Originally Posted by
maxxer
As they all have troubles with these lqtest generation engines.
I wonder really on a 737 flight how much it saves between a stansted to barcelona flight. The only thing you read is that they are more efficient so how much more ?
I live under a flight path in belgium well not actually the flight path , but just because they are not allowed to fly over brussel that much the take off to the south and then head west and then fly around brussel to go east again to germany for example.
But I checked the noise and an old 747f doesnt make more noise then a 787 while the 787 was on a shorter trip then the 747f so the super new engines dont really do much in the improvement of noise.
So i am curious if the the leap engine compare to the old CFM56 engine really makes so much up in fuel efficiency or this is just some guy with excel sheets.
14% saving in fuel burn has been validated, I’ve done enough trips from both EDI & DUB to SWF & PVD on both new-ish NG & the MAX and the saving in fuel burn is real world real.
The MAX is quieter both internally and externally, down sides? well BRM ( bow rotor motoring) during high internal/external ambient temperature is embarrassingly slow to start the engines at between 2-3 minutes -V- 40 seconds on a standard CMF on busy ramps such as LGW, the MAX’s empty CoG is much further forward than the NG means that you have to fill rear hold first before you put anything in the front hold, so mixed operations with NG & MAX needs carefully monitoring on the ramp, on the plus side tail tipping is close to impossible on the MAX ( this will be an even bigger problem if they ever convert them to freighters with the heavy PEMCO cargo hold door)