Re: Details on recent PW-4xxx engine problems?

From:         tristar500@aol.com (TriStar500)
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Date:         25 Jul 94 21:47:33 
References:   1
Followups:    1
Next article
View raw article
  or MIME structure

In article <airliners.1994.1472@ohare.Chicago.COM>, kls@ohare.Chicago.COM
(Karl Swartz) writes:

>So why in the world did Delta, after having amassed a sizeable fleet
>of non-ETOPS 767-200 and -300 aircraft with GE CF6 engines, switch to
>the PW4060 for their ETOPS 767-300s (and recent domestic models too)
>and also equip their MD-11s with PW4460 engines?

My understanding is that GE has stopped building the non-EEC CF6 engine.
Going with the new GE EEC engine would have required more spares, tooling,
etc than staying with the more troublesome PWs.

This way DL only has two large 767 engines to maintain, instead of three.
The GE CF6 on ships 101-115 (-200) 116-138 (-300) and the PWs on ships
171-180 (-300ER) and 1401 and 1402 (domestic -300). The PWs are also found
on the  MD-11s and the A-310s.

Incidentally, the APUs on all 757/767 are ETOPS rated for
interchangeability and increased reliability, and the engines on the
domestic PW 767-300s will also be maintained to ETOPS criteria for the
same reason.

IMHO - Pratt hasn't built a good engine since the JT8 and I would choose
GE or RR.

-----------------------------------
D.G. Davidson (TriStar500@aol.com)
Aviation Forum Host - America Online