From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz)
Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California
Date: 25 Jul 94 21:47:33
References: 1 2
View raw article
or MIME structure
>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.
Staying with the PW? Delta didn't have any PW4000s until the first
767-332(ER) showed up in 1990, and Delta continued to receive non-ER
767-332s with CF6 engines for two years after that. Seems to me a
non-EEC CF6 plus PW4000 fleet would require a lot more spares, etc.,
than a mixed EEC/non-EEC CF6 fleet, yet Delta appears to have made a
conscious switch to the PW4000.
>The PWs are also found on the MD-11s and the A-310s.
Delta could probably have gotten the MD-11s with GE engines at least
as easily, since the MD-11 was launched with the CF6. In fact, the
first two Delta MD-11s (leased from Mitsui) did have CF6 engines.
The A310s postdate Delta's first PW4000 delivery by about 18 months,
so they clearly didn't influence Delta's thinking either.
Forgive me for dwelling on this, but it's a decision that has always
baffled me. Unfortunately, your comments about RR engines now have
me wondering about Delta's 757 engine choice as well -- given Delta's
experience with the L-1011, why did they choose the PW2037 for their
757s? I know Delta tried to get Lockheed to build a GE-powered L-1011
(but wasn't adamant about it as United was), so perhaps Delta doesn't
quite share your enthusiasm for the RB.211. Or maybe Pratt made Delta
an offer they couldn't refuse in order to get a PW2000 launch customer.
It probably was a bit of each.
--
Karl Swartz |INet kls@ohare.chicago.com
1-415/854-3409 |UUCP uunet!decwrl!ditka!kls
|Snail 2144 Sand Hill Rd., Menlo Park CA 94025, USA
Send sci.aeronautics.airliners submissions to airliners@chicago.com
