Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
737 NG & IAE V2500  
User currently offline9Q-CLI From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Posted (12 years 6 months 2 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 3795 times:

Would anyone know why the 737 NG isn't available with
IAE V2500 engines ?

Thanks in advance for your replies.

Stefan

26 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineRayChuang From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 7993 posts, RR: 5
Reply 1, posted (12 years 6 months 2 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 3726 times:

I'm sure International Aero Engines may have pushed for the installation of the V2500 engine on the Next-Generation 737 but I think the issue of weight of the engine may have conspired against the idea. After all, the 737NG engines are not much different than the engines found on the 737-300/400/500 series.

User currently offline9Q-CLI From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (12 years 6 months 2 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 3710 times:

Thanks for the info, RC

1-Considering that the NG's wings are a new design, is your point still valid ?

2-Would you know why some airlines are choosing the IAE V2500 rather than the CFM-56 on the A31/2X (fleet communality aside ) ?


Stefan



User currently offline9Q-CLI From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (12 years 6 months 2 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 3693 times:


CHICAGO—His flight from O'Hare to LaGuardia delayed more than six hours, Hamas militant and would-be suicide bomber Nidal Hanani vowed never again to fly United Airlines.

"I do not have time for this," said Hanani, seated at a Burger King in Concourse C, a plastic-explosives-filled duffel bag at his feet. "My jihad against the West was supposed to be carried out shortly after takeoff at 8:35 this morning. It is now 2:50 p.m. How much longer must I sit around this airport like an idiot before God's will is done?"

Added Hanani: "They said the plane is still in Denver, where they are still waiting for a pilot from another flight. Screwed up, this United is."

Compounding Hanani's frustration is the fact that his two previous flights—a commuter shuttle from Assira al-Shamaliyeh to Damascus followed by a redeye from Damascus to Chicago—were also delayed by more than four hours each.

"The bile churns within me, I am so outraged," Hanani said. "I go to the ticket counter, and the females wearing men's clothing tell me, 'We can put you on standby and try to get you on a 4 p.m. flight.' Why do they say this word, 'try'? I did not buy a ticket for a 4 p.m. flight. I buy a ticket for a 8:35 a.m. flight."

"I have kneeled toward Mecca three times today already," added Hanani, gesturing eastward in the direction of a TCBY stand. "Still I wait."

Shortly after 3 p.m., Sherrie Walker, a United Airlines representative, announced that anyone on Flight 225 willing to give up his or her seat and fly early the next day would receive overnight lodging and a $500 voucher good for travel on United anywhere in the continental U.S. Hanani declined the offer.

"Why should I want to fly again on this lousy airline that has given me nothing but the most profound of aggravation? Even for a free $500 ticket, it is not worth it," Hanani said. "Besides, I cannot wait even one more day to deliver my urgent message to the world that Islam is the true religion of God and that its truth is manifest in its power."

United Airlines spokespersons blamed the delay on a combination of factors, citing bad weather in the airline's Denver hub and the ongoing labor dispute with its pilots union. The pilots' refusal to work overtime in protest of the pace of contract talks has been a major factor in United canceling as many as 20,000 flights this summer.

"I do not care about labor problems," said Hanani, fidgeting with his small, radio-activated bomb detonator. "All I know is, I pay for ticket, I expect to fly. If these infidels cannot fly me, they should not take my money. I would not have such headaches on Syrian Arab Airlines, that is for certain."

Hanani then rose and walked to a wall of monitors to read the list of scheduled departures for the fifth time in less than an hour.

"Why are these airlines so incompetent?" Hanani asked fellow frustrated traveler Colleen Mayes, who was stranded at O'Hare when her Delta Airlines flight to Salt Lake City was canceled after a five-hour delay. "It can only be the lack of discipline in this corrupt, immoral Western country."

"At least I am far less helpless than all the other Flight 225 passengers who wait with me," continued Hanani, eating a Pizza Hut personal pan pizza he bought for "a ridiculous amount of money." "Unlike them, I shall reach my destination—the Kingdom of Heaven."

One problem Hanani has not encountered is interference from O'Hare security. When Flight 225 finally does take off, the fundamentalist's bomb, disguised as a piece of geological research equipment, is expected to kill all 300-plus passengers and crew members.

"I was afraid they would tell me that my bag is too big to be carry-on and that I must check it," Hanani said. "The detonator signal does not work if the bag is underneath plane. Fortunately, I was able to take as carry-on. Praise God."

Informed of Hanani's dissatisfaction, United customer-service supervisor Bill Stringer offered his apologies.

"We're very sorry that one of our valued customers has been inconvenienced by our travel delays," Stringer said. "But I can assure Mr. Hanani that we are taking every step possible to get him to his destination just as soon as we can. United Airlines is fully committed to addressing its problems and providing better service in the future."

For now, Hanani continues to wait. All he can do, he said, is hope there are no further delays.

"Upon my death, be it 6 p.m. or 9:30 or midnight, I know I shall be rewarded manifold for my stalwartness," Hanani said. "But try my patience, this incompetent airline does. On the Day of Judgment, may United's employees and those of its subsidiaries be condemned to the pits of Hell for all eternity."



http://www.theonion.com/



User currently offlinePrebennorholm From Denmark, joined Mar 2000, 6389 posts, RR: 54
Reply 4, posted (12 years 6 months 2 weeks ago) and read 3662 times:

First I think that we should have a look at the various CFM56 versions and their applications:

CFM56-2 - main applications DC-8-7x and KC-135R
Has a 68.3 inch fan diameter.

CFM56-3 - application 737-300/-400/-500
Has a 60 inch fan diameter (8.3 inch reduced).

CFM56-5A and -5B - application A319/320/321
It retains the 68.3 inch fan diameter with which the CFM56 was originally designed.

CFM56-5C - application A340-200/-300
This roughly 50% higher powered engines have a 72.3 inch fan diameter.

CFM56-7 - application 737-600/-700/-800/-900
Has a 61 inch fan diameter (7.3 inch reduced).

When looking at the oval 737 engine inlets, then it becomes obvious that GE and SNECMA had to do some shrinking to make it fit on the 737 which was desined with a landing gear to fit the P&W TJ8D engines on the 737-200.

The new wing on the 737NG made space available for only a one inch widening of the fan.

Now I don't know the exact fan diameter on the IAE V2500, but I think that it is slightly larger than the orignal 68.3 inch on the CFM56.

Shrinking the fan by 8.3 (7.3) inch especially for the 737 without loosing too much efficiency was probably no easy task, but anyway it has been done.

The CFM56 is a two spool engine. The V2500, however, is a three spool engine. Shrinking the fan from, say, 70 or 72 inches to 60 (61) inches on a three spool engine would be a much, much more complicated thing to do, and at would hamper efficiency considerably. Or in case the whole engine was shrunk, then it wouldn't be able to produce the power needed.

The three spool V2500 is of course somewhat heavier than the CFM56. If it cannot compensate for that extra weight with correspondingly better fuel efficiency, then it has no role at all.

So the final point is, I don't think we will see a V2500 engine on a 737 until next generation when/if the 737 gets the short 737-200 style landing gear redesigned and stretched to the same length as the A320 family planes.

Regards, Preben Norholm



Always keep your number of landings equal to your number of take-offs, Preben Norholm
User currently offline9Q-CLI From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (12 years 6 months 2 weeks ago) and read 3643 times:

1- Thanks for your fast reply: I wasn't aware of such diameter's variations on the CFM-56 . Besides, I was convinced that the V2500 was in fact smaller but longer than the CFM-56, hence the question.

2-Sorry for the lenghty post above !

Stefan


User currently offlinePrebennorholm From Denmark, joined Mar 2000, 6389 posts, RR: 54
Reply 6, posted (12 years 6 months 1 week 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 3632 times:

Sorry for the crappy post I made before. Now I have found V25500 infor on http://www.rolls-royce.com/civil/products/turbofans/v2500/detail.htm and all I wrote is wrong.

1. V2500 is NOT a three spool engine, but another two spool like the CFM56 (I have no idea why I always imagined that it was a three spool).

2. The V2500 fan diameter is only 63.5 inches - almost 5 inches less than the baseline CFM56, and only 3.5/2.5 inches wider than the 737 CFM versions. It just looks so much larger on the MD-90s on which I mostly see them.

So 9Q-CLI, your original question is very valid. There should be no big technical problem adapting the V2500 to the 737, in fact less so than the CFM56.

Sorry for this faulty information. My info on the CFM, however, is correct and double checked on http://www.cfm56.com

Preben Norholm



Always keep your number of landings equal to your number of take-offs, Preben Norholm
User currently offlineJeff G From United States of America, joined Jan 2002, 436 posts, RR: 1
Reply 7, posted (12 years 6 months 1 week 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 3624 times:

That was some pretty interesting discussion, but I have to correct Preben on one point: the V2500 is a two-spool engine. I can't speak for the accuracy of his points on the CFM engine, but I'm sure of this one fact.

The LP compressor on the V2500 is fairly wide, which would make it unsuitable for shrinking the diameter of the fan. Even shrinking the fan by a small amount would have a large effect on the amount of bypass, which would compromise efficiency by an inordinate amount. Something like 85% of the thrust is generated by the fan, so the last thing you want to do is shrink the fan size to make it fit.


User currently offlineJeff G From United States of America, joined Jan 2002, 436 posts, RR: 1
Reply 8, posted (12 years 6 months 1 week 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 3616 times:

Whoops! Spoke too soon. Thanks for the info, Preben.


User currently offline310_engineer From Belgium, joined Dec 2000, 165 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (12 years 6 months 1 week 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 3608 times:

I will give my idea:

I guess the V2500 is to powerfull for the 737:
Thrustrange:
V2500=22.000-33.000 lb
CFM56-3=18.500-23.500 lb
CFM56-7=18.500-26.300 lb

Why would you use an engine that delivers 10.000 lb of thrust that you don't need?

My 2 Euro cts

Regards
Mike


User currently offline777236ER From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 10, posted (12 years 6 months 1 week 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 3603 times:

Remember, everything (well, most) of what Boeing does is customer orientated. If no customers want V2500-powered 737s then they're not going to produce V2500 737s.

+ the CFM56-7 is a VERY fuel efficient, easy to maintain, quiet and environmentally friendly engine. There seems no need for the V2500 and the extra competition for CFM.

+ Boeing has a very (very) good relationship with GE, part of CFM. GE partnered Boeing on the BBJ, and the GE90 is the exclusive engine for the 772LR/773ER.

+ the exclusivity of the CFM on the 737 may mean a few price cuts on the costs of the engines.


User currently offline310_engineer From Belgium, joined Dec 2000, 165 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (12 years 6 months 1 week 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 3600 times:

Hmmmmm...
Forget about my post aswell

Engine EIS Power Aircraft applications Seats* Range (nm)*
Baseline engine:
V2500-A1 1989 25, 000 lb (111 kN) Airbus A320 150 2700
V2500-A5 for Airbus:
V2500-A5 1997 22, 000 lb (98 kN) Airbus A319 124 1900
V2500-A5 1997 24,000 lb (107 kN) Airbus A319 124 3000
V2500-A5 1993 26, 500 lb (118 kN) Airbus A320 150 2900
V2500-A5 1994 31, 400 lb (140 kN) Airbus A321 185 2250
V2500-A5 1997 33, 000 lb (147 kN) Airbus A321 185 2700
V2500-D5 for Boeing:
V2525-D5 1996 25, 000 lb (111 kN) Boeing MD-90-30 153 2045
V2528-D5 1995 28, 000 lb (124 kN) Boeing MD-90-30 153 2045

Everything the 737 needs is there.

777236ER Has a point.

All the best
Mike


User currently offlinePrebennorholm From Denmark, joined Mar 2000, 6389 posts, RR: 54
Reply 12, posted (12 years 6 months 1 week 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 3590 times:

Yes Jeff G, absolutely correct that even a minor shrinkage of fan jeopardizes efficiency, since by far the major thrust is produced by the fan.

But just as bad today: To keep a given thrust rating the smaller fan must rotate at a considerably higher rpm. It means that a smaller mass of air will have to be accellerated to a higher speed. And now just one more word: Noise.

The reason for no V2500s adapted to the 737 could be as simple as IAE could not guarantee Stage III compliance on such an engine. Or at least didn't want the financial risk developing such a thing and later having to scrap it on the noise-altar.

That's of course pure guesswork. The reason could just as well be pure business decision.

Preben Norholm



Always keep your number of landings equal to your number of take-offs, Preben Norholm
User currently offlineVinovalentino From Canada, joined Nov 2001, 103 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (12 years 6 months 1 week 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 3587 times:

Isn't ground clearance a big part of the reason.. Look at the shape of a CFM56-3 and you will see that it is flat(ish) on the bottom to fit on the 737... I have read that a number of components (accessories etc.) typically located on the bottom of an engine were re-located on the side of the CFMs in the initial 737-300 application.

This engine was also a bread-and-butter item for CFM.. IAE has the liberty of having a large customer with AI. I am sure a lot of airlines running 737-300s and 400s would not relish the idea of re-training and re-equpping as these aircraft were replaced by 737NG..





User currently offlineFLY DC JETS From United States of America, joined Feb 2000, 199 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (12 years 6 months 1 week 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 3587 times:

The history is that PW (partner of IAE) said 'no' to the opportuinity for application on the 737 aircraft in 1992. This decision is cited by former PW president Karl Krapek as his biggest mistake. This info can be found in a PW corporate history as well as in an interview given to AviationWeek's Airshownews back in 1996.

The conditions of the flight-test were that PW clip the fan 2 inches and pay for the operations. As a result of their decision, when time came for the 737NG program GE/CFM was in a position to offer Boeing large somes of money to become a partner in the program and thus prevent IAE competition. The hypothesis that Boeing did not offer the IAE as a customer move is wrong, however, there is little evidence that would suggest the decision as having an effect upon any orders other than the British Airways A32X decision.


User currently offlinePrebennorholm From Denmark, joined Mar 2000, 6389 posts, RR: 54
Reply 15, posted (12 years 6 months 1 week 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 3570 times:

FLY DC JETS, that was very interesting information. It tells it all. So it was a pure business related decision.

GE is in a fortunate position. Among the five major parties involved - GE, PW, RR, AI and Boeing - GE is the only "wealthy" company being able to make money "talk" to the benefit of long term business relations. Boeing has taken advantage of that.

Boeing's decision may also have been influenced by that fact that they are the more conservative airliner designer. The CFM56 has always been considered the more mature engine - no wonder since its roots are so much older.

Just over a decade ago the V2500 was an all new engine design, while much of the CFM56 hardware was spinning almost 30 years ago in the GE F-101 engines on the prototype Rockwell YB-1 bomber, which much later became the B-1B bomber.

And not too long time later its core was mated to the French M56 fan which had been turning for ages in France while they desparately tried to get their M56 engine core module right.

GE had proven core hardware on hand, matured on "war-money", long time before the first V2500 was mounted on its test rig.

Preben Norholm



Always keep your number of landings equal to your number of take-offs, Preben Norholm
User currently offlineAA737-823 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 5733 posts, RR: 11
Reply 16, posted (12 years 6 months 1 week 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 3553 times:

Ahh, but which is more efficient?
We have gone round and 'round about this-- which A320 engine is more fuel efficient- the V2500 of the CFM??? We don't seem to be able to produce enough evidence to either side... But it would be interesting to find out.

Back to the topic, I really wish Pratt would offer the new PW6000 series to Boeing for the 737. Yeah, now it only powers the A318, but maybe it could be stretched.......

Just a thought.
Randy


User currently offlineFLY DC JETS From United States of America, joined Feb 2000, 199 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (12 years 6 months 1 week 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 3540 times:

The V2500 has a better Specific Fuel Consumption than the CFM56-5 on the A320. This does not mean, however, that such an engine would have better fuel performance when compaired to the CFM-56-7 used on the 737NG. Engine variants have a strange history of being drastically different when placed on different aircraft. (Case in point PW4000 performance on A310 vs. 767 --the engine is far better on the 76 than the A3) Flight international has published the SFC, I believe in the past. I can look to see if i have it around. But i'm sure if one searches google or some other site a table could be found listing all the SFC's.

While even CFM would concede that the V25 has better fuel economy on the A32X, the CFM is cheaper to operate, own, and maintain than is the V2500 as it is far more reliable and less maintanence intensive.


User currently offlineDynkrisolo From United States of America, joined Feb 2001, 1861 posts, RR: 7
Reply 18, posted (12 years 6 months 1 week 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 3535 times:

There is so much misinformation in this thread, I don't even know where to start. To make a long story short, Boeing and IAE failed to come to a financial agreement on putting the V2500 on the B737NG. The rest is history.

The V2500 is more fuel efficient than the CFM56 which is not a big surprise because the V2500 is a much newer design. But the V2500 is less durable and less reliable than the CFM56. So, I believe the CFM56 has the cost advantage. This is very similar to the competition between the PW2000 and RB211 on the B757. The American engine is more fuel efficient but a lot less durable and reliable than the British engine. And the market pretty much speaks for itself. The CFM56 powers more A320 than the V2500, and so does the RB211 than the PW2000 on the B757. The V2500 has been doing quite well in the past few years because it has improved its reliability and durability.


User currently offlineCPDC10-30 From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2000, 4780 posts, RR: 24
Reply 19, posted (12 years 6 months 1 week 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 3532 times:

Remember, everything (well, most) of what Boeing does is customer orientated. If no customers want V2500-powered 737s then they're not going to produce V2500 737s.

Don't be so fast to say that, Boeing made an exclusive deal with GE for the 777-200LR series and potentially losing customers.


User currently offlineAeroguy From United States of America, joined Aug 2001, 69 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (12 years 6 months 1 week 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 3532 times:

I'm pretty confused, so I thought I'd include all of you in on it. I too was under the impression that the V2500 was more fuel efficient than the CFM56. I was just looking in the Av Week Sourcebook and pulled some numbers. Here are thrust and TSFC (at max power) values:

A319:
V2522-A5 22000 .34
V2524-A5 23500 .36
CFM56-5A4 22000 .32
CFM56-5A5 23500 .32
CFM56-5B5 22000 .32
CFM56-5B6 23500 .33

A320:
V2500-A1 25000 .35
V2527-A5 26500 .36
CFM56-5A1 25000 .33
CFM56-5A3 26500 .33
CFM56-5B4 27000 .34

A321:
V2530-A5 31400 .36
V2533-A5 33000 .37
CFM56-5B1 30000 .35
CFM56-5B2 31000 .35
CFM56-5B3 32000 .36

NG737:
CFM56-7B18 19500 .35
CFM56-7B26 26300 .38

According to these numbers, the CFM56 is generally slightly better than the V2500 in efficiency. ???? So I suppose the V2500 is probably more fuel efficient in cruise and that's where it earns its bragging rights over the CFM56. Anyone know where to find TSFC numbers for cruise?


User currently offlineDynkrisolo From United States of America, joined Feb 2001, 1861 posts, RR: 7
Reply 21, posted (12 years 6 months 1 week 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 3498 times:

Rolls usually publicizes TSFC at cruise, while all other engine manufacturers publicize TSFC at max power. So, I doubt you will be able to find TSFC at cruise of the CFM56 and V2500 in the public domain.

User currently offlineL-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 29791 posts, RR: 58
Reply 22, posted (12 years 6 months 1 week 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 3490 times:

CFM signed an exclusive supplier deal with Boeing. Same deal as the 777-300 and the GE-90.

CFM is the only company that supplies the engines. Boeing gets them for less.



OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
User currently offline777236ER From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 23, posted (12 years 6 months 1 week 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 3476 times:

Boeing made an exclusive deal with GE for the 777-200LR series and potentially losing customers.

Remember, i said "most". In hind-sight, the GE deal may seem a little foolish, but Boeing decided to choose only one engine as they didn't envisige the sales the 772/772ER/773 have. Developing all three engines would have cost both Boeing and the engine suppliers money, and with a small project, there's no point.

Same deal as the 777-300 and the GE-90.

There's no exclusivity deal with the GE-90 on the 777-300. The exclusivity deal is with the GE-90 and the 777-200LR/777-300ER.


User currently offlineTEDSKI From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 24, posted (12 years 6 months 1 week 6 days ago) and read 3460 times:

How about P&W offering their new PW6000 engine that is on the A318 with higher thrust for the the 737NG?

25 RayChuang : TEDSKI, I think Pratt & Whitney may be seriously looking at talking with Boeing about offering the PW6124 for the 737-600/700/800 series. Mind you, Bo
26 TEDSKI : If they can get the PW6000 on the 737NG, you may see P&W customers like United go for the 737NGs to replace their 737-300/500 Classic aircraft.
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Winglets On CO 737 NG & 757's posted Thu Mar 25 2004 05:57:50 by Rohan737
Boeing 737 NG -Different Engine Air Entry? posted Wed Sep 20 2006 12:28:48 by Tolosy
Delta 737-800 & 752 Seat Help posted Sat Apr 1 2006 22:54:34 by Markus
CO To Order 34 New 737 NG's posted Wed Dec 14 2005 02:59:05 by Xms3200
737-300 & 500 Question posted Sun Sep 18 2005 03:36:31 by Roissy87
Why Is The IAE V2500 So Successful On The A320? posted Thu Jul 14 2005 16:45:08 by TheSonntag
Gecas Orders 20 737-NG posted Tue Jun 14 2005 09:39:10 by Nudelhirsch
Fourth Generation 737 To Offer IAE And CFM Engines posted Sun Jun 12 2005 15:09:37 by Jet-lagged
737-600 & 737-700 For Aerolineas? posted Thu Mar 3 2005 08:02:58 by ArgInMIA
Why Don't 737 NG's Have 777 Interior? posted Tue Feb 8 2005 05:47:16 by AussieItaliano
AeroMexico To Sale/Sale & Lease Back 8 737 NG :( posted Thu May 7 2009 22:06:52 by Fyano773
737 NG V. 737 Classic Derivative Or New Airplane posted Sat Aug 18 2007 16:56:47 by IAD787
Was The 737 NG Design To Replace 737 Original? posted Sat Feb 17 2007 04:38:22 by 747400sp
737 NG Runway Reguirments posted Wed Jan 10 2007 08:45:07 by Hardkor
1987: IAE V2500 SuperFan Is Axed...why? posted Wed Dec 27 2006 20:20:09 by Rheinbote
Boeing 737 NG -Different Engine Air Entry? posted Wed Sep 20 2006 12:28:48 by Tolosy
Delta 737-800 & 752 Seat Help posted Sat Apr 1 2006 22:54:34 by Markus
CO To Order 34 New 737 NG's posted Wed Dec 14 2005 02:59:05 by Xms3200
737-300 & 500 Question posted Sun Sep 18 2005 03:36:31 by Roissy87