why the CFM 56-5C4? [Archive]

Mikey21

14th Jul 2005, 22:29

Why are they using the CFM 56 on the 340-3, is it something to due with the pollution level, I understand the the CFM bits all the pollution limit by far.

Or is it something to do with the fuel consumption?
Any one knows?

Thanks, Mikey21

jtr

15th Jul 2005, 00:10

What were the other options?

Try doing a search, you will find answers to pretty much all of your interview questions that way.

Mikey21

15th Jul 2005, 14:49

Just looked but couldn't find anything.

Is the only reason, cos there aren't anything else available??
no little trent kicking around?

Any other reasons?

cx007

19th Jul 2005, 03:34

It's all about money i guess. If this relatively cheap engine can do the job, why bother to spend more on 3-spools Trent?
By the way, is CFM56 the only 2-spools engine in CX's fleet? And i suppose it's producing the least thrust too?

spannersatcx

19th Jul 2005, 10:12

Apart from the 2 spool CF6-50E2 on 3 of the freighters that is!:ok:

Mikey21

20th Jul 2005, 00:16

Yes ,
well just read that the trent 900 can now be unstalled on the 340 since 2004. looks like they gonna stick to the CFM 56.

tomcat69

21st Jul 2005, 10:09

The only option for the A340-200 or the -300 is the CFM56-5C, likewise the only option for the A340-500 or the -600 is the RR Trent 500, there are no other options. The RR Trent 9XX series is for the A-380 only.

Mikey21

21st Jul 2005, 12:05

Tomcat, you are right,
I miss-read the article, In fact they tested the trent 900, on the 340 -300 testbed.

I thougth that might be a litle much for a the 340.
thanks.