Sponsor Message:
Aviation Technical / Operations Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Airbus 340 & 380 Engines  
User currently offlineOA269 From Greece, joined Nov 1999, 140 posts, RR: 0
Posted (12 years 9 months 1 week 14 hours ago) and read 3073 times:

I remember many of the first owners of the 340 series (-200 & -300) had problems with the engines.As far as I know Airbus used to use the CFM which is supposed to be the cheap-lower quality engines.I made this post acctually to ask about your opinion.I was motivated by some few incidents with the A343 of Olympic Airways ( Big thumbs up) where despite of the excellent technical department I can't understand why they had problems at the beginning (if I'm not wrong two engines run out of use and needed to be replaced).Now at the -600 series Airbus makes use of RR also known to have problems.My concern is also about the forecoming 380 where they will use RR too.What do you think ?

6 replies: All unread, jump to last
User currently offlineMD-11 forever From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (12 years 9 months 1 week 13 hours ago) and read 3050 times:


Those "cheap, lower quality engines" are the widest spread in the industry those days (maybe the JT-8 is about the same) and Boeing uses them as well on the 737NG. I don't know why OA had to "replace" (scrap?) two engines. There are a couple of problems on the CFM56 when it comes to bearing failures, but there are fixes available that are supposed to improve this weakness. Nevertheless, may I remind you that PW also has it's share of troubles on the 4000 with the high pressure compressor surge issues that led the FAA to issue an AD to have them modified (on the CFM56 is no comparable major AD around).

Concerning RR engines, I really don't see how you see them to have many problems. The Trent500 as used on the A340NG has no serious problems yet since it entered service. As far as I heard from RR, the Trent900 to be used on the A380 is on track in its development schedule and no major problems are known.

You say your post was motivated by a few incidents at OA. How "few"? Just be aware, that if the authorities see a serious problem with an engine (accumulation of inflight shutdowns, airturnbacks and so on) they immediately require the manufacturer to act and fix the problem. If the manufacturer doesn't comply, the type certificate will be ceased which means a grounding of all planes powered by this type of engine.

So, I really don't think that there is or was any large operational problem on the CFM56 which is by no means a "cheap low quality engine". By the way, the core engine is manufactured by GE and identical with the military version which is used on the F-16 fighter.......

Cheers, Thomas

User currently offlineManzoori From UK - England, joined Sep 2002, 1516 posts, RR: 26
Reply 2, posted (12 years 9 months 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 2965 times:


The size of the engine doesn't have anything to do with the quality of the engine. Even as an RR engineer I'd be the first to say that the CFM-56 is a fine little engine. As Thomas points out, it is one of the most widely used aero engines on the market today, appearing on all 737's after the -200 series, DC-8s, military 707s (KC-135s), A320 series aircraft, A340-200 and -300 to name but a few.

All engines have problems of one description or another. Fact. There never has and never will be an engine design that works perfectly from day one and never has a problem.

The only real issue I'm aware of with the CFM-56 on the early A-340s is a perceived lack of power compared to say a 747. Put it this way, if the aircraft didn't have enough power to fly safely then the certification authorities would never have let it get off the ground.

The decision to go with our Trent 500s for the A340-500/600 series is simply a need for more power. These aircraft have considerably higher gross weights and need the extra oomph to get off the ground. The fact that they also happen to make the aircraft look a damned sight more in proportion is just an additional side benefit!  Wink/being sarcastic


 Big thumbs up

Flightlineimages DOT Com Photographer & Web Editor. RR Turbines Specialist
User currently offlineOA269 From Greece, joined Nov 1999, 140 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (12 years 9 months 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 2934 times:

Thomas in case you read my post just once and maybe you took it personally, I remind you that I made this post to ask for opinion.Opinion from someone who knows about why the first A340 with CFM56 engines were known for some specific problem.I'm not an angineer but I do know they are widely used and also when it comes to safety and authority procedures, some things that were not part of my post.In this way I found Rez lines about lack of power what I was looking for (maybe).

Rez maybe it has to do with that,but in which way? I remember reading some airliners, including OA, had problem (not serious, just a bit often) with the early 340 CFM56 engine causing it to turn off.About Trent on new Airbus a/cs I just say ok since you support it  Wink/being sarcastic

User currently offlineMD-11 forever From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (12 years 9 months 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 2917 times:


I didn't take it personal, just wanted to defend my "baby" (I'm an engineer and technically resposible for the CFM56 in our shop)...  Smile I don't think those IFSD's were connected in any way to the performance of the CFM56. They have some bearing issues which were especially in the beginning of the operation a problem that caused some IFSD and ATB's. CFM is working on it and it is now on track to be sorted out completely.

You are right, the Trent's for the new Airbus are fine engines, not just because Rez is supporting them Big grin

By the way Rez, I added you on my respected user list. Good to see some RR engineer here, had the opportunity to visit Derby a few times while working on a, unfortunately ill fated, joint venture project..... I miss those Pub-crawls.....  Smile

Cheers, Thomas

User currently offlineManzoori From UK - England, joined Sep 2002, 1516 posts, RR: 26
Reply 5, posted (12 years 9 months 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 2774 times:

Hehehe! Likewise Thomas!  Big thumbs up

What was the JV you were working on?



Flightlineimages DOT Com Photographer & Web Editor. RR Turbines Specialist
User currently offlineMD-11 forever From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (12 years 9 months 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 2726 times:

Hi Rez

I was working at the SRT side in the TEMRO JV project. Sad that it went down the river due to the Swissair bankrupcy, would have loved to handle the Trents as I still think the RR concept is the best!  Big grin Unfortunately, after we disassembled all modules and started the inspection, all was cancelled and the engine was shipped in several "boxes" back to Derby. I really wonder whether your guys could build it up again!!  Smile

Anyway, now I ended up in the CFM56 overhaul engineering group, handling the shopvisits technically and as a hardware owner for the combustor, turbine and accessories.....

Cheers, Thomas

Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic Airbus 340 & 380 Engines
No username? Sign up now!

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!
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

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

Similar topics:More similar topics...
B 777 Engines Vs. A 380 Engines posted Fri Jun 17 2005 00:04:05 by Bongo
Pilots: 340 --> 380? 747 --> 7E7 (777)? posted Sat May 15 2004 12:10:50 by Mrniji
Aircraft & Their Engines Details. posted Wed Aug 15 2001 09:41:16 by HAWK21M
Airbus 340 posted Wed Jul 11 2001 05:18:54 by Andrej
Airbus 320 & Wiring Diagrams (long) posted Fri May 25 2001 11:49:19 by T prop
Composites, Vibration & Aft-mounted Engines posted Sat Aug 12 2006 04:34:49 by PPVRA
Clouds & Engines posted Tue Jun 27 2006 17:16:18 by IFEMaster
Airbus A330/340 Wingbox Vs. Other Widebodies posted Fri May 12 2006 20:13:04 by PolymerPlane
Airbus Engines posted Tue Apr 18 2006 21:44:44 by Sfomb67
Technical Question On A340 Engines & Flight posted Fri Jan 13 2006 21:46:52 by Fergulmcc

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format