tom775257
18th Jun 2008, 09:20
I get the impression that the V2500 is a poorer engine than the CFM56 for a few reasons mainly anecdotal, I hope you can correct me:
Engines often not reaching predicted life span, methods including packs off and flexing when ever possible to save engine life. Not tankering at all if it takes even 1deg C from the flex temp.
Specifically avoiding base training in V2500 because each TOGA application takes a good chunk of engine life away.
Very long start up time with extensive dry cranking before fuel flow - I heard this was because initially they had bearing failures due to lack of oil pressure, so the ECU is programmed to crank for a while to get the oil pressure up before light-off.
Longer warm up time (5 mins) requiring sometimes to hold after a fast taxi.
A personal one: EPR gauges - annoying! I fly both engines, so I find myself always just flying N1, much the same as every A320 series pilot I have spoken to.
Anecdotally the CFM is a much more robust engine, almost impossible to flame out with water ingestion etc. highly reliable and will happily reach expected time on wing. Excellent FADEC relight control making using continuous ignition a waste of time.
The only advantage I have heard about the V2500 is that it is a little less thirsty than the CFM56.
So please can someone set me straight, moving almost exclusively to flying V2500 powered aircraft now - which annoys me.
Engines often not reaching predicted life span, methods including packs off and flexing when ever possible to save engine life. Not tankering at all if it takes even 1deg C from the flex temp.
Specifically avoiding base training in V2500 because each TOGA application takes a good chunk of engine life away.
Very long start up time with extensive dry cranking before fuel flow - I heard this was because initially they had bearing failures due to lack of oil pressure, so the ECU is programmed to crank for a while to get the oil pressure up before light-off.
Longer warm up time (5 mins) requiring sometimes to hold after a fast taxi.
A personal one: EPR gauges - annoying! I fly both engines, so I find myself always just flying N1, much the same as every A320 series pilot I have spoken to.
Anecdotally the CFM is a much more robust engine, almost impossible to flame out with water ingestion etc. highly reliable and will happily reach expected time on wing. Excellent FADEC relight control making using continuous ignition a waste of time.
The only advantage I have heard about the V2500 is that it is a little less thirsty than the CFM56.
So please can someone set me straight, moving almost exclusively to flying V2500 powered aircraft now - which annoys me.