Lufthansa From Christmas Island, joined May 1999, 3152 posts, RR: 10 Posted (6 years 6 months 2 weeks 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 1715 times:
I'm interested to know how the fact that PW didn't release a 72 000 lb version of the PW 4000 for the A330 affects
its performances. The reason I ask is this. I've been spending a bit of time out MSP way, and obviously NW has a big fleet of A330-300X out there. Now I've noticed some of these are used on some quite long legs. Being PW powered, they must be powered by the 68 000lb thrust engine, the PW4168A.
This is apparently the most efficient engine option on the A330. So here is my question.? Just how much does the fact that this aircraft only has a 68 k engine limit its operations? NW seems to use them on some quite long legs? Is it at typical weights of passengers plus fuel basically able to do all the same jobs as the rest? Do they need to limit cargo more often, or is the 68 000lbs of thrust more then enough to do the job for the 333x?
Any insight at all welcome...especially from the engine guys out there.
LTU932 From Germany, joined Jan 2006, 13864 posts, RR: 51 Reply 1, posted (6 years 6 months 2 weeks 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 1693 times:
PW was developping a 72,000 lb rated engine for the A330, named the PW4172. US was the launch customer for that engine, if I'm not mistaken, but IIRC there were problems during development (including one which required the engine to get a brandnew cowl designed just for it) which eventually forced Pratt to stop development of the PW4172.
LTU932 From Germany, joined Jan 2006, 13864 posts, RR: 51 Reply 5, posted (6 years 6 months 2 weeks 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 1551 times:
Quoting MCOflyer (Reply 4): According to the a/c data site we have, it list the performance w/ P&W at 4550NM for the 333 w/ P&W engines.
Don't trust the A.net aircraft data site, as it's generally out of date. According to Airbus, the stated range for an A330-300X, with full fuel, pax and their bags, is more around 5,500 nm. 4550 nm sounds more like a possible payload range for an A333, though even A330-300s that are not HGW models can do 4550 nm. NM used a former EI A330-301 on the MAD-SJO-PTY-MAD run, and the MAD-SJO leg was flown nonstop, despite still air distance being 4593 nm.
PM From India, joined Feb 2005, 6813 posts, RR: 65 Reply 10, posted (6 years 6 months 2 weeks 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 1249 times:
For a long time the PW4000 was the lead engine on the A330. It was the engine of choice. The RR Trent made a good initial showing but was still eating PW's dust (!). GE was nowhere. The CF6 wasn't popular at all. Then RR began pulling ahead of PW and GE won (or bought?) some useful orders (QR and QF being the most obvious). GE are still in third place but not far behind PW. RR are well ahead. Latterly PW have picked up Kingfisher and Grupo Marsans (= Aerolineas Argentinas among others) but most new orders are contested between RR and GE. RR appear to have gained an early (but still small) advantage on the A330F and that may be the best seller over then next five or more years.
By the time Airbus have sold 1,000 A330s (and who's to say they won't?) RR will have 40-45% of the sales and GE and PW will be fighting over the remaining 55-60%. My guess is that when the music stops it'll be something like RR 45%, GE 30% and PW 25%. In other words, a rare defeat (these days) for GE.