Please turn your caps off. It makes it hard to read your post.
Aeroderivative and Frame gas turbines both work using the same thermodynamic cycle.
Frames are built to be big and bruthsh and for the most part designed to work at or near full load most of the time. They typically spin at synchronous speeds (exceptions exist). They are more inefficient at partial loads.
They are also designed to work in land atmospheres meaning from sea level to how ever high you want to take them on some elevated landscape. They don't do terribly well above about 5000ft elevation.
Aero's on the other hand are designed to be light enough so that they can be mounted on air craft, and their design anticipates that they will be operated at full power at only a small percent of the time during take-off, thrust reversing, and emergencies with lots of hours at greatly reduced loads and operating on very thin air. Therefore they have lots of variable vanes in the compressor sections that Frames don't have. This is to keep the pumping losses down when they don't need the power.
Aero's that are used in Power generation when at full power are run at what would be referred to as "take-off" power all the time. The variable vanes remain open much more during operation than the equivalent engine (land based aeros are industrialized versions of engines for popular planes, commercial and military) would as an airplane engine at 35,000 ft altitude.
Aeros are not typically (some are) direct coupled to the output shaft. A non coupled power turbine driven by the jet engine exhaust turns the generator (or driven load) and it spins at synchronous speed (or something close). The Jet engine portion of the aero engine, however, is free to spool up to whatever speeds it needs to in order to produce the exhaust temp and flow needed to drive the power turbine. They can and do operate at several thousand RPM. That is how they can get the higher efficiencies.
I would have to go do some digging to see what the relative efficiencies are, but KW for KW, the aero's have some of the higher heat rates.
One feature I think I like is that at time for serious overhaul, while the Frame type turbine has to be disassembled in place (and they have lots of internal parts), the aero engine can be removed as a unit and sent to a repair facility and another engine dropped in its place and you can be generating power again within 24-48 hours.
Aeros are more forgiving too. Since they are designed as passenger jet engines to take some abuse and keep on flying until you can get down, some have been taken out when the power output fell off a little bit only to find that several rows of compressor blades are completely gone. Frames tend to chew themselves to pieces when something lets go. Or at least they did when I worked on them.
The above is not meant to be comprehensive or specifically apply to anyone in particular's designs as several companies in the world build Frame and Aero Generation packages. Some build both.
