trex8
Posts: 4618
Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2002 9:04 am

CF6-80E1 Problem

Mon Apr 13, 2009 5:56 pm

from Wiki

"The CF6-80E1A3 was a stretch too far for the family with severe deterioration in service resulting in a rating (CF6-80E1A4B) that allows temporary use of 72,000lb when temperature margins allow. An upgrade to the CF6 is planned to try and address this shortcoming".

is this true, is that why QR and the USAF went for the A4B and not the A3?
AF must have the most A3s in service, anyone know what issues they are having?
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Crew
Posts: 11857
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

RE: CF6-80E1 Problem

Tue Apr 14, 2009 3:08 pm

GE is going to upgrade teh CF6-80E1 for the tanker (if Northrop wins). In part, this is to ensure a better hot/high performance for the A330F. Right now, GE does not offer an engine for the A330F as their hot/high performance is insufficient to entice customers. (Freighters *need* MTOW performance practically every other flight...)

My rumor mill points to:
1. A fan upgrade
2. Compressor upgrades (details vague)
3. Turbine cooling (coating?) tweaks

This will provide enough of an efficiency improvement to be competitive with the T700.

Lightsaber
"They did not know it was impossible, so they did it!" - Mark Twain
 
trex8
Posts: 4618
Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2002 9:04 am

RE: CF6-80E1 Problem

Tue Apr 14, 2009 7:18 pm

,thanks! do you know if the A3s problem was simply the higher EGT causing more wear?
 
 
astuteman
Posts: 6346
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 7:50 pm

RE: CF6-80E1 Problem

Thu Jun 04, 2009 5:54 am



Quoting Lightsaber (Reply 1):
This will provide enough of an efficiency improvement to be competitive with the T700.

Meanwhile, RR keep quietly moving the T700 further out of range......  Wink

Rgds
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Crew
Posts: 11857
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

RE: CF6-80E1 Problem

Thu Jun 04, 2009 11:01 pm



Quoting Trex8 (Reply 3):
now I'm confused, does that mean there are no 70K TO thrust GE -80E1 engines at all?

 no  It means that the hot/high performance on the GE powered A330's is poor. Once the compressor on the CF6 starts to wear, it is *not* competitive with the current in fleet PW4170A nor T700. Anyone buying a 233 tonne MTOW A332 and GE's needs their head examined (for the current engine).

Quoting Astuteman (Reply 4):
Meanwhile, RR keep quietly moving the T700 further out of range......

My rumor mill has the CF6 doing quite the leap to catch up. Oh... I'm impressed with the T700. It is the engine to beat on the A330. However, with a *major* fan and compressor upgrade, the CF6 can be made equally competitive. But I read into your post an implication that RR will improve the engine again (I think they will if the Mobile line is started up.) The T700 with an IBR compressor.  cloudnine 

And the PW4170A limps along.  cry  Due to the LPC surge (specifically, the temperature of the air out the surge vents is at the nacelle limits), this engine would *really* benefit from an IBR low pressure compressor. But I am hearing zero on that front.  Sad Its also due for a fan revision. The only hope is that UA would be the launch customer for such an order.  pray  Note: UA selecting the A330 does not mean that Pratt will invest the money for certain. Its the *only* scenario I can come up with where Pratt *might* invest the money in another upgrade on the 100" PW4000.

I'm very confused on the tanker engine selections. The best engine on the 767 is the GE... Pratt won with the PW4000. For the A330, the CF6 is the weakest engine, but it was selected if the Northrop tanker wins... sigh...

Lightsaber
"They did not know it was impossible, so they did it!" - Mark Twain
 
EA772LR
Posts: 1285
Joined: Wed Mar 07, 2007 2:18 am

RE: CF6-80E1 Problem

Fri Jun 05, 2009 1:18 am



Quoting Lightsaber (Reply 5):
And the PW4170A limps along.

Lightsaber, it is beyond me that Pratt never went forward with replacing the LPC, so that the PW4173 could have become a reality. Pratt would have owned the A330. PW has a fan large enough to support what, 75K or more out of that engine, why didn't they move to muscle it up more than the 68,600K or the new 70K??  Angry

Quoting Astuteman (Reply 4):
Meanwhile, RR keep quietly moving the T700 further out of range.

Hats off to RR. The T700 is one bada$$ engine! And more impressively, it's continuously getting better!  Wow!
We often judge others by their actions, but ourselves by our intentions.
 
trex8
Posts: 4618
Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2002 9:04 am

RE: CF6-80E1 Problem

Sun Jun 14, 2009 3:34 am



Quoting Lightsaber (Reply 5):
I'm very confused on the tanker engine selections. The best engine on the 767 is the GE... Pratt won with the PW4000. For the A330, the CF6 is the weakest engine, but it was selected if the Northrop tanker wins... sigh...

more to do with increasing "American" content ?

Quoting Lightsaber (Reply 5):
Anyone buying a 233 tonne MTOW A332 and GE's needs their head examined (for the current engine).

I was always worried about AF
 
User avatar
Pellegrine
Posts: 1828
Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2007 10:19 am

RE: CF6-80E1 Problem

Fri Jun 19, 2009 12:39 am



Quoting Lightsaber (Reply 5):
The best engine on the 767 is the GE... Pratt won with the PW4000.

Lightsaber, I was always under the impression that the PW4000 and GE CF6-80C2 were fairly comparable engines on the 767. Why do you say the GE is better than Pratt?
oh boy, here we go!!!
 
User avatar
747classic
Posts: 1996
Joined: Sat Aug 15, 2009 9:13 am

RE: CF6-80E1 Problem

Tue Aug 18, 2009 1:20 pm

Why not take the GE GEnx-2B (developed for the 748 , with bleed extraction ) to power the A330 for the tanker competition, i.s.o. upgrading the GE CF6-80E engine.
Operating a twin over the ocean, you're always one engine failure from a total emergency.
 
tdscanuck
Posts: 8572
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 7:25 am

RE: CF6-80E1 Problem

Wed Aug 19, 2009 6:08 am



Quoting 747classic (Reply 9):
Why not take the GE GEnx-2B (developed for the 748 , with bleed extraction ) to power the A330 for the tanker competition

Re-engining is not typically a trivial task. Although certainly possible, it would add to the cost and risk of the project, neither of which Airbus wants to do because they're already at a perceived risk disadvantage due to relatively less experience with tankers.

Also, although the USAF cares about economy, they don't care all that much (they're still flying KC-135's for this mission, after all).

Tom.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], OMP777X and 15 guests