Print from Airliners.net discussion forum
http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/general_aviation/read.main/3547949/

Topic: CFM56 Tech Insertion Pack For A340-300
Username: EI321
Posted 2007-08-07 12:57:27 and read 8270 times.

As we all know, Airbus is doing the A320E, which incorporates inproved versions of the CFM56 in the form of the Tech insertion package. This will improve SFC by a few percent.

Does anybody think it would be worthwhile to retrofit the engines of an existing A340-300 fleet with the Tech Insertion package, or even with new Tech Insertion engines? The 'C' varients of the A340 are not currently in the upgrade programme:

Current ratings Designation New Engines Designation

CFM56-7B18 CFM56-7B18/3

CFM56-7B20 CFM56-7B20/3

CFM56-7B22 CFM56-7B22/3

CFM56-7B22/B1 CFM56-7B22/3B1

CFM56-7B22/B2 CFM56-7B22/3B2

CFM56-7B24 CFM56-7B24/3

CFM56-7B24/B1 CFM56-7B24/3B1

CFM56-7B26 CFM56-7B26/3

CFM56-7B26/B1 CFM56-7B26/3B1

CFM56-7B26/B2 CFM56-7B26/3B2

CFM56-7B27/B1 CFM56-7B27/3B1

N/A CFM56-7B27/3F

N/A CFM56-7B27/3B1F

CFM56-5B1/P CFM56-5B1/3

CFM56-5B2/P CFM56-5B2/3

CFM56-5B3/P CFM56-5B3/3

CFM56-5B3/P1 CFM56-5B3/3B1

CFM56-5B4/P CFM56-5B4/3

CFM56-5B4/P1 CFM56-5B4/3B1

CFM56-5B5/P CFM56-5B5/3

CFM56-5B6/P CFM56-5B6/3

CFM56-5B7/P CFM56-5B7/3

CFM56-5B8/P CFM56-5B8/3

CFM56-5B9/P CFM56-5B9/3

[Edited 2007-08-07 13:02:10]

Topic: RE: CFM56 Tech Insertion Pack For A340-300
Username: Jasond
Posted 2007-08-07 13:13:07 and read 8218 times.

In the military world they call this SLEP or Service Life Extension Program, basically taking 'older' frames and improving their cost effectiveness to operate with the new economics that improved newer engines can provide. The KC-135 was of course the big success story particularly with the CFM56, interestingly the B707-700 (its commercial equivalent) attracted little commercial interest yet was based on the same concept. An interesting idea but I'm not sure the A340 re-engined with new generation CFM56's will attract anymore commercial attention than the B707-700 did, saying that seeing an A340 with them would be interesting. Anyone who has seen a B707-700 would agree with me  Smile

Topic: RE: CFM56 Tech Insertion Pack For A340-300
Username: EI321
Posted 2007-08-07 13:21:16 and read 8188 times.

Quoting Jasond (Reply 1):
The KC-135 was of course the big success story particularly with the CFM56, interestingly the B707-700 (its commercial equivalent) attracted little commercial interest yet was based on the same concept

Boeing canceled the 707-700 varient due to concerns of compitition with the new 757 programme.

Big version: Width: 552 Height: 240 File size: 18kb

Topic: RE: CFM56 Tech Insertion Pack For A340-300
Username: Jasond
Posted 2007-08-07 13:27:31 and read 8170 times.

Quoting EI321 (Reply 2):
Boeing canceled the 707-700 varient due to concerns of compitition with the new 757 programme.

Shame really, its a great looking airplane

Topic: RE: CFM56 Tech Insertion Pack For A340-300
Username: PADSpot
Posted 2007-08-07 13:28:00 and read 8170 times.

Quoting Jasond (Reply 1):
basically taking 'older' frames and improving their cost effectiveness to operate with the new economics that improved newer engines can provide.

I think this more about upgrading the engines, not replacing them. Such upgraded have been made available several times before AFAIK ...

Topic: RE: CFM56 Tech Insertion Pack For A340-300
Username: Jasond
Posted 2007-08-07 13:37:19 and read 8124 times.

Quoting PADSpot (Reply 4):
I think this more about upgrading the engines, not replacing them.

Modifying the existing cores etc you mean???

Topic: RE: CFM56 Tech Insertion Pack For A340-300
Username: EI321
Posted 2007-08-07 13:48:58 and read 8084 times.

Quoting Jasond (Reply 5):
Quoting PADSpot (Reply 4):
I think this more about upgrading the engines, not replacing them.

Modifying the existing cores etc you mean???

The Tech insertion upgrade incorporates features such as:



  • new high-pressure compressor (HPC) blade aero design
  • Enhanced mixing and improved cooling in the combustor
  • improved durability (longer parts life)
  • High-pressure turbine low shock airfoil contour
  • improved cooling design

Topic: RE: CFM56 Tech Insertion Pack For A340-300
Username: Jasond
Posted 2007-08-07 14:02:20 and read 8037 times.

Quoting EI321 (Reply 6):
The Tech insertion upgrade incorporates features such as:



* new high-pressure compressor (HPC) blade aero design
* Enhanced mixing and improved cooling in the combustor
* improved durability (longer parts life)
* High-pressure turbine low shock airfoil contour
* improved cooling design

You learn something new everyday, thanks for the background. Back to your original question, is the enhanced economics provided by the upgraded engine worth the cost of installation, ongoing maintenance etc etc. It would vary with different A340 operators I would imagine as well, much like the decision to add winglets etc to legacy aircraft such as 737's and 757's.

Topic: RE: CFM56 Tech Insertion Pack For A340-300
Username: Phollingsworth
Posted 2007-08-07 14:40:08 and read 7957 times.

The other big thing that the /3 Tech insertion program does is provide CAEP/6 NOx compliance for the single annular combustor engines. I believe that the TIP gets you about 80% of the difference between the old SAC and the /2 DAC engines without the mtc penalty and the fuelburn improvement. It looks like this program will be big for any airline that has significant operations into or out of an airport with a NOx charging scheme

Topic: RE: CFM56 Tech Insertion Pack For A340-300
Username: Tdscanuck
Posted 2007-08-07 15:03:55 and read 7905 times.

Quoting EI321 (Thread starter):
Does anybody think it would be worthwhile to retrofit the engines of an existing A340-300 fleet with the Tech Insertion package, or even with new Tech Insertion engines?

I don't think they'll have a choice. As far as I know, CFM is only building Tech Insertion (TI) cores for the CFM56 now. You can't get non-TI cores for any of the other fleets so I suspect it's a similar situation for the A340.

The TI engines are two-way interchangeable with the non-TI engines so the entire population should eventually migrate over as they go through their shop visits.

Tom.

Topic: RE: CFM56 Tech Insertion Pack For A340-300
Username: SailorOrion
Posted 2007-08-07 15:08:44 and read 7892 times.

Can't speak for everyone, but LH's A340-300s are one of only three types in the LH fleet that do not meet the CAEP/6 limits, with both A321 being the other ones; the A340-300s miss the target by 8.9%.

Funny thing that the "old" 733s and 735s meet the limits.

source: LH

SailorOrion

Topic: RE: CFM56 Tech Insertion Pack For A340-300
Username: EI321
Posted 2007-08-07 15:19:58 and read 7863 times.

Quoting SailorOrion (Reply 10):
Can't speak for everyone, but LH's A340-300s are one of only three types in the LH fleet that do not meet the CAEP/6 limits, with both A321 being the other ones; the A340-300s miss the target by 8.9%.

What are CAEP/6 limits?

Topic: RE: CFM56 Tech Insertion Pack For A340-300
Username: FlyingClrs727
Posted 2007-08-07 15:38:54 and read 7816 times.

Quoting EI321 (Reply 2):
Boeing canceled the 707-700 varient due to concerns of compitition with the new 757 programme.

And then a few years after that, the USAF bought up hundred of surplus 707's to provide upgrades and spares for the KC-135 program. I'm sure Boeing loved it that so many 707's were removed from the secondary market. Ultimately some military 707-700's were built such as the AWACS planes for Britain, France, and Saudi Arabia plus the US Navy's E-6 fleet.

Topic: RE: CFM56 Tech Insertion Pack For A340-300
Username: SailorOrion
Posted 2007-08-07 15:41:06 and read 7813 times.

Afaik a pretty measly 12% below the CAEP/4 limits. (They're dependent on the OPR, more OPR, more NOx allowed)

SailorOrion

Topic: RE: CFM56 Tech Insertion Pack For A340-300
Username: EA772LR
Posted 2007-08-07 16:14:10 and read 7745 times.

Quoting EI321 (Reply 11):
What are CAEP/6 limits?

I second El321, what are CAEP/6 limits??

Topic: RE: CFM56 Tech Insertion Pack For A340-300
Username: Lumberton
Posted 2007-08-07 18:09:57 and read 7634 times.

Quoting Tdscanuck (Reply 9):
The TI engines are two-way interchangeable with the non-TI engines so the entire population should eventually migrate over as they go through their shop visits.

This would make good business sense IMO and give extend the life to the A343.

By the way, remember the article in Flight a week or so back about the first A340 being parted out? It cited the value of the CFM56-5C as one of the reasons. Why is this engine in tight supply? Not enough spares procured?

Topic: RE: CFM56 Tech Insertion Pack For A340-300
Username: Tdscanuck
Posted 2007-08-07 19:00:27 and read 7536 times.

Quoting Lumberton (Reply 15):
It cited the value of the CFM56-5C as one of the reasons. Why is this engine in tight supply? Not enough spares procured?

I suspect because it serves such a small market. The -5C is only used on the A340-200 and -300, which means there are only about 1000 engines in service with no new deliveries.

That's a lot less than many of the other CFM56 derivatives so the spares pool is probably much smaller. Not sure what the overhaul interval is for a -5C but they may be coming due for shop visits and that strains the spares supply too.

Tom.

Topic: RE: CFM56 Tech Insertion Pack For A340-300
Username: FrancoBlanco
Posted 2007-08-07 19:44:59 and read 7462 times.

It may be a stupid question, but weren't there plans of putting the CFM56-7 (or however it would be called) on the A319/A320/A321?

Sebastian

Topic: RE: CFM56 Tech Insertion Pack For A340-300
Username: Lumberton
Posted 2007-08-07 19:54:59 and read 7431 times.

With almost 240 A340-200/300 in operation, we're talking potentially 1000 engines if all of them are considered for this upgrade. Even half is a significant market! I would think that this has got to be appealing--or at least worth considering--to current operators?

Topic: RE: CFM56 Tech Insertion Pack For A340-300
Username: A342
Posted 2007-08-07 20:08:38 and read 7405 times.

Quoting FrancoBlanco (Reply 17):
It may be a stupid question, but weren't there plans of putting the CFM56-7 (or however it would be called) on the A319/A320/A321?

No. The -7 has a smaller fan and this is only needed on the 737. Apart from that, it wouldn't have enough thrust for the A321.

Quoting EA772LR (Reply 14):
I second El321, what are CAEP/6 limits??

I'm no expert, but IIRC those are emission standards, just like those for cars.

Topic: RE: CFM56 Tech Insertion Pack For A340-300
Username: LXA340
Posted 2007-08-07 21:13:56 and read 7006 times.

I remembered that when LX first ordered the A340's they said they would equipe it's A340 fleet by 2004 with the newest generation of engines inorder to be Class 4 instead of 3 regarding polution and noise however I never followed if they really did so my feeling is no?

Topic: RE: CFM56 Tech Insertion Pack For A340-300
Username: FrancoBlanco
Posted 2007-08-07 21:14:41 and read 6991 times.

Quoting A342 (Reply 19):
The -7 has a smaller fan

OK, but it has also less fan blades and other improvements, thus being a bit more advanced than the -5, or is that incorrect?

Quoting A342 (Reply 19):
enough thrust for the A321

Wouldn't it be possible to bring the -7B27 of the 739ER up to the 32,000lbs needed for the A321?

Sebastian

Topic: RE: CFM56 Tech Insertion Pack For A340-300
Username: A342
Posted 2007-08-07 22:09:42 and read 6586 times.

Quoting FrancoBlanco (Reply 21):
OK, but it has also less fan blades and other improvements, thus being a bit more advanced than the -5, or is that incorrect?

That's correct, but the smaller fan reduces its efficiency compared to the -5B, so there's really no point in installing it on Airbus aircraft.

Quoting FrancoBlanco (Reply 21):
Wouldn't it be possible to bring the -7B27 of the 739ER up to the 32,000lbs needed for the A321?

I don't know, but IMO CFM would have uprated the engine further if it was possible - not for the A321, but for the 739ER.

Topic: RE: CFM56 Tech Insertion Pack For A340-300
Username: EA772LR
Posted 2007-08-07 23:22:38 and read 6127 times.

Quoting FrancoBlanco (Reply 21):
Wouldn't it be possible to bring the -7B27 of the 739ER up to the 32,000lbs needed for the A321?

I think the 739ER could use a pair of 29,000lb thrust engines for better performance. That would be cool if CFM could uprate the CFM567-B27 up to 29,000lbs. As it is, the 739ER has the same thrust as the 738, while carrying 13,000lbs of additional weight if both are in MTOW form.

I think what the 340 needed was 4 PW2037's. They're very fuel efficient and would have provided at least an additional 12,000 lbs of thrust, then for later models, they could have used the PW2040's. As the 340 is, it weighs over 600,000lbs yet has a max thrust output of 138,000lbs of thrust. The C-17, which has four PW2040's weighs 585,000lbs yet produces 160,000lbs of thrust. I know this is all fantasy, but hey I can daydream. Tho I really love the RB211-535E4, it would have been too much for the 340.

Does CFM's tech insertion package provide thrust growth??

Topic: RE: CFM56 Tech Insertion Pack For A340-300
Username: VAAengineer
Posted 2007-08-08 01:19:15 and read 5606 times.

VS is currently doing the whole A343 fleet which I think they should be done by now anyway.

Topic: RE: CFM56 Tech Insertion Pack For A340-300
Username: Acidradio
Posted 2007-08-08 10:46:39 and read 4251 times.

Quoting EA772LR (Reply 23):
I think what the 340 needed was 4 PW2037's. They're very fuel efficient and would have provided at least an additional 12,000 lbs of thrust, then for later models, they could have used the PW2040's. As the 340 is, it weighs over 600,000lbs yet has a max thrust output of 138,000lbs of thrust. The C-17, which has four PW2040's weighs 585,000lbs yet produces 160,000lbs of thrust. I know this is all fantasy, but hey I can daydream. Tho I really love the RB211-535E4, it would have been too much for the 340.

This brings up a really interesting question: why did Airbus go with the CFM56 on the A340 when they could have easily gone with either a PW2000-series or RR RB211-series engine? They don't seem to be too far off on size. Were the economics, reliability, cost or some other factor better on the CFM56? Would the additional thrust of a PW2000 or RB211 be worth it?

Topic: RE: CFM56 Tech Insertion Pack For A340-300
Username: Zeke
Posted 2007-08-08 11:53:23 and read 4081 times.

Quoting VAAengineer (Reply 24):
VS is currently doing the whole A343 fleet which I think they should be done by now anyway.

What have the done ?

Quoting Acidradio (Reply 25):

This brings up a really interesting question: why did Airbus go with the CFM56 on the A340 when they could have easily gone with either a PW2000-series or RR RB211-series engine?

CFM56-5C TSFC 0.567 engine mass of 8796 lb
RB-211 at the time would be the RB211-524G TSFC is 0.57 engine mass 9670 lb, the 524G/H-T upgrade is better with a TSFC of 0.56, but it came out many years after the CFM56-5C.

Topic: RE: CFM56 Tech Insertion Pack For A340-300
Username: Phollingsworth
Posted 2007-08-08 14:51:03 and read 3853 times.

Quoting EA772LR (Reply 14):
I second El321, what are CAEP/6 limits



Quoting SailorOrion (Reply 13):
Afaik a pretty measly 12% below the CAEP/4 limits. (They're dependent on the OPR, more OPR, more NOx allowed)

CAEP is ICAO's Committee on Aviation Environmental Protection. The 6th meeting of CAEP, held in Feb of 2004, set a new NOx certification limit, which as SailorOrion said, is -12% from CAEP/4 which met 6 years earlier. The allowable NOx, which is called the "charateristic" value is based upon the ICAO time in modes, and a series of tests. The measurment is Dp/F00 measure in g/kN. You can lookup each certified engine (minus engines certified this summer) on the following website (it has the CFM56 /3 models):

http://www.caa.co.uk/default.aspx?catid=702&pagetype=90

Note that the stringency is a certification limit, and legally only applies to engines certified after the effective date. That means that it does not affect existing engines. This means that there is no requirement to upgrade engines to meet CAEP/6 but some airports have emissions charging schemes which give an economic incentive to upgrade. I seem to recall that none of the IAE V2500s meet the new stringency, and it looks like there are some CFM56-5Cs that do. As for why older engines have less issues meeting the NOx limits. This is two fold. 1. They are typically lower pressure ratio (lower T3) and 2 they have lower T4 (TIT) both of which typically mean lower flame temp and therefore lower NOx. I am not a combustion specialist but on the zeroth or first order P3/T3 and T4 are useful for determining if two otherwise the same engines will produce more or less NOx

Topic: RE: CFM56 Tech Insertion Pack For A340-300
Username: Tdscanuck
Posted 2007-08-08 14:55:39 and read 3846 times.

Quoting EA772LR (Reply 23):
Does CFM's tech insertion package provide thrust growth??

Nope. Same thrust ratings but higher EGT margin, improved fuel burn, and lower maintenance cost.

Tom.

Topic: RE: CFM56 Tech Insertion Pack For A340-300
Username: A342
Posted 2007-08-08 16:00:57 and read 3795 times.

Quoting Zeke (Reply 26):
CFM56-5C TSFC 0.567 engine mass of 8796 lb
RB-211 at the time would be the RB211-524G TSFC is 0.57 engine mass 9670 lb, the 524G/H-T upgrade is better with a TSFC of 0.56, but it came out many years after the CFM56-5C.

Regarding the A343, we would be talking about the smaller RB211-535E4, as EA772LR already stated.


The messages in this discussion express the views of the author of the message, not necessarily the views of Airliners.net or any entity associated with Airliners.net.

Copyright © Lundgren Aerospace. All rights reserved.
http://www.airliners.net/