By logging into your account, you agree to our
Looking for some recent experience to compare these engines options. (i.e. It's nice to see so many replies. The answer somewhat depends on the version of the V2500 you are operating. fanblade lubrication for CFM 56 is much easier and faster than that of IAE V2500) (Easier method to open/close the thrust reverser cowl for CFM 56 compared to IAE V2500)
Minimum prerequisites: Initial A320 CFM56-5 or A320 V2500-A1/A5 course The V2500-A1 is the older version of the engine, and it has had some problems with compressor blade failures due to something called "rotor bow".
The big advantage is to Airbus. Shut out of the 737, P&W joined with Rolls-Royce and MTU to build the International Aero Engine V2500 for the Airbus A320 family. All rights reserved. Hi I was wondering if anybody knew the advantages of the two engines when compared to each other. Thread Tools Search this Thread 29th Jan 2007, 21:47 #1 Pstatic. One of those urban legend type things, but by all accounts the CFM will deal with FOD much better than the V2500.
We operate the V2500-A1, A5 and the CFM-56. First entered service with Adria Airways. Identify and explain controls and indications associated with the engine and its components. Location: Europe. This would be helped if Airbus let us start the second eng once the first start valve has closed instead of waiting fir the entire start sequence to finish (about 30sec extra per start)
After years of looking after CFM56-5 powered A320's from Line Maintenance to C check, I am now looking after V2500 powered versions, and as suggested by ASFKAP, we are constantly under the cowls of the V2500 version, new and old with routine maintenance (starter & IDG servicing, ignition, indication and bleed defects), [some of the bleed and indication defects are water/ice related], also the pylons and reversers seem to require more regular attention.
Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. The starting time of the V2500 is a bit longer though which can be a bit irritating. By logging into your account, you agree to our 4. Best known is probably British Airways who operated 10 of the earliest A320s produced (thus CFM of course) for many years, but when they decided to enlarge to a substantial fleet chose IAE instead.The very best in practical technical discussion on the web Thank you all very much.
Servicing procedures of aircraft engine and its components. IAE V2500 vs CFM56-5B on the A320 series. Describe the function of the systems and identify its interface. The Airbus competition gets to the point of giving the engines away. All rights reserved.
The original version, has 1 fan stage, 3 LP booster stages, 10 HPC stages, 2 HPT stages, and 5 LPT stages. Thread Starter . I have experience with two variants of the V2500. Their reliability is much the same as ours so there not much in it. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.
This engine promised better fuel burn on the Airbus A320 than the competing CFM56-5A; however, initial reliability issues, coupled with insufficient thrust for the larger A321, prompted the development of the improved V2500-A5 variant. The V2500-A1 has had a few problems such as the stage 4 failure linked to the rotor bow. From an operational point of few, here are some differences. Airlines use the choice of engines to make GE and IAE compete for the business, and it makes the Airbus more competive vs. the 737, where you have no choice. Join Date: Apr 2006. The second version I've flown (V2527-A5) is a much better engine with more power and greater reliability but it doe sburn more fuel than it's cousin. We've had them for about 4 yrs and have a despatch reliablity average of 99.8 percent.
I can attest to seeing some pretty bent fan blades on the CFM, and it still getting us home nicely. Again, unqualified. Fuel burn on the V2500 is better than the CFM56 when the engine is new but I believe it falls away more quickly than the CFM56 as they age.
Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.
On our new A321's, plenty of power to altitude!
Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. IAE came to the table late, giving CFM a solid head start on the program with a variant of the CFM 56 that powers the 737 Classic and later the 737 NG. If you do some googling, you can probably find more info on the phenomena and on what they tried to do to fix it. On the sensible side. Objectives: To provide the systems differences between the two Engines. We also have 20 B737-800 with the CFM option. The CFMs have lower emissions compared to the IAE. Posts: 36 IAE V2500 vs CFM56-5B on the A320 series. That has now been sorted after a number of modifications. Pratt & Whitney is one of those partners.The very best in practical technical discussion on the web
Apparently less of the "fan growl" from IAE's offering too. Sounds like everyone tends to like the CFM better The "V" in V2500 is actually a Roman numeral - representing the five corporate partners in the IAE joint venture. The -A1 could also be purchased with a Thrust Bump option, which essentially gives you a thrust boost (approx 10%) for takeoff when the RTOW requires it. By logging into your account, you agree to our Over at the shop, the V2500s ,true to their PW heritage, generally have a lower estimated time to completion for most jobs.
Some of the not to old V2500s (several months) had to be removed rapidly after a manufacturer notified potential compressor problem. CFM has better maintenance costs.