testing Entry into service
A320neo flight testing
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Year
for half of those, demand for approximately 3 500 engines is envisioned.
Engine specifications
Table 1 illustrates the major specifications of the PW1100G-JM as compared to the V2500. By raising the bypass ratio
above the V2500, the PW1100G-JM achieves a large fuel efficiency improvement with less noise. Raising the bypass
ratio results in a fan diameter larger than that of the V2500, but the application of IHIs own advanced composite
materials technology makes a large contribution to engine weight reduction.
Development milestones
Figure 3 illustrates PW1100G-JM development milestones. Development of the PW1100G-JM began in 2011, and
after design, prototype engine production, and various development tests, the PW1100G-JM is projected to acquire
engine type certification in the third quarter of 2014, and enter into service in the fourth quarter of 2015. The
development tests consist of running tests using a total of eight prototype engines and various component tests. The
development of eight prototype engines is divided into two phases (Block-1 and Block-2), and are planned so that the
lessons learned via design/testing of Block-1 can be applied to the design in Block-2, which is to receive type
certification. This setup helps reduce development risks.
At present, production of the four prototype engines
Table 1 PW1100G-JM & V2500 specifications
Feature Units Specification

Engine PW1133G-JM V2533-A5
Aircraft A321neo A321
lbf 33 000 33 000
Takeoff thrust
( tf ) (Approx. 15) (Approx. 15)
m Approx. 2.06 Approx. 1.61
Fan diameter
( in ) ( 81.0 ) ( 63.5 )
Bypass ratio *1 Approx. 12 Approx. 4.5
Thrust specific fuel
% 16 Reference value
consumption
Noise *2 dB 15 to 20 5
19
(Notes) *1 : Indicates the ratio between the mass flow rate of air bypassing through the fan only and
passing the compressor/combustor to the mass flow rate drawn through the
compressor/combustor.
*2 : Indicates the value with reference to FAR 36 Stage 4 (U.S. Federal Aviation Noise
Regulations).
in Block-1 has been completed, with the running tests on the first prototype engine being performed in 2012. The design is now
being checked and evaluated through running tests performed using these prototypes. In addition, Block-2 design has also been
completed, incorporating the performance improvements, weight reductions, cost
reductions, and
maintenance cost reductions obtained
by applying lessons
learned through Block-1 design
and testing. Currently, trial production and running test preparations for the four Block-2 prototype engines
are in progress. Figure 4 illustrates various running test conditions with the first prototype engine.
3. PW1100G-JM features
Figure 5 illustrates a comparison of the PW1100G-JM and conventional engine configurations. In contrast to
the conventional engine configuration on the bottom, the PW1100G-JM on the top drives the fan slowly at a
smaller number of revolutions per minute than the low pressure compressor and the low pressure turbine
thanks to the advanced gear system, thereby achieving a high bypass ratio, high propulsion efficiency, and low
noise with a larger fan. By placing the advanced gear system between the fan and the low pressure
compressor, it is possible to make the diameter smaller and reduce the number of stages of the fast-spinning
low pressure turbine compared to a conventional engine configuration.
20
Fan section Core section
Hollow fan blades Composite fan case
Fig. 6 PW1100G-JM engine overview
Fan section
Figure 7 illustrates a composite fan case cross-section. When a composite fan case having a small thermal
expansion rate is used in combination with aluminum alloy fan blades having a large thermal expansion rate,
the tip clearance of the fan increases under high-altitude, low-temperature conditions, causing degraded fan
efficiency. In order to prevent this phenomenon, a structure is adopted in which a Thermal Conforming Liner
(TCL) with an aluminum alloy honeycomb is laid on the inner side of the composite bare case of the outer
shell. Since this TCL is supported so as not to have its thermal expansion limited by the composite bare case,
the liner closely surrounding the tips of the fan blades exhibits a magnitude of thermal expansion that is equal
21
to the fan blades under high-altitude (low-temperature) conditions, making it possible to minimize tip
clearance during flight. Containment is also demanded of the fan case (keeping broken fan blades inside the
fan case). This fan case has already been confirmed by component testing as having the desired containment
capacity.
Composite bare case (outer shell
Thermal conforming liner
Fig 7 Composite fan case cross-section
Fig. 8 illustrates the composite fan exit guide vane structure. The fan exit guide vanes have the function of
maintaining high efficiency of the bypass flow compressed by the fan blades by rectifying it with low loss. In order to minimize
interference with the pylons placed downstream, the fan exit guide vanes of the PW1100G-JM consist of optimally positioned
vanes with five different camber
Overall view of composite fan exit guide vanes and enlarged view of inner/outer diameter sections
Outer liner
Vane section
Inner liner
22
(b) Enlarged view of inner vane support (inner liner omitted from view)
Support(metal
Composite vane
Fig. 8 Structure of composite fan exit guide vane
angles. From a structural perspective, the fan exit guide vanes are Structural Guide Vanes (SGVs) that support
the fan case, and are able to withstand a large flight load as well as fan blade off load. Moreover, in order to
satisfy the rigidity demanded of the overall engine, a structure is adopted in which both ends (inner and outer
diameter) of the composite vanes are held between sets of metal supports.
3.2 Low pressure compressor

In order to make the fan and the low pressure system rotors rotate at different speeds, the low pressure compressor section of
the PW1100G-JM engine primarily consists of: a Fan Drive Gear System (FDGS), main bearings for the fan and the low
pressure system rotors, a frame supporting the FDGS (front center body), variable inlet guide vanes, a three-stage low
pressure compressor, and a frame having mounts that supports the main bearing of
the high pressure system rotor (intermediate case). In a typical high-bypass ratio engine, the low pressure
compressor section and the high pressure compressor section have a frame that supports the main bearings for
both the low pressure system and high pressure system rotors as well as the engine mount. Conversely, the
PW1100G-JM engine features a front center body for supporting the FDGS and the respective main bearings
of the fan and the low pressure system rotors, placed between the fan and the low pressure compressor section.
Furthermore, this front center body supports the fan case via the fan exit guide vanes.
The low pressure compressor in which the rotors spin faster than in a conventional engine consists of three
stages having variable inlet guide vanes. The low pressure compressor implements a three-dimensional vane
design developed using Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD). In order to withstand high centrifugal forces,
the rotary section has a structure that resembles the rotary section of high pressure compressor, and all stages
adopt an Integrated Bladed Rotor (IBR) combining the blade section and the inner disk section. Figure 9
illustrates a low pressure compressor stage-2 IBR.
In addition, in order to ensure the required surge margin, the low pressure compressor exit includes a variable bleed valve.
Figure 10 illustrates the cross-section of a variable bleed valve. As Fig. 10 illustrates, the outer diameter exit of the bleed duct
provided in the intermediate case can be fully opened or closed by the valve moving in the axial direction of the engine.
Although the structure has basically been proven in engines such as the V2500, Block-1 running tests revealed that strong
acoustic vibrations were
23
Disk section Blade section
being produced in this duct, and so a number of candidate configurations were formulated with the
cooperation of P&W, and CFD as well as rig testing confirmed that shortening the duct length yields the
required effect with the least risk. From these results, the Block-1 parts were immediately reworked, and later
running tests were carried out safely. In addition, further improvements were made to the Block-2 and type
design.
3.3 Low pressure turbine shaft

Besides the fan and the low pressure compressor section, IHI is also responsible for the low pressure turbine
shaft, which has established a solid record in prior engine development and mass production. The current shaft
adopts materials that have been proven in prior models, but differs from these prior models in that it spins
faster, which demands high speed balance during manufacturing from the perspective of rotor dynamics.
(a) Block-1 configuration
(b) Open state (c) Closed state
Variable 2.5 bleed valve
Intermediate case
24
4. Conclusion
This paper introduces an overview of the PW1100G-JM development program, as well as the engineering
features of the components being developed by IHI. Approximately one year remains until the scheduled
engine type certification in the third quarter of 2014, and so far development is proceeding smoothly.
This development work is an international collaborative project by P&W, MTU, and JAEC. As this is the second time since the
V2500 that our companies have participated as equal partners in a joint venture, the program is being driven forward with
renewed focus while tapping the potential of our high-level design and manufacturing expertise, such as IHIs own composite
materials technology. For the first time in the world, composite materials are being adopted for use as SGVs in the fan exit
guide vanes, and we believe that such adoption of IHIs original materials and designs after a variety of
engineering tests present a great opportunity to demonstrate IHIs impact on and presence in the world.
7 Landing gears
A global approach
Safran Landing Systems is the world leader in the design, development, manufacture and
support of landing gear systems. A unique combination of advanced engineering capabilities,
integrated systems technology and experience on an exhaustive range of programs enables
Safran Landing Systems to provide innovative solutions for a diverse range of aircraft.
In today's dynamic aerospace environment, the challenges of the market require a holistic view
of the product life cycle. At Safran Landing Systems, our focus is to provide landing gear
systems which are not only reliable and robust, but increasingly weight efficient and
environmentally responsible, thus providing overall value across the full life of an aircraft
program.
Systems integration
Safran Landing Systems is an integral part of the Safran group's landing systems integration
capability, which covers the full ATA chapter 32 of commercial aircraft landing systems. This
capability offers airframers a single source for their needs, saving considerable time and cost in
terms of design, technical interface and supplier management. Today Safran Landing Systems
is leading systems activity on a number of development programs, coordinating the integration
of sub-systems provided by specialist partners, allowing customers to reduce management
responsibilities, lead times and acquisition costs.
8.Wheels and brakes

In the same way as propulsion or lift, braking is one of the vital functions on an aircraft. Thanks
to the braking function the aircraft is able to come to a halt after landing, taxies in safety and
can stop in an emergency if there is a rejected take-off.
Whether on a bicycle, car or aircraft, the problem is the same: the kinetic energy of the moving
vehicle has to be absorbed and then transformed into heat in order to dissipate it.
Stopping an Airbus A340 or a Boeing 777 travelling at 300 km/h in a few hundred meters
means absorbing more than 1 billion joules in a few tens of seconds - around 125 mega joules
per wheel and brake! Although the risk is in the order of 1 in 1 million take offs, it is the most
extreme case that Safran Landing Systems' wheels and brakes have to deal with in the unlikely
event of a rejected take-off.
25
To do this, Safran Landing Systems has developed a range of innovative technologies, such as
carbon and electric brakes, and can rely on its experience gained from decade-long
partnerships on a range of commercial and military programs.
9.Systems equipment
Safran Landing Systems is an original equipment manufacturer (OEM) for the aircraft industry,
and the only company to offer complete solutions encompassing landing, braking, steering and
monitoring systems, developed by our expert teams over the years.
We offer an unrivaled portfolio of electrohydraulic and all-electric systems, ranging from pilot-
actuated sensors (pedal travel, nosewheel steering and other sensors) to brake manifolds and
steering units, along with electronic control and monitoring units for all systems. Today, we are
capable of designing and integrating solutions for all types of aircraft:
Centralized architectures with control and monitoring electronics in the avionics bay.
Integrated modular avionics (IMA) type architectures, with the control and monitoring electronics
in charge of several different functions.
Distributed architectures, with control electronics located near the sensors and electrohydraulic
actuators to be controlled.
All of these new developments are tested right at our production facilities, using state-of-the-art
equipment such as real-time digital simulators connected to actual equipment (in line with the
aircraft's hydraulic circuits), test benches and dynamometers.
At Safran Landing Systems we apply our aircraft system expertise in four main areas:
braking control systems;

landing gear extension and retraction systems;
steering systems;
monitoring systems.
In addition to supplying electrohydraulic subassemblies and the associated control and

monitoring units, Safran Landing Systems' added value lies in the assembly and integration of
these subassemblies into systems on the main or nose landing gear, along with wheels and
brakes, often provided as one of the official products on offer to operators.
Safran Landing Systems' products and services are an integral part of parent group Safran's
integrated landing system packages, especially concerning "Chapter ATA32" equipment for
commercial airplane landing gear. We deliver system solutions for a wide range of aircraft,
taking responsibility every step of the way:
Before delivery, we work on optimizing the landing system, as well as integrating it in the aircraft,
adapting to the aircraft manufacturer's specific requirements for each aircraft type.
During the production process, we integrate the different components and subassemblies
supplied by partners and subcontractors, to deliver a turnkey system to the aircraft
manufacturer.
Using the steering system, the pilot can electrically control the steering of the nosewheels (and
even the main landing gear wheels on certain aircraft), in order to facilitate taxiing and reduce
loads on the landing gear. The braking control system facilitates the brake's actions, of
course, but also helps reduce the aircraft's braking distance and increase payload
capacity.
26
Safran Landing Systems has developed the full brake-by-wire system, totally
electrically-controlled. To design this system, we integrated the required redundancy
and functions, in line with the types of missions to be performed by the aircraft.
Other aspects taken into account include a sensor that regulates the braking
according to the pilot's directions, an anti-skid system, auto-braking and other
functions to increase passenger comfort, the choice of a hydraulic or electric energy
source, etc.
Combining state-of-the-art components such as sensors, uplocks and
electrical or hydraulic actuators, today's landing gear extension/retraction
control systems are computer-controlled. The power source may be hydraulic
or electrical, and the gear can always be extended by gravity if needed, in
emergency mode.
Safran Landing Systems created a hybrid electrohydraulic actuator for the new
A400M military aircraft to open the landing gear doors: hydraulic in normal
mode and electric in alternate mode.
Electric taxiing system is a viable solution to achieve lower cost and greener
operations.
It can significantly improve airline operational efficiency by reducing fuel and other
taxi related costs, as well as providing environmental benefits by slashing the carbon
and other emissions created during taxi operations.
System Operation
Using the Auxiliary Power Unit (APU) generator to power motors in the main wheels,
electric taxiing allows aircraft to taxi and pushback fully autonomously without
requiring the use of aircraft engines.
Meeting Airline and Airport Needs

With operating costs and environmental initiatives at the top of airline concerns,
electric taxiing is a viable solution to achieve lower cost and greener operations. By
adopting this new and innovative aircraft system, airlines can save several hundred
thousand dollars per aircraft per year and improve their bottom line while reducing
the environmental impact of airport ground operations.
Lower Fuel Burn

Improved OnTime Performance Aircraft equipped with the system will be able to "pushback
and go" more quickly, thus reducing both gate and apron congestion, improving on-time
departure performance and saving valuable time on the ground.
Greener Operation
Added Value Electric taxiing eliminates the need for aircraft pushback and towing via ground
equipment, extending main engine life, enhancing ground crew safety, and reducing noise in
the airport environment.
27
10.Fly-by-wire system
Fly-by-wire (FBW) is a system that replaces the conventional manual flight controls of an aircraft with
an electronic interface. The movements of flight controls are converted to electronic signals transmitted
by wires (hence the fly-by-wire term), and flight control computers determine how to move
the actuators at each control surface to provide the ordered response. The fly-by-wire system also allows
automatic signals sent by the aircraft's computers to perform functions without the pilot's input, as in
systems that automatically help stabilize the aircraft, or prevent unsafe operation of the aircraft outside of
its performance envelope.
contents
1Development
o 1.1Basic operation
1.1.1Command
1.1.2Automatic stability systems
o 1.2Safety and redundancy
o 1.3Weight saving
o 1.4History
2Analog systems
3Digital systems
o 3.1Applications
o 3.2Legislation
o 3.3Redundancy
o 3.4Efficiency of flight
o 3.5Airbus/Boeing
4Engine digital control
5Further developments
o 5.1Fly-by-optics
o 5.2Power-by-wire
o 5.3Fly-by-wireless
o 5.4Intelligent flight control system
Development
Mechanical and hydro-mechanical flight control systems are relatively heavy and require careful routing
of flight control cables through the aircraft by systems of pulleys, cranks, tension cables and hydraulic
pipes. Both systems often require redundant backup to deal with failures, which increases weight. Both
have limited ability to compensate for changing aerodynamic conditions. Dangerous characteristics such
as stalling, spinning and pilot-induced oscillation (PIO), which depend mainly on the stability and
structure of the aircraft concerned rather than the control system itself, can still occur with these systems.
The term "fly-by-wire" implies a purely electrically signaled control system. It is used in the general sense
of computer-configured controls, where a computer system is interposed between the operator and the
final control actuators or surfaces. This modifies the manual inputs of the pilot in accordance with control
parameters.
Side-sticks, centre sticks, or conventional flight control yokes can be used to fly FBW aircraft.
Basic operation
Command
28
Simple feedback loop
Fly-by wire systems are quite complex, but their operation can be explained in simple terms. When a
pilot moves the control column (or sidestick), a signal is sent to a computer (analogous to moving a game
controller) the signal is sent through multiple wires (channels) to ensure that the signal reaches the
computer. A 'Triplex' is when there are three channels being used. In an Analog system, the computer
receives the signals, performs a calculation (adds the signal voltages and divides by the number of
signals received to find the mean average voltage) and adds another channel. These four 'Quadruplex'
signals are then sent to the control surface actuator, and the surface begins to move. Potentiometers in
the actuator send a signal back to the computer (usually a negative voltage) reporting the position of the
actuator. When the actuator reaches the desired position, the two signals (incoming and outgoing) cancel
each other out and the actuator stops moving (completing a feedback loop). In a Digital Fly By Wire
Flight Control System complex software interprets digital signals from the pilots control input sensors and
performs calculations based on the Flight Control Laws programmed into the Flight Control Computers
and input from the Air Data Inertial Reference Units and other sensors. The computer then commands
the flight control surfaces to adopt a configuration that will achieve the desired flight path.
Automatic stability system
Fly-by-wire control systems allow aircraft computers to perform tasks without pilot input. Automatic
stability systems operate in this way. Gyroscopes fitted with sensors are mounted in an aircraft to sense
movement changes in the pitch, roll and yaw axes. Any movement (from straight and level flight for
example) results in signals to the computer, which automatically moves control actuators to stabilize the
aircraft
Safety and redundancy
Aircraft systems may be quadruplexed (four independent channels) to prevent loss of signals in the case
of failure of one or even two channels. High performance aircraft that have fly-by-wire controls (also
called CCVs or Control-Configured Vehicles) may be deliberately designed to have low or even negative
stability in some flight regimesthe rapid-reacting CCV controls compensating for the lack of natural
stability
Pre-flight safety checks of a fly-by-wire system are often performed using built-in test equipment (BITE).
On programming the system, either by the pilot or groundcrew, a number of control movement steps are
automatically performed. Any failure will be indicated to the crews.
Some aircraft, the Panavia Tornado for example, retain a very basic hydro-mechanical backup system
for limited flight control capability on losing electrical power; in the case of the Tornado this allows
rudimentary control of the stabilators only for pitch and roll axis movements.[citation needed]
Weight savings
A FBW aircraft can be lighter than a similar design with conventional controls. This is partly due to the
lower overall weight of the system components, and partly because the natural stability of the aircraft can
be relaxed, slightly for a transport aircraft and more for a maneuverable fighter, which means that the
stability surfaces that are part of the aircraft structure can therefore be made smaller. These include the
vertical and horizontal stabilizers (fin and tailplane) that are (normally) at the rear of the fuselage. If these
structures can be reduced in size, airframe weight is reduced. The advantages of FBW controls were first
exploited by the military and then in the commercial airline market. The Airbus series of airliners used
full-authority FBW controls beginning with their A320 series, see A320 flight control (though some limited
FBW functions existed on A310). Boeing followed with their 777 and later designs
Electronic fly-by-wire systems can respond flexibly to changing aerodynamic conditions, by tailoring flight
control surface movements so that aircraft response to control inputs is appropriate to flight conditions.
Electronic systems require less maintenance, whereas mechanical and hydraulic systems require
lubrication, tension adjustments, leak checks, fluid changes, etc. Placing circuitry between pilot and
aircraft can enhance safety. For example, the control system can try to prevent a stall, or it can stop the
pilot from over stressing the airframe.
The main concern with fly-by-wire systems is reliability. While traditional mechanical or hydraulic control
systems usually fail gradually, the loss of all flight control computers could immediately render the aircraft
uncontrollable. For this reason, most fly-by-wire systems incorporate either redundant computers (triplex,
quadruplex etc.), some kind of mechanical or hydraulic backup or a combination of both. A "mixed"
control system such as the latter is not desirable and modern FBW aircraft normally avoid it by having
more independent FBW channels, thereby reducing the possibility of overall failure to minuscule levels
that are acceptable to the independent regulatory and safety authority responsible for aircraft design,
testing and certification before operational service.
29
History
Avro Canada CF-105 Arrow, first non-experimental aircraft flown with a fly-by-wire control system
F-8C Crusader digital fly-by-wire testbed
Servo-electrically operated control surfaces were first tested in the 1930s on the Soviet Tupolev ANT-
20.Long runs of mechanical and hydraulic connections were replaced with wires and electric servos.
The first pure electronic fly-by-wire aircraft with no mechanical or hydraulic backup was the Apollo Lunar
Landing Research Vehicle (LLRV), first flown in 1964.
The first non-experimental aircraft that was designed and flown (in 1958) with a fly-by-wire flight control
system was the Avro Canada CF-105 Arrow, a feat not repeated with a production aircraft
until Concorde in 1969. This system also included solid-state components and system redundancy, was
designed to be integrated with a computerised navigation and automatic search and track radar, was
flyable from ground control with data uplink and downlink, and provided artificial feel (feedback) to the
pilot.
In the UK the two seater Avro 707B was flown with a Fairey system with mechanical backup in the early
to mid-60s. The programme was curtailed when the airframe ran out of flight time.
The first digital fly-by-wire fixed-wing aircraft without a mechanical backup to take to the air (in 1972) was
an F-8 Crusader, which had been modified electronically by NASA of the United States as a test
aircraft. This was preceded in 1964 by the LLRV which pioneered fly-by-wire flight with no mechanical
backup. Control was through a digital computer with three analogue redundant channels. In the USSR
the Sukhoi T-4 also flew. At about the same time in the United Kingdom a trainer variant of the
British Hawker Hunter fighter was modified at the British Royal Aircraft Establishment with fly-by-wire
flight controls for the right-seat pilot. This was test-flown, with the left-seat pilot having conventional flight
controls for safety reasons, and with the capability for him to override and turn off the fly-by-wire
system. It flew in April 1972.
Analog systems
All "fly-by-wire" flight control systems eliminate the complexity, the fragility, and the weight of the
mechanical circuit of the hydromechanical or electromechanical flight control systemseach being
replaced with electronic circuits. The control mechanisms in the cockpit now operate signal transducers,
which in turn generate the appropriate electronic commands. These are next processed by an electronic
controllereither an analog one, or (more modernly) a digital one. Aircraft and spacecraft autopilots are
now part of the electronic controller.
The hydraulic circuits are similar except that mechanical servo valves are replaced with electrically
controlled servo valves, operated by the electronic controller. This is the simplest and earliest
configuration of an analog fly-by-wire flight control system. In this configuration, the flight control systems
must simulate "feel". The electronic controller controls electrical feel devices that provide the appropriate
"feel" forces on the manual controls. This was used in Concorde, the first production fly-by-wire airliner.
30
In more sophisticated versions, analog computers replaced the electronic controller. The canceled 1950s
Canadian supersonic interceptor, the Avro Canada CF-105 Arrow, employed this type of system. Analog
computers also allowed some customization of flight control characteristics, including relaxed stability.
This was exploited by the early versions of F-16, giving it impressive maneuverability.
Digital systems
The Airbus A320, first airliner with digital fly-by-wire controls
A digital fly-by-wire flight control system is similar to its analog counterpart. However, the signal
processing is done by digital computers and the pilot literally can "fly-via-computer". This also increases
the flexibility of the flight control system, since the digital computers can receive input from any aircraft
sensor (such as the altimeters and the pitot tubes). This also increases the electronic stability, because
the system is less dependent on the values of critical electrical components in an analog controller.
The computers sense position and force inputs from pilot controls and aircraft sensors. They
solve differential equations to determine the appropriate command signals that move the flight controls to
execute the intentions of the pilot]
The programming of the digital computers enable flight envelope protection. These protections are
tailored to an aircraft's handling characteristics to stay within aerodynamic and structural limitations of the
aircraft. For example, the computer in flight envelope protection mode can try to prevent the aircraft from
being handled dangerously by preventing pilots from exceeding preset limits on the aircraft's flight-control
envelope, such as those that prevent stalls and spins, and which limit airspeeds and g forces on the
airplane. Software can also be included that stabilize the flight-control inputs to avoid pilot-induced
oscillations.
Since the flight-control computers continuously "fly" the aircraft, pilot's workloads can be reduced. Also,
in military and naval applications, it is now possible to fly military aircraft that have relaxed stability. The
primary benefit for such aircraft is more maneuverability during combat and training flights, and the so-
called "carefree handling" because stalling, spinning and other undesirable performances are prevented
automatically by the computers.
Digital flight control systems enable inherently unstable combat aircraft, such as the Lockheed F-117
Nighthawk and the Northrop Grumman B-2 Spirit flying wing to fly in usable and safe manners.
Applications
A Dassault Falcon 7X, the first business jet with digital fly-by-wire controls
The Space Shuttle orbiter has an all-digital fly-by-wire control system. This system was first
exercised (as the only flight control system) during the glider unpowered-flight "Approach and
Landing Tests" that began on the Space Shuttle Enterprise during 1977.
Launched into production during 1984, the Airbus Industries Airbus A320 became the first airliner to
fly with an all-digital fly-by-wire control system.
During 2005, the Dassault Falcon 7X became the first business jet with fly-by-wire controls.
31
Legislation
The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) of the United States has adopted the RTCA/DO-178B, titled
"Software Considerations in Airborne Systems and Equipment Certification", as the certification standard
for aviation software. Any safety-critical component in a digital fly-by-wire system including applications
of the laws of aeronautics and computer operating systems will need to be certified to DO-178B Level A,
which is applicable for preventing potential catastrophic failures.
Nevertheless, the top concern for computerized, digital, fly-by-wire systems is reliability, even more so
than for analog electronic control systems. This is because the digital computers that are running
software are often the only control path between the pilot and aircraft's flight control surfaces. If the
computer software crashes for any reason, the pilot may be unable to control an aircraft. Hence virtually
all fly-by-wire flight control systems are either triply or quadruply redundant in their computers and
electronics. These have three or four flight-control computers operating in parallel, and three or four
separate data buses connecting them with each control surface
Redundancy
The multiply redundant flight control computers continuously monitor each other's output. If one
computer begins to give aberrant results for any reason, potentially including software or hardware
failures or flawed input data, then the combined system is designed to exclude the results from that
computer in deciding the appropriate actions for the flight controls. Depending on specific system details
there may be the potential to reboot an aberrant flight control computer, or to reincorporate its inputs if
they return to agreement. Complex logic exists to deal with multiple failures, which may prompt the
system to revert to simpler back-up modes.
In addition, most of the early digital fly-by-wire aircraft also had an analog electrical, a mechanical, or a
hydraulic back-up flight control system. The Space Shuttle has, in addition to its redundant set of
four digital computers running its primary flight-control software, a fifth back-up computer running a
separately developed, reduced-function, software flight-control system one that can be commanded to
take over in the event that a fault ever affects all of the computers in the other four. This back-up system
serves to reduce the risk of total flight-control-system failure ever happening because of a general-
purpose flight software fault that has escaped notice in the other four computers.
Efficiency of flight
For airliners, flight-control redundancy improves their safety, but fly-by-wire control systems, which are
physically lighter and have lower maintenance demands than conventional controls also improve
economy, both in terms of cost of ownership and for in-flight economy. In certain designs with limited
relaxed stability in the pitch axis, for example the Boeing 777, the flight control system may allow the
aircraft to fly at a more aerodynamically efficient angle of attack than a conventionally stable design.
Modern airliners also commonly feature computerized Full-Authority Digital Engine Control
systems FADECs that control their jet engines, air inlets, fuel storage and distribution system, in a similar
fashion to the way that FBW controls the flight control surfaces. This allows the engine output to be
continually varied for the most efficient usage possible.
Airbus/Boeing
Airbus and Boeing commercial airplanes differ in their approaches in using fly-by-wire systems. In Airbus
airliners, the flight-envelope control system always retains ultimate flight control when flying under normal
law, and it will not permit the pilots to fly outside these performance limits unless flying under alternate
law. However, in the event of multiple failures of redundant computers, the A320 does have a
mechanical back-up system for its pitch trim and its rudder. The A340-600 has a purely electrical (not
electronic) back-up rudder control system, and beginning with the new A380 airliner, all flight-control
systems have back-up systems that are purely electrical through the use of a so-called "three-axis
Backup Control Module" (BCM)
With the Boeing 777 model airliners, the two pilots can completely override the computerized flight-
control system to permit the aircraft to be flown beyond its usual flight-control envelope during
emergencies. Airbus's strategy, which began with the Airbus A320, has been continued on subsequent
Airbus airliners.
Engine digital control

The advent of FADEC (Full Authority Digital Engine Control) engines permits operation of the flight
control systems and autothrottles for the engines to be fully integrated. On modern military aircraft other
systems such as autostabilization, navigation, radar and weapons system are all integrated with the flight
32
control systems. FADEC allows maximum performance to be extracted from the aircraft without fear of
engine misoperation, aircraft damage or high pilot workloads.
In the civil field, the integration increases flight safety and economy. The Airbus A320 and its fly-by-wire
brethren are protected from dangerous situations such as low-speed stall or overstressing by flight
envelope protection. As a result, in such conditions, the flight control systems commands the engines to
increase thrust without pilot intervention. In economy cruise modes, the flight control systems adjust the
throttles and fuel tank selections more precisely than all but the most skillful pilots. FADEC reduces
rudder drag needed to compensate for sideways flight from unbalanced engine thrust. On the A330/A340
family, fuel is transferred between the main (wing and center fuselage) tanks and a fuel tank in the
horizontal stabilizer, to optimize the aircraft's center of gravity during cruise flight. The fuel management
controls keep the aircraft's center of gravity accurately trimmed with fuel weight, rather than drag-
inducing aerodynamic trims in the elevators.
11.Further developments
Fly-by-optics
Fly-by-optics is sometimes used instead of fly-by-wire because it offers a higher data transfer rate,
immunity to electromagnetic interference, and lighter weight. In most cases, the cables are just changed
from electrical to optical fiber cables. Sometimes it is referred to as "fly-by-light" due to its use of fiber
optics. The data generated by the software and interpreted by the controller remain the same.
Power-by-wire
Having eliminated the mechanical transmission circuits in fly-by-wire flight control systems, the next step
is to eliminate the bulky and heavy hydraulic circuits. The hydraulic circuit is replaced by an electrical
power circuit. The power circuits power electrical or self-contained electrohydraulic actuators that are
controlled by the digital flight control computers. All benefits of digital fly-by-wire are retained.
The biggest benefits are weight savings, the possibility of redundant power circuits and tighter integration
between the aircraft flight control systems and its avionics systems. The absence of hydraulics greatly
reduces maintenance costs. This system is used in the Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II and in Airbus
A380 backup flight controls. The Boeing 787 will also incorporate some electrically operated flight
controls (spoilers and horizontal stabilizer), which will remain operational with either a total hydraulics
failure and/or flight control computer failure.
Fly-by-wireless
Wiring adds a considerable amount of weight to an aircraft; therefore, researchers are exploring
implementing fly-by-wireless solutions. Fly-by-wireless systems are very similar to fly-by-wire systems,
however, instead of using a wired protocol for the physical layer a wireless protocol is employed.
In addition to reducing weight, implementing a wireless solution has the potential to reduce costs
throughout an aircraft's life cycle. For example, many key failure points associated with wire and
connectors will be eliminated thus hours spent troubleshooting wires and connectors will be reduced.
Furthermore, engineering costs could potentially decrease because less time would be spent on
designing wiring installations, late changes in an aircraft's design would be easier to manage, etc.
Intelligent flight control system

A newer flight control system, called intelligent flight control system (IFCS), is an extension of modern
digital fly-by-wire flight control systems. The aim is to intelligently compensate for aircraft damage and
failure during flight, such as automatically using engine thrust and other avionics to compensate for
severe failures such as loss of hydraulics, loss of rudder, loss of ailerons, loss of an engine, etc. Several
demonstrations were made on a flight simulator where a Cessna-trained small-aircraft pilot successfully
landed a heavily damaged full-size concept jet, without prior experience with large-body jet aircraft. This
development is being spearheaded by NASA Dryden Flight Research Center. It is reported that
enhancements are mostly software upgrades to existing fully computerized digital fly-by-wire flight control
systems.
33
The Airbus A320 flight control surfaces are all electrically controlled. When the electric system
approves the action, the flight controls are hydraulically activated. Thereby, the THS and the rudder
can also be mechanically controlled as a back-up system.
Electronic Systems
Electrical panel system in 320 neo
34
35
The A320 is an example of a civil electrical flight controlled aircraft. The distinctive feature of this
aircraft is that all control surfaces are controlled electrically by high-level control laws in normal
operation and that the system is designed to be available under all circumstances. This system was built to
very stringent dependability requirements both in terms of safety (the system must not output erroneous
signals) and availability. The basic building blocks are the fail-safe control and monitoring computers.
These computers have stringent safety requirements and are functionally composed of a control channel
and a monitoring channel. The control channel ensures the function allocated to the computer (for
example, control of a control surface). The monitoring channel ensures that the control channel operates
correctly.
The THS is positioned by a screw actuator

and driven by two hydraulic motors. In
turn the hydraulic motors are driven by
one or three electric motors. Only one
electric motor can be operative at a time
while the other two are in a standby role.
The electric motors are being controlled
by either ELAC or SEC computers.
Operating the THS by using the

mechanical trim wheel has priority over
the electrical trim (figure 1.3).
Figure 1.3 THS Trim Wheel

With this respect, the A320 flight controls are composed of seven computers, and the auto-pilot of
two. The flight control computers are of a control and monitoring type. The aircrafts re-sponse to
surfaces movement is feedback to both auto-pilot and flight controls computers. Through specific
sensors (ADIRU, accelerometers) and dedicated screens it will be displayed to the crew.
Figure 1.2 Electronic Flight Controls
Hydraulic Systems
The A320 has three independent hydraulic systems, the green, blue and yellow system (figure 1.3). The
green and yellow systems are each pressurized by an engine driven pump (1). The yellow hydraulic system
can also be pressurized by an electrical pump (2). A PTU (3) enables the green system to be pressurized
by the yellow system and vice versa. Fire shut off valves (4) are located between the reservoirs and the
engine driven pumps. The blue hydraulic system is pressurized by an electric pump. In an emergency the
blue system can be pressurized by the RAT (5). Each hydraulic system delivers a constant pressure to the
users.
36
1. Engine driven pump
2. Electrical pump
3. Power Transfer Unit
4. Fire shut off valves
5. Ram Air Turbine
Figure 1.3 A320 Hydraulic Systems
The hydraulic system is fully automatic, however each pump and the PTU has an associated pushbutton
switch for abnormal operation. These buttons are located on the overhead hydraulic control panel (figure
1.4).
Figure 1.4 Hydraulic System Control
Seat maps published by Lufthansa allow one to compare the A320s cabin with the A320
neos cabin. Both cabins are of identical length, but have a key difference in the layout: The
37
aft two lavatories are moved to the rear bulkhead, reducing galley space, and making space
for one extra row of seats (see the image on top). Lufthansas A320ceos has 168 seats in its
cabin (across 2 classes), while the A320 neo with the rearranged SpaceFlex cabin fits 180
seats (across 2 classes), as shown below.
In the case of IndiGo and GoAirs A320 neos, the cabin will be fitted with 186 seats (single
class), 6 more than the present 180 seats fit in the cabin. Moving the lavatories towards the
rear bulkhead, and eating into the galley space makes sense for low cost carriers, as the
quantum of uplifted food is lesser than full service carriers. But the last row will be where
the lavatories were earlier located.
The issue is not about sitting where the lavatories once were, but that the last row (which
will be identified as row 31 on IndiGo and GoAir, and row 32 on all other airlines that skip
the number 13 when identifying rows) will have no window, and little to no recline. This
will, undoubtedly, become the least preferred row on the entire aircraft. To make things a
bit more uncomfortable, the walls start moving inwards at that row, part of the taper of the
aft fuselage.
Seat pitch on the 186 seat A320s will remain unaffected at 28/29 inches. But remember to
keep an eye out for windowless row 31 and above.
xactly 14 months since the first Airbus A320NEO took to the skies on September 25th, 2014, the aircraft has won a
joint FAA and EASA type certificate, today.
The Type Certificate however is for the A320NEO powered by the Pratt and Whitney PW1127G-JM Geared
Turbofan Engine. This aircraft variant is A320-271N.
The PW1100G-JM family of engines uses a revolutionary but not new technology that essentially makes the engine
a cross between a turboprop and a pure turbofan. This is the largest geared turbofan produced till date. With this
engine, Pratt and Whitney marks its return as a single brand powerplant option for narrowbody mainline jets. Boeing
737-300/400/500/600/700/800/900/MAX-7/8/9 are all powered by CFM engines, while the Airbus A320 family of
38
aircraft are powered by either CFM or the IAE consortiums engines. Pratt and Whitney is part of the IAE
consortium.
The JM" in PW1127G-JM represents partner companies Japanese Aero Engine Corporation (JAEC) and (Motoren-
und Turbinen-Union GmbH) MTU. JAEC holds a 23 percent share in the PW1100G program and is responsible for
the fan, low pressure compressor (LPC) and combustor/diffuser. MTU holds an 18 percent share and is responsible
for the low pressure turbine (LPT), and jointly with Pratt & Whitney the high pressure compressor (HPC). Pratt &
Whitney is responsible for the remainder of the engine and systems integration.
The PW1100G-JM family powers the Airbus A320NEO family (A319NEO, A320NEO, and A321NEO) and is
available in 5 thrust variants of 22,000/24,000/27,000/30,000/33,000 lbf (pound-force) per engine. The PW1127G-
JM that powers the A320NEO is the 27,000 lbf variant.
The CFM powered A320NEO (A320-251N) will be certified in the coming months.
In India, all operators that have placed direct orders for Airbus A320NEO aircraft have chosen the PW1127G-JM as
the power plant of choice. IndiGo has 430 Airbus A320NEOs on order, some of which may be converted to
A321NEO orders. Go Air has an order for 72 Airbus A320NEO aircraft. Vistara, which is committed to the lease of
20 Airbus A320 aircraft from Bank of China Aviation (BOC Aviation), will receive 7 Airbus A320NEOs from mid
2017 onwards. However, the engine option has not yet been finalised. AirAsia India, which leases aircraft from
AirAsia Berhad, will receive Airbus A320NEOs powered by the CFM LEAP engines.
One of IndiGos Airbus A320NEOs, MSN 6720, is one of the three test aircraft, and has been flying since
September 25th, 2015. However, the first production aircraft is destined for Qatar Airways, the launch customer.
MSN 6744, to be registered VT-ITA, a Hamburg produced A320NEO already painted in airline colors, may be the
first A320NEO for IndiGo, despite being produced after the aircraft that was already flying for the certification
program.
The three flight test aircraft powered by Pratt & Whitney engines accumulated over 1,070 flight hours over 350
flights. Of these 1,070 flight test hours, 300 were completed with the same aircraft in an airline like environment to
ensure operational maturity at entry into service.
The A320-271N is the 9th sub-variant of the A320-200 family, after A320-211/212/214/215/216/231/232/233. The
A321-271N is significantly different from the original A320 Type certificate via the modification labelled MOD
161000. Pratt and Whitney received FAA certification for the PW1100G-JM engine on December 19th, 2014.
The A320-271Ns operating empty weight is around 3 tonnes heavier than the A320-232 which IndiGo flies today.
However, the maximum take-off weight of the highest weight variant of the A320-271N is 79 tonnes, which is just 1
tonne higher than the maximum take-off weight of the highest weight variant of the A320-232. The dry weight of
39
each PW1127G-JM engine is 453kg heavier than the IAE V2527-A5 that powers the -232 variant. This implies that
the weight of accessories and structural reinforcements total to around 2 tonnes.
The A320-271N promises a fuel saving of upto 11% over the A320-232SL and 15% over the A320-232 (non
winglet). Such savings are however realised only on flights of 3000NM and higher.
There is a strong possibility of IndiGo receiving its first Airbus A320NEO by end of this calendar year. As per our
information, IndiGos A320NEOs will be fitted with 186 seats six seats more than what it fits every aircraft cabin
with, today.
Thanks to Cyril for the heads up on the certification.
IndiGo: Desperate for Capacity
18 WednesdayNOV 2015
POSTED BY THEFLYINGENGINEER IN AIRCRAFT, AIRLINE, INDIGO

1 COMMENT
Tags
A320, Airbus, Indigo, NEO
40
IndiGo has turned out to be a consistently aggressive player. The 9 year old airline, which
went public when fuel prices were at their lowest and profits at their highest, already flies
98 Airbus A320 current engine option (CEO), and is soon expected to add its 99th airplane.
Then, the Airbus A320 new engine option (NEO) starts getting delivered. The magnitude of
the airlines orders, and the airlines share of the first 35 aircraft to be delivered dwarfs
every other airline.
Out of the 98 airplanes that the airline flies, 84 are part of the 100 airplane order that the
airline placed in the year 2005. 16 aircraft were returned to the lessor, and those were the
only airplanes that had a 6 year lease term. Then, IndiGo did something it had never done
before it started short term dry leasing older, previously operated airplanes, in a
desperate attempt to increase capacity. The airline has leased 14 aircraft, most from
Tigerair, and is soon expected to induct its 15th such airplane, making it the 99th active
aircraft in the fleet. All the short term dry leased airplanes that were not part of the airlines
order are registered VT-IDx, with x taking values from A to O.
IndiGo resorted to such leases because it felt the Indian market had the demand. More than
50% of the airlines fleet today has been inducted since 2012 the year Kingfisher airlines
went down. IndiGo filled in the void left by Kingfisher, was prepared for a void to be left by
SpiceJet, and prepared to boost capacity to take on AirAsia India and Vistara. Today, the
airline has a momentum that seems unstoppable. After exhausting its A320CEO order (100
airplanes, placed in 2005), the airline is left with 430 Airbus A320NEO airplanes that have
been ordered and not yet delivered (an order for 180 airplanes in 2011 and 250 in 2015).
The Airbus A320NEO is expected to soon be certified. IndiGo has opted for the Pratt and
Whitney PW1100G geared turbofan engine option, and the NEO airplanes offer fuel savings
of upto 15% more than A320CEOs without winglets/sharklets.
41
As of October 31st, there are 2,868 disclosed
orders for Airbus A320NEO airplanes from airline operators and leasing companies. Out of
those 2,868 orders, IndiGos totals 430 aircraft a staggering 15% of that number. This is
followed next by the AirAsia, which has 304 NEOs on order.
Although Qatar Airways is the launch customer of the A320NEO, the first production NEO is
destined for IndiGo. Out of the first 35 NEOs to be produced, 10 are IndiGos, followed next
by 6 of Qatar Airways.
Both these point to one thing that IndiGo is desperate for capacity.
But with the 1st, 2nd, 4th, 6th, 9th, 10th, 12th,
15th, 18th and 19th A320NEOs destined for IndiGo, why would the airline want to lease a
11 year old A320 as its 99th aircraft?
The A320NEO was expected to be certified this November, but there apparently few delays
that has forced Airbus to state that Qatar, the launch customer, will receive its A320NEO by
42
end of this year, without publicly stating a date. IndiGo is a good planner, and perhaps the
induction of the 99th aircraft as an old airplane points to the airline having some knowledge
about delays in the NEO program which may be unacceptable for a carrier that is ever
looking to add capacity.
IndiGo will be adding capacity not just with airplanes, but with seats. While the airline has
stated its intent to induct Airbus A321NEOs, orders for such airplanes do not yet officially
reflect in Airbuss order book. Another way the airline is adding seats to airplanes is through
the Space Flex concept, where the two aft lavatories will be moved into the galley, freeing
up enough space to accommodate an additional row of passengers, taking the total to 186
seats per A320 as opposed to the present 180 seats per A320. All A320s can be retrofitted
to the new configuration.
Interestingly, IndiGo co-founder Rakesh Gangwal mentioned that that the larger A321NEO
will have a longer range, when compared to the A320NEO. He told Livemint, We will soon
have the (Airbus) A321, with 234 seats. That brings down costs dramatically and allows us
to do different things. Also, the range of the A321 is bigger, so with the same product, we
can fly on longer routes from India. It was only in January this year that Airbus formally
announced the A320NEOLR, a 97 tonne Airbus A321 with three auxiliary fuel tanks that
offers a range of 4000 nautical miles (NM), which is 300 NM more what is advertised for the
A320NEO. Airbus claims that the 97 tonne A321NEO has the longest range of any single
aisle airliner available today and tomorrow, making it ideally suited to transatlantic routes
and will allow airlines to tap into new long haul markets which were not previously
accessible with current single aisle aircraft.
However, deliveries for the long range A321NEO are expected in second half of 2018, which
means IndiGo will have to do with the A320NEO till then.
Aditya Ghosh told AIN that the airline will increase its operating fleet to 111, 134 and 154
aircraft, by the end of March 2016, 2017 and 2018, respectively.
This means that IndiGo will need to induct:
1. 13 A320NEOs by end March 2016, or 4 5 airplanes a month assuming deliveries for

IndiGo start in January 2016.
2. 23 A320NEOs between March 2016-March 2017, or 2 airplanes a month in FY2016-17.
3. 20 A320NEOs between March 2017-March 2018, or 1-2 airplanes a month in FY2017-18.
43
This will total to 56 A320NEOs, which will represent 36% of the airlines fleet by end 2018,
in line with what Aditya Ghosh told AIN in October: We will, within two and a half years,
have two-thirds of our fleet with Neos and in five to six years, have an all-Neo fleet.
With such a plan, all the airplanes presently in IndiGos fleet will stay atleast till end March
2018, after which aircraft may be replaced by A320NEOs.
Assuming that IndiGo starts replacing the A320CEOs in its fleet with A320NEOs in its fleet
from FY2018-19 to FY 2020-21 (to have an all NEO fleet in 5-6 years), that will involve
replacements at an average rate of 2-3 airplanes a month. IndiGo has historically inducted
on average 1 airplane a month, but in March 2012 it inducted 3 airplanes in a month.
IndiGo will be able to handle 2-3 replacements a month, and perhaps 2 additions each
month, taking the induction to a total to 4-5 airplanes a month, perhaps at maximum. At
such a rate, the fleet at maximum may rise to around 220 airplanes in FY2021-22. A ball-
park figure of 200, if achieved, will translate to IndiGo doubling its fleet in the next 5-6
years, amounting to a net CAGR of 12% a very reasonable growth rate.
The initial hiccup, however, may still be with the A320NEO program. If IndiGo is to achieve
its target of 111 airplanes by end March 2016, and if the NEO certification further pushes
back timelines, the airline may have to induct more, previously-operated and old CEO
aircraft, though that seems somewhat unlikely.
One of IndiGos A320NEOs, a Toulouse assembled frame, which is also the 6th NEO to be
built (MSN6720), has been flying since 25th September 2015 to help with the certification
program. The second A320NEO (MSN6744), which unlike the other initial NEOs for IndiGo
has been assembled at Hamburg, and fully painted in the airlines colors, but missing
engines. It may be that the latter MSN (the Hamburg build) will be delivered first to IndiGo.
12 ABOUT THE ENGINE additional information
1Development
o 1.1Flight testing
o 1.2Introduction
o 1.3Production
2Design
3Applications
4Specifications
o 4.1General characteristics
o 4.2Components&COMPONENTS
44
o
Development
mockup with compressor and turbine cutaway
Pratt & Whitney first attempted to build a geared turbofan starting around 1998, with the
PW8000.[3] This essentially was an upgrade of the existing PW6000 that replaced the fan section
with a gearing system and new single-stage fan.[4] After several years of development the PW8000
essentially disappeared.[5]
Soon afterwards the ATFI project appeared, using a PW308 core but with a new gearbox and a
single-stage fan. It had its first run on March 16, 2001. This led to the Geared Turbofan (GTF)
program, which was based around a newly designed core jointly developed with German MTU Aero
Engines.
In addition to the geared turbofan, the initial designs included a variable-area fan nozzle (VAFN),
which allows improvements in propulsive efficiency across a range of the flight envelope.[6] However,
the VAFN has since been dropped from production designs due to high system weight.
In July 2008, the GTF was renamed PW1000G, the first in a new line of "PurePower" engines.[7] Pratt
& Whitney claims the PW1000G is 16% more fuel efficient than current engines used on regional
jets and single-aisle jets, as well as being up to 75% quieter.[8]
45
Flight testing
Flight testing on a 747SP, in #2 position
The engine was first tested on the Pratt & Whitney Boeing 747SP, then since October 14, 2008 on
an Airbus A340-600 in Toulouse on the number two pylon.[9] Testing of the CSeries bound PW1524G
model began in October 2010.[10] The PW1500G engine successfully achieved Transport Canada
type certification on February 20, 2013.[11] The A320 engine, the PW1100G, was first tested on the
747SP on 15 May 2013.[12]
The first flight test on one of its intended production airframes, the Bombardier CS100, was on
September 16, 2013.[13] The first flight of the Airbus A320neo followed on September 25, 2014.[14] The
PW1100G engine successfully achieved FAA type certification on December 19, 2014.[15] The fourth
variant of the engine, the PW1900G, first flew on November 3, 2015 from Mirabel in Canada fitted to
the Boeing 747SP test aircraft.[16]
Introduction
Powering the Lufthansa first A320neo
The first delivery to a commercial operator, an A320neo to Lufthansa, occurred on January 20,
2016.[17] This was instead of Qatar Airways due to rotor bow, or thermal bowing, due to asymmetrical
cooling after shut-down on the previous flight. Differences in temperature across the shaft section
supporting the rotor lead to different thermal deformation of the shaft material, causing the rotor axis
to bend; this results in an offset between the center of gravity of the bowed rotor and the bearing
axis, causing a slight imbalance and potentially reducing the tight clearance between the rotor blade
tips and the compressor wall. All production standard engines now feature a damper on the third and
fourth shaft bearings to help stiffen the shaft and data from engines in service and under accelerated
testing is expected to gradually reduce engine start times. According to P&W President Bob Leduc,
46
"by the time we get to June (2016), it will be down to 200 seconds for start time and by the time we
get to December (2016) we will be down to 150 seconds for start time".[18]
In an earnings briefing on 26th July the CEO of Pratt & Whitney's parent company United
Technologies Gregory Hayes stated when asked about the start up issues on the PW1100G-JM;
"On the technical stuff, I would tell you it is in the rearview mirror. The start time with the software
drops have been pretty well addressed".[19] Airbus group chief Tom Enders said while releasing
Airbus's 2016 first half financial results that the first upgraded "golden engine" would be delivered to
Lufthansa in early August 2016.[20]
Initially, the PW1000G start up sequence took about seven minutes, compared to one to two and a
half minute startups on the similar CFM56 and IAE V2500 engines; hardware fixes and software
upgrades decreased the time required by a little over a minute, and cooling down both engines at
the same time saved slightly over two minutes, for a total reduction of three and a half minutes. This
modifications were included on new-build engines, as well as retrofitting existing units. Pratt &
Whitney continued to improve start up times, with fuel-nozzle modifications and oil filling procedure
changes expected to save another minute when introduced by the end of 2017.[21]
As IndiGo and Go Air operate in humid, hot, polluted and salty environment, 42 engines were
prematurely removed from those companies' aircraft by 24 February, with more to come and after
certain warnings mandatory checks and possible repairs are due after only three flight hours instead
of ten : 28 engine removals were due to an air seal leakage in the third bearing, allowing metal
particles to enter the oil system, triggering detectors. Pratt & Whitney discovered these issues in
2015 and revised the design in 2016 after the 160th engine with improved bearing compartments
and damping for the third and fourth bearings to offset the rotor-bow, with the repairs retrofitted on-
wing after testing at Airbus and Pratt; 13 engine removals were due to borescope inspections
revealing blocked cooling holes in combustion chamber panels, apparently due to saltier air, and
Pratt & Whitney developed and tested a more durable combustor design to address a tone problem,
with the fix to be introduced in September.[21]
Spirit Airlines reported that the bleed air system froze shut on occasion due to cold temperatures on
four of its five A320neos, a problem also experienced by Indigo, leading Spirit to impose a 30,000
feet (9,100 m) ceiling on their aircraft.[22]
Production
At the start of its production in 2016, each GTF was costing PW $10m to build, more than the sale
price, but should become less than $2m per engine.[23] MTU provides the first four stages of the high-
pressure compressor, the low-pressure turbine and other components. In October 2016, MTU
started to deliver the engine assembled on its line to Airbus.[24]
In November 2016, Pratt had fixed the issue of engine start time and wants to deliver 150
powerplants by the year-end, 50 fewer than originally planned. This is because of low yield of Fan
Blades when less than one-third were passing inspection at the start of the year compared to 75%
success for the latest. 350-400 engine deliveries are targeted for 2017. Fuel-burn performance is
16% better than the IAE V2500 baseline, on target, and even 18% better in best cases.[25]
Design[
By putting a 3:1 gearbox between the fan and the low-pressure spool, each spins at its optimal
speed: 4,0005,000 RPM for the fan and 12,00015,000 RPM for the spool, the high-pressure spool
spinning at more than 20,000 RPM. The 30,000 hp gearbox is designed as a lifetime item with no
scheduled maintenance other than changing oil.[26]
47
Specification
Data from PW1100G Type Certificate[37]
General characteristics
Type: Geared Turbofan

Length: 133.898 in (3,401 mm) fan spinner face to aft flange
Diameter: 87.566 in (2,224 mm) fan case
Dry weight: 6300 lb (2857.6 kg) for PW1100G
Components
Compressor: Axial flow,1-stage geared fan, 2-3 stage LP, 8 stage HP

Combustors: Annular combustion chamber
Turbine: Axial flow, 2-stage HP, 3-stage LP
Performance
Maximum thrust: 24,24033,110 lbf (107.8147.3 kN) max takeoff

Thrust-to-weight ratio: 3.85 - 5.26
PW1100G Max thrust ratings
Models Take-Off Continuous
PW1133G/GA-JM, PW1130G-JM 33110 lbf (147.28 kN) 32780 lbf (145.81 kN)
PW1127G/GA/G1-JM 27075 lbf (120.43 kN) 26345 lbf (117.18 kN)
PW1124G/G1-JM, PW1122G-JM 24240 lbf (107.82 kN) 24035 lbf (106.91 kN)
48
airbus A320 Neo vs Boeing 737 MAX
675210
The future of single-aisle aircraft is taking flight with Airbus A320neo and Boeing 737
MAX creating better, more efficient ways for airlines and passengers to fly.
In todays aerospace market, the MAX and the Neo are the best-selling products for both
manufacturers. The Boeing and Airbus fight to rule the market has already started. Both
airplanes are being sold in large numbers because of their greater fuel efficiencies and
commonalities with the models theyll replacefactors that will save airlines enormous piles
of cash. The logical question which one is better? Or maybe they are really like two
brothers, but with a bit different character?
49
New engine options by Neo
Airbus was improving the A320 through a program called the A320 Enhanced in 2006, which
featured weight savings, a new cabin design, and curved sharklets. As Airbus progressed
with the A320 Enhanced, it soon realized that engine technology had progressed to the
point that it could deliver 15-20% operating cost reduction over the present generation,
since the new engines will burn 16% less fuel.
In addition, Airbus CEO was said to be comfortable with 15% lower maintenance cost for
the Pratt & Whitneys engine family, compared with todays engines.
50
Since its launch in December 2010, the A320neo has received above 2,000 NEO orders in a
little over two years after launch making it the fastest selling commercial aircraft in
history. In total, the A320neo has won 3, 327 orders. The A320neo delivery was postponed
from October 2015 to early 2016. Lufthansa took delivery of the first A320neo on January
20, 2016.
Since 2006, Boeing had been studying various replacement options for the 737 too. A
decision on this replacement was postponed, and delayed until 2011. In November 2014, it
was reported that Boeing intends to replace the 737 by 2030 with a new airplane. Debut and
the record number of orders of Airbus A320neo forced Boeing to change their strategy.
The pressure from airlines and aviation community for more fuel efficient aircraft forced
Boeing to shelve their previous plans. On August 30, 2011, companys board of directors
approved the 737 MAX project.
Today the 737 MAX is designed to be 14 percent more fuel-efficient than the current
generation of 737s and has 3, 072 orders.
The MAXs first flight came on 29th of January, 2016, nine days after the first delivery of the
Airbus A320neo. Boeing is expected to deliver its first 737 MAX to customers in 2017.
Southwest Airlines is scheduled to be the first airline to add the 737 MAX to its fleet.
51
The main principal changes and new features
Winglets. 2.4-meter-tall wingtip devices that provide operators with the flexibility of either
adding an additional 100 nautical miles range or increased payload capability of up to 450
kg. Made from lightweight composites, these wingtip devices offer up to four percent
overall fuel burn savings.
Fuselage. Airbus has improved A320s airframe to ensure high structural reliability, easy
maintainability and greater than 95% airframe spares commonality with A320. Improved
52
aluminum alloys increase structural life, while the extensive use of composite materials save
weight and reduce parts.
Engine. The NEO program features the choice of two new engines: one of those engines is
revolutionary Pratt & Whitneys PurePower PW1100G and other is the LEAP-1A from CFM.
The PW1100G is one of a GTF family engines prepared by Pratt that will power most new
generation aircraft including the A320neo, the Bombardier CSeries, the Embraer E-Jets E2,
the Russian-built Irkut MC-21, and the Mitsubishi MRJ-90.
53
Winglets. 737 MAX winglets reduce fuel consumption by up to 1.8 % compared with
todays winglets. These are wing tip extensions which reduce lift induced drag and
provide some extra lift.
Engine. The LEAP family of engines is a sole supplier for the Boeing 737 MAX, which will
feature the slightly smaller LEAP-1B. The fan of the LEAP-1B was increased from the 61.8
inch diameter of the CFM56-7B engine on the 737NG to 69,4 inch. There will also be a
new digital regulator for the engine bleed air systems which should improve its
reliability.
Environmental performance. The quieter 737 MAX has a 40 % smaller noise footprint
than todays single-aisle airplanes and 14% reduction in CO2.
54
Nose landing gear. The nose landing gear is lengthened by 68 inches (1520 cm) to
maintain the required ground clearance.
Propulsion installation. The MAX is the first Boeing single-aisle aircraft to feature both
primary and fan duct chevrons.
A320neo and 737 MAX orders
55
As you can see from the provided graphical map of firm orders by region (the numbers
include Airbus A319, A320, A321 and Boeing 737 MAX 7-8-9) the Airbus single-aisles took
the biggest markets with the lead in almost every continent, except the homeland of
Boeing North America and less important market in Africa.
If we will look and compare A320neo and 737 MAX orders and statistics from the end of
2015, we will find out that manufacturer from France clearly dominates in the single-aisle
market. Airbus rules the market of reengined narrow-bodies, with 60% of the market.
More than 7,300 firm orders for A320neo and 737 MAX aircraft combined have been signed
to date.
56
Yes, Airbus had a roughly nine-month lead before the launch of the 737 Max in August
2011, but even if you isolate to the period after the 737 MAX won its first order,
the A320neo has still outsold its Boeing counterpart, 3,355 to 3,072.
Basic market forces are likely to reduce Airbuss advantage eventually, but it is difficult to
imagine a scenario that would cause a shift toward Boeings stated goal of a 50/50
CFM International LEAP
13.Leap x
The CFM International LEAP is a high-bypass turbofan engine. It is produced by CFM International,
a 50-50 joint venture company between GE Aviation of the United States and Safran Aircraft
Engines (formerly known as Snecma) of France. It is a modernized replacement for the
successful CFM International CFM56, intended to compete with the Pratt & Whitney PW1000G in
the single-aisle jetliner market.
Contents
1Design
2Development
o 2.1Orders
o 2.2Production
57
o 3Applications
4Specifications
Design
The LEAP's basic architecture includes a scaled-up version of Safran's low pressure turbine used on
the GEnX engine. The fan has flexible blades manufactured by a resin transfer molding process,
which are designed to untwist as the fan's rotational speed increases. While the LEAP is designed to
operate at a higher pressure than the CFM56 (which is partly why it is more efficient), GE plans to
set the operating pressure lower than the maximum in order to maximize the engine's service life
and reliability. Currently proposed for the LEAP is a greater use of composite materials, a blisk fan in
the compressor, a second-generation Twin Annular Pre Swirl (TAPS II) combustor, and a bypass
ratio around 10-11:1. GE is using ceramic matrix composites (CMC) to build the turbine shrouds.[5]
These technological advances are projected to produce 16% lower fuel consumption.[6][7][8] Reliability
is also supported by use of an eductor-based oil cooling system similar to that of the GenX, featuring
coolers mounted on the inner lining of the fan duct. According to Aviation Week's article, "The
eductor device produces a venturi effect, which ensures a positive pressure to keep oil in the lower
internal sump."[9] The engine has some of the first FAA-approved 3D-printed components.[10][11]
Development
The LEAP ("Leading Edge Aviation Propulsion")[12] incorporates technologies that CFM developed as
part of the LEAP56 technology acquisition program, which CFM launched in 2005.[13] The engine was
officially launched as LEAP-X on 13 July 2008.[6] It is intended to be a successor to the CFM56-
5B and CFM56-7B.
In total, 28 test engines will be used by CFM to achieve engine certification, and 32 others will be
used by Airbus, Boeing and COMAC for aircraft certification and test programs.[1][14] The first engine
entering the test program successfully reached and sustained 33,000 lbf (150 kN) of thrust, required
to satisfy the highest rating for the Airbus A321neo. The same engine ultimately reached 35,000 lbf
(160 kN) of thrust in test runs.[15]
58
General Electric carried out the first test flight, of a LEAP-1C, in Victorville, California, with the
engine mounted on the company's Boeing 747 flying testbed, on October 6, 2014, the -1C version
features a thrust reverser equipped with a one piece O-ring replacing a 2 piece door. The thrust
reverser is deployed by the O-ring sliding aft, reducing the drag that was induced by the older design
and improving efficiency.[16] In April 2015, it was reported that the LEAP-1B was suffering up to a 5%
shortfall on its promised reduction in fuel consumption.[17]
Orders
The Commercial Aircraft Corporation of China (COMAC) has chosen the LEAP engine for its
new COMAC C919 aircraft.[18] The aircraft was due to begin testing in 2016.[19]
On July 20, 2011, American Airlines announced that it planned to purchase 100 Boeing 737 aircraft
featuring the LEAP-1B engine.[20] The project was approved by Boeing on August 30, 2011 as
the Boeing 737 MAX.[21][22] Southwest Airlines is the launch customer of the 737 MAX with a firm
order of 150 aircraft.[23]
CFM International offers its support for the engine, and signed a 15-year Rate per Flight Hour
agreement with Loong Air for 20 LEAP-1A at U.S $333 million, or $3039 per engine per day, in
contrast with U.S. $138 million for 17 CFM International CFM56 over 12 years or $1852 per engine
per day.[24] As a number of A320neo engine for ANA group of Japan was also ordered in 2014, there
is a possibility to select the LEAP engine.[25]
In 2016 CFM booked 1,801 orders, LEAP backlog is at more than 12,200 for more than $170 billion
U.S. at list price.[4]
Production
In 2016, the engine was introduced in August on the Airbus A320neo with Pegasus
Airlines and CFM delivered 77 LEAP.[4] CFM should produce 500 engines in 2017 with the 737
MAX introduction and 1,100 in 2018.[26] It should reach 2,000 by 2020, to be compared to the
1,700 CFM56 produced in 2016.[27]
To cope with the demand, CFM is duplicating supply sources on 80% of parts and even subdivide
assembly sites, already shared between GE and Safran: GE assembles its production in Lafayette,
Indiana in addition to its previous Durham, North Carolina facility. As more than 75% of the engine
comes from suppliers, critical parts suppliers pass run-rate stress tests lasting two to 12
weeks. Pratt & Whitney acknowledges a production ramp-up bottleneck on its
rival PW1100G geared turbofan including a critical shortage of the unique aluminium-titanium fan
blade, hitting the Airbus A320neo and the Bombardier CSeries deliveries.[28]
59
Applications
Airbus A320neo prototype with Leap engines.
Model Application[29] Thrust range[29] Introduction[30]
1A Airbus A320neo family 24,50035,000 lbf (109156 kN) 2 Aug 2016[31]
1B Boeing 737 MAX 23,00028,000 lbf (100120 kN) 2017 (planned)
1C COMAC C919 27,98030,000 lbf (124.5133.4 kN) 2018 (planned)
Specifications
Model LEAP-1A[32] LEAP-1B[33] LEAP-1C[32]
Configuration Twin-spool, high bypass turbofan
Compressor 1 fan, 3-stage LP, 22:1 10-stage HP[34]
second generation Twin-Annular, Pre-Mixing

Combustor
Swirler Combustor (TAPS II)[29]
Turbine 2-stage HP, 7-stage (-1B: 5-stage) LP[35]
60
Compression
40:1[34] (50:1, Top-of-Climb)
ratio
TSFC ~ -15% (vs. current CFM56 engine)[29]
Fan 69.4 in
78 in (198 cm) 78 in (198 cm)
diameter[34] (176 cm)
Bypass ratio
11:1 9:1 11:1
(BPR)[34]
3.147 m 4.505 m
Length 3.328 m (131.0 in) [a]
(123.9 in) (177.4 in) [b]
2.421 m 2.659 m
Max. Width 2.5332.543 m (99.7100.1 in)
(95.3 in) (104.7 in)
2.256 m 2.714 m
Max. Height 2.3682.362 m (93.293.0 in)
(88.8 in) (106.9 in)
3,9293,935 kg
2,780 kg
Weight 2,9903,153 kg (6,5926,951 lb) (Wet) (8,6628,675 lb)
(6,130 lb) (Dry)
(Wet)
-1C28 :
129.98 kN
-1A23, 24 : 106.80 kN (24,010 lbf) -1B28 :
Take-Off (29,220 lbf)
-1A26 : 120.64 kN (27,120 lbf) 130.41 kN
Thrust -1C30 :
-1A30, 32, 33, 35 : 143.05 kN (32,160 lbf) (29,320 lbf)
137.14 kN
(30,830 lbf)
-1A23 : 104.58 kN (23,510 lbf) -1B28 : -1C28 :

Max.
-1A24 : 106.76 kN (24,000 lbf) 127.62 kN 127.93 kN
61
Continuous -1A26 : 118.68 kN (26,680 lbf) (28,690 lbf) (28,760 lbf)
-1A30, 32, 33, 35 : 140.96 kN (31,690 lbf) -1C30 :
133.22 kN
(29,950 lbf)
LP : 4586, HP : LP : 3894, HP :
Max. rpm LP : 3894, HP : 19391
20171 19391
62
THE END
63

Pro ALL

Transféré par

Informations du document

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Pro ALL

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

HINDUSTAN UNIVERSITY: PADUR, CHENNAI 603 103

Certified that this project report titled A-320(NEO)

HEAD OF THE DEPARTMENT SUPERVISOR

Dr. DILIP A SHAH Ph.D. I.L. AYYAVARU,

Department of Aeronautics Engineering Aviation College

TECHNOLOGY AND SCIENCE ENGINEERING TECHNOLOGY

The project phase I viva-voce examination is held on _____________

INTERNALS EXAMINAR EXTERNAL EXAMINAR

Certified that this project report titled A-320(NEO)

HEAD OF THE DEPARTMENT SUPERVISOR

Dr. DILIP A SHAH Ph.D. I.L. AYYAVARU,

Department of Aeronautics Engineering Aviation College

TECHNOLOGY AND SCIENCE ENGINEERING TECHNOLOGY

The project phase I viva-voce examination is held on _____________

INTERNALS EXAMINAR EXTERNAL EXAMINAR

Certified that this project report titled A-320(NEO)

HEAD OF THE DEPARTMENT SUPERVISOR

Dr. DILIP A SHAH Ph.D. I.L. AYYAVARU,

Department of Aeronautics Engineering Aviation College

TECHNOLOGY AND SCIENCE ENGINEERING TECHNOLOGY

The project phase I viva-voce examination is held on _____________

INTERNALS EXAMINAR EXTERNAL EXAMINAR

Certified that this project report titled A-320(NEO)

HEAD OF THE DEPARTMENT SUPERVISOR

Dr. DILIP A SHAH Ph.D. I.L. AYYAVARU,

Department of Aeronautics Engineering Aviation College

TECHNOLOGY AND SCIENCE ENGINEERING TECHNOLOGY

The project phase I viva-voce examination is held on _____________

INTERNALS EXAMINAR EXTERNAL EXAMINAR

Certified that this project report titled A-320(NEO)

HEAD OF THE DEPARTMENT SUPERVISOR

Dr. DILIP A SHAH Ph.D. I.L. AYYAVARU,

Department of Aeronautics Engineering Aviation College

TECHNOLOGY AND SCIENCE ENGINEERING TECHNOLOGY

The project phase I viva-voce examination is held on _____________

INTERNALS EXAMINAR EXTERNAL EXAMINAR

Certified that this project report titled A-320(NEO)

HEAD OF THE DEPARTMENT SUPERVISOR

Dr. DILIP A SHAH Ph.D. I.L. AYYAVARU,

Department of Aeronautics Engineering Aviation College

TECHNOLOGY AND SCIENCE ENGINEERING TECHNOLOGY

The project phase I viva-voce examination is held on _____________

INTERNALS EXAMINAR EXTERNAL EXAMINA

Its a matter of pride and privilege for me to express my deep

I wish to express my gratitude to DR. DILIP A SHAH, Head of the

I would like to thank my guide MR. AGNI SARAN SAHOO for

Last but not the least, I am deeply indebted to my parents and

An A320neo about to land from indigo the largest operator

Role Narrow-body twin-engine jet airliner

National origin Multi-national Narrow

First flight 25 September 2014

Introduction 25 January 2016 with Lufthansa

Primary users IndiGo

Number built 94 as of 31 March 2017

Unit cost A319neo: US$99.5 million, approx. 94.5 million (2017)

Developed from Airbus A320 family

1.Design and development

A320 Enhanced (A320E) and A320neo sharklet detail at ILA 2012

New Engine Option

Lufthansa Airbus A320neo

An A321neo prototype in flight

3.Orders and deliveries

A320neo orders and deliveries