Amy
Topic Author
Posts: 1109
Joined: Thu Feb 10, 2005 9:48 am

PW6000 - Failure?

Tue Apr 12, 2005 2:41 am

The Pratt & Whitney 6000 series engine seems to be a lot of money invested for little rewards. None of the 3 current A318 carriers have chosen the engine for their aircraft.

Does the PW6000 engine have any other applications, or has PW simply wasted a whole load of money?
A340-300 - slow, but awesome!
 
freedomtofly
Posts: 714
Joined: Tue Apr 05, 2005 8:07 am

RE: PW6000 - Failure?

Tue Apr 12, 2005 9:27 am

You're absolutely right Amy. F9 and AF use CFM56 engines on their 318's. If this new PW6000 engine was supposed to be so great, why don't any of the airlines use it!?

~Aaron
You are now free to move about the world.
 
DeltaMD11
Posts: 1678
Joined: Sat Dec 07, 2002 4:56 am

RE: PW6000 - Failure?

Tue Apr 12, 2005 10:00 am

Well the PW6000 has had a little (well a lot) of teething problems as a new engine and has really only in the past few months been installed on a test A318 and used for trial runs. I do believe that there is still some interest out there on them, but the aforementioned teething problems have put a serious hurt on the program as a whole.
Too often we ... enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought. - John Fitzgerald Kennedy
 
gigneil
Posts: 14133
Joined: Fri Nov 08, 2002 10:25 am

RE: PW6000 - Failure?

Tue Apr 12, 2005 10:03 am

The PW6000A is now available and worked out, and is a lot lighter and more advanced than the CFM56, but I fear it to be too late.

N
 
User avatar
PM
Posts: 4837
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 5:05 pm

RE: PW6000 - Failure?

Tue Apr 12, 2005 10:11 pm

Initially, they were running away with the A318 orders and CFM had to fight hard (with a bit of arm-twisting from Air France and, I daresay, forces within the French government) even to get on a plane that could easily have been offered with only one type of engine. Back then PW seemed to be sitting pretty.

Then the engine underperformed horribly, CFM came on board, customers switched, others dropped out and ... (why isn't there an smiley for 'Egg on Face'?!) The fact that the A318 has been a miserable seller hasn't helped at all.

Sadly, it just seems indicative of PW's dramatic collapse in the civil aviation market. It doesn't seem that long ago that they appeared to have the 777 all wrapped up, leaving GE and RR to pick up the crumbs. How times change.
 
Horus
Posts: 5131
Joined: Sun Feb 22, 2004 1:04 am

RE: PW6000 - Failure?

Tue Apr 12, 2005 10:13 pm

Both MS and BA ordered the P&W A318 but later converted the order to other A320 family aircraft when the P&W engine problem came to light.

Horus
EGYPT: A 7,000 Year Old Civilisation
 
LMP737
Posts: 4858
Joined: Wed May 08, 2002 4:06 pm

RE: PW6000 - Failure?

Wed Apr 13, 2005 8:22 am

You can also chock up the PW6000 lack of orders due to the lack of orders for the A318 itself. It's not like airlines are beating down Airbuses door to get them.
Never take financial advice from co-workers.
 
prebennorholm
Posts: 6430
Joined: Tue Mar 21, 2000 6:25 am

RE: PW6000 - Failure?

Wed Apr 13, 2005 8:27 am

That's right, quite some 318 orders were changed to 319 with CFM or IAE engines since the P&W 6000 was not available.

Probably several more would be 318 orders were initially placed as 319 orders for the same reason.

The baby Airbus really doesn't make much sense when it cannot take advantage of the lighter P&W engine.
Always keep your number of landings equal to your number of take-offs
 
phatfarmlines
Posts: 1238
Joined: Thu Sep 27, 2001 12:06 pm

RE: PW6000 - Failure?

Wed Apr 13, 2005 1:32 pm

Is there a benefit for an airline who currently operates an A319/A320/A321 with IAE engines also operate an A318 with the PW6000?
 
User avatar
HAWK21M
Posts: 29867
Joined: Fri Jan 05, 2001 10:05 pm

RE: PW6000 - Failure?

Wed Apr 13, 2005 5:30 pm

Quoting Horus (Reply 5):
P&W engine problem came to light

Wasn't the problem related to Turbine Blade defect.
regds
MEL
I may not win often, but I damn well never lose!!! ;)
 
amtrosie
Posts: 273
Joined: Thu Jan 06, 2005 6:44 am

RE: PW6000 - Failure?

Wed Apr 13, 2005 11:12 pm

To add to Pratt's problems, an AD came out the other day on the 6000/A 318. In which the 318 airframe has some issues with "sudden stoppage" only with the 6000 powerplant, not with the CFM.
 
prebennorholm
Posts: 6430
Joined: Tue Mar 21, 2000 6:25 am

RE: PW6000 - Failure?

Thu Apr 14, 2005 8:37 am

Quoting Phatfarmlines (Reply 8):
Is there a benefit for an airline who currently operates an A319/A320/A321 with IAE engines also operate an A318 with the PW6000?

The PW6000 is a smaller, lighter (probably cheaper) engine made to fit the 318.

CFM56 and IAE V2500 engines are really too big. Even if they are electronically derated to fit the 318, then they are still equally heavy. And that extra weight is a disadvantage.

On the other hand fleetwide engine commonality is a maintenance advantage. It's the job of the airline bean counters to evaluate pros and cons.

If we look at the 320 family and CFM56-5Bx engines, then we could say that there are 3 different engine needs and only two major engine versions available.

The 321 is the larger one which relies on a larger and 800 lbs heavier engine at 30-33k lbs thrust.

The 319 and 320 is basically the same plane, the 319 trading fuselage length and payload capability in for greater range. They both rely on the small engine version with mostly 24-27k lbs thrust versions.

The 318 is the third class of the 320 family. It's a smaller and much lighter short range plane. No CFM56 version has really been tailored for it. It relies on 21-23k lbs derated versions of the "small" CFM56. But mechanically it is still the same engine as on the heavier 319 and 320 planes, and therefore really too big and heavy.

It is very much the same situation with IAE engines where we have only two major versions, the V2525 and V2530, both with a number of subtypes with slightly varying thrust capability to fit operators needs for hot and high etc.
Always keep your number of landings equal to your number of take-offs
 
troubleshooter
Posts: 420
Joined: Mon Feb 07, 2005 5:22 am

RE: PW6000 - Failure?

Thu Apr 14, 2005 2:15 pm

Quoting HAWK21M (Reply 9):
Wasn't the problem related to Turbine Blade defect.

As far as I remember, they had big problems with the high pressure compressor. The engine was not able to deliver the expected power. To answer this problems, PW bought a completely new designed HP compressor developed by MTU.
This job sucks!!! I love this job!!!
 
User avatar
HAWK21M
Posts: 29867
Joined: Fri Jan 05, 2001 10:05 pm

RE: PW6000 - Failure?

Thu Apr 14, 2005 6:02 pm

Quoting Troubleshooter (Reply 12):
Quoting HAWK21M (Reply 9):
Wasn't the problem related to Turbine Blade defect.

As far as I remember, they had big problems with the high pressure compressor. The engine was not able to deliver the expected power. To answer this problems, PW bought a completely new designed HP compressor developed by MTU

Wasn't there a Turbine blade defect noticed during tests which pushed back the program.
regds
MEL
I may not win often, but I damn well never lose!!! ;)
 
AirbusCanada
Posts: 526
Joined: Mon Nov 15, 2004 5:14 am

RE: PW6000 - Failure?

Fri Apr 15, 2005 10:55 am

what about PW teams up with BBD for the New C serices?
seems both companies are desperate.
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Crew
Posts: 11865
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

RE: PW6000 - Failure?

Sat Apr 30, 2005 5:55 pm

Quoting Amy (Thread starter):

Does the PW6000 engine have any other applications, or has PW simply wasted a whole load of money?

Probably wasted money.  cry 

Quoting Freedomtofly (Reply 1):
why don't any of the airlines use it!?

The initial 7% miss in fuel burn. Otherwise, the engine has great mx, durability, decent weight, etc.

Quoting PM (Reply 4):
Sadly, it just seems indicative of PW's dramatic collapse in the civil aviation market. It doesn't seem that long ago that they appeared to have the 777 all wrapped up, leaving GE and RR to pick up the crumbs. How times change.

 cry  so true. so true. If the pw4098 hadn't missed fuel burn too (by 2% vs. the pw4090, 4% vs. target), Pratt would have "sewn up" the 777. But a 2% miss killed the economics of the 773 vs. the RR or GE frames.

Quoting HAWK21M (Reply 9):
Wasn't the problem related to Turbine Blade defect.

Nope. The problem was the 5-stage high pressure compressor missing efficiency targets by a mile. The engineers knew it! (While I worked at Pratt on combustors, the compressor guys were crying into their cokes at lunch. Management's response? What part of 5 stages do you not understand!) Grrr... Pratt could have delayed the initial launch with a 6 stage high compressor... but no... By the time engineering was "turned on" for a new design, MTU stepped in with a better economics (for Pratt) compressor. Troubleshooter has the right answer. I was at Pratt during this debacle.

Quoting Prebennorholm (Reply 11):

The PW6000 is a smaller, lighter (probably cheaper) engine made to fit the 318.

Nice post! Your first point sums it up, the pw6000 makes the A318 more competitive with a lighter, lower cost engine.

Quoting AirbusCanada (Reply 14):
what about PW teams up with BBD for the New C serices?
seems both companies are desperate.

Exactly true. BBD really liked the pw6000 presentation they were given. However, after the A318 fuel burn miss, they're a little scared of a Pratt engine.  Sad However, I've seen the cross section of the BBD pw6000... sweet! (circa 2001). Pratt's only real hope is to get out the pw800 (cheap geared turbofan) soon! Note I didn't write pw8000... (one day)

Lightsaber
"They did not know it was impossible, so they did it!" - Mark Twain
 
sulman
Posts: 1963
Joined: Wed Mar 03, 2004 5:09 am

RE: PW6000 - Failure?

Sat Apr 30, 2005 6:29 pm

One of the greatest, most innovative gas turbine manufacturers in the world. Certainly they're on a low ebb at the moment, but I do hope they bounce back.

There always seems to be a bit of passion at P&W, I'm sure they'll come back soon enough.
It takes a big man to admit they are wrong, and I am not a big man.
 
mandala499
Posts: 6459
Joined: Wed Aug 29, 2001 8:47 pm

RE: PW6000 - Failure?

Sun May 01, 2005 4:06 am

PW and Airbus eh? With IAE being part PW...
Remember the IAE V2500 superfan idea for the A343?
And now PW6000 for the A318...  Sad

Oh well...

Mandala499
When losing situational awareness, pray Cumulus Granitus isn't nearby !
 
Lumberton
Posts: 4176
Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2005 7:34 am

RE: PW6000 - Failure?

Fri Aug 19, 2005 3:50 am

Pardon me for resurrecting this ancient thread, but with the selection of the PW6000 by LAN to power their A318's it seems that P&W is still very much alive in the commercial engine segment. I surmise that all the problems have been worked out and the engine is performing to specs or better. Any insiders care to comment? Airbus, LAN and P&W have a H-U-G-E stake in this engine succeeding.

Now that the engine has been "launched", could it now be a serious contender for the C-Series?

Quoting Sulman (Reply 16):
There always seems to be a bit of passion at P&W, I'm sure they'll come back soon enough.

Looks like you called it correctly!

Regards.
"When all is said and done, more will be said than done".
 
gaut
Posts: 436
Joined: Sat Dec 15, 2001 10:57 am

RE: PW6000 - Failure?

Fri Aug 19, 2005 6:00 am

Quoting Prebennorholm (Reply 11):
If we look at the 320 family and CFM56-5Bx engines, then we could say that there are 3 different engine needs and only two major engine versions available.

The 321 is the larger one which relies on a larger and 800 lbs heavier engine at 30-33k lbs thrust.

Hello Prebennorholm,

Actually, all CFM56-5B, from 5B1 to B9, are exactly the same engines. When SNECMA assemble a 5B, they usually don't know the engine version of this specific engine.

So basically, under certain conditions, an airline could take a 5B3 from an A321 and mount it under the wing of an A318 as a 5B9 "simply" by changing the rating plug on the FADEC.

IMO for an airline operating other A32X beside the A318, this is a big advantage over the PW's engine.

Gaut
«Horum omnium fortissimi sunt Belgae.»

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google Adsense [Bot], zknzf and 13 guests