Seems a bit under-sized:
Contrast to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_E ... ifications
which suggests the need is for 14,000 lbf or so.
Also, it is a bizjet engine, and often these are not designed to the same durability standards (time between overhaul) as airliner engines are.
The industry got lucky with CF-34, it was designed from the start for long anti-submarine patrols from aircraft carriers so it was given a lot of durability with R&D paid for by the taxpayers.
Silvercrest has a centrifugal compressor. That is why the engine is so light. Efficiency is intentionally given up for cost and weight. On a per flight bases, the weight saved should, in my opinion, allow the same range misdion. However, in commercial duty, the added 4% or so more fuel burn quickly is an issue.
Airframers always want light engines. The designs are optimized as best as possible with very conservative margins. Margin adds weight...
Higher pressure ratio engines will be heavy. Building for durability saves weight. For example, I consulted on the turbine clearance control valve on the Silvercrest. An incredibly cheap, light, and simple unit. At the same time I was consulting on the C-series turbine clearance control which I believe also was put on the PW800 (no need to pay me for that change, so I am not certain). The turbine clearance control valve alone was cutting the expected overhaul interval on the Silvercrest below the PW812.
For the market, the correct design decision. IMHO, the Silvercrest should cost $500,000 less to make than a PW812.
It is a very advanced engine of simple design. If you will, technology used to create a simpler engine instead of a more efficient engine (there is always that design trade).
What is needed is a CFRP wing and an appropriate length body.
I, and apparently the entire aviation industry, have a hard time understanding how composite material wings can bring competitiveness in the regional aviation segment. Embraer preferred to build totally new wings for the E2 and keep them metallic. MHI gave up during the project and also sought conventional materials. I see a great difficulty for the CSeries / A220, which until today has a production rate of no more than 3 aircraft per month. The efficiency of the in-flight solution must be contrasted with the prospect of investment and production cost.
Finally, who still believes that the crude oil will return to 100 USD/bbp?
weight. I've done projects with CFRP saving weight down to MTOW of 15,000 lb. The cost of design is low. We had a single engineer design the wing.
So the entire aviation industry agreeing isn't correct. The companies that have completely converted over will never do a metal wing again. Instead, we are looking at new CFRP manufacturing to cut costs and weight (my employer has two competing manufacturing techniques going forward for wings, one cuts cost more, one weight more).
The fact the E2 and MRJ with metal wings blows past scope weight highlights the issues. Bombardier had issues, they are being worked out.
I don't understand all the CFRP issues companies are having. Perhaps I work for a company that just has a better CFRP design and manufacturing process. As our employees jump ship, as they always will, the CFRP know how is seeding the industry.
e.g., using a pressure dependent manufacturing process on the Lear 85 and moving manufacturing to high altitude didn't invalidate the tech, it showed a disconnected management.
The MC-21 has amazing CFRP tech quite applicable to regional jets.
I work aerospace technology. My job is to undertestand the cost to develop, manufacture, and how to repair (another team works those costs). This is why I really thought the Silvercrest was going to dominate the mid range business jet market as it just gas what is needed on manufacturing costs below the $45 million dollar aircraft. With SAFRAN messing up on what, in my opinion, was basic casing design and cooling, the other good tech won't help.
There is, in my opinion, an opening for a more efficient RJ. The majority of the market is 76 seats under 86,000 lb. Whomever develops the first aircraft for that market has 1st mover advantage.
So far customers prefer jets, but I really think that is due to jet bridge use at the hubs. Busy airports are loud! I love walking out to aircraft, but not when a nearby turbine is running (and this is from someone with flightline access for aircraft testing).
Despite the metal wing, the Spacejet 100 is a good option for that market. Mitsubishi just wouldn't listen to consultants (in my opinion), but the design can be saved.
Either a much more efficient aircraft joins the market or the size segment will be so inefficient that pricing will shift the market. ULCCs are here. There market share will grow, that isn't in doubt, in my opinion. What us the question is the future size of the RJ market. If RJ fares must rise relative to narrow bodies due to high variable costs, that gives the ULCCs more opportunities. Aviation is an elastic market.
Regional markets seem to have the greatest orice elasticity. In my opinion the CF-34-8 has a finite sales life remaining on new aircraft. The 2028 rule might not really effect E175 sales. I understand using aircraft already in the fleet, or buying used (Breeze). But it is Allegiant, Breeze, Frontier, and Spirit that will pilfer the regional market in the coming years. A 5X per week Breeze E190 flight has lower costs than 7X E175 and 8 more seats (but fractionally lower yield should be expected). Or lower frequency vs the 186 seat Allegiant A320 (phasing out A319s, in my opinion, over many years).
Link on elasticity of aviation:https://www.iata.org/en/iata-repository ... tervistas/
Efficiency is relative. Pilot unions are not likely to outsource their jobs again, so I expect no scope relief. Of my regional jet flights, half are too long for a turboprop. I would book another option. My most common regional flight allows me to avoid the hub during the summer as Allegiant started a direct flight on days that work for me.
This is why I remain excited about the MRJ design. It is the only thing out there for certain niches. The E3 has potential, but I know people, including smart relatives of mine, who very much irrationally dislike turboprops.
New engines cut larger Aircraft fuel burn and maintenance. Price elasticity will shift demand up-gauge as relative efficiency improved for one part of the aircraft market, but not RJs.
I propsed my solution for the RJ weight cap. The design studies I participated in show CFRP wings would remove tons if weight.
The A220 shows there is sufficient demand for smaller aircraft with CFRP wings.
6 months without TV. The best decision of my life.