IAE V2500-A5 vs. CFM56-5B on A320 Family
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: France
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
IAE V2500-A5 vs. CFM56-5B on A320 Family
Looking for some recent experience to compare these engines options.
As far as I understand both engines have some plus
and minus 
Does anyone (pilot, engineer, flight attendant, passenger...) have some feedback ?
Marketshare is comparable today but IAE seems to be out of A320NEO which could be worrying.
PM
As far as I understand both engines have some plus
and minus Does anyone (pilot, engineer, flight attendant, passenger...) have some feedback ?
Marketshare is comparable today but IAE seems to be out of A320NEO which could be worrying.
PM
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: flyover country USA
Age: 82
Posts: 4,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The "V" in V2500 is actually a Roman numeral - representing the five corporate partners in the IAE joint venture. Pratt & Whitney is one of those partners.
The V2500 was descended from a P&W demonstrator engine of the mid-70s (designated JT10D IIRC.)
So now P&W's geared turbofan is a selectee for the 320NEO. Pratt's not going away on this aircraft, but I haven't heard if it'll turn out to be a joint venture.
The V2500 was descended from a P&W demonstrator engine of the mid-70s (designated JT10D IIRC.)
So now P&W's geared turbofan is a selectee for the 320NEO. Pratt's not going away on this aircraft, but I haven't heard if it'll turn out to be a joint venture.
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Middle of Somewhere..
Posts: 203
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Points that I'm aware of....
1. V2500 has a very low oil consumption compared to the gulping CFM56.
2. Fuel burn on the V2500 is better than the CFM56 when the engine is new but I believe it falls away more quickly than the CFM56 as they age.
3. Reliability is very similar as far as I'm aware.
4. I'm lead to believe the V2500 is a better choice on the A321 due to the higher thrust requirements.....apparently, the CFM56 burns out a little quicker at the higher thrust ratings.
5. Times on wing between overhaul are comparable.
More info. at www.cfm56.com and www.v2500.com.
Ciao,
P2C.
1. V2500 has a very low oil consumption compared to the gulping CFM56.
2. Fuel burn on the V2500 is better than the CFM56 when the engine is new but I believe it falls away more quickly than the CFM56 as they age.
3. Reliability is very similar as far as I'm aware.
4. I'm lead to believe the V2500 is a better choice on the A321 due to the higher thrust requirements.....apparently, the CFM56 burns out a little quicker at the higher thrust ratings.
5. Times on wing between overhaul are comparable.
More info. at www.cfm56.com and www.v2500.com.
Ciao,
P2C.
