philidor
in service - 6 years
Posts: 8,950
|
Post by philidor on Apr 7, 2014 14:05:31 GMT 1
It seems to be quite simple : 60 P&W A321s + 40 CFM A320s.
|
|
Baroque
in service - 2 years
Posts: 3,991
|
Post by Baroque on Apr 7, 2014 14:13:28 GMT 1
It seems to be quite simple : 60 P&W A321s + 40 CFM A320s. I'm still seeing 60 A320neos and 40 A321neos in the orders.  |
|
XWB
in service - 11 years
Posts: 16,115
|
Post by XWB on Apr 7, 2014 14:16:24 GMT 1
I don't think this is a strange fleet decision. The CFM engine suits the A320neo better while the P&W is the better choice for the A321neo. Similar like most A321ceo's are fitted with IAE engines while the A320ceo's are usually going with CFM.
|
|
Baroque
in service - 2 years
Posts: 3,991
|
Post by Baroque on Apr 7, 2014 15:04:54 GMT 1
The CFM engine suits the A320neo better while the P&W is the better choice for the A321neo. Similar like most A321ceo's are fitted with IAE engines while the A320ceo's are usually going with CFM. I don't disagree with you. It's just that I was initially confused when Jkkw said... I now believe he meant it to be A320neo and not A321neo. But still, I find it odd for them to split the 60 A320neos into 40 CFMs and 20 PWs.  |
|
|
|
Post by Jkkw on Apr 7, 2014 15:37:02 GMT 1
The CFM engine suits the A320neo better while the P&W is the better choice for the A321neo. Similar like most A321ceo's are fitted with IAE engines while the A320ceo's are usually going with CFM. I don't disagree with you. It's just that I was initially confused when Jkkw said... I now believe he meant it to be A320neo and not A321neo. But still, I find it odd for them to split the 60 A320neos into 40 CFMs and 20 PWs. Actually, I did mean the CFM (which I incorrectly wrote as GE) engines were for the A321neo since it makes sense that an order for 60 A320s and 40 A321s with 60 PW frames and 40 CFM frames would mean 60 PW powered A320 and 40 CFM powered A321. The article that I linked to does say that the CFM engines are for the A320neo although I wouldn't be surprised if it actually meant the A320neo family (And I think that's how I've interpenetrated it). I'm still of the opinion that the CFM engines are for the A321, as Baroque said, otherwise it would be very weird to have 20PW and 40 CFM A320neo frames. Either way, I find it's a weird decision, either they split up the A320neo engines or they put the CFM on the A321 and the PW on the A320 which as XWB has said is the wrong way round in terms of which engine is better for the 2 aircraft. I hope I haven't made things too confusing. |
|
philidor
in service - 6 years
Posts: 8,950
|
Post by philidor on Apr 7, 2014 15:38:51 GMT 1
But still, I find it odd for them to split the 60 A320neos into 40 CFMs and 20 PWs. I am not sure they did that (there may be a numbers inversion), but if they did, then they must prefer the CFM engine for that aircraft but they had some early delivery slots that they wanted to keep ... Remember that the P&W engine comes first ! |
|
|
|
Post by Jkkw on Apr 7, 2014 15:51:25 GMT 1
Hopefully this clears things up a bit, CFM says the breakdown of the 40 CFM powered aircraft are 15 A320neo and 25 A321neo. It also says that So I think Philidor may be right in saying they prefer CFM but went with PW for their initial order due to earlier slots or perhaps PW initially gave a better deal or early tests with the CFM Leap have found better than expected fuel burn figures. www.cfmaeroengines.com/press/lufthansa-places-1-0-billion-leap-1a-engine-order/745 |
|
Baroque
in service - 2 years
Posts: 3,991
|
Post by Baroque on Apr 7, 2014 16:24:38 GMT 1
|
|
philidor
in service - 6 years
Posts: 8,950
|
Post by philidor on Apr 7, 2014 23:18:39 GMT 1
|
|
philidor
in service - 6 years
Posts: 8,950
|
Post by philidor on Apr 17, 2014 23:43:14 GMT 1
|
|
