Sponsor Message:
Aviation Technical / Operations Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
330-200 Engines  
User currently offlineANA From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2004, 294 posts, RR: 1
Posted (10 years 2 months 2 weeks 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 1641 times:

Which engine choice is best for the 332 and why?

Anders

14 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineGordonsmall From UK - Scotland, joined Jun 2001, 2003 posts, RR: 22
Reply 1, posted (10 years 2 months 2 weeks 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 1543 times:

A question with no definite answer I'm afraid.

It's like saying "Which vehicle should I buy for the weekly shopping run?".

If you live on your own there is no point in buying a 44 ton articulated lorry, but if you run a 200 bed retirement home, the 44 ton lorry might be your best bet.

In terms of aircraft it comes down to a lot of factors such as average sector length, other engine types in the fleet, service center availability, local cost of fuel, local cost of maintenance, resulting MTOW, TBO and thousands of other factors that I won't even begin to try and understand.

All three engines available (RR, PW and GE) seem to be holding there own - all three types have gotten sizeable orders from major airlines - there isn't really a red herring among them.

Regards,
Gordon.



Statistically, people who have had the most birthdays tend to live the longest.
User currently offlineGigneil From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 16345 posts, RR: 86
Reply 2, posted (10 years 2 months 2 weeks 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 1538 times:

The RR and PW engines seem to be much more popular for the 330-300, due to the relative newness of the CF6-80E1A3. It was only recently certified for the IGW version of that frame.

N


User currently offlineQantasA332 From Australia, joined Dec 2003, 1500 posts, RR: 26
Reply 3, posted (10 years 2 months 2 weeks 3 days ago) and read 1489 times:

Seconding Gigneil on that, if you look around at A330s in service you'll see that the RR offer seems to be the most popular on both the 300s and 200s, closely followed by the PW and then GE. Again, as Gigneil said, this is probably because the RR and PW options are more established (i.e., not as new as the GE).
Having said that, you can't really say which is "best". Airlines will chose one option over another for many reasons including powerplant-commonality with the rest of their fleet for ease of maintenence, special deals with the manufacturer, or simply because one engine choice suits the routes their aircraft will be operating better than another. There is no "best".

qantasA332


User currently offlineANA From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2004, 294 posts, RR: 1
Reply 4, posted (10 years 2 months 2 weeks 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 1428 times:

I suppose my question was a bit straightforward for a complex subject but I wondered, everything else remaining equal (e.g. fleet commonality/manufacturer deal), if any trends had been noticed - perhaps one has proven to be more reliable or fuel efficient etc etc.

Anders


User currently offlineMYT332 From United Kingdom, joined Sep 2003, 9112 posts, RR: 71
Reply 5, posted (10 years 2 months 2 weeks 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 1389 times:

All UK charter carriers operate their 332's with Trent 772b's oh and how sweet they are!


One Life, Live it.
User currently offlineRaggi From Norway, joined Oct 2000, 992 posts, RR: 1
Reply 6, posted (10 years 2 months 2 weeks 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 1366 times:

"best" is hard to determine, but certainly both the Trent and the CF6 can produce 72K of thrust, whereas the PW4168 ( 68K ) is the most powerful one Pratt can offer. I know they were talking about a PW4173 at some time, but I guess it never materialized....



raggi  Smile




Stick & Rudder
User currently offlineGigneil From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 16345 posts, RR: 86
Reply 7, posted (10 years 2 months 2 weeks 2 days ago) and read 1345 times:

The CF6 can't. It produces about 69k of thrust at its maximum rating.

N


User currently offlineDarkBlue From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 233 posts, RR: 10
Reply 8, posted (10 years 2 months 2 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 1323 times:

The CF6 can't. It produces about 69k of thrust at its maximum rating.

I think that would be a bit of a surprise to operators of the CF6-80E1A3. Yes, the first two CF6-80E ratings (the E1A2 and E1A4) are only rated up to 67.5k and 69k, but the new E1A3 is rated up to 72k.

DB


User currently offlineGigneil From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 16345 posts, RR: 86
Reply 9, posted (10 years 2 months 2 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 1277 times:

Actually, the E1A2 produces 65,800, the E1A4 produces 68,100, and the E1A3 produces 69,800.


I would imagine it to be a shock as well, but anyway.


Read more:
http://www.geae.com/engines/commercial/comparison_turbofan.html

N


User currently offlineRaggi From Norway, joined Oct 2000, 992 posts, RR: 1
Reply 10, posted (10 years 2 months 2 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 1256 times:

from GEAE.com

Engine Overview



The CF6-80E1 is the solution for many airlines daily operational dilemmas. How to move more people, farther, cheaper, and with confidence in the reliability of the product.

By designing the CF6-80E1 specifically for the Airbus A330, GE was able to bring together the newest technology to provide the market with an engine with the lowest weight, lowest fuel burn, proven stall free operation, and by far most reliable to enable operators to maximize the potential of the A330.

By incorporating new technology like a 3-D aerodynamic compressor, R88DT high pressure turbine, improved EGT margin, greater time on wing, and reducing the cost of ownership. Rated at 72,000 lb of thrust, the CF6-80E1A3 is the highest thrust CF6 engine offered to date.

The CF6-80E1 allows airlines flying the A330-200/-300 to accommodate 4 to 14 more passengers.

The CF6-80E1 gives customers greater range, improved fuel burn and proven stall-free reliability.


http://www.geae.com/engines/commercial/cf6/cf6-80e1.html


raggi






Stick & Rudder
User currently offline3lions From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 143 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (10 years 2 months 2 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 1221 times:

Raggi.
Work for GE or do you get a percentage on how many you sell.


User currently offlineRaggi From Norway, joined Oct 2000, 992 posts, RR: 1
Reply 12, posted (10 years 2 months 2 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 1212 times:

well, I do sell cf6s on the black market...

no, sir, I was just trying to prove my point, and if Gigneil would read the press release from geae.com, he would see that the E1A3 does indeed deliver 72K of ooomph.


raggi



Stick & Rudder
User currently offlineDarkBlue From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 233 posts, RR: 10
Reply 13, posted (10 years 2 months 2 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 1171 times:

Okay, okay, after thinking about it some I'll admit I was wrong, but I'll try to clear some things up.

First of all, engines can vary in quality from one to the next. Anytime you see a thrust listed, this is usually the minimum acceptable thrust level that the engine will produce at maximum power. This means that this value is only a minimum limit, therefore all engines of the same model will produce thrust somewhere above this limit.

Engine makers define several different categories of thrust. The thrusts listed on the GE site posted by Gigneil are ideal thrusts. Ideal thrust is the hypothetical thrust that engine will produce without including losses of the inlet and exhaust systems. This allows it to be presented independent of different aircraft installations. So even these thrusts are a bit higher than what the engine actually will do.

When you see a thrust rating (like 72K for the E1A3), this value refers to a scaled reference thrust of the engine moving at 0.25 Mach. As Mach number increases, thrust decreases. So if you take the thrust of the engine at 0.25 Mach, and then scale this thrust up by some defined value (usually set by either Boeing or Airbus), this gives you the thrust rating.

Why use the thrust at 0.25 Mach to determine static thrust? The reason is that the thrust at 0.25 Mach is significantly more important than the thrust at 0 Mach. Who cares about how much thrust the engine produces when the aircraft isn't moving? The important thrust value is the thrust available during takeoff roll.

So will an E1A3 reach 72K at 0 Mach? Maybe, maybe not. Honestly, it's not really as important as the thrust at 0.25 Mach. But if you want the thrust at 0 Mach, then the numbers listed by Gigneil are probably more accurate ones to use for comparisons.

Have I got everyone totally confused?
DB

[Edited 2004-02-12 16:51:47]

User currently offlinePatlad From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 32 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (10 years 2 months 2 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 1166 times:

For purely aesthetic reasons, I’d go for RR anytime!


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Mark McWhirter
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Roberto Benetti



Patlad


Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic 330-200 Engines
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...
Yellow Streaks On 737-200 Engines In-flight..... posted Wed Jan 19 2005 18:42:41 by UK_Dispatcher
AAL B767-200's Engines? posted Wed Sep 19 2001 22:22:01 by JetBlue-320
737-200 Engines. posted Tue Aug 14 2001 06:41:42 by Jared
737-200 Engines: Are They... posted Fri Feb 16 2001 00:00:28 by Redngold
What Engines Do The DL 757-200's Use? posted Sat Aug 5 2006 08:27:20 by Usair320
Any 767-200 With RR Engines? posted Wed Nov 23 2005 23:07:58 by Socal
777-200,300ER Vs 747-400 Engines posted Sun May 6 2001 21:45:57 by Frequentflyer5
Fedex 727-2 W/JT8D-200 Series Engines posted Tue May 23 2000 04:45:32 by Beechbarron
CRJ-200 NWS Problem posted Sun Apr 8 2007 01:55:24 by UAL Bagsmasher
Shorts Skyvan/330/360 Question posted Tue Apr 3 2007 04:37:18 by 757MDE

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format