Posts: 864
Joined: Sun Sep 07, 2008 6:02 pm

The GE CF-6 Engine And The A330

Fri Jul 12, 2002 5:38 am

Earlier on the Airbus A330 program RR and PW captured most of the A330's Engine market share. GE had a farely rocky start and wasn't succesful in gaining as many orders/customers as thier competitors.

I have noticed that more recently GE's market share of the new orders for the A330 has rised considerably with customers such as Qantas, Air France, Qatar Airways, TAM Brasil and Air Calin. TAM Brasil has also tried PW and RR powered A330-200's.

I was wondering what has changed with GE's offerings that had given them a larger share of new orders. Was it lower prices, modifications (i.e. new subtype) or cutomer dissatisfaction with other engine manufacturers?

Thank you in Advance for your help.

Posts: 1825
Joined: Mon Feb 12, 2001 12:12 am

RE: The GE CF-6 Engine And The A330

Fri Jul 12, 2002 6:58 am

GE has upgraded their -80E1 engine. The new subtype A3 and A4 has an upgraded core and higher thrust than the old A1 model. I believe only GE and RR offer 72-73k lb thrust engine. P&W doesn't have one. That might explain why P&W isn't getting too many new A330 orders, especially the A332.

RE: The GE CF-6 Engine And The A330

Fri Jul 12, 2002 8:28 am

Why can't Boeing put this 72,000lb thrust GE CF6-80E1 engine on their poor selling 767-400?
Posts: 262
Joined: Tue Nov 21, 2000 3:10 am

RE: The GE CF-6 Engine And The A330

Fri Jul 12, 2002 9:09 am

Dear Tedski,

You are always wondering why manufacturers don't put "heavy" engines under the wings. For starters, a heavier engine does NOT guarantee better performance - au contraire, it may reduce profitable payload and is more thirsty. The structure - MTOW, wings, landing system - must be able to handle it, one must cannot hang any engine under any wing.

In this specific case, the problem of the 767-400 is that is simply a stretched 763 (with minor aerodynamic improvements like the raked wing tips). Wing area is practically the same as the 763, AND it is a heavier bird. Thus the reduced payload-range performance. Mind you, it is the wing that lifts the bird, and its chore angle determines the most economic cruise speed.

IF Boeing were to listen to you and do what you propose, then simply the 764 would be even worse, from the economics and payload-range characteristics. Only the climb rate would improve - - your very-very favorite climb rate.

Well, if you need more info, simply drop me a line.

Your friend George.

Posts: 306
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2000 6:15 am

RE: The GE CF-6 Engine And The A330

Fri Jul 12, 2002 12:43 pm

In addition to the reasons cited by OA340, another reason for not installing increased thrust engines on twin-engined airplanes is single engine controllability. With both engines running, there is no problem. But if one of the engines fails, the airplane may not be controllable. At lower speeds, the rudder and ailerons may not be able to counteract the extra asymetrical thrust.