TEDSKI From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 1, posted (13 years 3 months 3 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 3857 times:
My first preference is P&W, they have had dependable top quality engines for years. My second would have to be Rolls Royce, they also have been reliable engines which is why many airlines on the 777 have chosen the RR Trent 800 series.
Tr1492 From United States of America, joined Feb 2000, 109 posts, RR: 0 Reply 3, posted (13 years 3 months 3 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 3839 times:
Not that I'm an engineer, mechanic, or anything like that, but here goes
Pratt & Whitney (including P&W Canada) - been around for a long time and as B757/767 mentioned they have been the initial motor on hundreds of new planes, both piston engined, pure turbine and turboprop.
RR - great motors, the RR "mystique"
CFM - Quiet, reliable powerplants, although the -56 series is as developed as it is going to get (see A340 series) - wonder if they'll develop a new engine soon w/more thrust to see if they can get up and past the 38,000 lb. thrust mark?
IAE - I do not know much about this organization, but it cannot be too bad since RR & P/W and others are partnered here and it seems quite a few Airbus single-aisle planes feature these engines, which I've flown on countless times.
and then GE - no, I'm not a big GE fan, never have been and I do not think I ever will be, although I must say I am quite impressed w/the latest GE-90 engine (putting out over 90,000 lbs. of thrust, or something around that area) - maybe it's a knock against huge corporations where the profits come well before any environmental and employee concerns are addressed......
RayChuang From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 7864 posts, RR: 5 Reply 4, posted (13 years 3 months 3 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 3827 times:
A few comments about the CFM56:
Originally (this was way back in 1970-1971 time frame) SNECMA of France proposed a new jet engine called the M56, which had a pretty large front fan. GE partnered with SNECMA a few years later, contributing the engine core design from the F101 turbofan used on the B-1 bomber to create the CFM56 engine, originally rated at 22,000 lb. of thrust.
The CFM56 first became prominent when it flew on the McDonnell-Douglas YC-15 prototype for the AMST military transport; Boeing a short time later flew a modified 707 with four CFM56 engines and actually studied new versions of the 707 using four of these new engines.
The first commercial application of the CFM56 was the Cammacorp upgrade program for the Douglas DC-8 Super Sixty series, creating the DC-8-71/72/73 series. This gave the DC-8 Super Sixty planes some 8-10 years of additional life in passenger service, and UA had quite a number of of these planes. Today, many DC-8 Super Sixty freighters are usually planes that had the Cammacorp upgrade.
The first military application for the CFM56 was the KC-135R re-engining program for KC-135A's. What's interesting is that Boeing insisted that the engines do NOT have thrust reversers, despite the fact it ended up costing more per engine than with thrust reversers! A large number of KC-135A's were upgraded this way during the 1980's.
The second commercial application was the Boeing 737-300/400/500 series. Because of the size of the front fan, Boeing had to come up with an unusual nacelle design that had a "flattened" bottom so Boeing could keep the same landing gear design used on 737-200's.
The next commercial application was the Airbus A319/A320/A321 series. The CFM56 now used uprated versions for this Airbus model, and today most A319/A320/A321 planes use the CFM56 engine.
The second military application was the E-3 Sentry versions sold to the Royal Air Force and French Air Forces, sold during the early 1990's.
In the late 1980's, Airbus chose a much-uprated CFM56 for the A340 program, after IAE's SuperFan derived from the V2500 engine was shelved.
The latest application of the CFM56 is the Next-Generation 737 program. Because of a number of changes to the NG 737, Boeing no longer needed the flattened-bottom engine nacelle found on the 737-300/400/500 series.
Because sales of the A319/A320/A321 and Next-Generation 737 continue to be very strong, CFM International will continue to be very profitable for at least the next 8-10 years even if they don't plan to upgrade the engine beyond 38,000 lb. thrust.
Sammyk From United States of America, joined Oct 1999, 1686 posts, RR: 0 Reply 5, posted (13 years 3 months 3 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 3811 times:
Interesting, you don't like GE, yet you don't mind CFM, which of course, as you know, is 50% GE. Also, much of the GE90 work is done by Snecma.
About big corporations, Pratt & Whitney isn't exactly small, it is owned by United Technologies, which owns, among other things, Sikorsky Helicopter, Otis Elevator, and Carrier (air conditioners). Big, big, company. Rolls-Royce, although not as diverse, is also a pretty large company.
CV880 From United States of America, joined Mar 2007, 1045 posts, RR: 2 Reply 6, posted (13 years 3 months 3 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 3803 times:
I flew on a CO 777 and I was impressed with the GE90 -- it was almost vibrationless in cruise flight and even at takeoff there was not inordinate vibration considering that fan is huge. The engine has sparked some controversy both during testing and subsequently (oil pumps??) but I'm not sure that the GE90 has really had more problems than other newly developed engines. But I must add the the RB211 from RR is close to my heart: the sound at spoolup was unique and it reminds me of the L1011 -- once the bugs were ironed out the Lockheed RR combination was special. And as far as I'm concerned, the 767 is only sexy if it has RR power. Too bad it's so rare. I flew a BA 767 and it was great to hear the same low rumble on spoolup and takeoff, like putting a dose of L1011 into a 767!
Tr1492 From United States of America, joined Feb 2000, 109 posts, RR: 0 Reply 8, posted (13 years 3 months 3 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 3760 times:
To Sammy - yes, you picked up on that!!! Thanks for pointing that out in a most civilized manner (almost unusual for this forum lately!!). Yes, I'm not a fan of the GE corporation, but I have to give credit where it is due (CFM) - as the post's original question asked what I prefer, I noted my preferences! And yes, I know United Technologies is huge, too, but the main reason I dislike GE is their worldwide environmental record, not an aviation related topic, especially with one huge issue regarding responsibility for toxic waste cleanup in my home area of New York state in which GE is claiming "all is well" when in reality everybody but GE agrees GE is responsible. Given GE's lack of culpability in the environmental arena, I'd be horrified to see their response if one of the GE powered 777's shreds a fan disk and takes down a plane - "Well, it's not our fault because the pilot put those thrust levers to 100% for takeoff, blah, blah"..... Again, this is only my opinion - I have flown on many GE powered craft and will continue to do so, as I really don't have much of a choice and they have proven to be safe!! As an aside, hasn't RR been absorbed by BMW, or something along those lines - I just thought about that last night while looking at a 717 photo!!
Critter From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 267 posts, RR: 2 Reply 9, posted (13 years 3 months 3 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 3758 times:
Actually it was Rolls Royce that bought out BMW's share of BRR Industries now leaving Rolls Royce as the Manufacture for the BR715 and BR710 engines. I do believe they will still maintain the "BR" designation however.
P.S. the BR715 Engine that powers the B717 is AWESOME!
RayChuang From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 7864 posts, RR: 5 Reply 10, posted (13 years 3 months 3 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 3748 times:
What I find ironic about your statements is that CFM International was the first company to develop a jet engine combustor design that drastically reduced exhaust emissions. Many CFM56 engines on 737-300 to 737-800 models and A319/A320/A321 models with European airlines use the new combustor design because this allows them to fly into some airports (notably ZRH) with no limitations based on exhaust emissions.
In many ways, CFM International masterfully did its homework, correctly predicting that there would a huge need for single-aisle airliners of 110-165 pax capacity, and the CFM56 engine was perfectly suited for this class of airliner. The efficient fuel burn, low noise levels and now very low exhaust emissions of the CFM56 will mean this engine will continue to be popular for many years to come.
Tr1492 From United States of America, joined Feb 2000, 109 posts, RR: 0 Reply 11, posted (13 years 3 months 3 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 3737 times:
Thanks again for the info on the CFM! I have absolutely no knocks on CFM engines at all (except for the GE partnership!) - gosh, I've flown so many 737-300's, 400's, 700 and 800's, and so many have overflown my home that I know by the sound of the engines when the pilots are using the autothrottle on their landing approach..., and as you've pointed out they're very well engineered, reliable, and rather cutting-edge. I know that my stance against GE seems short-sighted and rather closed-minded, but it's only my opinion, and to boot it is totally not related to aviation! Let me put it this way - if I owned an airline and was looking to purchase a few 777's, I would go for the P&W or RR engine options. If I was looking at the A320 series, the IAE engines would be a no-brainer!
Again, just my stubborn, juvenile, narrow-minded thoughts on this particular subject!!!!!! And again, thanks for your input - very interesting & quite informative!!!