Safran is a well-known aerospace company that makes engines for both civilian and military use. However, the small engine market, especially for business and regional jets, has been very difficult for them. Two high-profile programs, the SAM146 and the Silvercrest engines, starkly illustrate this underperformance. jingle
The engine did not equip the Beriev 200, as in 2019 Russia said the engine contained NATO parts. However, the unstated reason was different. Several Russian airlines complained that their SSJ100s were grounded due to premature engine failures, a shortage of available replacement engines, and the high cost of repairs. In late November 2019, the business daily Vedomosti let the cat out of the bag, pointing to defects in the SaM146 engine.
According to Vedomosti, which cites sources at several Russian airlines, the SSJ100 flies half as much as its immediate competitor, the Embraer 170 – 3.3 hours per day on average, compared to 6 hours for the Brazilian plane.
The engine trouble started back in 2010, two weeks after the EASA Certification. The engine had been underperforming in terms of fuel consumption and had gained excess weight.
Mark Sorel, President of PowerJet, told Air Transport Review in 2019 that the main issues are defects that occur in combustion chambers and oil collectors of engines with low service life, shortages and long delivery times of spare parts in case of breakdowns, poor organization and high prices of after-sales service.
This is not the only failure of Safran’s small jet engine portfolio.
In 2016, during the presentation of the annual results, Dassault Aviation’s CEO, Eric Trappier, made a blunt and unusual observation: “We are disappointed by this significant setback […]. The reality surpasses our worst nightmares.” Safran’s delays in developing the Silvercrest engine, intended to power all Falcon 5X jets, were still weighing heavily on his mind. Trappier assured that financial compensation negotiations were underway. The business jet’s certification, initially planned for early 2015, had been postponed to early 2018. As for the first deliveries, they were expected to take place in early 2020 instead of late 2017.
This two-year delay forced Dassault Aviation to “freeze production” of the aircraft. On December 13, 2017, Dassault announced the end of the Falcon 5X program and its split with Safran. This led to a three-year delay and order cancellations. Dassault Aviation then announced the launch of a new Falcon business jet program, which will be powered by Pratt and Whitney Canada engines.
So what went wrong? During its initial tests, the Silvercrest engine displayed excessive flexibility. Large gaps between its components complicated the optimization of the aerodynamic flow, hindering the engine’s performance. Pushing the engine to its limits to meet the expected performance levels led to overheating and premature wear. In short, Snecma’s teams realized that the engine was not yet capable of achieving all the set goals.
The delay in solving these problems was compounded by other issues. As Cédric Goubet, head of Snecma’s Civil Engines division, explained in 2015 to L’Usine Nouvelle, connections with the flying test bench (a Gulfstream G2 aircraft) turned out to be more complex than anticipated. They also blamed the undersizing of the thermal regulation system, which limits the risk of fuel icing. However, by the summer of 2015, the real problems were gaps in controlling clearances and managing engine deformation.
Soon after Dassault, Cessna too dropped Safran for its Citation Hemisphere business jet due to the silvercrest engine.
One should note that Silvercrest is the only 100% Safran civil engine; for all other engines, Safran is a 50/50 partner.
These difficulties are paradoxical. Safran, through its engine subsidiary Snecma, was behind the success of the CFM 56, a bestseller with over 29,000 units sold, as well as its successor, the Leap, which had already secured over 10,000 orders. These engines power Airbus and Boeing narrow-body aircraft, such as the A320 and 737 families. Safran’s reputation and expertise are indisputable. Moreover, delays in major programs are common in the aerospace sector. Could it be that Snecma was struggling to master the engines’ “hot section” (combustion chamber and turbine), even though it was not responsible for this part of the Leap? Safran focused on the fan and fan case, and GE was responsible for the core of the engine. But, Safran is not new to hot technologies. Safran has been involved in various engine programs where they’ve contributed to hot section technologies, such as the M88 engine for the Rafale fighter jet.
Safran’s entry into the business and regional jet engine industries has been fraught with challenges. While competitors like Pratt & Whitney Canada and Williams International have established strong positions in these markets, Safran has failed to gain a presence. The most visible examples of the company’s issues are the financial ramifications of programs like Silvercrest, which sustained significant losses and missed potential opportunities. Furthermore, these mishaps have undoubtedly harmed Safran’s reputation in the small plane engine sector, potentially limiting its ability to gain future contracts in this fiercely competitive arena. The combination of financial burden and reputational damage illustrates the difficult challenge Safran confronts in becoming a major player in the business and regional jet engine industries.
Now, do you think Safran has been effectively shut out of the business jet engine market? Please let us know in the comments. Please like, subscribe, and share this video. Also, please join our memberships to encourage us.
Official Website of Youtube Channel – Altitude Addicts