I think the formation of Cammacorp in 1979, the company the produced the upgraded DC-8's, made both Boeing and Airbus aware that the CFM56 was here to stay. Indeed, that's why the Boeing 737 Classic and Airbus A320 models were able to use this very engine and turn it into the more popular high-bypass jet engine in the world. And now it appears Airbus has to _thank their lucky stars_ the LEAP-1A is a viable alternative to the troubled Pratt & Whitney PW1100G engine. By the way, the CFM56 designation actually came from SNECMA's original M56 high-bypass engine proposal of around 1970. While SNECMA could produce the front fan, they don't know how to build the really advanced engine core. This is where GE stepped in with the engine core from the F101 military turbofan engine.
In this time, it's a little mind-blowing watching old footage of a couple of technicians installing a set of compressor blades by hand. No crane or specialized machine to do the heavy lifting. The evolution of the jet engine has come a long way.
@KaiCheetah well ackhtcthuwally 🤓, 707s and KC-135s came out with JT3Ds. Quite the common re-engine for the narrowbody intercontinentals in the late 70s. Hence why DC-8 super 70s also came out with them back in the day to be more efficient and capable. Others have noted the history and development of the application of the 56's, but yeah, the OG high bypass engine for non-widebody applications was indeed successful.
Unfortunately, Rolls-Royce left IAE, and it was never the same. I worked as a fueler at STL when the V2500 came out, and, compared to other engines, it was SUPER quiet! With my hearing protectors on, you could barely hear them when they started up.
While CFM International is a joint venture with GE Aerospace and Safran, it's rival is the International Aero Engines which is a joint venture with Pratt and Whitney, Rolls-Royce, MTU, JAEC and Fiat avio
Interesting to learn that the Leap 1C is an updated Leap-56 engine. That means the C919 is flying with 80's tech. However, China operates the Max and A320neo aircraft. They could basically dismantle a newer Leap engine to mimic the tech for their next aircraft. They can do the same with the GE and RR engines too.
It’s worth noting that China’s WS-10 and WS-20 engines used in military aircraft have reverse-engineered CFM56 cores. It took them nearly 20 years to start mass-producing them, but they managed it - most of the difficulty revolved around imitating the FADEC control system. The LEAP will probably not take as long to copy, but bear in mind that an operator doesn’t have access to the same amount of technical data that a manufacturer does. Especially when it comes to the software and controls aspect - the very thing China had the hardest time replicating on the CFM56.
For X sake, stop repeating that the LEAp 1C is not a full-size LEAP engine : it even share EASA's type certificate withe the 1 A (see TYPE-CERTIFICATE DATA SHEET No. EASA.E.110 for LEAP-1A & LEAP-1C series engines) , while the LEAP 1B has another one (EASA.E.115) because of its different fan and dilution ratio
@@pmbuthia4210 Pretty much. Airbus was expecting the P&W Superfan engine to power the A340 but P&W pulled out at the last minute. The CFM56 was the only alternative and CFM took Airbus to the cleaners.
@@marcg1686 kindly expound on "CMF took Airbus to the cleaners". You mean the CMF engines on the A340 are the reason the A340!wasn't a success band they are not even considering making a Neo version of the A340
From time to time there are commenters in the aviation channels about COMAC 919 seriously challenging the Airbus-Boeing duopoly! I can't tell how much knowledge these people possess, but according to several official sources COMAC produced 40 C-919 planes for the whole 2024, an average of less than 4 planes per month. Boeing, currently under FAA cap, is working to get up to 38 B-737 Maxes per month, while Airbus is working with its suppliers to produce 60 (and 72 in about 4-5 years) A320-family single-aisle planes per month. Remember, just as Chinese companies in other sectors have created troubles by throttling back supplying of parts to their Western competitors, CFM can reduce the supply of its Leap-1C engine to retaliate, if the situation ever comes up. I don't think, however, CFM would be as childish, stupid or driven by blind nationalistic tendencies as Chinese companies are.
Interestingly, when Airbus was studying what became the A320 under the _Joint European Transport_ project, it was envisaged the engine would be the CFM56.
Chinese aeronautic engineers will definitely done a reverse engineering of the Leap 1A, 1B and 1C engines and compare them and see the differences and similarities. Why else would they have bothered of buying Airbus and Boeing planes. As any engineer knows this is a very common practice in any technical sector, even to verify if a competitor has breached any patents and is not paying for them.
They use Boeing and Airbus for lack of equivalent Chinese planes, the C919 production in 2024 being only 11 planes, with a target of 150/year by 2028/29
Leap 1C and 1A… You might criticize that C919 is less fuel efficient, carries less weight, needs more maintenance than A320, which are solid comments. But please stop saying sh*t about Leap 1C.
I think the formation of Cammacorp in 1979, the company the produced the upgraded DC-8's, made both Boeing and Airbus aware that the CFM56 was here to stay. Indeed, that's why the Boeing 737 Classic and Airbus A320 models were able to use this very engine and turn it into the more popular high-bypass jet engine in the world. And now it appears Airbus has to _thank their lucky stars_ the LEAP-1A is a viable alternative to the troubled Pratt & Whitney PW1100G engine.
By the way, the CFM56 designation actually came from SNECMA's original M56 high-bypass engine proposal of around 1970. While SNECMA could produce the front fan, they don't know how to build the really advanced engine core. This is where GE stepped in with the engine core from the F101 military turbofan engine.
Yup, Snecma was working on a conceptual turbofan with a diameter of 56 inches.
Things worked out well.
@@marcg1686 In fact, that engine was originally meant for what became the Dassault Mercure.
In this time, it's a little mind-blowing watching old footage of a couple of technicians installing a set of compressor blades by hand. No crane or specialized machine to do the heavy lifting. The evolution of the jet engine has come a long way.
The CFM56 was the original NEO
It would be a CEO then
@KaiCheetah well ackhtcthuwally 🤓, 707s and KC-135s came out with JT3Ds. Quite the common re-engine for the narrowbody intercontinentals in the late 70s. Hence why DC-8 super 70s also came out with them back in the day to be more efficient and capable. Others have noted the history and development of the application of the 56's, but yeah, the OG high bypass engine for non-widebody applications was indeed successful.
CF 6’s for the win!!
Nice CFM logo
IAE had a great engine, played catch-up to CFM, actually becoming the preferred engine later on in the A320 program, especially on the A321 CEO !
Unfortunately, Rolls-Royce left IAE, and it was never the same. I worked as a fueler at STL when the V2500 came out, and, compared to other engines, it was SUPER quiet! With my hearing protectors on, you could barely hear them when they started up.
While CFM International is a joint venture with GE Aerospace and Safran, it's rival is the International Aero Engines which is a joint venture with Pratt and Whitney, Rolls-Royce, MTU, JAEC and Fiat avio
ICYMI, RR left IAE a long time ago.
Nice summary.
So that explains why it sounds a bit like a Mini GE CF6. And the Leap sounding like a mini GE90.
Then along came the fierce rival the IAE V2500 International Aero Engine.
That was really interesting.
Interesting to learn that the Leap 1C is an updated Leap-56 engine. That means the C919 is flying with 80's tech.
However, China operates the Max and A320neo aircraft. They could basically dismantle a newer Leap engine to mimic the tech for their next aircraft. They can do the same with the GE and RR engines too.
Nope, Simple Flying is misinformed about the Leap 1C
Could? I know for certain they reverse engineered the engine.
This is common practice with all technical systems, including airplane engines.
@@Rob_Dingemans What information do you have to refute the report? It's highly plausible.
It’s worth noting that China’s WS-10 and WS-20 engines used in military aircraft have reverse-engineered CFM56 cores. It took them nearly 20 years to start mass-producing them, but they managed it - most of the difficulty revolved around imitating the FADEC control system.
The LEAP will probably not take as long to copy, but bear in mind that an operator doesn’t have access to the same amount of technical data that a manufacturer does. Especially when it comes to the software and controls aspect - the very thing China had the hardest time replicating on the CFM56.
@GintaPPE1000 By the time China was able to replicate the 56, CFM had the LEAP engine. By the time China replicates the LEAP, CFM will have the RISE.
That new engine looks like a double turbo prop. It looks like something you'd put on a small regional plane.
Great company to deal with. Ruthless at times; however they pay for excellence.
For X sake, stop repeating that the LEAp 1C is not a full-size LEAP engine : it even share EASA's type certificate withe the 1 A (see TYPE-CERTIFICATE
DATA SHEET No. EASA.E.110 for LEAP-1A & LEAP-1C series engines) , while the LEAP 1B has another one (EASA.E.115) because of its different fan and dilution ratio
The LEAP-1C has the same fan stage as the LEAP with a CFM56 core.
@@GintaPPE1000 If different from the 1A, no way it could share the type certificate
CFM56_5B one of the most durable engines
Is there a CFM engine for wide-bodies?
The A340 was powered by 4 CFM engines.
@hewhohasnoidentity4377 I see. That's why they look Soo small on the A340
The famous 5 APU plane. 😉
@@pmbuthia4210
Pretty much. Airbus was expecting the P&W Superfan engine to power the A340 but P&W pulled out at the last minute. The CFM56 was the only alternative and CFM took Airbus to the cleaners.
@@marcg1686 kindly expound on "CMF took Airbus to the cleaners". You mean the CMF engines on the A340 are the reason the A340!wasn't a success band they are not even considering making a Neo version of the A340
From time to time there are commenters in the aviation channels about COMAC 919 seriously challenging the Airbus-Boeing duopoly! I can't tell how much knowledge these people possess, but according to several official sources COMAC produced 40 C-919 planes for the whole 2024, an average of less than 4 planes per month. Boeing, currently under FAA cap, is working to get up to 38 B-737 Maxes per month, while Airbus is working with its suppliers to produce 60 (and 72 in about 4-5 years) A320-family single-aisle planes per month. Remember, just as Chinese companies in other sectors have created troubles by throttling back supplying of parts to their Western competitors, CFM can reduce the supply of its Leap-1C engine to retaliate, if the situation ever comes up. I don't think, however, CFM would be as childish, stupid or driven by blind nationalistic tendencies as Chinese companies are.
11 C919 produced in 2024, target 150/year by 2028/2029
The CFM in its name is also an abbreviation of Cubic feet per minute
Ever heard of Airbus? It's also a joint venture.
Interestingly, when Airbus was studying what became the A320 under the _Joint European Transport_ project, it was envisaged the engine would be the CFM56.
Nope. Its a public company with states' shares amounting to 25 % and private shares to 75 %
Chinese aeronautic engineers will definitely done a reverse engineering of the Leap 1A, 1B and 1C engines and compare them and see the differences and similarities. Why else would they have bothered of buying Airbus and Boeing planes.
As any engineer knows this is a very common practice in any technical sector, even to verify if a competitor has breached any patents and is not paying for them.
COMAC’s aero-engine unit AECC CJ-1000 and CJ-2000 for its upcoming C929, but may now using composite materials for certain parts.
They use Boeing and Airbus for lack of equivalent Chinese planes, the C919 production in 2024 being only 11 planes, with a target of 150/year by 2028/29
Real fuckin shame that P&W shat their pants.
Time to put the 1C on the A220, it’s time.
Leap 1C and 1A…
You might criticize that C919 is less fuel efficient, carries less weight, needs more maintenance than A320, which are solid comments.
But please stop saying sh*t about Leap 1C.