Sponsor Message:
Aviation Technical / Operations Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
A321 Engine Choice: GE Vs IAE  
User currently offlinecelestar From Singapore, joined Jul 2001, 410 posts, RR: 0
Posted (1 year 7 months 3 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 7132 times:

I run across a conversation with my neighbour who is currently an EVA AIR A321 captain after being transferred from MD90 fleet. He was sharing with me all the fun of flying the A321 and told me on one of his recent trip, back from HK to Taipei, he speed the plane through the airspace and made it to Taipei on record time!

I told him that my understanding of A321 was it was a slow plane. Slower than A320 or A319 and he told me that is not the case given it is equipped with GE engines, just like all EVA fleet. EVA loves GE and all their current planes are all GE engine equipped. It brought up a question that firstly, is A321 equipped with GE engine vs IAE engine really more powerful! Secondly, according to my neighbour, the GE engine is more expensive than the IAE engine, is that a true statement?

15 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineB-HOP From Hong Kong, joined Nov 2000, 656 posts, RR: 1
Reply 1, posted (1 year 7 months 3 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 6986 times:

Is he from Singapore? It might be he is light, got good flight level quite early, I thought with the congestion both sides, difference would be in terms of minutes


Live life to max!!!
User currently offlinezeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 9229 posts, RR: 76
Reply 2, posted (1 year 7 months 3 weeks 1 day ago) and read 6943 times:

Quoting celestar (Thread starter):
I told him that my understanding of A321 was it was a slow plane.

Normally a heavier aircraft for the same wing needs to fly faster to have the same lift at a given angle of attack (and drag).

Quoting celestar (Thread starter):
Slower than A320 or A319 and he told me that is not the case given it is equipped with GE engines, just like all EVA fleet.

Eva have CFM engines on their A321a, which are collaboration between Snecma and GE.



We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
User currently offlinecelestar From Singapore, joined Jul 2001, 410 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 6514 times:

Thanks Zeke, I always enjoyed your feedback.
So, with A321, EVA is introducing new engine that are not GE family?
Dear Zeke, are you inferring then that the A321 actually can fly faster, meaning the engines are more powerful?
What is your opinion between CFM vs IAE engine? This could be a stupid question to ask, but I am curious if a fair compare between procurement cost, thrust and engine reliability and fuel cost would be of interest to me!
BHOP, I am not sure about the exact details. I always think that his is always boastful about thing.
No, he is not from Singapore. He is an ex-Taiwan Air Force Mirage pilot - actually quite long ago by now, must be 8 to 9 years ago!


User currently offlineLH707330 From United States of America, joined Jun 2012, 848 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 6432 times:

The CFM engines are as GE as you can get on the A320s with 50/50 GE and Snecma, whereas the IAE engine is built by a consortium of PW, RR, JAE, and MTU. The big difference between the two is that the V2500 has two high-pressure turbine stages, while the CFM56 has one. This means lower maintenance costs on the CFM at the expense of some turbine efficiency, meaning the CFM is generally better for shorter flights (more heat/cool cycles) while the V2500 is better for longer sectors (lower burn but more mx costs).

User currently offlinethegeek From Australia, joined Nov 2007, 2638 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 6357 times:

Quoting celestar (Thread starter):
Slower than A320 or A319 and he told me that is not the case given it is equipped with GE engines

Engine isn't a big factor in how fast a plane flies at cruise. Aero, particularly wing sweep, is the main factor AIUI. Perhaps he's talking about climb?


User currently offlineprebennorholm From Denmark, joined Mar 2000, 6537 posts, RR: 54
Reply 6, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 6300 times:

Quoting celestar (Thread starter):
...is A321 equipped with GE engine vs IAE engine really more powerful!

A321 comes with five different engines:

CFM56-5B1 - 30,000 lbs
CFM56-5B2 - 31,000 lbs
CFM56-5B3 - 33,000 lbs
IAE V2530-A5 - 30,000 lbs
IAE V2533-A5 - 33,000 lbs

But engine power has very little with speed to do. At end of climb all airliners throttle down quite a bit, or they would overspeed.

Depending on your actual weight and cruise altitude you have a small or larger gap between economic cruise speed and max Mach number to play with. But with current oil prices most play with the former.

Since an A321 will usually be heavier than an A320 or A319, but they share the same wing (at least with flaps retracted), then economic cruise speed - everything else equal - will be slightly faster on an A321.

The only way to fly a sector at record speed is to choose a generous tailwind.



Always keep your number of landings equal to your number of take-offs, Preben Norholm
User currently offlinecelestar From Singapore, joined Jul 2001, 410 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 6215 times:

thanks all, crystal cleared. Thanks for clearing up a lot of issues.

User currently offlinemandala499 From Indonesia, joined Aug 2001, 6965 posts, RR: 76
Reply 8, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 5872 times:

How fast is fast? On HKG-TPE, well the time spent depends on the departing runway and the arriving runway, traffic load, planned cruise speed, and altitude... it depends on a myriad of factors.

The speeds between CFM & IAE engines are negligeable on the A320 family aircraft... but for a given cost index, the heavier you are usually means the faster your economic cruise speed is.

If you want to see the difference between the power of the CFM and the IAE engines is in the landing, pop the reversers open and go max reverse and you'll get the IAE's reversers biting more. On take off, well, about the same... since they can be on the same thrust.

CFM has cheaper maintenance over its lifetime, and slightly worse fuel burn comparing to the IAEs... the IAEs are cheap to maintain between engine overhauls, but each overhaul will come with a big price tag. Choosing which of the two is ideal for your fleet depends on the average route characteristics you want the airplane to fly, but generally, IAEs are more ideal for longer sectors than CFMs.

The IAEs are also more expensive... but you get reliability.

Mandala499



When losing situational awareness, pray Cumulus Granitus isn't nearby !
User currently offlineHAWK21M From India, joined Jan 2001, 31702 posts, RR: 56
Reply 9, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 5805 times:

Though not directly related.....but did the IAE V2500 series have issues with their HPT cracking which forced most operators to opt for the CFM56-5.


Think of the brighter side!
User currently offlinemandala499 From Indonesia, joined Aug 2001, 6965 posts, RR: 76
Reply 10, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 5802 times:

Quoting HAWK21M (Reply 9):
but did the IAE V2500 series have issues with their HPT cracking which forced most operators to opt for the CFM56-5.

Was that the V2500-A1 series? Haven't heard that as an issue for the V2500-A5...
The CFM56-5As were fuel guzzlers... the -5Bs are bliss... the V2500-A5s are fuelburn heaven for the stingy...   



When losing situational awareness, pray Cumulus Granitus isn't nearby !
User currently offlineHAWK21M From India, joined Jan 2001, 31702 posts, RR: 56
Reply 11, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 5295 times:

Quoting mandala499 (Reply 10):
The CFM56-5As were fuel guzzlers... the -5Bs are bliss

What was the improvement achieved.......what caused it.



Think of the brighter side!
User currently offlinemandala499 From Indonesia, joined Aug 2001, 6965 posts, RR: 76
Reply 12, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 5186 times:

Quoting HAWK21M (Reply 11):
What was the improvement achieved.......what caused it.

There was an additional compressor stage, forgot if it was at the LPC or HPC... and several tweaks here and there.
The same improvement was introduced either on the -3B to -3C on the 737 classics or when it moved to -7 for the NGs... can't remember  

The improvements I'll have to dig my files... will get back on that one...



When losing situational awareness, pray Cumulus Granitus isn't nearby !
User currently offlinethegeek From Australia, joined Nov 2007, 2638 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 5150 times:

CFM56-5B has an additional LPC stage. -5C has an additional LPT stage as well. -7 don't have these, I guess due to the slightly smaller fan. OTOH, so open to correction.

User currently offlineferpe From France, joined Nov 2010, 2805 posts, RR: 59
Reply 14, posted (1 year 7 months 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 4838 times:

Thanks for all the good data.

There is a web site which is the best available info base on gasturbine engines for military and civil use, you would find the number of compressor and turbine stages there.

http://webcache.googleusercontent.co...q=cache:http://www.jet-engine.net/

The guy who made it (Nat Meier) must have been in the know, he has all the right parameters described and reliably so. I have found it surprisingly reliable and extremely detailed in terms of variants, usage and physical items. Most of the PR, BPR, TSFC data are also surprisingly good but there are some that are wrong, the CFM56-5C (A343) being one of them, te TSFC should be around 0.59. This site shall be complemented by the ICAO Emission databank for things like static pressure ratio, bypass ratio and static TSFC (you need to calculate it from fuel flow) and the TCDS for physical things of course.

The engine site has not been maintained by the originator, Nat Meier, since some years and It seems it is only available in the google cache now so copy the zip archives as it can soon be gone. The latest engines are not there (from the TXWB) but all before are there and in amazing detail, for the GEnx it is only the first 1B variants as for the T1000.

To take Nats data into excel do it via google calc as copying the http page and pasting in excel does not work well, it pastes into google calc fine and then you can take it to excel (some rows get a tab fault but that is easily visible and corrected). I have it all in excel and it is a tremendous reference.

Here the ICAO data, check the individual sheets to get all the info, most of the data is static sea level info, some GE and CFM static data is at 800ft (GEs Peebles Ohio test site)

http://easa.europa.eu/environment/edb/aircraft-engine-emissions.php



Non French in France
User currently offlineViscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 25989 posts, RR: 22
Reply 15, posted (1 year 7 months 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 4725 times:

Quoting ferpe (Reply 14):
The engine site has not been maintained by the originator, Nat Meier, since some years and It seems it is only available in the google cache now so copy the zip archives as it can soon be gone.

If if the site is shut down you can still retrieve it from the Internet Archive site.
http://web.archive.org/web/20120606051455/http://www.jet-engine.net


Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic A321 Engine Choice: GE Vs IAE
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • Tech/Ops related posts only!
  • Not Tech/Ops related? Use the other forums
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
  • DETAILED RULES
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)


Similar topics:More similar topics...
787 Engine Swap - GE/RR posted Sun Oct 2 2011 09:22:28 by justloveplanes
Overweight Engine-Out Landings: 2 Vs 4 Engines posted Mon Aug 29 2011 07:04:59 by faro
CFM Vs RR Vs GE Vs PW posted Tue Mar 1 2011 07:40:39 by mir2069
Engine Mountings Down Vs. Side posted Sun Feb 6 2011 12:06:06 by MadDogJT8D
Nacelle/Engine Combinations: 777 Vs A330 posted Mon Jul 5 2010 10:33:44 by faro
767 & 744: GE Vs. PW posted Thu Jun 17 2010 07:08:13 by MadDogJT8D
Deciding Factors In Engine Choice+Overhaul Q'tion posted Sun Oct 26 2008 15:03:37 by SInGAPORE_AIR
Piston Engine Fadec, Diesel Vs Avgas posted Sat Oct 6 2007 09:13:48 by Baw2198
A320-which Engine Choice Is More Popular? posted Thu May 24 2007 05:46:09 by KELPkid
Question About E-jets Engine Choice posted Sun Mar 11 2007 18:24:25 by PPVRA

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format