747400sp From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 3301 posts, RR: 2 Posted (6 years 4 months 2 weeks 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 3816 times:
The CFM 56 is over 20 years old, and although it sales well, CFM should have a back up engine. GE started work on the GE90 when the CF-6, still had high sales. Why CFM do not work on a ultra high by pass engine for new generation narrow body's? An engine like this would be great for the 737RS or the A320 replacement.
Cdekoe From United States of America, joined Nov 2006, 57 posts, RR: 0 Reply 1, posted (6 years 4 months 2 weeks 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 3738 times:
The CFM56-7B is doing very well in sales and is very competitive.
The latest variant (27K thrust) was just certificated in 2001 and newer versions will be offered as Tech Insertion Engine in 2007.
With a success rate like this, it will be hard to justify a completely new development program.
Design and certification of a FADEC for a new engine costs $10M - $12M and takes 25 years to recover. One can only imagine what an entire engine program would cost.
We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them.
N231YE From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 2, posted (6 years 4 months 2 weeks 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 3736 times:
Quoting Cdekoe (Reply 1): Design and certification of a FADEC for a new engine costs $10M - $12M and takes 25 years to recover. One can only imagine what an entire engine program would cost.
How much profit do the engine companies actually bring in? To recover $10-12M in 25 years seems like a lot of time. I know that with the 777, the engines cost 1/3 of the total airplane cost.
Cdekoe From United States of America, joined Nov 2006, 57 posts, RR: 0 Reply 3, posted (6 years 4 months 2 weeks 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 3731 times:
With my company, the engines and FADECs are typically sold to the OEM at a huge loss. We then try to recover the development with R&O and Aftermarket sales, which isn't always a success.
So with a high volume product like the CFM-56, it's much more economical to hold on to the existing design and maintain the fleet than to reduce the number of units out there and start all over.
The CFM-56 probably has another 10 to 15 years of profitability.
We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them.
Prebennorholm From Denmark, joined Mar 2000, 6019 posts, RR: 55 Reply 4, posted (6 years 4 months 2 weeks 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 3644 times:
Huh, CFM sells, or has sold, just around 25 different engines.
Some of them have more in common than others.
For instance the CFM56-2 and the CFM56-5A have much in common.
But the CFM56-5A and CFM56-5B are two different worlds.
The CFM56-5C has most design features common with the -5B, but the -5C is a larger engine. Not just more powerful, but also larger.
The CFM56-3 and -7B share a lot of design features with the -5A and -5B respectively. But they have much smaller fans. But still the -3 and the -7B have very different fans, even if the -7B fan is only one inch larger than the -3 fan.
CFM has constantly developed their engines. It's just their naming which is a little weird. The all important thing is what is written after CFM56-. Not only does it tell whether the thrust is 18 or 34klbs or something in between, it also tells about a great evolution in engine technology.
An RR RB-211-22B and an RR Trent 900 probably have more in common than a CFM56-3-B1 and a CFM56-5C4/P.
Have a look at the various old and new engine types on http://www.cfm56.com. In the NEWS department you can also read about their various ongoing R&D programs for CFM56 varients being released next year or in 5 or 10 years time - programs called LEAP56, TECH56, TAPS (twin-annular, pre-swirl) combustor technology. And such.
Whatever engine they make, they will probably always be named CFM56-xxx. And since GE owns a 50% stake in CFM International (French Snecma Moteurs owns the rest), then they will probably never produce small or large engines which compete with the GE engines, but they will stick to the midrange market. Same way GE will most likely stay out of that midrange market.
Always keep your number of landings equal to your number of take-offs, Preben Norholm
N231YE From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 6, posted (6 years 4 months 2 weeks 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 3594 times:
Quoting Kaddyuk (Reply 5): I very much doubt it... the basic B777 cost is $475 Million USD. There is no way that the T7 engines are 1/3rd of that cost...
That was stated in the PBS video series on the 777. Also, the 777 does not cost that much. For the base -200 model;
Lightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 10671 posts, RR: 100 Reply 7, posted (6 years 4 months 2 weeks 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 3501 times:
Quoting N231YE (Reply 2): I know that with the 777, the engines cost 1/3 of the total airplane cost.
Oh man... sorry. But you don't know how much I wish that was true. GE probably gets about 1/7th of the 77W sales prices and that is easily the best ratio out there. On a 744, the engines might only go for 10% or less of the sales price. (Due to bidding wars.) I've heard rumors that GE gets about 1/8th to 1/9th the sales price of a 737, but I couldn't swear to that.
As to this topic, why doesn't CFM create a new engine...
Basically CFM was the legal entity created to allow SNECMA to put a low spool around GE's high spool. At this point, it would take a good reason for GE to not take in the next engine in house. (There are many rumors of infighting between the risk/reward relationship of CFM between GE and SNECMA. I'm not saying 100% true... but they're interesting.)
The fact is GE and SNECMA could cooperate on a replacement engine outside of CFM. Yes! A la GE-90. GE could bring the engine in house taking on more of the risk but also more of the reward. SNECMA would be less of a risk sharing partner (still somewhat), but more of a vendor. Or GE could decide to keep CFM. Its really there call.
This is quite different than the contract with IAE. There Pratt's hands have been tied in developing a competitor. However, that "exclusive" bit of the contract is getting ready to expire. (Hence why RR and Pratt might fight it out on the A320NG/737RS). At this point, if IAE is to continue growing it will only be because RR and Pratt renew the contracts. IAE, like CFM, does not have a dedicated engineering workforce capable of developing a new engine without support of the parent companies.
Maybe the CFM contract had the same clause. If it still does, almost everything left will expire in 2008 (when the CFM's exclusive contract on the 737 expires).
Quoting Prebennorholm (Reply 4): Huh, CFM sells, or has sold, just around 25 different engines.
Nice summary. Thank you. I often cannot keep straight all of the different CFM variants.
So much simpler on the V2500. I know the A1, A5/D5, A7, A9... (oh wait, some of those never hit the market... oops!)
Personally, I think the venture benifits both partners and thus CFM will continue. but as Prebennorholm noted, a new design in the midrange market. CFM will probably always have only one family (with many variants) in production. Ok... it works. But its time to switch to a new family (e.g., w/Contra rotation).
Quoting Prebennorholm (Reply 4):
Whatever engine they make, they will probably always be named CFM56-xxx.
The only part of your post I disagree with. For the 737RS/A320NG I imagine the new engine would be given a "sexier" name a la "GEnX."
Actually... the "GEnX" trade name is the one reason I have some doubt about CFM getting the next engine. Why? GE would love to hype a "GEnX" for the 737RS... Perhaps a CFM-88 (double lucky)? We'll see.
N231YE From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 8, posted (6 years 4 months 2 weeks 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 3464 times:
Quoting Lightsaber (Reply 7): Oh man... sorry. But you don't know how much I wish that was true. GE probably gets about 1/7th of the 77W sales prices and that is easily the best ratio out there. On a 744, the engines might only go for 10% or less of the sales price. (Due to bidding wars.) I've heard rumors that GE gets about 1/8th to 1/9th the sales price of a 737, but I couldn't swear to that.
I guess the video may have stretched it a bit, as you have pointed out. The base cost of a 777-200 is about $178M, and a GE-90 (not sure of the model) costs about $23M. Double the engine cost, to get $46M. Do the math, $46M / $178M and it is actually a quarter of the cost (~.258). But the video is 11 years old, so that may be a reflection of costs back in 1996
Viscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 21483 posts, RR: 24 Reply 9, posted (6 years 4 months 2 weeks 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 3411 times:
There's an article on Snecma's plans in the current ediiton of Aviation Week & Space Technology. Excerpt re CFM56 below, especially the last paragraph relevant to the subject of this thread:
CFM International, a Snecma/General Electric partnership, expects to report more than 2,000 CFM56 orders for 2006--smashing the record set in 2005 (see charts)--says newly named Snecma Aerospace Propulsion Div. CEO Marc Ventre. Moreover, he adds, CFMI could conceivably surpass this level again in 2007, especially if the U.S. airlines' return to health spurs them to renew their aging narrow-body fleets.
CFMI also anticipated delivering a record 1,040 powerplants in 2006 and should set a new yardstick this year, with 1,250 expected deliveries. The surge, coupled with sharply reduced maintenance costs, allowed CFMI to boost its share of the Airbus A320 family market (where it competes with International Aero Engines) to 67% last year, from a traditional 55%, according to Ventre. Deliveries are expected to remain at or above 1,150 units annually well into the future.
Moreover, booming CFM sales are likely to postpone the need to start work on a new-generation powerplant to replace the CFM56. With Airbus and Boeing both pushing the start date for A320 and Boeing 737 replacements to the right (2015-16 is now the date most commonly mentioned), kickoff of a new powerplant is now unlikely before 2009. And entry into service would not occur before 2013, says Ventre, permitting cash flow to be invested in other areas.
747400sp From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 3301 posts, RR: 2 Reply 10, posted (6 years 4 months 2 weeks 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 3406 times:
I think this trend was misleading. I am not saying the CFM 56 should be replaced, I am saying build a all new engine design along with the CFM56. The GE 90 was not a replacement for the CF6, just a big brother. So why not build a big brother for the CFM 56?
Quoting Prebennorholm (Reply 4): But the CFM56-5A and CFM56-5B are two different worlds.
Well the CF6-6 and CF6-80 should be two different world. All the CFM56 use the same core.
Prebennorholm. Thank you for that break down on the CFM56's engines. Now I know why, at take off, a DC8 70 has a buzz saw sound, while a 737 classic & NG has a high pitch sound instead.
Lightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 10671 posts, RR: 100 Reply 11, posted (6 years 4 months 2 weeks 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 3343 times:
Quoting N231YE (Reply 8): I guess the video may have stretched it a bit, as you have pointed out. The base cost of a 777-200 is about $178M, and a GE-90 (not sure of the model) costs about $23M. Double the engine cost, to get $46M. Do the math, $46M / $178M and it is actually a quarter of the cost (~.258). But the video is 11 years old, so that may be a reflection of costs back in 1996
If GE is really getting $46 million per airframe, I owe a hat tip to their negotiator. I'm hearing about half that per airframe or $12 million an engine. There would be no reason for Boeing to have gone forward with an exclusive agreement at the price you listed...
I'm not saying I can verify my numbers. But it would amaze me if GE really was getting 3X more for a GE-90 than the actual sales price of any other engine...
Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 9): The surge, coupled with sharply reduced maintenance costs, allowed CFMI to boost its share of the Airbus A320 family market (where it competes with International Aero Engines) to 67% last year, from a traditional 55%, according to Ventre. Deliveries are expected to remain at or above 1,150 units annually well into the future.
NOOOOOOOOOOOO
Sigh... I really like the V2500. But its tough to beat GE's manufacturing efficiency. IAE is past due to upgrade the V2500. Personally. I thought the A9 variation was great... but I'm not unbiased there. There is a reason the CFM-56 is known as the Lexus of engines.
N231YE From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 12, posted (6 years 4 months 2 weeks 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 3326 times:
Quoting Lightsaber (Reply 11): If GE is really getting $46 million per airframe, I owe a hat tip to their negotiator. I'm hearing about half that per airframe or $12 million an engine.
I am not quite sure of the exact engine cost (unless I contact GE/PW/RR themselves)...anyways, the $23M per engine was data I found via the internet. Then again, you can't trust anything you find on the internet.
Quoting Lightsaber (Reply 11): There is a reason the CFM-56 is known as the Lexus of engines.
Good thing they're not being related to Jaguars (past experiences through ownership)
Various versions have even different numbers of booster stages, LP turbine stages, HP turbine of different materials and designs, different combustors (single or double annular).
Internal aerodynamics have been changed over time as well.
We could say that there are three basic core designs:
1. The granddad one - CFM56-2, -3, -5A (10 variants)
2. The current design - CFM56-5B, -7B (15 variants)
3. The big one CFM56-5C (3 variants)
It doesn't mean that there are only three different cores. But the other variables are minor optimizations for certain application or minor improvements over time.
Anyway, the changes and improvement have been totally evolutionary. Changes were introduced step by step based on previous designs. Never did CFMI pull a completely white sheet of paper and design a totally new engine. But then, which turbofan engine manufacturer did that during the last 25 years? Not many.
Always keep your number of landings equal to your number of take-offs, Preben Norholm
747400sp From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 3301 posts, RR: 2 Reply 14, posted (6 years 4 months 2 weeks 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 3262 times:
Quoting Prebennorholm (Reply 13): We could say that there are three basic core designs:
1. The granddad one - CFM56-2, -3, -5A (10 variants)
2. The current design - CFM56-5B, -7B (15 variants)
3. The big one CFM56-5C (3 variants)
Which core is base on the F101 low by pass engine.
Quoting Prebennorholm (Reply 13): Anyway, the changes and improvement have been totally evolutionary. Changes were introduced step by step based on previous designs. Never did CFMI pull a completely white sheet of paper and design a totally new engine. But then, which turbofan engine manufacturer did that during the last 25 years? Not many.
DarkBlue From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 233 posts, RR: 11 Reply 15, posted (6 years 4 months 2 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 3215 times:
Quoting 747400sp (Thread starter): Why CFM do not work on a ultra high by pass engine for new generation narrow body's? An engine like this would be great for the 737RS or the A320 replacement.
Quoting Lightsaber (Reply 7): For the 737RS/A320NG I imagine the new engine would be given a "sexier" name a la "GEnX."
Actually... the "GEnX" trade name is the one reason I have some doubt about CFM getting the next engine. Why? GE would love to hype a "GEnX" for the 737RS... Perhaps a CFM-88 (double lucky)? We'll see.
CFM does have an engine in development. LEAP56 will be the successor to the CFM56.
DarkBlue From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 233 posts, RR: 11 Reply 16, posted (6 years 4 months 2 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 3206 times:
Quoting Lightsaber (Reply 11): Quoting N231YE (Reply 8):
I guess the video may have stretched it a bit, as you have pointed out. The base cost of a 777-200 is about $178M, and a GE-90 (not sure of the model) costs about $23M. Double the engine cost, to get $46M. Do the math, $46M / $178M and it is actually a quarter of the cost (~.258). But the video is 11 years old, so that may be a reflection of costs back in 1996
If GE is really getting $46 million per airframe, I owe a hat tip to their negotiator. I'm hearing about half that per airframe or $12 million an engine. There would be no reason for Boeing to have gone forward with an exclusive agreement at the price you listed...
Actually you are both correct. $23 million sounds about right for list price, but as Lightsaber said, GE rarely gets this. As he stated in a previous post, engine prices are often negiotiated as a certain percentage of the price of the aircraft. I really don't have a good feel for what price fractions are, but it's probably anywhere from 1/5 to 1/10 of the aircraft price.
Now, one thing that has been neglected here are the prices for spare engines. Spares are not negotiated with the aircraft, so sale price is in fact very close to full list price. Good thing for airlines that GE90-115B engine have a good reliability. Very expensive to took take one off wing, but even more expensive to have extra spares sitting around just in case! This is a big reason why spare engines often come from leasing pools.
Quoting Lightsaber (Reply 11): But it would amaze me if GE really was getting 3X more for a GE-90 than the actual sales price of any other engine..
GE90 list price is around $20 - $24 million. GEnx is around $15-$16 million.
SlamClick From United States of America, joined Nov 2003, 10062 posts, RR: 71 Reply 17, posted (6 years 4 months 2 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 3197 times:
The simple answer is when technology and the market move past the potential of the -56.
As many of the posts above suggest, today's latest and greatest is not exactly the same engine we all saw those many years ago. You can make tremendous changes in the life and potential of the core design with things like the afore-mentioned FADEC and seemingly subtle improvements in compressor or turbine blade design, stator shapes, fuel nozzles and so on. Even cowling redesigns will add years to the life of this engine.
Happiness is not seeing another trite Ste. Maarten photo all week long.
Prebennorholm From Denmark, joined Mar 2000, 6019 posts, RR: 55 Reply 19, posted (6 years 4 months 2 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 3154 times:
Quoting 747400sp (Reply 14): We could say that there are three basic core designs:
1. The granddad one - CFM56-2, -3, -5A (10 variants)
2. The current design - CFM56-5B, -7B (15 variants)
3. The big one CFM56-5C (3 variants)
Which core is base on the F101 low by pass engine.
It's the other way around, the GE F101 is much older than the CFM56. Remember that the Rockwell B-1 flew with F101 engines as the YB-1 and B-1A long time before the B-1 program was cancelled, then reactivated many years later as the B-1B.
The F101 core was used with minimum modifications to produce the first commercially available CFM56 engine, the CFM56-2 used on the DC-8-7x and KC-135R (plus certain B707 related military birds). Combined with the fan unit of the otherwise cancelled French SNECMA M56 engine program, which was mostly aimed on the Dassault Mercure airliner.
Since then the various modern CFM56 cores have evolved into units which have little in common with the GE F101.
Same way the F101 engine has not been produced during the last couple of decades.
Again, look at CFM56 as a "factory name", and the digit (etc.) trailing CFM56 as engine types. Then you get a more precise picture of the various CFM56 engines.
CFM56.com lists 28 engine versions. Many of them are only software variations in the FADEC units which dictate power output and maintenance frequencies. But there are at least three major engine types.
Always keep your number of landings equal to your number of take-offs, Preben Norholm
DarkBlue From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 233 posts, RR: 11 Reply 20, posted (6 years 4 months 2 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 3112 times:
Quoting N231YE (Reply 18): Why is the GEnx cheaper? As a newer and more advanced engine (and being based off of the GE-90), one would think that the GE-90 would be cheaper.
In general, engine prices are set by thrust. Yes, the GEnx has advanced technologies, but the GE90 is much bigger engine. Prices of the GEnx and CF6-80C2 engines are a much better comparison. These engines are very similar in terms of thrust but are separated by 20 years in terms of development. While a GEnx lists at $15 million, a CF6-80C2 lists only at $8 million. The newer CF6-80E1 is around $10 million.
What's really interesting is that when it comes down to it, engine manufactures are really selling thrust. This means that two identical engines may be priced differently depending on what rating plug is installed. For example, The GE90-115B and the -110B are really the same engine, but GE charges more for the -115B.
Sponsor Message: 
From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 3301 posts, 
From Denmark, joined Mar 2000, 6019 posts, 
From Wallis and Futuna, joined Nov 2001, 4125 posts, 
(Due to bidding wars.) I've heard rumors that GE gets about 1/8th to 1/9th the sales price of a 737, but I couldn't swear to that.
Yes! A la GE-90. GE could bring the engine in house taking on more of the risk but also more of the reward. SNECMA would be less of a risk sharing partner (still somewhat), but more of a vendor. Or GE could decide to keep CFM. Its really there call.
From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 21483 posts, 
Sponsor Message: 
Printer friendly format
