Talk:CFM International CFM56

Changes to the CFM56-3 after TACA AIR

Regarding this quote:

" CFMI modified the engines by adding a sensor to force the combustor to continuously ignite under these conditions.[6]"

This was not the primary problem. The primary problem was ingestion of hail, not with the relight. The more significant changes included :

-Modifying the spinner from a conical to elliptical design

-Cropping the Splitter Fairing

-Introducing scoops and slides to the VBV System

The article should be changed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.217.214.194 (talk) 20:14, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Go ahead. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 20:35, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

FA concerns

This article has issues with 1c compliance because there is a very large chunk of the citations that are to the manufacturer itself Bumbubookworm (talk) 05:12, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Most are factual, eg "In July 2016, CFM had 3,000 engines in backlog" - ref is a press release from CFM international, and that's OK. It would be better to flag the biased statements, if there are any.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 06:30, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

@Bumbubookworm: have your concerns above been addressed? If not, can you provide specific examples of things cited to primary sources that should be cited to secondary ones? Thanks. Z1720 (talk) 21:36, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

I'm following up on this, and after a skim I see some concerns in the article. These include unsourced statements (including most of the Notes section), incomplete citations, and oversection in the Variants section. Is anyone willing to fix this up? Z1720 (talk) 03:11, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Dubious quote in lead - "still its [our] best customer"

From the cited source: Jean-Paul Ebanga, president and CEO of CFM International [said:] "In 1979, the entire CFM joint venture was two weeks away from being dissolved because the company had not received a single order in five years. That April, though, Delta Airlines, United Airlines, and Flying Tigers chose the CFM56-2 to re-engine DC-8 aircraft. Shortly thereafter, the U.S. Air Force – still our biggest customer – chose to re-engine its KC-135 tanker fleet and the program was saved." (Emphasis mine.) How can the USAF have ordered more CFM56s than any other customer, given that the combined production of the 737 Classic, 737NG, A340, and A320ceo families vastly exceeds the number of KC/EC/RC-135 aircraft in service? I'm wondering if there's context missing in this quote, i.e. Ebanga was considering individual airlines as "customers" rather than Airbus and Boeing. Perhaps the US Congress bought the USAF an absurd number of spares? (Insert conspiracy theory about military-industrial complex here.) Carguychris (talk) 18:48, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

For reference, the source of the quote in question is here.

Now to the phrase itself: It definitely lacks context, but it's not needed in the lead at all, even it if it were totally unambiguous. I do think he's referring to individual customers, not the manufacturers, and the US military has 737s also, most of which use the CFM56. Also, the KC-135 is a 4-engined aircraft, so that's twice as many engines per aircraft, so at over 400 aircraft, that's well over 1600 individual engines. The USAF is certainly GE Aviation's largest customer. I'd definitely recommend removing the phrase from the lead. BilCat (talk) 21:06, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. I do think he was referring to individual airlines but the context was missing. Considering that the 737 and A320 have two CFM56s rather than four, the airlines don't need enough spares to make it through a war, and the USAF doesn't need to turn a profit, I could easily see the USAF having more engines than even a very large airline like AA or SWA. Carguychris (talk) 22:29, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Yup, an airline would need at well over 800 A320s/737s to even get near the USAF's numbers. BilCat (talk) 23:37, 25 August 2022 (UTC)