Gigneil From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 16347 posts, RR: 81 Posted (12 years 6 months 2 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 3679 times:
I mean, it looks like all the other IAE engines - with the signature Rolls Royce shaped nacelle and all, just like the RB211 on the 757, 744, and 763, and the Trent 700.
Why is this a Pratt engine and not an IAE engine?
I'll venture that its because RR already made the BR715 in this thrust class... but I want to hear from others too.
I wonder if it might have gone more smoothly had RR and everyone participated.
:BEGIN SEPARATE THOUGHT:
And now that I think about it, does the CFM56 really make sense for the A318? It weighs exactly the same as all the other -5B engines. Is this what makes the A318 so heavy, just like it makes the 736 so heavy?
The PW 6000 is much lighter than the V2500... but so is the CFM56-5B.
Dynkrisolo From United States of America, joined Feb 2001, 1875 posts, RR: 7
Reply 1, posted (12 years 6 months 2 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 3628 times:
My understanding is the IAE agreement has a specific thrust range. The PW6000 thrust falls outside of the V2500 range. The advantage of partnership is one has others to share the risks and development costs. The advantage of going alone is one could potentially pocket all the profits provided the program is successful.
The A318 and the 736 are heavy not because of the engine. Both are double shrinks. That's why they have a lot of structural redundancies. For example, the wing is larger than necessary. If my understanding is correct, the PW6000 is not that much lighter than the V2500. Just check the weight difference between the A318 and 717 and you will know what I mean.