ANA
Topic Author
Posts: 291
Joined: Wed Feb 04, 2004 10:05 pm

330-200 Engines

Mon Feb 09, 2004 10:50 pm

Which engine choice is best for the 332 and why?

Anders
 
gordonsmall
Posts: 2106
Joined: Sun Jul 01, 2001 1:52 am

RE: 330-200 Engines

Tue Feb 10, 2004 1:56 am

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
Posts: 14133
Joined: Fri Nov 08, 2002 10:25 am

RE: 330-200 Engines

Tue Feb 10, 2004 2:06 am

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
 
QantasA332
Posts: 1473
Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2003 5:47 pm

RE: 330-200 Engines

Tue Feb 10, 2004 7:22 am

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
 
ANA
Topic Author
Posts: 291
Joined: Wed Feb 04, 2004 10:05 pm

RE: 330-200 Engines

Tue Feb 10, 2004 7:09 pm

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
 
MYT332
Posts: 7285
Joined: Mon Sep 08, 2003 7:31 pm

RE: 330-200 Engines

Wed Feb 11, 2004 1:29 am

All UK charter carriers operate their 332's with Trent 772b's oh and how sweet they are!
One Life, Live it.
 
raggi
Posts: 880
Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2000 4:34 am

RE: 330-200 Engines

Wed Feb 11, 2004 6:34 am

"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
 
gigneil
Posts: 14133
Joined: Fri Nov 08, 2002 10:25 am

RE: 330-200 Engines

Wed Feb 11, 2004 7:42 am

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

N
 
darkblue
Posts: 227
Joined: Thu Sep 11, 2003 10:27 pm

RE: 330-200 Engines

Wed Feb 11, 2004 2:38 pm

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
 
gigneil
Posts: 14133
Joined: Fri Nov 08, 2002 10:25 am

RE: 330-200 Engines

Thu Feb 12, 2004 4:56 am

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
 
raggi
Posts: 880
Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2000 4:34 am

RE: 330-200 Engines

Thu Feb 12, 2004 6:56 am

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
 
3lions
Posts: 137
Joined: Sun Dec 14, 2003 10:40 am

RE: 330-200 Engines

Thu Feb 12, 2004 12:07 pm

Raggi.
Work for GE or do you get a percentage on how many you sell.
 
raggi
Posts: 880
Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2000 4:34 am

RE: 330-200 Engines

Thu Feb 12, 2004 12:43 pm

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
 
darkblue
Posts: 227
Joined: Thu Sep 11, 2003 10:27 pm

RE: 330-200 Engines

Fri Feb 13, 2004 12:51 am

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]
 
patlad
Posts: 32
Joined: Fri Sep 07, 2001 7:50 am

RE: 330-200 Engines

Fri Feb 13, 2004 1:07 am

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

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 22 guests

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos