Re: Lufthansa advertisements, A340

From:         kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz)
Organization: Chicago Software Works
Date:         02 Feb 94 01:35:15 PST
References:   1 2
Followups:    1 2
Next article
View raw article
  or MIME structure

In article <airliners.1994.896@ohare.Chicago.COM> Ed Hahn writes:>-- Even with ER certification, according to FAA standards, you still
>have to fly at all times no further than a specified number of minutes
>from an emergency field (90, 120, or 180 minutes depending on the
>carrier/aircraft).  If you want to operate in REAL remote areas (i.e. the
>pacific, etc), you are out of luck.

There are *very* few spots where you can't go with 180-minute ETOPS,
and they're so small that it's not terribly inconvenient to fly around
them.  Continental US to Hawaii is one of the worst but it can be done
(and is done by at least American and QANTAS) with 180-minute ETOPS.
Hawaii to the South Pacific is significantly easier.  With the bases
in the Aleutians, and perhaps now some Russian bases in Siberia, the
North Pacific is surprisingly easy, perhaps even within 120-minute
ETOPS.

>The A340 has 4 CFM56 engines (same basic type certified for B737
>and B757).

The 757 uses RB.211-524 or PW2000-series engines, both significantly
larger th the CFM56.  Besides the 737 and A340, the CFM56 is used on
the 70-series DC-8s (re-engined 60-series aircraft).  It's also one
of the choices on the A320 family (including A319 and A321), the other
being the IAE V2500.

The CFM56 for the A320 is roughly 50% higher thrust than the 737 and
DC-8, so certification was probably not a no-brainer.

>Conversely, the A330, which has the EXACT same fuselage ...

Minor nit -- the A330 has the same fuselage as the A340-300, while the
A340-200 is somewhat shorter.

>... requires new engines (i.e. GE90, PW4080, and RR Trent) and
>the attendent engine certification,

The Pratt and Whitney engine for the A330 is the PW4168.  At 68,000
lbs. of thrust it's not that much of a leap from the 60,000 lbs.
thrust PW4060 of the 767-300(ER), probably much less a new engine
than the high-thrust CFM56-5C2/-5C3/-5C4 of the A340.

While the GE90 will be available in the future, the early A330s have
GE's CF6-80.  Again, not a new engine, though a significant growth
from previous versions.

Even the Trent is not entirely new engine, being derived from the
RB.211, though it has far less in common with its ancestor than the
PW4168 or CF6-80E1 have with theirs.

>BTW, the B777 will be delivered to United with an ER certificate, but
>will be the first aircraft to be so certified at initial delivery...

Not true according to what I've seen in the last six months.  In fact,
it appears the A330 will have a far easier time getting ETOPS ratings
than the 777, partly because the engines aren't as substantial a
departure (particularly for GE, which will only offer the GE90) and
partly because the airframe and avionics have been largely proven by
the A340 already.  The latest rumblings from the FAA suggest that it
will be very unlikely for the 777 to come with ETOPS on day 1.

--
Karl Swartz	|INet	kls@ditka.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