Sponsor Message:
Aviation Technical / Operations Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
CF6-80E1 Problem  
User currently offlineTrex8 From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 4493 posts, RR: 14
Posted (5 years 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 7805 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

from Wiki

"The CF6-80E1A3 was a stretch too far for the family with severe deterioration in service resulting in a rating (CF6-80E1A4B) that allows temporary use of 72,000lb when temperature margins allow. An upgrade to the CF6 is planned to try and address this shortcoming".

is this true, is that why QR and the USAF went for the A4B and not the A3?
AF must have the most A3s in service, anyone know what issues they are having?

10 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineLightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12414 posts, RR: 100
Reply 1, posted (5 years 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 7650 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

GE is going to upgrade teh CF6-80E1 for the tanker (if Northrop wins). In part, this is to ensure a better hot/high performance for the A330F. Right now, GE does not offer an engine for the A330F as their hot/high performance is insufficient to entice customers. (Freighters *need* MTOW performance practically every other flight...)

My rumor mill points to:
1. A fan upgrade
2. Compressor upgrades (details vague)
3. Turbine cooling (coating?) tweaks

This will provide enough of an efficiency improvement to be competitive with the T700.

Lightsaber



I've posted how many times?!?
User currently offlineTrex8 From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 4493 posts, RR: 14
Reply 2, posted (5 years 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 7605 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

,thanks! do you know if the A3s problem was simply the higher EGT causing more wear?

User currently offlineTrex8 From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 4493 posts, RR: 14
Reply 3, posted (5 years 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 7478 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

now I'm confused, does that mean there are no 70K TO thrust GE -80E1 engines at all?

http://www.easa.europa.eu/ws_prod/c/...ro/Engines/TCDS_CF6_80E1_E_007.pdf

http://rgl.faa.gov/regulatory_and_gu...6c86257520005cb686/$FILE/E36NE.pdf

http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Gu...9286257495006282e5/$FILE/E39NE.pdf


User currently offlineAstuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 9834 posts, RR: 96
Reply 4, posted (4 years 10 months 2 weeks 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 6698 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting Lightsaber (Reply 1):
This will provide enough of an efficiency improvement to be competitive with the T700.

Meanwhile, RR keep quietly moving the T700 further out of range......  Wink

Rgds


User currently offlineLightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12414 posts, RR: 100
Reply 5, posted (4 years 10 months 2 weeks 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 6593 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting Trex8 (Reply 3):
now I'm confused, does that mean there are no 70K TO thrust GE -80E1 engines at all?

 no  It means that the hot/high performance on the GE powered A330's is poor. Once the compressor on the CF6 starts to wear, it is *not* competitive with the current in fleet PW4170A nor T700. Anyone buying a 233 tonne MTOW A332 and GE's needs their head examined (for the current engine).

Quoting Astuteman (Reply 4):
Meanwhile, RR keep quietly moving the T700 further out of range......

My rumor mill has the CF6 doing quite the leap to catch up. Oh... I'm impressed with the T700. It is the engine to beat on the A330. However, with a *major* fan and compressor upgrade, the CF6 can be made equally competitive. But I read into your post an implication that RR will improve the engine again (I think they will if the Mobile line is started up.) The T700 with an IBR compressor.  cloudnine 

And the PW4170A limps along.  cry  Due to the LPC surge (specifically, the temperature of the air out the surge vents is at the nacelle limits), this engine would *really* benefit from an IBR low pressure compressor. But I am hearing zero on that front.  Sad Its also due for a fan revision. The only hope is that UA would be the launch customer for such an order.  pray  Note: UA selecting the A330 does not mean that Pratt will invest the money for certain. Its the *only* scenario I can come up with where Pratt *might* invest the money in another upgrade on the 100" PW4000.

I'm very confused on the tanker engine selections. The best engine on the 767 is the GE... Pratt won with the PW4000. For the A330, the CF6 is the weakest engine, but it was selected if the Northrop tanker wins... sigh...

Lightsaber



I've posted how many times?!?
User currently offlineEA772LR From United States of America, joined Mar 2007, 2836 posts, RR: 10
Reply 6, posted (4 years 10 months 2 weeks 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 6558 times:



Quoting Lightsaber (Reply 5):
And the PW4170A limps along.

Lightsaber, it is beyond me that Pratt never went forward with replacing the LPC, so that the PW4173 could have become a reality. Pratt would have owned the A330. PW has a fan large enough to support what, 75K or more out of that engine, why didn't they move to muscle it up more than the 68,600K or the new 70K??  Angry

Quoting Astuteman (Reply 4):
Meanwhile, RR keep quietly moving the T700 further out of range.

Hats off to RR. The T700 is one bada$$ engine! And more impressively, it's continuously getting better!  Wow!



We often judge others by their actions, but ourselves by our intentions.
User currently offlineTrex8 From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 4493 posts, RR: 14
Reply 7, posted (4 years 10 months 1 week 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 6165 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting Lightsaber (Reply 5):
I'm very confused on the tanker engine selections. The best engine on the 767 is the GE... Pratt won with the PW4000. For the A330, the CF6 is the weakest engine, but it was selected if the Northrop tanker wins... sigh...

more to do with increasing "American" content ?

Quoting Lightsaber (Reply 5):
Anyone buying a 233 tonne MTOW A332 and GE's needs their head examined (for the current engine).

I was always worried about AF


User currently offlinePellegrine From United States of America, joined Mar 2007, 2216 posts, RR: 8
Reply 8, posted (4 years 10 months 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 5949 times:



Quoting Lightsaber (Reply 5):
The best engine on the 767 is the GE... Pratt won with the PW4000.

Lightsaber, I was always under the impression that the PW4000 and GE CF6-80C2 were fairly comparable engines on the 767. Why do you say the GE is better than Pratt?



oh boy!!!
User currently offline747classic From Netherlands, joined Aug 2009, 2009 posts, RR: 14
Reply 9, posted (4 years 8 months 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 5096 times:

Why not take the GE GEnx-2B (developed for the 748 , with bleed extraction ) to power the A330 for the tanker competition, i.s.o. upgrading the GE CF6-80E engine.


Operating a twin over the ocean, you're always one engine failure from a total emergency.
User currently offlineTdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80
Reply 10, posted (4 years 8 months 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 4976 times:



Quoting 747classic (Reply 9):
Why not take the GE GEnx-2B (developed for the 748 , with bleed extraction ) to power the A330 for the tanker competition

Re-engining is not typically a trivial task. Although certainly possible, it would add to the cost and risk of the project, neither of which Airbus wants to do because they're already at a perceived risk disadvantage due to relatively less experience with tankers.

Also, although the USAF cares about economy, they don't care all that much (they're still flying KC-135's for this mission, after all).

Tom.


Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic CF6-80E1 Problem
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...
Major Safety Problem Uncovered W/recent Ditching? posted Sat Feb 7 2009 14:26:51 by Tugger
Airport Security Screening Problem posted Thu Nov 20 2008 07:00:15 by Docpepz
Strange DC-9 Problem (NW 1749 10/26) posted Sun Oct 26 2008 15:57:05 by Cubsrule
CF6-80 Also For Lockheed? posted Wed Sep 10 2008 15:01:44 by B777Neuss
PT6-42 Oil Flux Problem posted Fri Jul 18 2008 08:38:24 by Dragon6172
Was There A Problem At MCO Last Night? posted Sun Apr 6 2008 01:04:26 by Readytotaxi
CF6-6 Engine On DC-10... Why The Weird Cone? posted Tue Mar 4 2008 08:11:31 by BR715-A1-30
DL Flight 1823 Maintenance Problem posted Mon Dec 31 2007 08:06:50 by Liedetectors
Has There Ever Been A Problem With Gear Panels? posted Sat Nov 17 2007 23:28:47 by CoolGuy
RE: Problem With Experience posted Fri Jul 27 2007 14:49:44 by Deblez

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format