Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
9Patch
Topic Author
Posts: 527
Joined: Wed Mar 13, 2019 10:38 pm

LEAP engines on 737 and A320 fall way short of on-wing targets

Mon Jun 01, 2020 12:35 pm

Scott Hamilton of Leeham News has an article on the challenges the new GE Aviation CEO will face when David Joyce retires this year. Among them are issues with the CFM LEAP that powers the 737 MAX and is one of the choices on the A320neo family.

The LEAP’s predecessor, the CFM56, is widely regarded as perhaps the most reliable jet engine ever made. Its on-wing time is about 25,000 hours. The LEAP falls far short. With advanced materials and higher running temperatures to achieve target fuel reduction goals, the LEAP so far faces engine removals in about 6,000 hours. Some of the advanced materials failed early.

Engine repairs in these cases are done under warranties, a costly expense for CFM. GE owns 50% of CFM, and shares in these costs.

Sources familiar with the situation tell LNA Boeing is or will be making claims against CFM for these issues.

https://leehamnews.com/2020/06/01/new-g ... hallenges/
 
boerje
Posts: 48
Joined: Tue Jan 09, 2018 9:16 am

Re: LEAP engines on 737 and A320 fall way short of on-wing targets

Mon Jun 01, 2020 2:04 pm

Darn... so MAX engines need to be replaced every 250 days. :duck:
 
ikramerica
Posts: 15084
Joined: Mon May 23, 2005 9:33 am

Re: LEAP engines on 737 and A320 fall way short of on-wing targets

Mon Jun 01, 2020 2:17 pm

Were CFM56 that reliable in the DC8 version when they were new? Or are we comparing them to the very mature version we know from the A320 and 737NG?
Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
 
737max8
Posts: 590
Joined: Thu Dec 10, 2015 4:13 am

Re: LEAP engines on 737 and A320 fall way short of on-wing targets

Mon Jun 01, 2020 2:44 pm

I'm sure it will get better...it's new. Parts will be improved.

Good news is I've heard fuel savings is as good or better than advertised.
The thoughts and opinions expressed in my comments do not represent that of any airline or affiliate.
Flown on: 717 733 734 735 736 737 738 739 7M8 744 744ER 752 753 762 763 772 773ER 788 789 A220 A319/20/21 A332 A333 A339 A343 A346 A359 A388
 
jimbo737
Posts: 524
Joined: Mon Jan 18, 2016 12:18 am

Re: LEAP engines on 737 and A320 fall way short of on-wing targets

Mon Jun 01, 2020 2:46 pm

Not news to anyone familiar with Max operations.
 
Okcflyer
Posts: 637
Joined: Sat May 23, 2015 11:10 pm

Re: LEAP engines on 737 and A320 fall way short of on-wing targets

Mon Jun 01, 2020 3:06 pm

Which components are failing early / wearing prematurely ?
 
ukoverlander
Posts: 405
Joined: Thu May 13, 2010 10:57 pm

Re: LEAP engines on 737 and A320 fall way short of on-wing targets

Mon Jun 01, 2020 3:40 pm

The good news is that given the number of flying hours 737 Max aircraft are flying these days it could take years to rack up 6,000 hours of flying time! :duck: :duck: :duck:
 
StTim
Posts: 3677
Joined: Thu Aug 08, 2013 7:39 am

Re: LEAP engines on 737 and A320 fall way short of on-wing targets

Mon Jun 01, 2020 3:44 pm

But not good news for A320N with LEAP engines. Some of those are flying.
 
majano
Posts: 266
Joined: Sun Oct 14, 2018 10:45 am

Re: LEAP engines on 737 and A320 fall way short of on-wing targets

Mon Jun 01, 2020 3:45 pm

jimbo737 wrote:
Not news to anyone familiar with Max operations.

So what? Not everyone on this site is involved in the aviation industry, let alone airline operations. This is news to me and it's shocking. It is a very unfortunate position for the A320 neo. Critical safety and reliability issues with the GTF are barely behind the programme and up leaps dwarf on-wing hours for the second engine option. What could be next?
 
User avatar
scbriml
Posts: 18979
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:37 pm

Re: LEAP engines on 737 and A320 fall way short of on-wing targets

Mon Jun 01, 2020 4:18 pm

737max8 wrote:
I'm sure it will get better...it's new.


LEAP first ran in September 2013. How much longer are we going to call it a new engine?
Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana!
There are 10 types of people in the World - those that understand binary and those that don't.
 
User avatar
ikolkyo
Posts: 2972
Joined: Tue Nov 05, 2013 8:43 pm

Re: LEAP engines on 737 and A320 fall way short of on-wing targets

Mon Jun 01, 2020 4:38 pm

scbriml wrote:
737max8 wrote:
I'm sure it will get better...it's new.


LEAP first ran in September 2013. How much longer are we going to call it a new engine?


and the GTF first ran in 2007 yet it still has all these issues. Both the engines (GTF and -1A) didn't enter service until 2016 and the -1B entered service in 2017, issues really don't come up in products until they are in active service. I think you can apply that to a lot of things outside of aerospace. Regardless, these are the newest engines on the market, it's not surprising issues are still coming up.
 
Tn55337
Posts: 36
Joined: Sun Mar 11, 2018 10:36 pm

Re: LEAP engines on 737 and A320 fall way short of on-wing targets

Mon Jun 01, 2020 4:46 pm

Goes to show that issues crop up with any new design. I feel like there are some people that owe pratt an apology for the way they went after the GTF.
 
9Patch
Topic Author
Posts: 527
Joined: Wed Mar 13, 2019 10:38 pm

Re: LEAP engines on 737 and A320 fall way short of on-wing targets

Mon Jun 01, 2020 5:08 pm

StTim wrote:
But not good news for A320N with LEAP engines. Some of those are flying.

Does anyone know what percentage of A320neos have been ordered with LEAP engines?
 
Weatherwatcher1
Posts: 476
Joined: Sun Mar 03, 2019 5:14 pm

Re: LEAP engines on 737 and A320 fall way short of on-wing targets

Mon Jun 01, 2020 5:23 pm

9Patch wrote:
StTim wrote:
But not good news for A320N with LEAP engines. Some of those are flying.

Does anyone know what percentage of A320neos have been ordered with LEAP engines?


59% of NEOs
 
LGeneReese
Posts: 243
Joined: Sun Sep 22, 2019 3:36 am

Re: LEAP engines on 737 and A320 fall way short of on-wing targets

Mon Jun 01, 2020 5:24 pm

jimbo737 wrote:
Not news to anyone familiar with Max operations.

Given the data on Max is over a year old now...
 
Weatherwatcher1
Posts: 476
Joined: Sun Mar 03, 2019 5:14 pm

Re: LEAP engines on 737 and A320 fall way short of on-wing targets

Mon Jun 01, 2020 5:30 pm

The article says the Leap Engine is facing removals in about 6,000 hours. That’s 1.5-2 years of service. Not many 737MAX airplanes accumulated 6,000 hours. The 6,000 hour removals must mostly be on A320NEOs. I wonder if there is a difference between the A320neo, C919 and MAX engine life on wing projections

I’m curious how removals rates compare with the PW GTF. We know IndiGo is the largest operator and by order of the DGCA must remove engines before they get to 2,900 hours
 
User avatar
FrenchPotatoEye
Posts: 294
Joined: Sun Nov 12, 2017 1:20 pm

Re: LEAP engines on 737 and A320 fall way short of on-wing targets

Mon Jun 01, 2020 5:33 pm

Weatherwatcher1 wrote:
The article says the Leap Engine is facing removals in about 6,000 hours. That’s 1.5-2 years of service. Not many 737MAX airplanes accumulated 6,000 hours. The 6,000 hour removals must mostly be on A320NEOs. I wonder if there is a difference between the A320neo, C919 and MAX engine life on wing projections

I’m curious how removals rates compare with the PW GTF. We know IndiGo is the largest operator and by order of the DGCA must remove engines before they get to 2,900 hours


I putted this link to recent gtf story with facts but was deleted for some strange resons...

https://m.businesstoday.in/story/indigo ... 05561.html

The leeham provides no airline evidence. Just theirs owns statements. How is this accurates?
 
pranav7478
Posts: 11
Joined: Mon Nov 05, 2018 6:22 pm

Re: LEAP engines on 737 and A320 fall way short of on-wing targets

Mon Jun 01, 2020 5:36 pm

9Patch wrote:
StTim wrote:
But not good news for A320N with LEAP engines. Some of those are flying.

Does anyone know what percentage of A320neos have been ordered with LEAP engines?


I believe that leap is a little more than half the orders for the neos
Planes I have flown on: CRJ-900, E175, E190, A319, A320, A321, A330-200, 717, 737-700, 737-800, 747-400, 747-8I, 757-200, 767-300, 777-200, 777-300(ER), 787-8, 787-9
Airlines I have flown on: AI, AS, BA, DL, 6E, 9W, B6, KE, SQ, WN, UA, US, VA
 
User avatar
Aesma
Posts: 12969
Joined: Sat Nov 14, 2009 6:14 am

Re: LEAP engines on 737 and A320 fall way short of on-wing targets

Mon Jun 01, 2020 6:34 pm

ikramerica wrote:
Were CFM56 that reliable in the DC8 version when they were new? Or are we comparing them to the very mature version we know from the A320 and 737NG?


Probably not. However the LEAP is an evolution of the CFM56 so it should have an advantage there.

ikolkyo wrote:
scbriml wrote:
737max8 wrote:
I'm sure it will get better...it's new.


LEAP first ran in September 2013. How much longer are we going to call it a new engine?


and the GTF first ran in 2007 yet it still has all these issues. Both the engines (GTF and -1A) didn't enter service until 2016 and the -1B entered service in 2017, issues really don't come up in products until they are in active service. I think you can apply that to a lot of things outside of aerospace. Regardless, these are the newest engines on the market, it's not surprising issues are still coming up.


It's surprising that CFM couldn't simulate/test for the equivalent of 6000 hours and see these material issues, though.

Keep in mind the LEAP is basically all about these new materials.

At least the GTF has no gearbox issue.
New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
 
ericm2031
Posts: 1372
Joined: Tue Jun 19, 2012 8:46 am

Re: LEAP engines on 737 and A320 fall way short of on-wing targets

Mon Jun 01, 2020 8:03 pm

9Patch wrote:
StTim wrote:
But not good news for A320N with LEAP engines. Some of those are flying.

Does anyone know what percentage of A320neos have been ordered with LEAP engines?


59% according to the article
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Moderator
Posts: 19603
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

Re: LEAP engines on 737 and A320 fall way short of on-wing targets

Mon Jun 01, 2020 8:13 pm

The Pratt engines have a fix, it just takes time to fix it.
https://www.financialexpress.com/indust ... 7325/lite/

The Pratts were limited on cycles, does anyone have an hour limit link?

I haven't heard much more than CFM LEAP engines are having to go in for overhauls early.

CFM had enough spare engines, so airlines could keep opperating. That is what matters most.

Lightsaber
IM messages to mods on warnings and bans will be ignored and nasty ones will result in a ban.
 
Jetport
Posts: 122
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2015 4:23 pm

Re: LEAP engines on 737 and A320 fall way short of on-wing targets

Mon Jun 01, 2020 8:20 pm

The real question is how does this compare to the GTF? You don't have to be faster than the bear, just faster than the person next to you.
 
smartplane
Posts: 1445
Joined: Fri Aug 03, 2018 9:23 pm

Re: LEAP engines on 737 and A320 fall way short of on-wing targets

Mon Jun 01, 2020 8:46 pm

GE and PW must be very relieved most customers purchased bundled 737 / A320 packages (turnkey), without engines negotiated separately, so very little PBTH. However, A & B, seeing a revenue generating opportunity offered PBTH without engine OEM underwriting. OK while warranty arguments prevail and MAX grounded.
 
strfyr51
Posts: 4862
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2012 5:04 pm

Re: LEAP engines on 737 and A320 fall way short of on-wing targets

Mon Jun 01, 2020 9:04 pm

ikramerica wrote:
Were CFM56 that reliable in the DC8 version when they were new? Or are we comparing them to the very mature version we know from the A320 and 737NG?

the CFM-56 -2 on the DC* was pretty darn reliable though at first we had trouble with the Main engine control (Fuel control) and the fact we had to upgrade the fuel pump as well but they were on it at GE and we had the fix done long before we sold our DC8-71's.
 
SteelChair
Posts: 1428
Joined: Fri Aug 25, 2017 11:37 am

Re: LEAP engines on 737 and A320 fall way short of on-wing targets

Mon Jun 01, 2020 9:18 pm

Compare a new engine to the most reliable commercial gas turbine engine ever created?

6,000 hours is not bad at all. Especially when compared to the GTF.

I have every confidence that the team that made the CFM56 the best ever will improve the LEAP further.
 
durangomac
Posts: 439
Joined: Fri Dec 08, 2006 5:18 am

Re: LEAP engines on 737 and A320 fall way short of on-wing targets

Mon Jun 01, 2020 10:35 pm

If I remember correctly that the issue is mainly on the A321Neo. The engines on the A320Neo's while the same are derated and the issues aren't showing up because the engines aren't working as hard. The engines on the MAX are slightly different and aren't showing the same wear. The issue on the A321Neo's has caused CFM to look at the materials and is going to apply the change to all of the variants of the LEAP engines.

Again this is from memory and things could have changed from 6-9 months ago when I heard the details.
 
9Patch
Topic Author
Posts: 527
Joined: Wed Mar 13, 2019 10:38 pm

Re: LEAP engines on 737 and A320 fall way short of on-wing targets

Mon Jun 01, 2020 10:39 pm

SteelChair wrote:
Compare a new engine to the most reliable commercial gas turbine engine ever created?

6,000 hours is not bad at all. Especially when compared to the GTF.

I have every confidence that the team that made the CFM56 the best ever will improve the LEAP further.

What were the customers promised?
If CMF is having to do costly engine repairs under warranty, it appears they are not meeting expectations.
 
milhaus
Posts: 36
Joined: Fri Dec 10, 2010 4:19 pm

Re: LEAP engines on 737 and A320 fall way short of on-wing targets

Tue Jun 02, 2020 10:12 am

Smartwings already changed two engines within fleet of seven aircraft. They found damage on turbine ceramic lining.
 
dopplerd
Posts: 101
Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2016 7:30 pm

Re: LEAP engines on 737 and A320 fall way short of on-wing targets

Tue Jun 02, 2020 2:24 pm

It was always surprising to me that the GTF was the engine that earned a bad reputation. The LEAP is the version pushing the temps, pressures and material science to gain efficiency where the GTF used the reduction gearset on a more traditional design. Pratt managed to screw up a relatively basic seal design in the GTF and shot themselves in the foot. The gearset has been the most reliable part of the whole engine.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 23755
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: LEAP engines on 737 and A320 fall way short of on-wing targets

Tue Jun 02, 2020 3:02 pm

dopplerd wrote:
It was always surprising to me that the GTF was the engine that earned a bad reputation. The LEAP is the version pushing the temps, pressures and material science to gain efficiency where the GTF used the reduction gearset on a more traditional design. Pratt managed to screw up a relatively basic seal design in the GTF and shot themselves in the foot. The gearset has been the most reliable part of the whole engine.

The real difference is that the PW engines suffered in-flight shutdowns ( ref: https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/indigo- ... 18-2164986 ) whereas the CFM issue is one of durability.
Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world
The heart has its beaches, its homeland and thoughts of its own
Wake now, discover that you are the song that the morning brings
The heart has its seasons, its evenings and songs of its own
 
ikramerica
Posts: 15084
Joined: Mon May 23, 2005 9:33 am

Re: LEAP engines on 737 and A320 fall way short of on-wing targets

Tue Jun 02, 2020 5:36 pm

Revelation wrote:
dopplerd wrote:
It was always surprising to me that the GTF was the engine that earned a bad reputation. The LEAP is the version pushing the temps, pressures and material science to gain efficiency where the GTF used the reduction gearset on a more traditional design. Pratt managed to screw up a relatively basic seal design in the GTF and shot themselves in the foot. The gearset has been the most reliable part of the whole engine.

The real difference is that the PW engines suffered in-flight shutdowns ( ref: https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/indigo- ... 18-2164986 ) whereas the CFM issue is one of durability.

And durability of new materials in real life conditions is a learning curve.

IFS of the kind PW had should have been mostly eradicated during proving.
Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
 
SteelChair
Posts: 1428
Joined: Fri Aug 25, 2017 11:37 am

Re: LEAP engines on 737 and A320 fall way short of on-wing targets

Tue Jun 02, 2020 6:13 pm

PW once again fails. The reliability of the GTF has been a massive disappointment. The LEAP is a huge success by comparison.
 
User avatar
PepeTheFrog
Posts: 380
Joined: Mon Dec 16, 2019 10:38 pm

Re: LEAP engines on 737 and A320 fall way short of on-wing targets

Tue Jun 02, 2020 6:22 pm

New generation engines will never feature the same wing time as the old generation because the core runs hotter, resulting in more wear and tear.

Everyone working in the industry knows this.
Good moaning!
 
9Patch
Topic Author
Posts: 527
Joined: Wed Mar 13, 2019 10:38 pm

Re: LEAP engines on 737 and A320 fall way short of on-wing targets

Tue Jun 02, 2020 9:43 pm

PepeTheFrog wrote:
New generation engines will never feature the same wing time as the old generation because the core runs hotter, resulting in more wear and tear.

Everyone working in the industry knows this.

So are you telling us CMF planned it this way, engines with only 6.000 hours of wing time and costly engine repairs under warranty?
The customers knew this in advance?
 
Weatherwatcher1
Posts: 476
Joined: Sun Mar 03, 2019 5:14 pm

Re: LEAP engines on 737 and A320 fall way short of on-wing targets

Tue Jun 02, 2020 10:43 pm

9Patch wrote:
PepeTheFrog wrote:
New generation engines will never feature the same wing time as the old generation because the core runs hotter, resulting in more wear and tear.

Everyone working in the industry knows this.

So are you telling us CMF planned it this way, engines with only 6.000 hours of wing time and costly engine repairs under warranty?
The customers knew this in advance?


I think it is acknowledged in the industry that the CFM56 hours on wing would go down with the LeapX. The CFM56 performance on wing was nothing short of spectacular. We saw the GEnx was supposed to last more hours Than the CF6 between overhaul when launched, but that never came true due to higher pressures and temperatures. To improve efficiency, Engines are running hotter. It has the downside of increased maintenance costs.

6000 hours between overhaul is low. I don’t think anyone would have planned it to be that low.
 
User avatar
SEPilot
Posts: 5604
Joined: Sat Dec 30, 2006 10:21 pm

Re: LEAP engines on 737 and A320 fall way short of on-wing targets

Tue Jun 02, 2020 11:15 pm

It is simple physics. Increased efficiency is achieved largely through higher temperatures and pressures. This puts a lot more stress on the materials. They are using new materials that are supposed to better withstand the higher stresses, but there is a learning curve, and as they are pushing things to the limits, lower life expectancy is unfortunately part of the package. It is highly unlikely that it will ever be as good as the CFM-56.
The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Moderator
Posts: 19603
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

Re: LEAP engines on 737 and A320 fall way short of on-wing targets

Tue Jun 02, 2020 11:59 pm

9Patch wrote:
PepeTheFrog wrote:
New generation engines will never feature the same wing time as the old generation because the core runs hotter, resulting in more wear and tear.

Everyone working in the industry knows this.

So are you telling us CMF planned it this way, engines with only 6.000 hours of wing time and costly engine repairs under warranty?
The customers knew this in advance?

Parts were supposed to be available in May:

May if 2018...

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... nd-quarter

Now, the LEAP high pressure compressor has a pressure ratio of 22:1, about double the CFM-56:
https://www.aviationpros.com/engines-co ... abulous-56

The fix was supposed to be that the lean burn combustor produces fewer hot streaks and thus fewer accelerated erosion spots. The trick was to create a more uniform temperature and velocity profile into the turbine.

A combustor works by spinning the air to mix. The goal is perfect mixing. Here is a video on the LEAP combustor:

https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=le ... RE&PC=U316

I speculate velocity and hot streaks are worse than predicted. GE was very clever at Turbine design. The goal was a longer life than the CFM-56. Something was off.

I used to design combustors for Pratt and turbine durability was aways an issue on how combustor changes impact not only pollution, (NOx), but the hot spots on the turbine.

Lightsaber
IM messages to mods on warnings and bans will be ignored and nasty ones will result in a ban.
 
Okcflyer
Posts: 637
Joined: Sat May 23, 2015 11:10 pm

Re: LEAP engines on 737 and A320 fall way short of on-wing targets

Wed Jun 03, 2020 3:09 am

lightsaber wrote:
9Patch wrote:
PepeTheFrog wrote:
New generation engines will never feature the same wing time as the old generation because the core runs hotter, resulting in more wear and tear.

Everyone working in the industry knows this.

So are you telling us CMF planned it this way, engines with only 6.000 hours of wing time and costly engine repairs under warranty?
The customers knew this in advance?

Parts were supposed to be available in May:

May if 2018...

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... nd-quarter

Now, the LEAP high pressure compressor has a pressure ratio of 22:1, about double the CFM-56:
https://www.aviationpros.com/engines-co ... abulous-56

The fix was supposed to be that the lean burn combustor produces fewer hot streaks and thus fewer accelerated erosion spots. The trick was to create a more uniform temperature and velocity profile into the turbine.

A combustor works by spinning the air to mix. The goal is perfect mixing. Here is a video on the LEAP combustor:

https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=le ... RE&PC=U316

I speculate velocity and hot streaks are worse than predicted. GE was very clever at Turbine design. The goal was a longer life than the CFM-56. Something was off.

I used to design combustors for Pratt and turbine durability was aways an issue on how combustor changes impact not only pollution, (NOx), but the hot spots on the turbine.

Lightsaber


One would think hot spot testing is easily replicated in lab environments and certainly shouldn’t have needed in-service to find and identify. Likewise, should also be something fairly straight forward to test / validate in the lab and test jig.

Something seems off with that hypothesis.

Maybe a combination of factors. airborne particle counts. Pollution Variations. Some type of unexpected resonance. Something way more difficult to understand in controlled conditions
 
Qf648
Posts: 72
Joined: Thu Dec 28, 2017 3:49 pm

Re: LEAP engines on 737 and A320 fall way short of on-wing targets

Wed Jun 03, 2020 11:12 am

LGeneReese wrote:
jimbo737 wrote:
Not news to anyone familiar with Max operations.

Given the data on Max is over a year old now...


So max operators have at least saved one engine change
 
Sokes
Posts: 1190
Joined: Sat Mar 09, 2019 4:48 pm

Re: LEAP engines on 737 and A320 fall way short of on-wing targets

Thu Jun 04, 2020 3:53 am

Weatherwatcher1 wrote:
The CFM56 performance on wing was nothing short of spectacular. We saw the GEnx was supposed to last more hours Than the CF6 between overhaul when launched, but that never came true due to higher pressures and temperatures. To improve efficiency, Engines are running hotter. It has the downside of increased maintenance costs.

That makes sense.
Weatherwatcher1 wrote:
6000 hours between overhaul is low. I don’t think anyone would have planned it to be that low.

As aviation fuel doesn't attract meaningful tax, low maintenance becomes more important on short haul. So CFM-56 is no good standard.
I don't know if 6000 hours is o.k., bad or very bad. Anybody has some comparisons, e.g. to Trents or GE90?
What about IAE V2500?
Why can't the world be a little bit more autistic?
 
smartplane
Posts: 1445
Joined: Fri Aug 03, 2018 9:23 pm

Re: LEAP engines on 737 and A320 fall way short of on-wing targets

Thu Jun 04, 2020 5:01 am

Weatherwatcher1 wrote:
9Patch wrote:
PepeTheFrog wrote:
New generation engines will never feature the same wing time as the old generation because the core runs hotter, resulting in more wear and tear.

Everyone working in the industry knows this.

So are you telling us CMF planned it this way, engines with only 6.000 hours of wing time and costly engine repairs under warranty?
The customers knew this in advance?


I think it is acknowledged in the industry that the CFM56 hours on wing would go down with the LeapX. The CFM56 performance on wing was nothing short of spectacular. We saw the GEnx was supposed to last more hours Than the CF6 between overhaul when launched, but that never came true due to higher pressures and temperatures. To improve efficiency, Engines are running hotter. It has the downside of increased maintenance costs.

6000 hours between overhaul is low. I don’t think anyone would have planned it to be that low.

May have promised >6,000 but surely good for a new engine on a NB flying short-medium stage lengths.
 
StereoTechque
Posts: 185
Joined: Sat Nov 28, 2015 7:24 am

Re: LEAP engines on 737 and A320 fall way short of on-wing targets

Thu Jun 04, 2020 6:45 am

Sokes wrote:
I don't know if 6000 hours is o.k., bad or very bad. Anybody has some comparisons, e.g. to Trents or GE90?
What about IAE V2500?


For IAE it is 8000 to 12000 hours when on the A320 depending on the borescope findings and thrust rating. When on the A321 it is less than 8000.
Looking California.. Feeling Minnesota.... R. I.P. Chris Cornell...
 
User avatar
PepeTheFrog
Posts: 380
Joined: Mon Dec 16, 2019 10:38 pm

Re: LEAP engines on 737 and A320 fall way short of on-wing targets

Tue Jun 09, 2020 3:55 pm

9Patch wrote:
PepeTheFrog wrote:
New generation engines will never feature the same wing time as the old generation because the core runs hotter, resulting in more wear and tear.

Everyone working in the industry knows this.

So are you telling us CMF planned it this way, engines with only 6.000 hours of wing time and costly engine repairs under warranty?
The customers knew this in advance?


I didn't say that. I'm just stating that LEAP will never reach the 25,000 hours of the CFM56 because the core runs hotter, resulting in more wear and tear.

There is still some room between 6,000 and 25,000 hours so LEAP might improve over the coming years, but don't expect it to catch up with CFM56.

CFM56 is an exceptional product.
Good moaning!

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos