Tim From Australia, joined Jun 2000, 704 posts, RR: 3 Posted (13 years 2 months 1 week 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 1284 times:
Are the new A340-500/600 series engines going to be a lot more powerfull than the powerplants on the 200/300 series?
The 500/600 will be a great aircraft im sure, but if it can have a faster cruise speed than the 200/300 series that would be a bonus.
It seems to me, going by other peoples opinions on this forum that the A340-200/300 series is a very well liked aircraft, except for its engine power. If the 500/600 series comes with a more beefier powerplant, it should be very well recieved in the market.
I am yet to fly a A340-200/300 but I flew a CX A333 last year in Perth, which was an awesome aircraft.
Also, is it true that the new A340-500/600 will be the longest COMMERCIAL passenger aircraft in the world? Taking over the 773 in length?
CPDC10-30 From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2000, 4761 posts, RR: 25 Reply 2, posted (13 years 2 months 1 week 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 1212 times:
The -500 will be powered by the RR Trent 500 engines with 53,000 lbs thrust each. MTOW = 804,700 lbs.
The -600 is powered by RR Trent 500 engines with 56,000 lbs thrust each. MTOW = 804,700.
It may be surprising to some, but the MTOW is the same because the -600 is much longer but carries signifigantly less fuel than the -500. In this the case, the -600 will have better performance than the -500.
Thrust/weight ratio for -500: 0.263452218
Thrust/weight ratio for -600: 0.278364608
Thrust/weight ratio for A340-300: 0.224311397
Thrust/weight ratio for A330-300: 0.280319252
Thrust/weight ratio for 777-300ER: 0.305769742
Thrust/weight ratio for 747-400: 0.289371429
In both cases, I assumed max thrust engine available and highest MTOW model. Information is from Airbus and Boeing website.
So, yes it will have much better power than the A340-300 but still is lacking compared to Boeing products.
Boeing747-700 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 7, posted (13 years 2 months 1 week 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 1125 times:
I think the TRENT sould be fine. Rolls Royce is top notch for the job and I could not be happier with the RR symbol on the engine cowls. I love Rolls Royce and I think they sould be on all of Air Canadas Airplanes ie the 747's and IAE on the A319/320/321s too. It will be nice to see some more of AC's 340/330 with RR's.
If anything Boeing needs to place the TRENT 800 on the NG 777's with Higher Thursts.
Boeing747-700 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 9, posted (13 years 2 months 1 week 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 1087 times:
Oh yeah. It is just stupid that they did not think of that when they made the GE 90 the Only choice of power on the 777 NGs. Maybe they will come to their senses and put the Trent where it sould be as well as a PW choice.
TEDSKI From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 10, posted (13 years 2 months 1 week 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 1066 times:
This is a situation where GE paid off Boeing to have their powerplants exclusively on their aircraft. A good example is the CFM56 powered 737NGs, they should have had IAE market their V2500 as an option like on the A320 family.