Sponsor Message:
Aviation Technical / Operations Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
AA Why Different Engines On Airbus Fleet?  
User currently offlineunited319 From United States of America, joined Jul 2006, 527 posts, RR: 0
Posted (1 year 1 week 8 hours ago) and read 4766 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Just noticed in the new photos that AA has different engines on their A319 & A321 fleets....

The A319 has CFM's and the A321 has IAE V2500's...doesn't seem to make sense for brand new aircraft. I would think they would want the same engine manufacturer on their aircraft. Can anyone shed light on this?

Thanks!

UAL


It's Time To Fly
9 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineStarlionblue From Greenland, joined Feb 2004, 17110 posts, RR: 66
Reply 1, posted (1 year 1 week 8 hours ago) and read 4760 times:

Quoting united319 (Thread starter):
The A319 has CFM's and the A321 has IAE V2500's...doesn't seem to make sense for brand new aircraft. I would think they would want the same engine manufacturer on their aircraft. Can anyone shed light on this?

I'm thinking it makes sense.
- The two aircraft have very different weights and somewhat different missions, so methinks different engines might be optimal.
- Given the size of AA's fleet, arguments about economies of scale and commonality between models weaken somewhat. Sure, if you have 5x A319 + 8x A321 in total, commonality is a big thing. AA wil have 65x A319 + 65x A321. Quite enough to realize any economies of scale within one model.
- Having two manufacturers ensures competition.
- Given the volumes involved, delivery slots come into play. Perhaps one manufacturer couldn't provide all the desired engines in the desired timeframe.



"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots."
User currently offlineSPREE34 From United States of America, joined Jun 2004, 2257 posts, RR: 9
Reply 2, posted (1 year 1 week 7 hours ago) and read 4742 times:

The CFM is better suited to shorter legs. The IAE is the better performer on longer legs, and and offers a higher thrust rating, so is the better engine for the 321. I believe Lufthansa if following the same logic. US Airways did as well after the merge with America West.


I don't understand everything I don't know about this.
User currently offlineChaosTheory From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2013, 315 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (1 year 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 4519 times:

Quoting SPREE34 (Reply 2):
and offers a higher thrust rating

That's not true.

My airline needed the most powerful option for the A321 so they went for the CFM which puts out around 32Klb max compared to the 31.5Klb of the V2500.

Don't trust the numbers on the OEM websites as they're not very accurate.

Other reasons in favour of the IAE V2500 are that the fuel consumption is lower (around 2% on longer sectors) and oil consumption is also considerably less.


User currently offlinemhkansan From United States of America, joined Jan 2010, 710 posts, RR: 1
Reply 4, posted (1 year 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 4249 times:

Quoting ChaosTheory (Reply 3):
Other reasons in favour of the IAE V2500 are that the fuel consumption is lower (around 2% on longer sectors) and oil consumption is also considerably less.

This. The IAE engine is a much better performer on longer routes than the CFM. AY did the same thing also.


User currently offlineDeltal1011man From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 9666 posts, RR: 14
Reply 5, posted (1 year 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 4207 times:

Quoting ChaosTheory (Reply 3):

This is also why AA picked CFM for the 319s.
CFM has a ~27K engine
IAE is (IIRC) ~24K



yep.
User currently offlineBlueJuice From United States of America, joined Jun 2010, 250 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (1 year 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 3997 times:

Does "Power by the Hour" also play into the equation? I am guessing when fuel was cheap and airlines were responsible for all engine ownership/maintenance/spare parts, the loss in efficiency was made up with a simpler technical operations. Nowadays it seems airlines want to squeeze out every fraction of a percent in operating efficiency. Having the manufacturer bear the cost of engines and maintenance means the airlines can lease the exact engine needed for a particular mission. Am I making a correct assumption?

User currently offlineLH707330 From United States of America, joined Jun 2012, 826 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (1 year 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 3917 times:

Quoting BlueJuice (Reply 6):

Could be, not sure how their contracts are set up here. The architecture of the two engines largely determines their optimality, the V2500 has two HPT stages while the CFM56 has one. This means lower mx costs for CFM, but better SFC for V2500. MX on HPT is largely a function of cycles (heating/cooling stress), whereas SFC benefit is a function of distance flown and becomes more important on longer sectors. Thus, the short runs favor CFM because there are fewer expensive parts to replace regularly, while longer sectors favor IAE because you have relatively more hours/cycle, which shifts the equation more to burn and away from mx.


User currently offlineroseflyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 9690 posts, RR: 52
Reply 8, posted (1 year 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 3907 times:

Quoting BlueJuice (Reply 6):
Does "Power by the Hour" also play into the equation?

That was my first thought. I suspect AA might be doing power by the hour. When your engine is power by the hour, you depend on the engine manufacturer for all your support. There's very little benefit to engine commonality because AA won't be doing much engine work in house. The only engine work that they'd be doing is the type that doesn't vary much depending on engine type.



If you have never designed an airplane part before, let the real designers do the work!
User currently offlinesancho99504 From United States of America, joined Dec 2005, 572 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (10 months 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 2212 times:

Quoting Deltal1011man (Reply 5):

The A319 comes available with the V2527M-A5 engines which produce 27k pounds of thrust, so that isn't an issues. The A319s will be used or short to medium stage lengths which are better suited for the CFM56-5B7 due to lower maintenance costs associated with the short haul environment wear and tear.



kill 'em all and let God sort 'em out-USMC
Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic AA Why Different Engines On Airbus Fleet?
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...
Why Not Engines On Top Of The Wings? posted Wed Jun 1 2005 00:21:25 by Keta
Two Different Engines On One Plane? posted Wed Sep 25 2002 16:21:23 by ClipperNo1
Why US A332/3 Has Different Engines? posted Thu Dec 15 2011 16:39:01 by 747400sp
Why Flaps On Airbus Dont Have A Gap Like Others posted Mon Aug 17 2009 00:06:51 by AirIndia
Fuels Spills On SA Airbus Fleet posted Wed Aug 22 2007 06:14:15 by Abnormal
Trouble Starting Engines On A319 - Why? posted Sun Mar 12 2006 08:02:14 by Mir
Why The Up-Curve Of Windows On Airbus Widebodies? posted Mon Aug 29 2005 04:16:58 by Web
Why Do Engines Rumble On Reverse Thrust? posted Fri Aug 20 2004 13:51:28 by NoelG
Why No Winglet On Horizontal Stabilizer? posted Thu Jun 6 2013 09:02:32 by A380900
Why The Dip On Runway 8R/26L @ ATL posted Thu Aug 23 2012 19:12:04 by rmoore7734

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format