CFM International CFM56

The CFM International CFM56 (U.S. military

designation F108) series is a French-American CFM56
family of high-bypass turbofan aircraft engines
made by CFM International (CFMI), with a thrust
range of 18,500 to 34,000 lbf (82 to 150 kN). CFMI
is a 50–50 joint-owned company of Safran Aircraft
Engines (formerly known as Snecma) of France, and
GE Aviation (GE) of the United States. Both
companies are responsible for producing
components and each has its own final assembly
line. GE produces the high-pressure compressor,
combustor, and high-pressure turbine, Safran
manufactures the fan, gearbox, exhaust and the low-
pressure turbine, and some components are made
by Avio of Italy and Honeywell from the US. The Rear view of a CFM56-5
engines are assembled by GE in Evendale, Ohio, and
Type Turbofan
by Safran in Villaroche, France. The completed
engines are marketed by CFMI. Despite initial National origin France/United States
export restrictions, it is one of the most common Manufacturer CFM International
turbofan aircraft engines in the world, in four major
variants. First run June 1974
Major applications Airbus A320 family
The CFM56 first ran in 1974.[3] By April 1979, the Airbus A340-200
joint venture had not received a single order in five Airbus A340-300
years and was two weeks away from being
Boeing 737 Classic / Next
dissolved.[4] The program was saved when Delta Air
Gen
Lines, United Airlines, and Flying Tigers chose the
McDonnell Douglas DC-8-
CFM56 to re-engine their DC-8s and shortly
thereafter it was chosen to re-engine the KC-135 70
Stratotanker fleet of the U.S. Air Force – still its KC-135R Stratotanker
biggest customer.[4] The first engines entered Number built 32,645 (June 2018)[1]
service in 1982.[5] Several fan blade failure incidents Unit cost US$10 million (list price)[2]
were experienced during the CFM56's early service,
Developed from General Electric F101
including one failure that was a cause of the
Kegworth air disaster, and some engine variants Developed into CFM International LEAP
experienced problems caused by flight through rain General Electric Affinity
and hail. Both these issues were resolved with
engine modifications.

Contents
History
Origins
Export issues
 1973 Nixon–Pompidou meeting
CFM International
Development
Overview
First customers
KC-135R
DC-8
Boeing 737
Continued development
Tech56 and Tech Insertion
CFM56-7B "Evolution"
LEAP
Operational history
Design
Summary
Combustor
Compressor
Exhaust
Fan and booster
Thrust Reverser
Turbine
Variants
CFM56-2 series
CFM56-3 series
CFM56-4 series
CFM56-5 series
CFM56-5A series
CFM56-5B series
CFM56-5C series
CFM56-7 series
Reliability
Rain and hail ingestion
Fan blade failure
Fuel flow problems
Applications
Specifications
See also
Notes
References
External links

History

Origins

Research into the next generation of commercial jet engines, high-bypass ratio turbofans in the
"10-ton" (20,000 lbf; 89 kN) thrust class, began in the late 1960s. Snecma (now Safran), who had
mostly built military engines previously, was the first company to seek entrance into the market by
searching for a partner with commercial experience to design and build an engine in this class.
They considered Pratt & Whitney, Rolls-Royce, and GE Aviation as potential partners, and after
two company executives, Gerhard Neumann from GE and René Ravaud from Snecma, introduced
themselves at the 1971 Paris Air Show a decision was made. The two companies saw mutual benefit
in the collaboration and met several more times, fleshing out the basics of the joint project.[6]

At the time, Pratt & Whitney dominated the commercial market. GE needed an engine in this
market class, and Snecma had previous experience of working with them, collaborating on the
production of the CF6-50 turbofan for the Airbus A300.[3] Pratt & Whitney was considering
upgrading their JT8D to compete in the same class as the CFM56 as a sole venture, while Rolls-
Royce dealt with financial issues that precluded them from starting new projects; this situation
caused GE to gain the title of best partner for the program.[6]

A major reason for GE's interest in the collaboration, rather than building a 10-ton engine on their
own, was that the Snecma project was the only source of development funds for an engine in this
class at this particular time. GE was initially considering only contributing technology from its CF6
engine rather than its much more advanced F101 engine, developed for the B-1 Lancer supersonic
bomber. The company was faced with a dilemma when the United States Air Force (USAF)
announced its Advanced Medium STOL Transport (AMST) project in 1972 which included funding
for the development of a 10-ton engine – either to build a "limited" technology 10-ton engine with
Snecma, or a similar engine with "advanced" technology on their own. Concerned that the
company would be left with only the "limited" engine in its portfolio if it did not win the Air Force
contract (for which it was competing with Pratt & Whitney and a General Motors division with its
"advanced" engine), GE decided to apply for an export license for the F101 core technology.[7]

Export issues

GE applied for the export license in 1972 as their primary contribution to the 10-ton engine project.
The United States Department of State's Office of Munitions Control recommended the rejection of
the application on national security grounds; specifically because the core technology was an
aspect of a strategic national defense system (B-1 bomber), it was built with Department of Defense
funding, and that exporting the technology to France would limit the number of American workers
on the project.[8] The official decision was made in a National Security Decision Memorandum
signed by the National Security Advisor Henry Kissinger on 19 September 1972.[9]

While national security concerns were cited as the grounds for rejection, politics played an
important role as well. The project, and the export issue associated with it, was considered so
important that French President Georges Pompidou appealed directly to U.S. President Richard
Nixon in 1971 to approve the deal, and Henry Kissinger brought the issue up with President
Pompidou in a 1972 meeting. GE reportedly argued at the highest levels that having half of the
market was better than having none of it, which they believed would happen if Snecma pursued the
engine on their own without GE's contribution. Nixon administration officials feared that this
project could be the beginning of the end of American aerospace leadership.[10]

There was also speculation that the rejection may have been, in part, retaliation for French
involvement in convincing the Swiss not to purchase American-made LTV A-7 Corsair II aircraft
that had been competing against a French design,[10] the Dassault Milan. In the end, the Swiss did
not purchase either aircraft, opting for the Northrop F-5E Tiger II instead.[11]

1973 Nixon–Pompidou meeting

Despite the export license being rejected, both the French and
GE continued to push the Nixon Administration for
permission to export the F101 technology. Efforts continued
throughout the months following the rejection, culminating in
the engine becoming an agenda topic during the 1973 meeting
of Presidents Nixon and Pompidou in Reykjavík. Discussions
at this meeting resulted in an agreement that allowed the
development of the CFM56 to proceed. Contemporary reports
state that the agreement was based on assurances that the core U.S. President Nixon (left) and
of the engine, the part that GE was developing from the French President Georges Pompidou
military F101, would be built in the U.S. and then transported (right) prior to the 1973 U.S.–French
summit in Reykjavík, Iceland
to France in order to protect the sensitive technologies.[12] The
joint venture also agreed to pay the U.S. an $80 million royalty
fee (calculated at $20,000 per engine predicted to be built) as repayment for the development
money provided by the government for the F101 engine core.[6] Documents declassified in 2007
revealed that a key aspect of the CFM56 export agreement was that the French government agreed
not to seek tariffs against American aircraft being imported into Europe.[13]

CFM International

With the export issue settled, GE and Snecma finalized the agreement that formed CFM
International (CFMI), a 50–50 joint company that would be responsible for producing and
marketing the 10-ton engine, the CFM56. The venture was officially founded in 1974.[14] The two
primary roles for CFMI were to manage the program between GE and Snecma, and to market, sell
and service the engine at a single point of contact for the customer. CFMI was made responsible for
the day-to-day decision making for the project, while major decisions (developing a new variant,
for example) required the go-ahead from GE and Snecma management.[3]

The CFMI board of directors is currently split evenly between Snecma and GE (five members
each). There are two vice presidents, one from each company, who support the President of CFMI.
The president tends to be drawn from Snecma and sits at CFMI's headquarters near GE in
Cincinnati, Ohio.[3]

The work split between the two companies gave GE responsibility for the high-pressure
compressor (HPC), the combustor, and the high-pressure turbine (HPT); Snecma was responsible
for the fan, the low-pressure compressor (LPC), and the low-pressure turbine (LPT).[15] Snecma
was also responsible for the initial airframe integration engineering, mostly involving the nacelle
design, and was initially responsible for the gearbox, but shifted that work to GE when it became
apparent that it would be more efficient for GE to assemble that component along with their other
parts.[16]

Development

Overview
Development work on the CFM56 began before CFMI was formally created. While work proceeded
smoothly, the international arrangement led to unique working conditions. For example, both
companies had assembly lines, some engines were assembled and tested in the U.S. and others in
France. Engines assembled in France were subject to the initially strict export agreement, which
meant that GE's core was built in the U.S., then shipped to the Snecma plant in France where it
was placed in a locked room into which even the President of Snecma was not allowed. The
Snecma components (the fore and aft sections of the engine) were brought into the room, GE
employees mounted them to the core, and then the assembled engine was taken out to be
finished.[17]

The first completed CFM56 engine first ran at GE in June 1974 with the second running in October
1974. The second engine was then shipped to France and first ran there on 13 December 1974.
These first engines were considered "production hardware" as opposed to test examples and were
designated as the CFM56-2, the first variant of the CFM56.[16]

The engine flew for the first time in February 1977 when it replaced one of the four Pratt & Whitney
JT8D engines on the McDonnell Douglas YC-15, an entrant in the Air Force's Advanced Medium
STOL Transport (AMST) competition.[18] Soon after, the second CFM56 was mounted on a Sud
Aviation Caravelle at the Snecma flight test center in France. This engine had a slightly different
configuration with a long bypass duct and mixed exhaust flow,[nb 1] rather than a short bypass duct
with unmixed exhaust flow.[nb 2] It was the first to include a "Thrust Management System" to
maintain engine trim.[nb 3][19]

First customers

After testing the engine for several years, both in the air and on the ground, CFMI searched for
customers outside of a possible AMST contract. The main targets were re-engine contracts for the
Douglas DC-8 and the Boeing 707 airliners, including the related military tanker, the KC-135
Stratotanker. There was little initial interest in the engine, but Boeing realized that the CFM56
might be a solution to upcoming noise regulations.[6] After announcing that a 707 would be
configured with the CFM56 engine for flight tests in 1977, Boeing officially offered the 707-320
with the CFM56 engine as an option in 1978. The new variant was listed as the 707-700.[20] Due to
limited interest from the airlines in a re-engined 707, Boeing ended the 707-700 program in 1980
without selling any aircraft.[21] Despite the lack of sales, having the commercial 707 available with
the CFM56 helped the engine's competitiveness for the KC-135 re-engine contract.[22]

KC-135R
Winning the contract to re-engine the KC-135 tanker fleet for the USAF would be a huge boon to
the CFM56 project (with more than 600 aircraft available to
re-engine), and CFMI aggressively pursued that goal as soon
as the Request For Proposals (RFP) was announced in 1977.
Like other aspects of the program, international politics played
their part in this contract. In efforts to boost the CFM56's
chances versus its competitors, the Pratt & Whitney TF33 and
an updated Pratt & Whitney JT8D, the French government
announced in 1978 that they would upgrade their 11 KC-135s
with the CFM56, providing one of the first orders for the
A nose-on view of several re-engined
engine.[23]
KC-135R aircraft taxiing prior to
takeoff. The new engines are
The USAF announced the CFM56 as the winner of the re-
CFM56-2 high-bypass turbofans.
engine contract in January 1980. Officials indicated that they
were excited at the prospect of replacing the Pratt & Whitney
J57 engines currently flying on the KC-135A aircraft, calling them "...the noisiest, dirtiest, [and]
most fuel inefficient powerplant still flying" at the time.[24] The re-engined aircraft was designated
the KC-135R. The CFM56 brought many benefits to the KC-135, decreasing takeoff distance by as
much as 3,500 ft (1,100 m), decreasing overall fuel usage by 25%, greatly reducing noise (24 dB
lower) and lowering total life cycle cost. With those benefits in mind, the United States Navy
selected the CFM56-2 to power their variant of the Boeing 707, the E-6 Mercury, in 1982.[22] In
1984 the Royal Saudi Air Force selected the CFM56-2 to power their E-3 Sentry aircraft (also
related to the 707 airframe). The CFM56-2-powered E-3 also became the standard configuration
for aircraft purchased by the British and French.[3]

DC-8

By the end of the 1970s, airlines were considering upgrading

their aging Douglas DC-8 aircraft as an alternative to buying
new quieter and more efficient aircraft. Following the French
KC-135 order in 1978, the April 1979 decision by United
Airlines to upgrade 30 of their DC-8-61 aircraft with the
CFM56-2 was important for securing the development of the
CFM56;[25] GE and Snecma were two weeks away from
freezing development had that order not materialized.[6] This The CFM-56 installed on the DC-8.
decision marked the first commercial purchase (rather than
government/military) of the engine, and Delta Air Lines and
Flying Tiger Line soon followed suit, giving the CFM56 a firm footing in both the military and
commercial market.[3]

Boeing 737

In the early 1980s Boeing selected the CFM56-3 to exclusively power the Boeing 737-300 variant.
The 737 wings were closer to the ground than previous applications for the CFM56, necessitating
several modifications to the engine. The fan diameter was reduced, which reduced the bypass ratio,
and the engine accessory gearbox was moved from the bottom of the engine (the 6 o'clock position)
to the 9 o'clock position, giving the engine nacelle its distinctive flat-bottomed shape. The overall
thrust was also reduced, from 24,000 to 20,000 lbf (107 to 89 kN), mostly due to the reduction in
bypass ratio.[26]
Since the small initial launch order for twenty 737-300s split between two airlines,[3] over 5,000
Boeing 737 aircraft had been delivered with CFM56 turbofans by April 2010.[27]

Continued development

Tech56 and Tech Insertion

In 1998, CFMI launched the "Tech56" development and

demonstration program to create an engine for the new single-
aisle aircraft that were expected to be built by Airbus and
Boeing. The program focused on developing a large number of
new technologies for the theoretical future engine, not
necessarily creating an all-new design.[28][29] When it became
clear that Boeing and Airbus were not going to build all-new
aircraft to replace the 737 and A320, CFMI decided to apply
some of those Tech56 technologies to the CFM56 in the form
of the "Tech Insertion" program which focused on three areas: Engine inlet of a CFM56-3 engine on
fuel efficiency, maintenance costs and emissions. Launched in a Boeing 737-400 series showing the
2004, the package included redesigned high-pressure non-circular design
compressor blades, an improved combustor, and improved
high- and low-pressure turbine components[30][31] which
resulted in better fuel efficiency and lower nitrogen oxides
(NOx) emissions. The new components also reduced engine
wear, lowering maintenance costs by about 5%. The engines
entered service in 2007, and all new CFM56-5B and CFM56-
7B engines are being built with the Tech Insertion
components. CFMI also offers the components as an upgrade
kit for existing engines.[30] The CFM56 Being tested on GE's
747 in 2002

CFM56-7B "Evolution"

In 2009, CFMI announced the latest upgrade to the CFM56 engine, the "CFM56-7B Evolution" or
CFM56-7BE. This upgrade, announced with improvements to Boeing's 737 Next Generation,
further enhances the high- and low-pressure turbines with better aerodynamics, as well as
improving engine cooling, and aims to reduce overall part count.[32] CFMI expected the changes to
result in a 4% reduction in maintenance costs and a 1% improvement in fuel consumption (2%
improvement including the airframe changes for the new 737); flight and ground tests completed
in May 2010 revealed that the fuel burn improvement was better than expected at 1.6%.[33]
Following 450 hours of testing, the CFM56-7BE engine was certified by FAA and EASA on 30 July
2010[34] and delivered from mid-2011.

The CFM56-5B/3 PIP (Performance Improvement Package) engine includes these new
technologies and hardware changes to lower fuel burn and lower maintenance cost. Airbus A320s
were to use this engine version starting in late 2011.[35]

LEAP
The LEAP is a new engine design based on and designed to replace the CFM56 series, with 16%
efficiency savings by using more composite materials and achieving higher bypass ratios of over
10:1. LEAP entered service in 2016.[36]

Operational history
As of June 2016, the CFM56 is the most used high bypass turbofan, it achieved more than
800 million engine flight hours, and at a rate of one million flight hours every eight days it will
achieve one billion flight hours by 2020. It has more than 550 operators and more than 2,400
CFM56-powered jet aircraft are in the air at any moment. It is known for its dependability: its
average time on wing is 30,000 hours before a first shop visit, with the current fleet record at
50,000 hours.[5]

As of July 2016, 30,000 engines have been built: 9,860 CFM56-5 engines for the Airbus A320ceo
and A340-200/300 and more than 17,300 CFM56-3/-7B engines for the Boeing 737 Classic and
737NG. In July 2016, CFM had 3,000 engines in backlog.[4] Lufthansa, launch customer for the
CFM56-5C-powered A340, have an engine with more than 100,000 flight hours, having entered
commercial service on 16 November 1993, overhauled four times since.[37] In 2016 CFM delivered
1,665 CFM56 and booked 876 orders, it plans to produce CFM56 spare parts until 2045.[38]

By October 2017, CFM had delivered more than 31,000 engines and 24,000 were in service with
560 operators, it attained 500 million flight cycles and 900 million flight hours, including over 170
million cycles and 300 million hours since 1998 for the B737NG's -7B and over 100 million cycles
and 180 million hours for the A320ceo's -5B since 1996.[39] By June 2018, 32,645 were
delivered.[1] Strong demand will extend production to 2020, up from 2019.[40]

Exhaust gas temperature margin erodes with usage, one or two performance restoration shop
visits, costing $0.3-$0.6m for a -5 series, can be performed before taking the engine off wing,
which can restore 60% to 80% of the original margin; after that, the life limited parts must be
replaced, after 20,000 cycles for the hot section ($0.5m), 25,000 for the axial compressor and
30,000 for the fan and booster ($0.5m-$0.7m) for a recent CFM56 : the whole engine parts cost
more than $3m, $3.5 to $4m with the shop work-hours, around $150 per cycle.[41]

By June 2019, the CFM56 fleet had surpassed one billion engine flight hours (nearly 115,000
years), having carried more than 35 billion people, over eight million times around the world.[42]

The CFM56 production will wind down as the final 737NG engine was delivered in 2019 and the
last A320ceo engine will be delivered in May 2020. Production will continue at low levels for
military 737s and spare engines and will conclude around 2024.[43]

Design

Summary

The CFM56 is a high-bypass turbofan engine (most of the air accelerated by the fan bypasses the
core of the engine and is exhausted out of the fan case) with several variants having bypass ratios
ranging from 5:1 to 6:1, generating 18,500 to 34,000 lbf (80 kN to 150 kN) of thrust. The variants
share a common design, but the details differ. The CFM56 is a two-shaft (or two-spool) engine,
meaning that there are two rotating shafts, one high-pressure and one low-pressure. Each is
powered by its own turbine section (the high-pressure and low-pressure turbines, respectively).
The fan and booster (low-pressure compressor) evolved over the different iterations of the engine,
as did the compressor, combustor and turbine sections.[3]

Combustor

Most variants of the CFM56 feature a single-annular

combustor. An annular combustor is a continuous ring where
fuel is injected into the airflow and ignited, raising the
pressure and temperature of the flow. This contrasts with a
can combustor, where each combustion chamber is separate,
and a canannular combustor which is a hybrid of the two. Fuel
injection is regulated by a Hydromechanical Unit (HMU), built
by Honeywell. The HMU regulates the amount of fuel
delivered to the engine by means of an electrohydraulic servo
Swirl fuel nozzles of a CFM56
valve that, in turn, drives a fuel metering valve, that provides
annular combustor
information to the full authority digital engine controller
(FADEC).[44]

In 1989, CFMI began work on a new, double-annular combustor. Instead of having just one
combustion zone, the double-annular combustor has a second combustion zone that is used at high
thrust levels. This design lowers the emissions of both nitrogen oxides (NOx) and carbon dioxide
(CO2). The first CFM56 engine with the double-annular combustor entered service in 1995, and the
combustor is used on CFM56-5B and CFM56-7B variants with the suffix "/2" on their
nameplates.[45]

GE started developing and testing a new type of combustor called the Twin Annular Premixing
Swirler combustor, or "TAPS", during the Tech 56 program.[29] This design is similar to the
double-annular combustor in that it has two combustion zones; this combustor "swirls" the flow,
creating an ideal fuel–air mixture. This difference allows the combustor to generate much less NOx
than other combustors. Tests on a CFM56-7B engine demonstrated an improvement of 46% over
single-annular combustors and 22% over double-annular combustors.[46] The analytical tools
developed for TAPS have also been used to improve other combustors, notably the single-annular
combustors in some CFM56-5B and -7B engines.[47]

Compressor

The high-pressure compressor (HPC), that was at the center of the original export controversy,
features nine stages in all variants of the CFM56. The compressor stages have been developed from
GE's "GE1/9 core" (namely a single-turbine, nine-compressor stage design) which was designed in
a compact core rotor. The small span of the compressor radius meant that the entire engine could
be lighter and smaller, as the accessory units in the system (bearings, oiling systems) could be
merged to the main fueling system running on aviation fuel.[6] As design evolved HPC design
improved through better airfoil design. As part of the Tech-56 improvement program CFMI has
tested the new CFM-56 model with six-stage high-pressure compressor stages (discs that make up
the compressor system) that was designed to deliver same pressure ratios (pressure gain 30)
similar to the old nine-stages compressor design. The new one
was not fully replacing the old one, but it offered an upgrade in
HPC, thanks to improved blade dynamics, as a part of their
"Tech Insertion" management plan from 2007.[29][48][49]

Exhaust

CFMI tested both a mixed and unmixed exhaust design at the

beginning of development;[3] most variants of the engine have
CFM56-3 casing, high-pressure
an unmixed exhaust nozzle.[nb 2] Only the high-power CFM56- compressor revealed.
5C, designed for the Airbus A340, has a mixed-flow exhaust
nozzle.[nb 1][50]

GE and Snecma also tested the effectiveness of chevrons on reducing jet noise.[nb 4][51] After
examining configurations in the wind tunnel, CFMI chose to flight-test chevrons built into the core
exhaust nozzle. The chevrons reduced jet noise by 1.3 perceived loudness decibels during takeoff
conditions, and are now offered as an option with the CFM56 for the Airbus A321.[52]

Fan and booster

The CFM56 features a single-stage fan, and most variants have a

three-stage booster on the low-pressure shaft,[nb 5] with four stages in
the -5B and -5C variants.[53] The booster is also commonly called the
"low-pressure compressor" (LPC) as it sits on the low-pressure shaft
and compresses the flow initially before it reaches the high-pressure
compressor. The original CFM56-2 variant featured 44 tip-shrouded
fan blades,[54][nb 6] although the number of fan blades was reduced in
later variants as wide-chord blade technology developed, down to 22
blades in the latest variant, the CFM56-7.[55]
Fan and fan case of a
The CFM56 fan features dovetailed fan blades which allows them to CFM56-5
be replaced without removing the entire engine, and GE/Snecma
claim that the CFM56 was the first engine to have that capability. This
attachment method is useful for circumstances where only a few fan blades need to be repaired or
replaced, such as following bird strikes.[56]

The fan diameter varies with the different models of the CFM56, and that change has a direct
impact on the engine performance. For example, the low-pressure shaft rotates at the same speed
for both the CFM56-2 and the CFM56-3 models; the fan diameter is smaller on the -3, which
lowers the tip speed of the fan blades. The lower speed allows the fan blades to operate more
efficiently (5.5% more in this case), which increases the overall fuel efficiency of the engine
(improving specific fuel consumption nearly 3%).[26]

Thrust Reverser

The CFM56 is designed to support several thrust reverser systems which help slow and stop the
aircraft after landing. The variants built for the Boeing 737, the CFM56-3 and the CFM56-7, use a
cascade type of thrust reverser. This type of thrust reverse consists of sleeves that slide back to
expose mesh-like cascades and blocker doors that block the bypass air flow. The blocked bypass air
is forced through the cascades, reducing the thrust of the engine and slowing the aircraft down.[57]

The CFM56 also supports pivoting-door type thrust reversers.

This type is used on the CFM56-5 engines that power many
Airbus aircraft. They work by actuating a door that pivots
down into the bypass duct, both blocking the bypass air and
deflecting the flow outward, creating the reverse thrust.[58]

Turbine

All variants of the CFM56 feature a single-stage high-pressure

Pivoting-door thrust reversers are
turbine (HPT). In some variants, the HPT blades are "grown" installed on the CFM56-5. Noise-
from a single crystal superalloy, giving them high strength and reducing chevrons can also be seen
creep resistance. The low-pressure turbine (LPT) features four at the engine's rear.
stages in most variants of the engine, but the CFM56-5C has a
five-stage LPT. This change was implemented to drive the
larger fan on this variant.[50] Improvements to the turbine
section were examined during the Tech56 program, and one
development was an aerodynamically optimized low-pressure
turbine blade design, which would have used 20% fewer blades
for the whole low-pressure turbine, saving weight. Some of
those Tech56 improvements made their way into the Tech
Insertion package, where the turbine section was updated.[29]
The turbine section was updated again in the "Evolution"
upgrade.[30][33] Stator vane cooling air ducts circle
the iridescent shroud of a CFM56-
The high-pressure turbine stages in the CFM56 are internally 7B26 turbine
cooled by air from the high-pressure compressor. The air
passes through internal channels in each blade and ejects at
the leading and trailing edges.[56]

Variants

CFM56-2 series

The CFM56-2 series is the original variant of the CFM56. It is most widely used in military
applications where it is known as the F108; specifically in the KC-135, the E-6 Mercury and some
E-3 Sentry aircraft. The CFM56-2 comprises a single-stage fan with 44 blades, with a three-stage
LP compressor driven by a four-stage LP turbine, and a nine-stage HP compressor driven by a
single-stage HP turbine. The combustor is annular.[54]

Model Thrust BPR OPR Dry weight[nb 7] Applications

CFM56-2A-2 (-3) 24,000 lbf (110 kN) 5.9 31.8 4,820 lb (2,190 kg) E-3 Sentry, E-6 Mercury

CFM56-2B1 22,000 lbf (98 kN) 6.0 30.5 4,671 lb (2,120 kg) KC-135R Stratotanker, RC-135

CFM56-2C1 22,000 lbf (98 kN) 6.0 31.3 4,653 lb (2,110 kg) Douglas DC-8-70
CFM56-3 series

The first derivative of the CFM56 series, the CFM56-3 was

designed for Boeing 737 Classic series (737-300/-400/-500),
with static thrust ratings from 18,500 to 23,500 lbf (82.3 to
105 kN). A "cropped fan" derivative of the -2, the -3 engine has
a smaller fan diameter at 60 in (1.5 m) but retains the original
basic engine layout. The new fan was primarily derived from
GE's CF6-80 turbofan rather than the CFM56-2, and the
booster was redesigned to match the new fan.[26]
An original CFM56-2 at the Safran
A significant challenge for this series was achieving ground museum
clearance for the wing-mounted engine. This was overcome by
reducing the intake fan diameter and relocating the gearbox
and other accessories from beneath the engine to the sides.
The resulting flattened nacelle bottom and intake lip yielded
the distinctive appearance of the Boeing 737 with CFM56
engines.[59]

Dry
Model Thrust BPR OPR Applications
weight

CFM56- 20,000 lbf 4,276 lb Boeing 737-300,

6.0 27.5
3B-1 (89 kN) (1,940 kg) Boeing 737-500
A CFM56-3 series engine mounted
CFM56- 22,000 lbf 4,301 lb Boeing 737-300, on a Boeing 737-500 airliner showing
5.9 28.8
3B-2 (98 kN) (1,950 kg) Boeing 737-400 flattening of the nacelle at the bottom
Boeing 737-300, of the inlet lip.
CFM56- 23,500 lbf 4,301 lb
6.0 30.6 Boeing 737-400,
3C-1 (100 kN) (1,950 kg)
Boeing 737-500

CFM56-4 series
The CFM56-4 series was a proposed improved version of the CFM56-2 designed for the Airbus
A320 family of aircraft. Competing with the RJ500 engine being developed by Rolls-Royce, the -4
series was designed to produce 25,000 lbf (110 kN) and was to feature a new 68 in (1.73 m) fan, a
new low-pressure compressor and a full authority digital engine controller (FADEC). Soon after
the upgrade project was launched in 1984, International Aero Engines offered their new V2500
engine for the A320. CFMI realized that the CFM56-4 did not compare favorably with the new
engine and scrapped the project to begin working on the CFM56-5 series.[6]

CFM56-5 series

The CFM56-5 series is designed for the Airbus aircraft and has a very wide thrust rating of between
22,000 and 34,000 lbf (97.9 and 151 kN). It has three distinct sub-variants; the CFM56-5A,
CFM56-5B and CFM56-5C,[6] and differs from its Boeing 737 Classic-fitted cousins by featuring a
FADEC and incorporating further aerodynamic design improvements.

CFM56-5A series
The CFM56-5A series is the initial CFM56-5 series, designed to
power the short-to-medium range Airbus A320 family.
Derived from the CFM56-2 and CFM56-3 families, the -5A
series produces thrusts between 22,000 and 26,500 lbf (98 kN
and 118 kN). Aerodynamic improvements such as an updated
fan, low-pressure compressor, high-pressure compressor and
combustor make this variant 10–11% more fuel efficient than
its predecessors.[60][61]
CFM56-5B on an Airbus A319
Dry
Model Thrust BPR OPR Applications
weight

CFM56- 25,000 lbf 4,995 lb

6.0 31.3 Airbus A320
5A1 (111 kN) (2,270 kg)

CFM56- 26,500 lbf 4,995 lb

6.0 31.3 Airbus A320
5A3 (118 kN) (2,270 kg)

CFM56- 22,000 lbf 4,995 lb

6.2 31.3 Airbus A319
5A4 (97.9 kN) (2,270 kg)

CFM56- 23,500 lbf 4,995 lb

6.2 31.3 Airbus A319
5A5 (105 kN) (2,270 kg)

CFM56-5B series

An improvement of the CFM56-5A series, it was originally

designed to power the A321. With a thrust range between
22,000 and 33,000 lbf (98 kN and 147 kN) it can power every
model in the A320 family (A318/A319/A320/A321) and has
superseded the CFM56-5A series. Among the changes from the
CFM56-5A is the option of a double-annular combustor that
reduces emissions (particularly NOx), a new fan in a longer fan
case, and a new low-pressure compressor with a fourth stage
(up from three in earlier variants). It is the most numerous Front view of an A319-112 CFM56-
engine supplied to Airbus.[53][62] 5B6 with its fan removed

Dry
Model Thrust BPR OPR Applications
weight

CFM56- 30,000 lbf 5,250 lb

5.5 35.4 Airbus A321
5B1 (130 kN) (2,380 kg)

CFM56- 31,000 lbf 5,250 lb

5.5 35.4 Airbus A321
5B2 (140 kN) (2,380 kg)

CFM56- 33,000 lbf 5,250 lb

5.4 35.5 Airbus A321
5B3 (150 kN) (2,380 kg)

CFM56- 27,000 lbf 5,250 lb

5.7 32.6 Airbus A320
5B4 (120 kN) (2,380 kg)

CFM56- 22,000 lbf 5,250 lb

6.0 32.6 Airbus A319
5B5 (98 kN) (2,380 kg)

CFM56- 23,500 lbf 5,250 lb Airbus A319,

5.9 32.6
5B6 (100 kN) (2,380 kg) A320
 CFM56- 27,000 lbf 5,250 lb Airbus A319,
5.7 35.5
5B7 (120 kN) (2,380 kg) A319CJ

CFM56- 21,600 lbf 5,250 lb Airbus A318,

6.0 32.6
5B8 (96 kN) (2,380 kg) A318CJ

CFM56- 23,300 lbf 5,250 lb

5.9 32.6 Airbus A318
5B9 (100 kN) (2,380 kg)

CFM56-5C series

With a thrust rating of between 31,200 and 34,000 lbf (139 kN

and 151 kN), the CFM56-5C series is the most powerful of the
CFM56 family. It powers Airbus' long-range A340-200 and
-300 airliners, and entered service in 1993. The major changes
are a larger fan, a fifth low-pressure turbine stage, and the
same four-stage low-pressure compressor found in the -5B
variant.[63]

Unlike every other variant of the CFM56, the -5C features a Two of four CFM56-5C installed on a
Swiss Airbus A340-300.
mixed-exhaust nozzle,[nb 1] which offers slightly higher
efficiency.[50]

Model Thrust BPR OPR Dry weight Applications

CFM56-5C2 31,200 lbf (139 kN) 6.6 37.4 8,796 lb (3,990 kg) Airbus A340-211/-311

CFM56-5C3 32,500 lbf (145 kN) 6.5 37.4 8,796 lb (3,990 kg) Airbus A340-212/-312

CFM56-5C4 34,000 lbf (151 kN) 6.4 38.3 8,796 lb (3,990 kg) Airbus A340-213/-313

CFM56-7 series

The CFM56-7 first ran on 21 April 1995.[64] Rated with a

takeoff thrust range of 19,500–27,300 lbf (87–121 kN), it
powers the -600/-700/-800/-900 Boeing 737 Next
Generation; compared to the CFM56-3, it has greater
durability, 8% fuel burn improvement and a 15% reduction in
maintenance costs.[65]

Improvements are due to its 61-inch titanium wide chord fan,

CFM56-7 of a Boeing 737-800
3D aerodynamics designed new core and low-pressure turbine
with single crystal high-pressure turbine and Full Authority
Digital Engine Control (FADEC).[65] Fan blades are reduced from 36 (CFM56-5) to 24 and it
incorporates features from the CFM56-5B such as a double-annular combustor as an option.

Less than two years after entry into service, the Next-Generation 737 received 180 minutes
Extended range twin engine Operations (ETOPS) certification from the US Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA). It also powers the Boeing 737 military versions : Airborne Early Warning &
Control, C-40 Clipper transport and P-8 Poseidon Maritime Aircraft.[65]
 CFM56-7B specifications[65]

Model Thrust BPR OPR Dry weight Applications

CFM56- 19,500 lbf 5,216 lb

5.5 32.7 Boeing 737-600
7B18 (86.7 kN) (2,370 kg)

CFM56- 20,600 lbf 5,216 lb

5.4 32.7 Boeing 737-600, Boeing 737-700
7B20 (91.6 kN) (2,370 kg)

CFM56- 22,700 lbf 5,216 lb

5.3 32.7 Boeing 737-600, Boeing 737-700
7B22 (101 kN) (2,370 kg)

CFM56- 24,200 lbf 5,216 lb Boeing 737-700, Boeing 737-800, Boeing 737-
5.3 32.7
7B24 (108 kN) (2,370 kg) 900

CFM56- 26,300 lbf 5,216 lb Boeing 737-700, Boeing 737-800, Boeing 737-
5.1 32.7
7B26 (117 kN) (2,370 kg) 900, BBJ

CFM56- 27,300 lbf 5,216 lb Boeing 737-800, Boeing 737-900, BBJ/BBJ2,

5.1 32.7
7B27 (121 kN) (2,370 kg) AEW&C, MMA

Reliability
The CFM56 has an in-flight shutdown rate of 1 incident per 333,333 hours.[66] Record time on
wing before the first shop visit was 30,000 hours in 1996,[66] to 40,729 hours in 2003[67] and
50,000 hours in 2016.[5]

There have been several engine failures in the early service of the CFM56 family which were
serious enough to either ground the fleet or require aspects of the engine to be redesigned. The
engines have also suffered, periodically, from thrust instability events tentatively traced to
Honeywell's hydromechanical unit.

Rain and hail ingestion

There are several recorded incidents of CFM56 engines flaming out in heavy rain and/or hail
conditions, beginning early in the CFM56's career. In 1987, a double flameout occurred in hail
conditions (the pilots managed to relight the engines), followed by the TACA Flight 110 incident in
1988. Both CFM56 engines on the TACA 737 flamed out while passing through hail and heavy rain,
and the crew was forced to land without engines on a grassy levee near New Orleans, Louisiana.
CFMI modified the engines by adding a sensor to force the combustor to continuously ignite under
these conditions.[6]

In 2002, Garuda Indonesia Flight 421 had to ditch in a river because of hail-induced engine
flameouts, killing a flight attendant and injuring dozens of passengers. Prior to this accident, there
were several other incidents of single or dual flameouts due to these weather conditions. After
three incidents through 1998, CFMI made modifications to the engine to improve the way in which
the engine handled hail ingestion. The major changes included a modification to the fan/booster
splitter (making it more difficult for hail to be ingested by the core of the engine) and the use of an
elliptical, rather than conical, spinner at the intake. These changes did not prevent the 2002
accident, and the investigation board found that the pilots did not follow the proper procedures for
attempting to restart the engine, which contributed to the final result. Recommendations were
made to better educate pilots on how to handle these conditions, as well as to revisit FAA rain and
hail testing procedures. No further engine modifications were recommended.[68]
Fan blade failure

One issue that led to accidents with the CFM56-3C engine was the failure of fan blades. This mode
of failure led to the Kegworth air disaster in 1989, which killed 47 people and injured 74 more.
After the fan blade failed, the pilots mistakenly shut down the wrong engine, resulting in the
damaged engine failing completely when powered up for the final approach. Following the
Kegworth accident, CFM56 engines fitted to a Dan-Air 737-400 and a British Midland 737-400
suffered fan blade failures under similar conditions; neither incident resulted in a crash or
injuries.[69] After the second incident, the 737-400 fleet was grounded.

At the time it was not mandatory to flight test new variants of existing engines, and certification
testing failed to reveal vibration modes that the fan experienced during the regularly performed
power climbs at high altitude. Analysis revealed that the fan was being subjected to high-cycle
fatigue stresses worse than expected and also more severe than tested for certification; these
higher stresses caused the blade to fracture. Less than a month after grounding, the fleet was
allowed to resume operations once the fan blades and fan disc were replaced and the electronic
engine controls were modified to reduce maximum engine thrust to 22,000 lbf (98 kN) from
23,500 lbf (105 kN).[70] The redesigned fan blades were installed on all CFM56-3C1 and CFM56-
3B2 engines, including over 1,800 engines that had already been delivered to customers.[6]

In August 2016 Southwest Airlines Flight 3472 suffered a fan blade failure, but landed later
without further incident. While the aircraft sustained substantial damage, there were no
injuries.[71]

On 17 April 2018, Southwest Airlines Flight 1380 suffered from what appears to be a fan blade
failure, debris from which punctured a window. The Boeing 737-700 landed safely, but one
passenger was killed and several were injured.[72][73]

Fuel flow problems

Airlines have reported 32 events involving sudden instability of thrust, at various points during
flight, including high thrust settings during climb to altitude. The problem has been long-standing.
In 1998, two 737 pilots reported that their engine throttles suddenly increased to full thrust during
flight. A very recent investigation has led to the tentative conclusion that the problem originates in
the Hydromechanical unit, and may involve an unacceptable level of fuel contamination (with
water, or particulate matter, including biodegradable material that create solids in the fuel), or
overuse of biocides to reduce bacterial growth. Boeing told Aviation Week and Space Technology
that CFM International had revised its FADEC software. The new software "...'reduces the duration
and degree of thrust-instability events' by cycling the fuel monitoring valve (FMV) and the EHSV
(electrohydraulic servo valve) to clean the EHSV spool." This software fix is not intended to be a
definitive solution to the problem; CFM claimed that no further reports have reached it after this
change was made.[74]

Applications
Airbus A320 family
Airbus A318
Airbus A340
 Boeing 707-700 (prototype only)
Boeing 737 Classic
Boeing 737 Next Generation
Boeing 737 AEW&C
Boeing C-40 Clipper
Boeing P-8 Poseidon
Boeing Business Jet
Boeing E-3D Sentry
Boeing E-6 Mercury
Boeing KC-135R Stratotanker
Boeing RC-135
Douglas DC-8 Super 70

Specifications
 Variant -2[75] -3[75] -5[76] -5B[77] -5C[77] -7B[78]

Type Dual rotor, axial flow, high bypass ratio turbofan

1 fan, 3 LP,
Compressor 1 fan, 3 LP, 9 HP 1 fan, 4 LP, 9 HP
9 HP

Combustor Annular (double annular for -5B/2 and -7B/2 "DAC")

Turbine 1 HP, 4 LP 1 HP, 5 LP 1 HP, 4 LP

Hydro-mechanical + limited
Control Dual FADEC
electronic

236.4 cm 242.2 cm 259.97 cm 262.2 cm 250.8 cm

Length 243 cm (96 in)
(93.1 in) (95.4 in) (102.35 in) (103.2 in) (98.7 in)

183–200 cm 201.8 cm 190.8 cm 190.8 cm 194.6 cm 211.8 cm

Width
(72–79 in) (79.4 in) (75.1 in) (75.1 in) (76.6 in) (83.4 in)

214–216 cm 181.7 cm 210.1 cm 210.5 cm 225 cm 182.9 cm

Height
(84–85 in) (71.5 in) (82.7 in) (82.9 in) (89 in) (72.0 in)

1,954– 2,454.8– 2,386–

2,139–2,200 kg 1,966 kg 2,331 kg 2,500.6 kg 2,644.4 kg 2,431 kg
Dry weight
4,716–4,850 lb 4,308– 5,139 lb 5,412– 5,830 lb 5,260–
4,334 lb 5,513 lb 5,359 lb

106.76– 89.41– 97.86– 133.45– 138.78– 91.63–

Takeoff 95.99 kN 104.6 kN 117.87 kN 142.34 kN 151.24 kN 121.43 kN
thrust 24,000– 20,100– 22,000– 30,000– 31,200– 20,600–
21,580 lbf 23,520 lbf 26,500 lbf 32,000 lbf 34,000 lbf 27,300 lbf

Thrust/weight 4.49-4.9 4.49-5.22 4.2-5.06 5.44-5.69 5.25-5.72 3.84-5

LP 5176, HP LP 5179, HP LP 5000, HP LP 5000, LP 4784, HP LP 5175, HP

100% RPM
14460 14460 14460 14460 14460 14460

Variant -2[54] -3[26] -5[61] -5B[53] -5C[63] -7B[65]

1,027–
784–817 lb 638–710 lb 816–876 lb 811–968 lb 677–782 lb
Air flow/sec 1,065 lb
356–371 kg 289–322 kg 370–397 kg 368–439 kg 307–355 kg
466–483 kg

Bypass ratio 5.9-6.0 6.0-6.2 5.4-6.0 6.4-6.5 5.1-5.5

Max OPR 30.5-31.8 27.5-30.6 31.3 32.6-35.5 37.4-38.3 32.8

68.3 in 60 in 72.3 in 61 in
Fan diameter 68.3 in (173 cm)
(173 cm) (152 cm) (184 cm) (155 cm)

KC-135, B707,
Application 737 Classic A320/A319 A320 family A340-200/300 737NG
DC-8-70

0.366– 0.386– 0.3266– 0.326– 0.356–

Takeoff 0.376 lb/lbf/h 0.396 lb/lbf/h 0.3316 lb/lbf/h 0.3536 lb/lbf/h 0.336 lb/lbf/h 0.386 lb/lbf/h
TSFC[79] 10.4– 10.9– 9.39 g/kN/s 9.25– 9.2– 10.1–
10.7 g/kN/s 11.2 g/kN/s 10.02 g/kN/s 9.5 g/kN/s 10.9 g/kN/s

See also
Shenyang WS-10
Related development

CFM International LEAP

General Electric F101
General Electric Affinity
PowerJet SaM146

Comparable engines

IAE V2500
Pratt & Whitney PW6000

Related lists

List of aircraft engines

Notes
1. Mixed Exhaust Flow refers to turbofan engines (both low and high bypass) that exhaust both
the hot core flow and the cool bypass flow through a single exit nozzle. The core and bypass
flows are "mixed".
2. Unmixed Exhaust Flow refers to turbofan engines (usually, but not exclusively high-bypass)
that exhaust cool bypass air separately from their hot core flow. This arrangement is visually
distinctive as the outer, wider, bypass section usually ends mid-way along the nacelle and the
core protrudes to the rear. With two separate exhaust points, the flow is "unmixed".
3. Engine Trim generally refers to keeping the components of an engine in synchronisation with
each other. For example, maintaining proper engine trim could mean adjusting the airflow to
keep the proper amount of air flowing through the high-pressure compressor for a particular
flight condition.
4. Chevron is the name for sawtooth cutouts that are sometimes applied to the exhaust nozzles of
jet engines to reduce the jet noise. An example can be seen here [1] (https://www.nasa.gov/top
ics/aeronautics/features/bridges_chevron_events.html). (The pictured engine is not a CFM56.)
5. The Low-Pressure Shaft, in a two-shaft engine, is the shaft that is turned by the low-pressure
turbine (LPT). Generally the fan section(s) and the booster section(s) (also known as the "low-
pressure compressor") are located on the low-pressure shaft.
6. Shrouds are plates that are a part of a fan (or compressor, or turbine) blade. Generally, the
shroud of one blade rests on the shroud of the adjacent blade, forming a continuous ring.
Shrouds in the middle of blades are often used to damp vibrations. Shrouds at the tips of fan
blades are often used to minimize air leakage around the tips. A midspan shroud is visible on
the fan blades here [2] (https://web.archive.org/web/20110125193219/http://enginehistory.org/
GasTurbines/Blades/PaoloPisani/Comparisons/comp_4.JPG). (Note that these fan blades are
not from a CFM56.) (Gunston, Bill (2004). Cambridge Aerospace Dictionary. Cambridge
University Press. 2004. p.558-9.)
7. Dry Weight is the weight of an engine without any fluids in it, such as fuel, oil, hydraulic fluid,
etc. Very similar to the dry weight of an automobile

References
1. John Morris (16 July 2018). "Leap Deliveries About To Outpace CFM56" (http://aviationweek.co
m/farnborough-airshow-2018/leap-deliveries-about-outpace-cfm56). Aviation Week Network.
 2. "CIT Selects CFM56-5B for new A321 aircraft" (http://www.cfmaeroengines.com/press/cit-selec
ts-cfm56-5b-for-new-a321-aircraft/791) (Press release). CFM International. 12 March 2015.
3. Bilien, J. and Matta, R. (1989). The CFM56 Venture. AIAA/AHS/ASEE Aircraft Design,
Systems, and Operations Conference. Seattle, WA, 31 July – 2 August 1989. AIAA-89-2038
4. "30,000th CFM56 engine comes off the production-line" (https://www.cfmaeroengines.com/pres
s-articles/cfm-news-release-30000th-cfm56-engine-comes-production-line/) (Press release).
CFM international. 12 July 2016.
5. "CFM56 fleet surpasses 800 million flight hours" (https://www.cfmaeroengines.com/press-articl
es/cfm56-fleet-surpasses-800-million-flight-hours/) (Press release). CFM international. 2 June
2016.
6. Norris, Guy (1999). CFM56: Engine of Change. Flight International. 19–25 May 1999. Online at
CFM56: Engine of Change (http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1999/1999%20-%2013
85.html).
7. Samuelson, Robert (1972). "Commerce, Security and the "Ten Ton Engine"". The Washington
Post. 8 October 1972, p. H7.
8. Farnsworth, Clyde (1973). "GE, French To Make Jet Engine". St. Petersburg Times, 23 June
1973, p. 11-A.
9. GE-SNECMA Jet Engine Joint Venture (1972). National Security Decision Memorandum 189.
19 September 1972. NSDM 189 (pdf) (https://nixon.archives.gov/virtuallibrary/documents/nsdm
/nsdm_189.pdf). Retrieved 9 November 2009.
10. "A Rebuff to Pompidou on Engine" (1972). The New York Times. 30 September 1972, p. 39.
11. "Tooling up for Tiger (http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1978/1978%20-%200008.htm
l)". FLIGHT International. 7 January 1978, p. 8. Retrieved 9 June 2010.
12. Farnsworth, Clyde (1973). "U.S. Ban Lifted on G. E. Plan". The New York Times. 23 June
1973, p. 37.
13. GE-SNECMA. CFM-56 Jet Engine Joint Development (1973). National Security Decision
Memorandum 220. 4 June 1973. NSDM 220 (pdf) (https://nixon.archives.gov/virtuallibrary/docu
ments/nsdm/nsdm_220.pdf). Retrieved 9 November 2009.
14. CFM Timeline (https://web.archive.org/web/20100323063956/http://www.cfm56.com/company/t
imeline). CFM International. Retrieved 10 November 2009.
15. "Work Split (https://web.archive.org/web/20100519130743/http://www.cfm56.com/company/wor
k-split)". CFM International. Retrieved 12 May 2010.
16. Yaffee, Michael (1975). "Developers Face 1975 CFM56 Decision". Aviation Week & Space
Technology. 24 February 1975, p. 41.
17. Lewis, Flora (1975). "G.E.-SNECMA Deal: U.S.-French Dispute Is Obscured". The New York
Times. 5 March 1975, p. 53.
18. "YC-15 Enters New Flight Test Series". Aviation Week & Space Technology. 21 February 1977,
p. 27.
19. Shivaram, Malur (1988). A Survey of the Flight Testing, and Evaluation of CFM56 Series
Turbofan. 4th AIAA Flight Test Conference, San Diego, CA. 18–20 May 1988. Technical Papers
AIAA-1988-2078.
20. O'Lone, Richard (1978). Boeing to Offer 707-320 Re-engined with CFM56s. Aviation Week &
Space Technology. 14 August 1978, p. 40.
21. "Plan to Reengine 707 With CFM56 Suspended". Aviation Week & Space Technology. 28 April
1980. p. 35.
22. Kazin, S (1983). KC-135/CFM56 Re-engine, The Best Solution. 19th AIAA/SAE/ASME Joint
Propulsion Conference, 27–29 June 1983. Seattle, Washington. AIAA-1983-1374.
23. "GE, French Firm Get Jet Engines Contract". The Wall Street Journal. 8 November 1978, p. 14.
24. "CFM56 Selected for KC-135 Re-engining". Aviation Week & Space Technology. 28 January
1980, p. 18
 1980, p. 18
25. "United Picks CFM56 for DC-8-60s". Aviation Week & Space Technology. 9 April 1979, p. 19.
26. Epstein, N (1981). "CFM56-3 High By-Pass Technology for Single Aisle Twins". 1981
AIAA/SAE/ASCE/ATRIF/TRB International Air Transportation Conference, 26–28 May 1981,
Atlantic City, New Jersey. AIAA-1981-0808.
27. Boeing 737 Deliveries (http://active.boeing.com/commercial/orders/displaystandardreport.cfm?
cboCurrentModel=737&optReportType=AllModels&cboAllModel=737&ViewReportF=View+Rep
ort). The Boeing Company. Retrieved 19 May 2010.
28. "Preparing for the future of aircraft engines – TECH56 (http://www.sae.org/aeromag/features/ai
rcraftengines/01.htm) Archived (https://web.archive.org/web/20120929195424/http://www.sae.o
rg/aeromag/features/aircraftengines/01.htm) 29 September 2012 at the Wayback Machine".
Aerospace Engineering and Manufacturing Online. Retrieved 23 March 2010.
29. Morris, John (2000). ""Son of CFM56" – TECH56 (https://web.archive.org/web/2001070303044
6/http://www.aviationweek.com/shownews/00farn1/hardwr05.htm)". Aviation Week's Show
News Online. 24 July 2000. Retrieved 23 March 2010.
30. Angrand, A. (2007). "Tech Insertion: Eternal youth for the CFM56 (pdf) (https://www.webcitation
.org/5ory01ylE?url=http://www.safran-na.com/IMG/pdf/SAFRAN2UKp26-27.pdf)". SAFRAN
magazine. November 2007. Retrieved 23 March 2010. pp. 26–7.
31. "CFM Certifies Tech Insertion Compressor Upgrade; Brings Lower Fuel Burn, Longer On-Wing
Life to Mature Fleet (https://web.archive.org/web/20110722141019/http://www.cfm56.com/pres
s/news/cfm+certifies+tech+insertion+compressor+upgrade+brings+lower+fuel+burn+longer+on
-wing+life+to+mature+fleet/448?page_index=5)". CFM International Press Release. 14 July
2008. Retrieved 23 March 2010.
32. "CFM Launches CFM56-7B Evolution Engine Program to Power Enhanced Boeing Next-
Generation 737" (http://www.geae.com/aboutgeae/presscenter/cfm56/cfm56-7/cfm56-7_20090
428.html) Archived (https://web.archive.org/web/20101211151328/http://geae.com/aboutgeae/p
resscenter/cfm56/cfm56-7/cfm56-7_20090428.html) 11 December 2010 at the Wayback
Machine. GE Aviation Press Release. 28 April 2009. Retrieved 19 May 2010.
33. Norris, Guy (2010). Airbus Weighs Modified CFM56-5 Upgrade Options (http://aviationweek.co
m/awin/airbus-weighs-modified-cfm56-5-upgrade-options). Aviation Week. 12 May 2010.
Retrieved 19 May 2010.
34. Ostrower, Jon. "CFM56-7BE achieves FAA and EASA certification" (https://archive.today/20100
809225816/http://www.flightglobal.com/Articles/2010/08/02/345667/cfm56-7be-achieves-faa-an
d-easa-certification.html). Air Transport Intelligence news via Flightglobal.com. 2 August 2010.
Retrieved 2 August 2010.
35. "CFM brings elements of Evolution upgrade to A320 powerplant" (http://www.flightglobal.com/n
ews/articles/cfm-brings-elements-of-evolution-upgrade-to-a320-powerplant-355775/).
flightglobal.com. Retrieved 26 April 2017.
36. "First LEAP 1A-Powered A320Neo Aircraft Delivered to Pegasus Airlines" (https://www.cfmaer
oengines.com/press-articles/cfm-news-release-first-leap-1a-powered-a320neo-aircraft-delivere
d-pegasus-airlines/). CFM International. 21 July 2016.
37. "Lufthansa CFM56-5C engine achieves 100,000 flight hours" (https://www.cfmaeroengines.co
m/press-articles/lufthansa-cfm56-5c-engine-achieves-100000-flight-hours/) (Press release).
CFM International. 8 November 2016.
38. "2016 CFM orders surpass 2,600 engines" (https://www.cfmaeroengines.com/press-articles/20
16-cfm-orders-surpass-2600-engines/) (Press release). CFM International. 14 February 2017.
39. "CFM56 fleet surpasses 500 million flight cycles" (https://www.safran-aircraft-engines.com/med
ia/cfm56-fleet-surpasses-500-million-flight-cycles-20171031) (Press release). Safran Aircraft
Engines. 31 October 2017.
40. "GE/CFM in "lockstep" with Boeing on NMA" (https://leehamnews.com/2018/03/22/ge-cfm-in-lo
ckstep-with-boeing-on-nma/). Leeham News. 22 March 2018.
41. Bjorn Fehrm (3 March 2017). "Bjorn's Corner: Aircraft engine maintenance, Part 1" (https://leeh
41. Bjorn Fehrm (3 March 2017). "Bjorn's Corner: Aircraft engine maintenance, Part 1" (https://leeh
amnews.com/2017/03/03/bjorns-corner-aircraft-engines-maintenance-part-1/). Leeham.
42. "CFM56 Engine Fleet Surpasses One Billion Engine Flight Hours" (https://www.cfmaeroengine
s.com/press-articles/cfm56-engine-fleet-surpasses-one-billion-engine-flight-hours/) (Press
release). CFM international. 4 June 2019.
43. Max Kingsley-Jones (17 November 2019). "CFM sees all-new airliner possible by early 2030s"
(https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/dubai-cfm-sees-all-new-airliner-possible-by-early-2-
462306/). Flightglobal. Retrieved 18 November 2019.
44. Croft, John. "Fueling fears", Aviation Week and Space Technology, 18 February 2013, p. 33.
45. "CFM'S Advanced Double Annular Combustor Technology (https://web.archive.org/web/20110
722140822/http://www.cfm56.com/press/news/cfms+advanced+double+annular+combustor+te
chnology/198?page_index=23)". CFM International Press Release. 9 July 1998. Retrieved 16
November 2009.
46. Mongia, Hukam (2003). TAPS –A 4th Generation Propulsion Combustor Technology for Low
Emissions. AIAA/ICAS International Air and Space Symposium and Exposition: The Next 100
Years, 14–17 July 2003, Dayton, Ohio. AIAA 2003–2657.
47. "CFM56-5B/-7B Tech Insertion Package On Schedule For 2007 EIS (https://web.archive.org/w
eb/20110722141115/http://www.cfm56.com/press/news/cfm56-5b/-7b+tech+insertion+package
+on+schedule+for+2007+eis/135?sort=2&advanced=1&channel_id=&searchkey=taps&datefro
m=1%2F1%2F2006&dateto=mm%2Fdd%2Fyyyy&sortcheck=2)". CFM International Press
Release. 13 June 2005. Retrieved 16 November 2009.
48. Norris, Guy "CFMI details insertion plan for Tech 56" (https://web.archive.org/web/2012110223
1320/http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/cfmi-details-insertion-plan-for-tech-56-185357/).
Flight International, 4 August 2004.
49. Flight International. 3 August 2004. Retrieved 17 November 2009.
50. "CFM56 rises to challenge (http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1991/1991%20-%2014
56.html)". Flight International. 11 June 1991. Retrieved 17 November 2009.
51. Brausch, John F. et al (2002). US Patent number: 6360528, "Chevron exhaust nozzle for a gas
turbine engine" (http://www.google.com/patents/about?id=UAAJAAAAEBAJ). Retrieved 22
March 2010.
52. Loheac, Pierre, Julliard, Jacques, Dravet, Alain (May 2004). "CFM56 Jet Noise Reduction with
the Chevron Nozzle (http://arc.aiaa.org/doi/abs/10.2514/6.2004-3044)". 10th AIAA (American
Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics)/CEAS Aeroacoustics Conference (Manchester, Great
Britain). AIAA 2004–3044, doi:10.2514/6.2004-3044 (https://doi.org/10.2514%2F6.2004-3044)
(subscription required)
53. "CFM56-5B Technology (https://web.archive.org/web/20100307035338/http://www.cfm56.com/
products/cfm56-5b)". CFM International. Retrieved 12 May 2010.
54. "CFM56-2 Technology (https://web.archive.org/web/20100530091327/http://www.cfm56.com/pr
oducts/cfm56-2/cfm56-2-technology)". CFM International. Retrieved 12 May 2010.
55. "An In-Depth Look at the New Industry Leader" (https://www.cfmaeroengines.com/press-article
s/cfm56-7-an-in-depth-look-at-the-new-industry-leader/) (Press release). CFM International. 7
December 1996.
56. Velupillai, David (1981). CFM56 Comes of Age (http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/19
81/1981%20-%201100.html). Flight International. 18 April 1981. Retrieved 1 June 2010.
57. NTSB No: DCA-06-MA-009. Section D.1.3 Thrust Reverser Description (pdf) (https://web.archi
ve.org/web/20061008164354/http://www.ntsb.gov/Events/2006/ChicagoIL%20SW/Exhibits/347
284.pdf). National Transportation Safety Board. 10 April 2006. Retrieved 28 May 2010.
58. Linke-Diesinger, Andreas (2008). "Chapter 8: Thrust Reverser Systems". Systems of
Commercial Turbofan Engines: An Introduction to Systems Functions. Springer Berlin
Heidelberg. doi:10.1007/978-3-540-73619-6_8 (https://doi.org/10.1007%2F978-3-540-73619-6
_8). ISBN 978-3-540-73618-9.
 _8). ISBN 978-3-540-73618-9.
59. "CFM56-3 Technology" (https://web.archive.org/web/20080920144013/http://www.cfm56.com/p
roducts/cfm56-3). CFM International. Retrieved 12 May 2010.
60. "CFM56-5A History (https://web.archive.org/web/20100530091448/http://www.cfm56.com/prod
ucts/cfm56-5a/cfm56-5a-history)". CFM International. Retrieved 12 May 2010.
61. "CFM56-5A Technology (https://web.archive.org/web/20100530091453/http://www.cfm56.com/
products/cfm56-5a/cfm56-5a-technology)". CFM International. Retrieved 12 May 2010.
62. "CFM56-5B History (https://web.archive.org/web/20100530091458/http://www.cfm56.com/prod
ucts/cfm56-5b/cfm56-5b-history)". CFM International. Retrieved 20 November 2009.
63. "CFM56-5C Technology (https://web.archive.org/web/20100530091524/http://www.cfm56.com/
products/cfm56-5c/cfm56-5c-technology)". CFM International. Retrieved 12 May 2012.
64. "First CFM56-7 Engine to Test Runs on Schedule" (http://www.cfmaeroengines.com/press/first-
cfm56-7-engine-to-test-runs-on-schedule/12) (Press release). CFM International. 22 May 1995.
65. "CFM56-7B" (http://www.safran-aircraft-engines.com/file/download/fiche_cfm56-7b_ang.pdf)
(PDF). Safran/Snecma. March 2011.
66. "CFM56 Engines: The Standard To Which Others Are Judged" (http://www.geaviation.com/pres
s/cfm56/cfm56-x/cfm56-x_19960902b.html) (Press release). CFM International. 2 September
1996.
67. "Flight Operations Support" (http://www.smartcockpit.com/docs/CFM_Flight_Ops_Support_B73
7.pdf) (PDF). CFM International. 13 December 2005.
68. "Safety Recommendation A-05-19 and 20 (pdf) (https://web.archive.org/web/20090902023423/
http://www.ntsb.gov/Recs/letters/2005/A05_19_20.pdf)". [NTSB Recommendations]. National
Transportation Safety Board, 31 August 2005. Retrieved 4 December 2009.
69. "Report on the accident to Boeing 737-400, G-OBME, near Kegworth, Leicestershire on 8
January 1989 (http://www.aaib.gov.uk/publications/formal_reports/4_1990_g_obme.cfm)"
(1990). Report No: 4/1990. Air Investigations Branch. 25 August 1990. Retrieved 22 March
2010.
70. "Derating Clears CFM56-3Cs to Fly (http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1989/1989%2
0-%202046.html)" (1989). Flight International. 1 July 1989. Retrieved 11 December 2009.
71. "NTSB Identification: DCA16FA217" (https://www.ntsb.gov/_layouts/ntsb.aviation/brief.aspx?ev
_id=20160827X31134&key=1). ntsb.gov. Retrieved 5 April 2017.
72. "One dead after Southwest Airlines jet engine 'explosion' " (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-u
s-canada-43803340). BBC News. 17 April 2018. Retrieved 18 April 2018.
73. "Jet with engine, window damage makes emergency landing" (https://www.apnews.com/4a11ff
57b55f47bc9a26565bea71b9f8/1-dead-after-jetliner-apparently-blows-an-engine-in-flight). AP
News. 18 April 2018. Retrieved 18 April 2018.
74. Croft, John. "Fueling fears", Aviation Week and Space Technology, 18 February 2013, p. 33.
75. "TCDS E.066" (https://www.easa.europa.eu/sites/default/files/dfu/EASA-TCDS-E.066_CFM_Int
ernational_S.A._--_CFM56--2-----3_series_engines-01-28112008.pdf) (PDF). EASA. 28
November 2008.
76. "TCDS E.067" (https://www.easa.europa.eu/sites/default/files/dfu/EASA%20TCDS%20E.067_i
ssue%2002_20180417.pdf) (PDF). EASA. 17 April 2018.
77. "TCDS E.003" (https://web.archive.org/web/20190411084258/https://www.easa.europa.eu/sites
/default/files/dfu/TCDS%20E.003%20issue%2004_20170928.pdf) (PDF). EASA. 28 September
2017. Archived from the original (https://www.easa.europa.eu/sites/default/files/dfu/TCDS%20E
.003%20issue%2004_20170928.pdf) (PDF) on 11 April 2019. Retrieved 26 October 2018.
78. "TCDS E.067" (https://web.archive.org/web/20181026182644/https://www.easa.europa.eu/site
s/default/files/dfu/EASA%20E%20004%20TCDS%20issue%2005_20160103_1.0.pdf) (PDF).
EASA. 3 January 2016. Archived from the original (https://www.easa.europa.eu/sites/default/fil
es/dfu/EASA%20E%20004%20TCDS%20issue%2005_20160103_1.0.pdf) (PDF) on 26
October 2018. Retrieved 26 October 2018.
 October 2018. Retrieved 26 October 2018.
79. "Gas Turbine Engines" (https://web.archive.org/web/20181106021310/http://www.geocities.jp/n
omonomo2007/AircraftDatabase/AWdata/AviationWeekPages/GTEnginesAWJan2008.pdf)
(PDF). Aviation Week. 28 January 2008. pp. 137–138. Archived from the original (http://www.g
eocities.jp/nomonomo2007/AircraftDatabase/AWdata/AviationWeekPages/GTEnginesAWJan2
008.pdf) (PDF) on 6 November 2018. Retrieved 26 October 2018.

External links
Official website (https://www.cfmaeroengines.com/engines/cfm56/)
"CFM56 Rejuvenates the DC-8" (http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1981/1981%20-%
201841.html). Flight International. 6 June 1981.
"CFM56 : Power and the glory" (https://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1999/1999%20-%
201387.html). Flight International. 19 May 1999.
"CFM56-5C2 Cutaway" (https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/24/12/b1/2412b146afe93
66fc93377b74493ff52.jpg). Flight Global. 2006.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=CFM_International_CFM56&oldid=960361576"

This page was last edited on 2 June 2020, at 14:50 (UTC).

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms
may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a
registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.