Airbus 330 Engine:GE CF6, Trent700 or PW4000
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Hmmm
Posts: 33
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Airbus 330 Engine:GE CF6, Trent700 or PW4000
Given an operation with hot and sandy conditions, which engine is most recommended? I believe RR Trent has the market share.
Emirates, Etihad and Oman operate the Trent engine whilst Qatar operates the GE engine.
I read (a while ago) that the PW4000 doesn't hold it's price when aircraft is sold or leased. However it seems that they are now gaining some gound in the market.
Emirates, Etihad and Oman operate the Trent engine whilst Qatar operates the GE engine.
I read (a while ago) that the PW4000 doesn't hold it's price when aircraft is sold or leased. However it seems that they are now gaining some gound in the market.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: USA
Posts: 372
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Trent 772B-60 produces 71,100lbs of thrust. Best hot/high performance and lowest maintenance costs.
PW started off with the PW4168 with 68,600lbs of thrust. Planned was a PW4173 with 73,000lbs of thrust. However the compressor surge vents messed with the nacelle and a nacelle re-design was required. Unfortunately this was not possible due to contractual obligations that prevented any nacelle re-designs for the PW41XX series.
Korean, TAM and a few other airlines opted for the PW4170, with 70,000lbs of thrust. However, this only became an available option in November 2008.
Korean chose the engine as part of their 235,000kg MTOW A332 order.
GE had some issues selling the CF6 on the A330. Main issue (until a PiP introduced a few years back) was that max thrust was only available for ISA and not ISA+15 like the other two engine options.
CF6-80E1A1: 63,290lbs
CF6-80E1A2: 64,530lbs (Same as CF6-80E1A1except higher takeoff thrust rating.)
CF6-80E1A4: 66,870lbs (Same as CF6-80E1A1/A2 baseline except higher takeoff thrust rating and actual EGT redline increased 1045ºC)
CF6-80E1A3: 68,530lbs (Same as CF6-80E1A4 except higher takeoff thrust rating and actual EGT redline increased to 1060°C)
CF6-80E1A4/B: 68,530lbs (Same as CF6-80E1A3 with same takeoff thrust rating and actual EGT redline of 1060°C)
Essentially when the A330 family started off with a low 212,000kg MTOW the 68k engines were just fine.
With the 230k,233k MTOW for the A330 family PW went all out for the PW4173 and would have bankrolled on the asia and middle east orders with its promised hot/high performance, but as the engine never went past the design/test phase, big orders were lost to RR.
RR continues to be the best seller, PW is second and GE has been playing catch up as the snags have been put aside. Still short of 70k thrust though!
Recently introduced MTOW options are 235k, 238k and 242k has just been proposed for the -300 in addition to the activation of the center tank. (Yes its always been present, but lacking plumbing).
PW started off with the PW4168 with 68,600lbs of thrust. Planned was a PW4173 with 73,000lbs of thrust. However the compressor surge vents messed with the nacelle and a nacelle re-design was required. Unfortunately this was not possible due to contractual obligations that prevented any nacelle re-designs for the PW41XX series.
Korean, TAM and a few other airlines opted for the PW4170, with 70,000lbs of thrust. However, this only became an available option in November 2008.
Korean chose the engine as part of their 235,000kg MTOW A332 order.
GE had some issues selling the CF6 on the A330. Main issue (until a PiP introduced a few years back) was that max thrust was only available for ISA and not ISA+15 like the other two engine options.
CF6-80E1A1: 63,290lbs
CF6-80E1A2: 64,530lbs (Same as CF6-80E1A1except higher takeoff thrust rating.)
CF6-80E1A4: 66,870lbs (Same as CF6-80E1A1/A2 baseline except higher takeoff thrust rating and actual EGT redline increased 1045ºC)
CF6-80E1A3: 68,530lbs (Same as CF6-80E1A4 except higher takeoff thrust rating and actual EGT redline increased to 1060°C)
CF6-80E1A4/B: 68,530lbs (Same as CF6-80E1A3 with same takeoff thrust rating and actual EGT redline of 1060°C)
Essentially when the A330 family started off with a low 212,000kg MTOW the 68k engines were just fine.
With the 230k,233k MTOW for the A330 family PW went all out for the PW4173 and would have bankrolled on the asia and middle east orders with its promised hot/high performance, but as the engine never went past the design/test phase, big orders were lost to RR.
RR continues to be the best seller, PW is second and GE has been playing catch up as the snags have been put aside. Still short of 70k thrust though!
Recently introduced MTOW options are 235k, 238k and 242k has just been proposed for the -300 in addition to the activation of the center tank. (Yes its always been present, but lacking plumbing).
Last edited by B-HKD; 6th Dec 2012 at 18:49.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: USA
Posts: 2,526
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Recently introduced MTOW options are 235k, 238k and 242k has just been proposed for the -300 in addition to the activation of the center tank. (Yes its always been present, but lacking plumbing).
Any idea why Airbus opted not to connect the tank to the rest of the airplane?
Any idea why Airbus opted not to connect the tank to the rest of the airplane?
Special Condition certification issue between parties. Easy to design but not so easy to satisfy all the reviewing regulators.
Last edited by lomapaseo; 7th Dec 2012 at 01:42.
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Ramona, CA
Age: 66
Posts: 38
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
330-300 center tank
In a recent issue of Aviation Week, there is an article mentioning the retrofit of the center tank to the -300, along with some other improvements. The center tank space is not available for cargo on that model.
I think that it was orignally just not worth it to put the center tank in, as with the original MTOGW with a full boat of pax and bags, and enough fuel to get from AMS to DTW or SEA, you were at max gross already. No room for more fuel weight.
The -200 gave the capability to go as far as you wanted, weight wise. Since it's essentially a 340 fuel system, you couldn't fill all the tanks even if you carried nothing. Upping the TOW on the -200 has allowed for 12+ hour flights.
I think that it was orignally just not worth it to put the center tank in, as with the original MTOGW with a full boat of pax and bags, and enough fuel to get from AMS to DTW or SEA, you were at max gross already. No room for more fuel weight.
The -200 gave the capability to go as far as you wanted, weight wise. Since it's essentially a 340 fuel system, you couldn't fill all the tanks even if you carried nothing. Upping the TOW on the -200 has allowed for 12+ hour flights.
Given an operation with hot and sandy conditions, which engine is most recommended?
Any idea why Airbus opted not to connect the tank to the rest of the airplane?
