2
$\begingroup$

Mounted on the same aircraft, PW 1000G and CFM LEAP are two very different engines, with different performances, that should have an impact on range. And we know range is a very important aircraft parameter, since Airbus is developing longer and longer range versions of the A321.

So what is the difference in range on the same aircraft between the two engines?

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ It basically boils down to the thrust-specific fuel consumption of the engines. Wikipedia has a table for various engines, but as far as I can tell, the values for the new LEAP and PW1100G are not publicly known. $\endgroup$ – Bianfable Nov 4 at 13:10
2
$\begingroup$

According to Airbus

Airbus quote a single range figure of 6300km for the A320neo

This is 100km more than Airbus claim for the A320ceo with sharklets but the difference is probably due to increased fuel capacity in the A320neo and possibly to revised wingtip arrangements.

The difference in range between older A320 (~5700km?) and A320 with sharklets (~6200km) appears to be 500km. This implies the wing sharklets are more important than larger fuel capacity and both these features are more important than engine differences alone.

Superficially at least, the choice of engine does not affect the range claimed by Airbus.


This raises the question, what benefits are provided by the new engine options alone?

The only relevant claim by Airbus appears to be

The A320neo also offers significant environmental performance with nearly 50% reduction in noise footprint compared to previous generation aircraft.

I guess airlines choose between NEO engine options mostly based on commercial factors and maybe on fleet characteristics, maintenance arrangements, etc. Factors other than range.


According to others

Forbes has a comparison beween these two engines which suggests the geared-turbofan arrangement of the PW1000 offers large advantages in both fuel efficiency and noise.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ According to the Airbus page, the NEO has only 100 km higher range, but a 1 t higher MTOW and 470 l less fuel. Also, both aircraft actually exist in many variants with slightly different MTOW and fuel capacity, so direct comparison is difficult. $\endgroup$ – Jan Hudec Nov 10 at 14:52

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.