A few days ago GE Aviation announced that its new H80 turboprop engine achieved EASA certification. Those who passed by our booth at Oshkosh and NBAA earlier this year got the chance to see this amazing engine up-close. If you couldn’t make it (or if you need a refresher), I encourage you to check out the engine’s data sheet.

Celebrations were in order to mark this important milestone. During an incredible evening at the US Ambassador’s residence in Prague, our Czech colleagues, under whose leadership the H80 was developed, were treated to congratulatory messages from Czech dignitaries, David Joyce (President and CEO, GE Aviation), Brad Mottier (GE’s VP and General Manager for Business & General Aviation), Paul Theofan (GE Aviation’s President and Managing Executive of Business & General Aviation Turboprops), and Frederic Compigneaux (EASA Deputy Director), to name a few.

Back at GE Aviation’s Cincinnati’s headquarters some of us also celebrated our colleagues’ success with an aptly decorated cake and plenty to smile about.

Take a look at some of the pictures from both events.

I can’t think of a better way to end 2011 and I look forward to more successes in 2012.

Cheers,

Raf.

A few weeks ago, the French Senate adopted a budgetary amendment calling for procurement of the General Atomics Reaper UAV while safeguarding funds for development of a new-generation combat drone planned as a common project with Britain. The amendment seeks to reverse a government decision to acquire the Heron TP drone from Israel Aerospace Industries (IAI), partnered with Dassault Aviation. To read the article from UAS Vision, click here.

Although the exact details have yet to be sorted out, the amendment calls for EADS to modify seven US-built Reaper UAVs at a total cost of 297 million euros, versus the Dassault and IAI offer of seven Heron TP UAVs at total cost of 370 million euros. As to why the Senate made the decision that they did, Defense Minister Gérard Longuet summed it up when he said “the Heron TP was 30 percent more expensive and 20 percent less effective than the Reaper.”

What’s surprising to me is not that the French Senate chose the less expensive and more capable option – that should be a given for any reasonable decision within defense procurement – it’s that the Senate’s decision effectively shuts out a key domestic manufacturer from an important military program. The decision is well in-line with the fiscal austerity caused by economic uncertainty sweeping the globe, but at the same time it’s a bitter pill to swallow for those in favor of protecting domestic manufacturing.

Here in the US, we have seen and will continue to see the same challenges play out in our defense industry. The balance between capability/cost and domestic manufacturing has become exacerbated over the last few years. We can expect to see this balance become more of a contentious issue as uncertainty around the US defense budget, and the global economy for that matter, continues to worsen.   

Fly safe,

Marc

I recently returned from a week in India.  The main event was the US India Aviation Summit at the Taj Palace Hotel in New Delhi, but while I was there I took the opportunity to meet with executives and technical staff at airlines, Airports Authority of India, and the Directorate General of Civil Aviation.  It was a welcome visit for me because I was able to reconnect with many friends and acquaintances that I had not seen in some time.  This is the part of the business that is always interesting to me.  Yes, we deal in technology and even my job title is “Technical” Fellow, but at the end of the day, it is always about people.

It had been a while since I last visited India to support early efforts to deploy RNP into Indian airspace.  In the intervening period of time, progress with RNP in India has been surprisingly and, curiously slow. I was asked to join a plenary discussion at the Aviation Summit on Air Traffic Management, Air Space Utilization and NextGen Technology and talk about the value of RNP in India.  One of the first points I made was that India is unique among the major regions in the world in that 79% of the air transport fleet in India is fully capable of RNP operations, and that fleet operates at fifty-two of India’s airports.  This is an amazing number when you consider other regions, such as the United States, where just over 40% of the air transport fleet is equipped and capable of RNP.  For an explanation of why the high percentage of equipped aircraft in India, you have to look no further than the fact that air traffic in India has tripled in the last decade. This increase in traffic is supported by large fleets of new production Boeing and Airbus aircraft that are delivered fully configured for RNP operations.  Some estimates have the number of passengers more than tripling in the next 10-15 years, which will require new airspace infrastructure to increase air capacity in order to keep up with this pace of growth.  A key component to this build-out of infrastructure is RNP, and Airports Authority of India’s Directorate of Air Traffic Management of Airports has published a Performance-based Navigation (PBN) Implementation Road Map.

The first GPS approaches (now RNP APCH, per ICAO Navigation Specification) were deployed in the US in early 1990s.  The first RNP approach with passengers was conducted in May, 1996 by Alaska Airlines in Juneau, Alaska.  Over the last eight years, my colleagues and I at GE’s PBN Services have been deeply involved in deployments of over 350 RNP procedures in Australasia, China, South and North America.  RNP has been the foundation to impressive improvements in access to some of the world’s most physically constrained airports, such as in the mountainous areas of West and Southwest China, New Zealand, Canada, and Peru.  In addition to addressing the physical obstacles, RNP routes have been designed to de-conflict busy airspace and to avoid noise sensitive areas at airports that are not terrain-challenged.  Inherent in the design of RNP paths are Optimized Profile Descents (OPDs) that allow the aircraft to transition from cruise flight to landing in the most efficient way, further reducing noise and fuel burn.  The technology and experience is available.  A full complement of ICAO and FAA documents have been published that promulgate guidance, standards and best practices so that all regulators now have the tools to support the transition to performance-based navigation.

So, with all of the industry experience, validation of benefits, and regulatory tools for success, how can it be that India, with the highest concentration of capable aircraft in the world, does not have a single RNP approach procedure in service?  It was my observation during my visit that this is a question that a lot of people in India are asking and it is my belief that this situation will not persist much longer.  I wish all of my friends in India the very best success in this endeavor.

In part one, we talked about Pipistrel’s achievement with its Taurus G4, flying for 200 miles in less than two hours. While this is a phenomenal milestone, it is still not practical for general aviation applications. Compared to Pipistrel’s own LSA class aircraft Sinus, which has a cruise speed of 110 knots and a range of 540 nautical miles, Taurus G4’s performance falls way short.

So what can be done to extend Taurus G4’s range? One possibility is to take out the batteries and replace them with fuel cells, such as Proton Exchange Membrane (PEM) fuel cells, to generate electricity.

From various reports, the Taurus G4 uses a 450 pound (134 kg) Li-Ion battery with energy of 100kWhr. If we assume the best in class PEM fuel cell has a power density of 1.2 kW/kg, the fuel cell needed to power the motor will weigh around 121 kg and it can carry 13kg of compressed hydrogen. The amount of energy 13 kg of hydrogen contain is 3.5 times that of the battery pack, which means in theory a fuel cell powered Taurus G4 can fly for 7 hours!

Of course, this is all in theory right now because of a couple technical issues. First, PEM fuel cell durability is still a major challenge. You certainly don’t want the fuel cell to fail during flight. Another issue is that, while compressed hydrogen weighs little, it takes a lot of space. 13kg of compressed hydrogen will take up almost 150 liters, which will take up 5 cubic feet!