Sponsor Message:
Aviation Technical / Operations Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
PW6000 - Failure?  
User currently offlineAmy From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2005, 1150 posts, RR: 7
Posted (9 years 3 months 2 weeks 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 10387 times:

The Pratt & Whitney 6000 series engine seems to be a lot of money invested for little rewards. None of the 3 current A318 carriers have chosen the engine for their aircraft.

Does the PW6000 engine have any other applications, or has PW simply wasted a whole load of money?


A340-300 - slow, but awesome!
19 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineFreedomtofly From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 750 posts, RR: 6
Reply 1, posted (9 years 3 months 2 weeks 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 10252 times:

You're absolutely right Amy. F9 and AF use CFM56 engines on their 318's. If this new PW6000 engine was supposed to be so great, why don't any of the airlines use it!?

~Aaron



You are now free to move about the world.
User currently offlineDeltaMD11 From United States of America, joined Dec 2002, 1701 posts, RR: 35
Reply 2, posted (9 years 3 months 2 weeks 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 10206 times:

Well the PW6000 has had a little (well a lot) of teething problems as a new engine and has really only in the past few months been installed on a test A318 and used for trial runs. I do believe that there is still some interest out there on them, but the aforementioned teething problems have put a serious hurt on the program as a whole.


Too often we ... enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought. - John Fitzgerald Kennedy
User currently offlineGigneil From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 16347 posts, RR: 85
Reply 3, posted (9 years 3 months 2 weeks 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 10198 times:

The PW6000A is now available and worked out, and is a lot lighter and more advanced than the CFM56, but I fear it to be too late.

N


User currently offlinePM From Germany, joined Feb 2005, 6868 posts, RR: 63
Reply 4, posted (9 years 3 months 2 weeks 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 10024 times:

Initially, they were running away with the A318 orders and CFM had to fight hard (with a bit of arm-twisting from Air France and, I daresay, forces within the French government) even to get on a plane that could easily have been offered with only one type of engine. Back then PW seemed to be sitting pretty.

Then the engine underperformed horribly, CFM came on board, customers switched, others dropped out and ... (why isn't there an smiley for 'Egg on Face'?!) The fact that the A318 has been a miserable seller hasn't helped at all.

Sadly, it just seems indicative of PW's dramatic collapse in the civil aviation market. It doesn't seem that long ago that they appeared to have the 777 all wrapped up, leaving GE and RR to pick up the crumbs. How times change.


User currently offlineHorus From Egypt, joined Feb 2004, 5230 posts, RR: 60
Reply 5, posted (9 years 3 months 2 weeks 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 10017 times:

Both MS and BA ordered the P&W A318 but later converted the order to other A320 family aircraft when the P&W engine problem came to light.

Horus



EGYPT: A 7,000 Year Old Civilisation
User currently offlineLMP737 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (9 years 3 months 2 weeks 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 9830 times:

You can also chock up the PW6000 lack of orders due to the lack of orders for the A318 itself. It's not like airlines are beating down Airbuses door to get them.

User currently offlinePrebennorholm From Denmark, joined Mar 2000, 6385 posts, RR: 54
Reply 7, posted (9 years 3 months 2 weeks 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 9826 times:

That's right, quite some 318 orders were changed to 319 with CFM or IAE engines since the P&W 6000 was not available.

Probably several more would be 318 orders were initially placed as 319 orders for the same reason.

The baby Airbus really doesn't make much sense when it cannot take advantage of the lighter P&W engine.



Always keep your number of landings equal to your number of take-offs, Preben Norholm
User currently offlinePhatfarmlines From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 1345 posts, RR: 1
Reply 8, posted (9 years 3 months 2 weeks 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 9752 times:

Is there a benefit for an airline who currently operates an A319/A320/A321 with IAE engines also operate an A318 with the PW6000?

User currently offlineHAWK21M From India, joined Jan 2001, 31667 posts, RR: 56
Reply 9, posted (9 years 3 months 2 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 9727 times:

Quoting Horus (Reply 5):
P&W engine problem came to light

Wasn't the problem related to Turbine Blade defect.
regds
MEL



Think of the brighter side!
User currently offlineAmtrosie From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 274 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (9 years 3 months 2 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 9708 times:

To add to Pratt's problems, an AD came out the other day on the 6000/A 318. In which the 318 airframe has some issues with "sudden stoppage" only with the 6000 powerplant, not with the CFM.

User currently offlinePrebennorholm From Denmark, joined Mar 2000, 6385 posts, RR: 54
Reply 11, posted (9 years 3 months 2 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 9637 times:

Quoting Phatfarmlines (Reply 8):
Is there a benefit for an airline who currently operates an A319/A320/A321 with IAE engines also operate an A318 with the PW6000?

The PW6000 is a smaller, lighter (probably cheaper) engine made to fit the 318.

CFM56 and IAE V2500 engines are really too big. Even if they are electronically derated to fit the 318, then they are still equally heavy. And that extra weight is a disadvantage.

On the other hand fleetwide engine commonality is a maintenance advantage. It's the job of the airline bean counters to evaluate pros and cons.

If we look at the 320 family and CFM56-5Bx engines, then we could say that there are 3 different engine needs and only two major engine versions available.

The 321 is the larger one which relies on a larger and 800 lbs heavier engine at 30-33k lbs thrust.

The 319 and 320 is basically the same plane, the 319 trading fuselage length and payload capability in for greater range. They both rely on the small engine version with mostly 24-27k lbs thrust versions.

The 318 is the third class of the 320 family. It's a smaller and much lighter short range plane. No CFM56 version has really been tailored for it. It relies on 21-23k lbs derated versions of the "small" CFM56. But mechanically it is still the same engine as on the heavier 319 and 320 planes, and therefore really too big and heavy.

It is very much the same situation with IAE engines where we have only two major versions, the V2525 and V2530, both with a number of subtypes with slightly varying thrust capability to fit operators needs for hot and high etc.



Always keep your number of landings equal to your number of take-offs, Preben Norholm
User currently offlineTroubleshooter From Germany, joined Feb 2005, 423 posts, RR: 5
Reply 12, posted (9 years 3 months 2 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 9589 times:

Quoting HAWK21M (Reply 9):
Wasn't the problem related to Turbine Blade defect.

As far as I remember, they had big problems with the high pressure compressor. The engine was not able to deliver the expected power. To answer this problems, PW bought a completely new designed HP compressor developed by MTU.



This job sucks!!! I love this job!!!
User currently offlineHAWK21M From India, joined Jan 2001, 31667 posts, RR: 56
Reply 13, posted (9 years 3 months 2 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 9563 times:

Quoting Troubleshooter (Reply 12):
Quoting HAWK21M (Reply 9):
Wasn't the problem related to Turbine Blade defect.

As far as I remember, they had big problems with the high pressure compressor. The engine was not able to deliver the expected power. To answer this problems, PW bought a completely new designed HP compressor developed by MTU

Wasn't there a Turbine blade defect noticed during tests which pushed back the program.
regds
MEL



Think of the brighter side!
User currently offlineAirbusCanada From Canada, joined Nov 2004, 324 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (9 years 3 months 2 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 9477 times:

what about PW teams up with BBD for the New C serices?
seems both companies are desperate.


User currently offlineLightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12890 posts, RR: 100
Reply 15, posted (9 years 2 months 4 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 9180 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Amy (Thread starter):

Does the PW6000 engine have any other applications, or has PW simply wasted a whole load of money?

Probably wasted money.  cry 

Quoting Freedomtofly (Reply 1):
why don't any of the airlines use it!?

The initial 7% miss in fuel burn. Otherwise, the engine has great mx, durability, decent weight, etc.

Quoting PM (Reply 4):
Sadly, it just seems indicative of PW's dramatic collapse in the civil aviation market. It doesn't seem that long ago that they appeared to have the 777 all wrapped up, leaving GE and RR to pick up the crumbs. How times change.

 cry  so true. so true. If the pw4098 hadn't missed fuel burn too (by 2% vs. the pw4090, 4% vs. target), Pratt would have "sewn up" the 777. But a 2% miss killed the economics of the 773 vs. the RR or GE frames.

Quoting HAWK21M (Reply 9):
Wasn't the problem related to Turbine Blade defect.

Nope. The problem was the 5-stage high pressure compressor missing efficiency targets by a mile. The engineers knew it! (While I worked at Pratt on combustors, the compressor guys were crying into their cokes at lunch. Management's response? What part of 5 stages do you not understand!) Grrr... Pratt could have delayed the initial launch with a 6 stage high compressor... but no... By the time engineering was "turned on" for a new design, MTU stepped in with a better economics (for Pratt) compressor. Troubleshooter has the right answer. I was at Pratt during this debacle.

Quoting Prebennorholm (Reply 11):

The PW6000 is a smaller, lighter (probably cheaper) engine made to fit the 318.

Nice post! Your first point sums it up, the pw6000 makes the A318 more competitive with a lighter, lower cost engine.

Quoting AirbusCanada (Reply 14):
what about PW teams up with BBD for the New C serices?
seems both companies are desperate.

Exactly true. BBD really liked the pw6000 presentation they were given. However, after the A318 fuel burn miss, they're a little scared of a Pratt engine.  Sad However, I've seen the cross section of the BBD pw6000... sweet! (circa 2001). Pratt's only real hope is to get out the pw800 (cheap geared turbofan) soon! Note I didn't write pw8000... (one day)

Lightsaber



Societies that achieve a critical mass of ideas achieve self sustaining growth; others stagnate.
User currently offlineSulman From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 2035 posts, RR: 32
Reply 16, posted (9 years 2 months 4 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 9159 times:

One of the greatest, most innovative gas turbine manufacturers in the world. Certainly they're on a low ebb at the moment, but I do hope they bounce back.

There always seems to be a bit of passion at P&W, I'm sure they'll come back soon enough.



It takes a big man to admit they are wrong, and I am not a big man.
User currently offlineMandala499 From Indonesia, joined Aug 2001, 6765 posts, RR: 76
Reply 17, posted (9 years 2 months 4 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 9130 times:

PW and Airbus eh? With IAE being part PW...
Remember the IAE V2500 superfan idea for the A343?
And now PW6000 for the A318...  Sad

Oh well...

Mandala499



When losing situational awareness, pray Cumulus Granitus isn't nearby !
User currently offlineLumberton From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 4708 posts, RR: 20
Reply 18, posted (8 years 11 months 1 week 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 8643 times:

Pardon me for resurrecting this ancient thread, but with the selection of the PW6000 by LAN to power their A318's it seems that P&W is still very much alive in the commercial engine segment. I surmise that all the problems have been worked out and the engine is performing to specs or better. Any insiders care to comment? Airbus, LAN and P&W have a H-U-G-E stake in this engine succeeding.

Now that the engine has been "launched", could it now be a serious contender for the C-Series?

Quoting Sulman (Reply 16):
There always seems to be a bit of passion at P&W, I'm sure they'll come back soon enough.

Looks like you called it correctly!

Regards.



"When all is said and done, more will be said than done".
User currently offlineGaut From Belgium, joined Dec 2001, 344 posts, RR: 2
Reply 19, posted (8 years 11 months 1 week 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 8598 times:

Quoting Prebennorholm (Reply 11):
If we look at the 320 family and CFM56-5Bx engines, then we could say that there are 3 different engine needs and only two major engine versions available.

The 321 is the larger one which relies on a larger and 800 lbs heavier engine at 30-33k lbs thrust.

Hello Prebennorholm,

Actually, all CFM56-5B, from 5B1 to B9, are exactly the same engines. When SNECMA assemble a 5B, they usually don't know the engine version of this specific engine.

So basically, under certain conditions, an airline could take a 5B3 from an A321 and mount it under the wing of an A318 as a 5B9 "simply" by changing the rating plug on the FADEC.

IMO for an airline operating other A32X beside the A318, this is a big advantage over the PW's engine.

Gaut



«Horum omnium fortissimi sunt Belgae.»
Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic PW6000 - Failure?
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • Tech/Ops related posts only!
  • Not Tech/Ops related? Use the other forums
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
  • DETAILED RULES
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)


Similar topics:More similar topics...
737 Dual Hydraulic Failure - Frequency? posted Sat Nov 18 2006 22:54:22 by ZANL188
MAS 777 Trent Engine Failure On Takeoff posted Mon Nov 6 2006 17:30:22 by Corsair2
Etihad Loses Etops Due GE90 HPT Failure posted Mon Oct 23 2006 00:38:03 by Ejazz
Trent Fan Blade Failure. posted Sun Oct 22 2006 05:33:39 by BOE773
Landing Gear Failure posted Sun Sep 10 2006 16:12:48 by A320ajm
Engine Failure On Twin Just Before Touchdown - GA? posted Mon Jun 26 2006 21:57:14 by JulianUK
Brake Failure On One Side - Know Before? posted Mon Jun 26 2006 21:24:59 by Julianuk
In The Cruise Engine Failure Twin Question posted Mon May 22 2006 00:24:08 by JulianUK
ADF Failure Hypothetical Situation posted Sun May 21 2006 15:38:21 by FlyMeARiver
Radio Failure Hypothetical Situation posted Mon May 8 2006 21:00:48 by FlyMeARiver

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format