Talk:CFM International CFM56/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2

SNECMA involvement with the F108

Can anyone confirm something I suspect but do not know: I suspect that the F108 does not have as much or any SNECMA content as a standard CFM56. Is this true? —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 15:26, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

It's the same engine same content, the core of the engine is GE USA, the compressor is Snecma France. Don Pries--Dpries123 18:20, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Silly me, what's the difference between core and compressor? Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 15:08, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

This is a rather old comment. As for the original question, no there isn't a difference between the CFM56-2 used on the military aircraft and the F108. F108 is merely the military designation for the engine.
As for your question-- Usually the core consists of the high pressure compressor, the combustor, and the high pressure turbine, while the compressor would refer to only the high pressure or the low pressure compressor. Hope that helps! -SidewinderX (talk) 15:30, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Dead links

Last night I updated/replaced some cfm56.com links in references. Eventually CFM I did some minor changes to the web page names. I updated them based on the titles in the references. However, the updated -7B page and its subpages do not seem to cover the wide-chord blade technology and decrease down to 24 blades. Maybe CFM I has taken some info off the web pages. Just wanted to point this out in case I picked the wrong pages or something. -Fnlayson (talk) 22:53, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, looks like they either changed some content or I didn't have the right sources there... this source has the info.... although it mentions 22 blades as opposed to 24... Maybe I was just wrong?! -SidewinderX (talk) 00:15, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
Maybe the wrong page got used there. I changed it to the -7 link you provided. Thanks. -Fnlayson (talk) 00:30, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

First line grammar?

This looks wrong to me: The CFM International CFM56 (U.S. military designation F108) series are a family of high-bypass turbofan engines. A series and a family are singular nouns (although they contain many things), should it be worded ...series is a family of... or even another way as series and family are effectively the same thing? I might be talking out of my hat of course! Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 15:43, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I think you might be right... it certainly sounds better off the tongue! -SidewinderX (talk) 16:40, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
Possibly (most engine articles just say that it is an engine even though there are variants), I am going through the article and should have some comments for the FAC later (might be a little while yet).Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 17:08, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
Haha, I've noticed. I'm hanging back waiting till you're done tearing through it before I go back and fix some sources issues that were brought up in the FAC. -SidewinderX (talk) 17:13, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
Looks like it has been changed but surely it should be The CFM56...is a family of...? Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 18:09, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
Think we got there in the end! Did you note my questioning of the General Motors (GM) link? I think it's a mistake. Will try to pop in tomorrow evening, t'is getting there ;-) Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 22:20, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

GM as a competitor

The quote from the source is "...G.E., Pratt, and a divison of General Motors are the bidders." I would assume that it is Allison, but I didn't want to get away from the source. Thoughts? -SidewinderX (talk) 12:10, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

I figured it was something like that. I wouldn't have a problem changing it to "Allison", since it clearly is the mentioned division, and it's not a direct quote. However, if we don't include "Allison", we should add in "a division of" for clarity. - BilCat (talk) 12:21, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
The wording in this area of the article implies the 10-ton engine was to be for the AMST program, But according the books I have the AMST program was letting the airframe builders select existing engines. If you could clarify this here, I may be able to find a source to clear this GM thing up. Thanks. -Fnlayson (talk) 13:50, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
Well, it's a little complicated with respect to the engine and AMST. From a source I have on hand (Wimpress and Newberry. The YC-14 Prototype: Its Design, Development, and Flight Test, pg. 14.), the Air Force Aeronautical Propulsion Lab was sponsoring a new 25,000 lbf (in the "10-ton" class) engine that they (propulsion lab) thought would be ideal for the AMST. It wasn't directly tied to AMST, but it was often said in the same breath. I don't have a name for that program, so I'm not sure if that helps at all. -SidewinderX (talk) 15:14, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
OK, that really helps narrow things down. The main book I'm looking at is: STOL Progenitors: The Technology Path to a Large STOL Aircraft and the C-17A. AIAA, 2002. ISBN 1563475766. It provides background leading up to the AMST program and should mention that. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:21, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Sorry no luck with that book. It mentioned the CFM56, but after development started. Have not found anything specific, but these Flight International archive pages are close [1], [2]. Any other issues outstanding now? -Fnlayson (talk) 00:22, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
Ah, oh well. I've done a bit more research myself, and I've learned some interesting things, but nothing I can add to the article to clarify that. My best guess now is that the "new engine that the air force was sponsoring" may have been a bit of a misnomer. Around the same time there was the "Advanced Technology Engine Studies" Program (or ATES), which was a high level roadmapping study where the major manufacturers (P&W, GE, Allison) studied possible engine concepts for every new platform the USAF/USN was considering (fighter, bomber, attack helo, sub and supersonic VSTOL, transport, everything). It's an interesting topic, and I probably have gathered enough sources to write a wiki article on it, but so far there's nothing that I can use to tie it to this article. -SidewinderX (talk) 11:44, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
According to Bill Gunston the engine arose as a result of SNECMA and GE both independently concluding in 1968 that the market existed for a modern commercial turbofan in the 10-tonne thrust range. As a result GE began working on the GE13, and SNECMA on the M56. They later reached an agreement to co-operate in December 1971 and CFM was formed in 1974. the first engine ran at GE on 20th of June 1974. The CFM56-2 was civil certificated on 8th November 1979. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.24.215.233 (talk) 10:48, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Recommendations

  1. Don't have two pictures of Easy Jet. One is enough. Try to find another non-Easy Jet photo. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 16:08, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
    • Good point, thanks. BilCat removed one of them. -Fnlayson (talk) 23:50, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
      • This must be some guideline that I'm not aware of... I inserted that photo there to break up some the lengthy text... If it's best not to have it, that's fine. -SidewinderX (talk) 03:21, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
        • No real guideline other than maybe giving the appearance unbalanced coverage of an airline or A319. -Fnlayson (talk) 03:47, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
  2. Look at the variants. Some say is, some say was. We (most of us) aren't time travellers. Let's stick with one. I think is is the proper one, even for variants that aren't being made (but could be ordered if someone wants an old design). I will change a few. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 17:42, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
I fixed it. I think the rule is this: "is" refers to current engines. "Was" is for discontinued versions. "Was" or "is" is unclear for design solutions. The engine was made oval to fit the 737 or The engine is made oval to fit the 737. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 17:47, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
Depends on the wording in the sentence. If it was something that occurred in the past, past tense is fine. -Fnlayson (talk) 17:59, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Use of conversion template

18,500 to 34,000 pound-force (lbf) (80 to 150 kilonewtons (kN)) 18,000 to 34,000 pounds-force (80 to 151 kilonewtons) Peter Horn User talk 00:46, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Your comment is unclear. But units should be spelled out in the text. See WP:UNITS. -fnlayson (talk) 00:53, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
OK, if units are to be spelled out then "|abbr=on" becomes "|abbr=none", so 18,000 to 34,000 pounds-force (80 to 151 kilonewtons) (lbf/kN). what I omitted to say ia that the use of the templates avoids "calculator" or "longhand" conversion errors by accidenally punching in the wrong figures or digits). In my travels thru Wiki I have found a number of them, unfortunately I have not kept a record or a log. The most handy thing about the conversion template is that one does not need to look up the conversion factor in a table because it is embedded tin the template.
lbf should convert to kNm (not kN), correct?150.101.115.205 (talk) 09:22, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
No, no, kNm = kPa, if my memory seves me right and that is a unit of pressure. Peter Horn User talk 14:46, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
I was not quite right: Definition 1 pascal (Pa) = 1 N/m2 = 1 kg/(m·s2)[1] Peter Horn User talk 14:54, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
Pounds-force and Newtons are both units of force. -SidewinderX (talk) 11:38, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Yes, and kN-m is a unit of work or torque. -fnlayson (talk) 13:41, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
References
  1. ^ Table 3 (Section 2.2.2), SI Brochure, International Bureau of Weights and Measures

Red links in an FA

I noticed two redlinks in this FA today. I thought there were to be no redlinks in any FA. Chris (talk) 02:11, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

No, nothing specific in the WP:Featured article criteria. WP:Red link applies the same to any article. -fnlayson (talk) 04:37, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
That said, none of the links seem to be likely articles, so we could probably de-link them without any fuss. - BilCat (talk) 05:42, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Superalloy in HPT

Two points:

  • I add to the sentence with the single crystal alloys in the HTP the word superalloy.
  • The high rhenium content was a design driver to change the alloys in 2007-2008. This might be a fact which is interesting and might be added. An article describes the fast phase out of high rhenium alloy Rene 5 to Rene 515, because the high rhenium prize and the fast prize changes make it a critical issue to the production of the engine.[3][4][5] (This book gives the alloy used for the blades in the LPT as Rene 125.[6])

--Stone (talk) 06:58, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

combustor

I am really shocked! do you really say combustor and not combstion_chamber? the combustor sounds to me closer to the lighters in the combustion chambers. now really what documenst use combustor in jetengines? 188.25.107.201 (talk) 00:37, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

airfoil

if you are kind I know its not the place, but can you crop a [[lpc airfoil in cfm-56 (jet engine)]] empty article, w sources? afterall I dont think I have chances to find argues on selecting titanium alloys or other in this article! also 3ds sketches. ths!, would like 2 improv188.25.107.201 (talk) 00:37, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on CFM International CFM56. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:44, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on CFM International CFM56. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:07, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Over and over again ?

Strange that without much searching I found 3 similar events of engine failure ... all on Southwest Boeing 737:

Maybe it's worth to be integrated into the article taking todays fatality into account ? JB. --92.195.28.6 (talk) 11:17, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Don't draw any conclusions (or find a ref), Southwest is a very large CFM operator and you have no comparisons on other operators failure stats. 1 fatality is notable enough to add the accident though.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 14:47, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
Where do you see me drawing conclusions ? I mean I certainly could like for instance pointing here: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-pennsylvania-airplane-engine/regulators-had-ordered-inspections-of-engine-type-that-blew-apart-on-southwest-plane-idUSKBN1HP0QK
But that was not my intention. I placed it here into the discussion in order to ask if somebody more knowledgable sees this as a point to make. It doesn't directly speak for the endurance of the engine if this kind of potentially deadly event happens 3 times to the same operator on the same type of airframe. Such an event could easily bring down the whole plane in worst case - as it almost did with the Quantas A380 (where the engine was made by Rolls Royce). So now I was drawing conclusions. But this is the discussion. Certainly we would want proper refs for any of that before entering something into the artical - I was only looking for opinions as the similarity of the 3 events struck me as strange. JB. --92.195.28.6 (talk) 15:21, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
Seems like the FAA jumped to (my) conclusions ... https://airlinerwatch.com/faa-to-issue-airworthiness-directive-for-cfm56-7b-engines/ ... JB. --92.195.31.78 (talk) 23:29, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
You were sounding like it is Southwest's fault.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 10:20, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
Who am I to point blame? I noticed a certain regularity of this happening and decided to mention it here. I found incidents with Southwest because I was googleing for Southwest as I intended to find more images to #1380 and was astonished to realize that half of the pictures which all looked the same were from two other cases. So statistics would suggest that there would have to be additional incidents with other carriers. I just didn't look for such things at all. In the end the whole commercial airtransport industry is operating at the knifeedge between economy, regulations and safety - between a rock and a hard place. Riding that edge streches to engine design to achieve maximum economy at reasonable safety. But in certain cases things may get dicey. Everybody tries to do his/her best. Not my job to say that all are guilty :-) JB. --92.195.45.227 (talk) 06:48, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Villaroche and Snecma

 The engines are assembled by GE in Evendale, Ohio, and by Snecma in Villaroche, France.

I think someone might want to improve this. Following the internal link to Villaroche leads to information on Melun Villaroche Aerodrome, an airport serving the commune of Melun in the north of the Île-de-France (the Greater Paris metropolitan area). It might also be a good idea to change Snecma to Safran or Safran Aircraft Engines, since that is the current name, per another internal link. ☺ Dick Kimball (talk) 14:55, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:CFM_International_CFM56/Archive_2&oldid=982546982"