Very broad statement. Just curious, do you have data to compare other aircraft of similar size with different powerplants?

 

No. I don't need it. Modern engines are more fuel efficient than old engines. That's why they make them newer. CFM's on the 737's are not "new" engines. Technology has advanced since the first 737 CFM engines came out in the 80's. The new engines are more fuel efficient. I really don't care about the exact numbers.

 

I guess I expected a better response on the subject especially with more improvements of the CFM56-7B26's software, core, HMFCU, and EECs.

 

Here's the new engine:

http://www.sae.org/aeromag/techinnovations/1298t10.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pratt_&_Whitney_GTF

http://defence-data.com/current/page38895.htm

The Press Reports do not have all the latest numbers, but the engine's current rating is 30,000 LBS. It turns in 12% better fuel economy than the best GE / Snecma / CFM numbers while running quieter and has the benefit of being much simpler to build and maintain.

The articles pass it off as an "RJ" engine, but 30,000 LBS is clearly in the thrust range for a 737-800 sized jet. Make a 737 out of composites and 30,000 pounds of thrust would probably go all the way to 180 - 200 seats.

 

But maybe the 737 operators do. It may be the A320 with the upcoming V2500 (selectone) that will trouble CFM/Boeing.

AL

 

The 737 needed replaced 20-25 years ago. I can't wait to fly a modern airplane (and I fly the 737-700,-800,-900,-900ER).

 

Does CAL still use virtual steam gauges on those glass panels?

 

Yes, because we still fly the -300 and -500. I hate it, but it's to keep them all similair for us idiot pilots who can't read old and new instruments without getting confused? When they park the last -300 & -500, hopefully they'll flip the switch and let us use modern glass displays.

I flew the 757-200 with steam airspeed and altitude gauges and the 767-400 with glass speed/altitude tapes in the same day. Why can't I do the same on the 737?

 

How would you improve the CFM-56? I know GE and SNECMA are eager for your solution.

average time on wing for a CFM in 2002 was over 16,000 hours without a shop visit. Some -5s and -7s have more than 30,000 hrs before going to the shop. Over the life of the engine, they have changed the blades, introduced new blades with internal cooling, new ceramics, etc... lots of changes over the years so it is not your father's CFM...

Inflight shut down is something on the order of 1 shutdown per 330,000 hours so the likelihood a flier moving through the air with a CFM will experience a shut down in his/her lift time is only a consideration is s/he flies for 185 years, not likely even in today's ruinous pension environment.

What would you do in a new engine and how? Also, consider a new engine will have to be much 'greener' for the Euro-enviros and Hot House Al. Maybe you can create an engine that fires seeds into the ground essentially planting new trees where it flies and creating carbon offsets (the left's new religion and similar to the old Papal Bulls...)

One final.. how much will it cost to develop and when will you have it in the market? How much growth will the engine have and what will be the initial thrust target? Will it burn bio-fuels?

 

Come to the dark side and fly the 320............