Gordonsmall From UK - Scotland, joined Jun 2001, 1995 posts, RR: 24 Reply 1, posted (9 years 3 months 2 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 1297 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.
Gigneil From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 16215 posts, RR: 88 Reply 2, posted (9 years 3 months 2 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 1292 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.
QantasA332 From Australia, joined Dec 2003, 1500 posts, RR: 35 Reply 3, posted (9 years 3 months 1 week 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 1243 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".
ANA From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2004, 294 posts, RR: 1 Reply 4, posted (9 years 3 months 1 week 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 1182 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.
Raggi From Norway, joined Oct 2000, 958 posts, RR: 1 Reply 6, posted (9 years 3 months 1 week 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 1120 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....
Gigneil From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 16215 posts, RR: 88 Reply 7, posted (9 years 3 months 1 week 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 1099 times:
The CF6 can't. It produces about 69k of thrust at its maximum rating.
DarkBlue From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 233 posts, RR: 11 Reply 8, posted (9 years 3 months 1 week 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 1077 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.
Raggi From Norway, joined Oct 2000, 958 posts, RR: 1 Reply 10, posted (9 years 3 months 1 week 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 1010 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.
3lions From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 143 posts, RR: 0 Reply 11, posted (9 years 3 months 1 week 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 975 times:
Raggi.
Work for GE or do you get a percentage on how many you sell.
Raggi From Norway, joined Oct 2000, 958 posts, RR: 1 Reply 12, posted (9 years 3 months 1 week 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 966 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.
DarkBlue From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 233 posts, RR: 11 Reply 13, posted (9 years 3 months 1 week 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 925 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.
Patlad From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 32 posts, RR: 0 Reply 14, posted (9 years 3 months 1 week 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 920 times:
For purely aesthetic reasons, I’d go for RR anytime!
Sponsor Message: 
From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2004, 294 posts, 
From UK - Scotland, joined Jun 2001, 1995 posts, 
From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 16215 posts, 
From Australia, joined Dec 2003, 1500 posts, 
From Norway, joined Oct 2000, 958 posts, 
Sponsor Message: 
Printer friendly format
