Re: Lufthansa advertisements, A340

From:         h andrew chuang <>
Date:         08 Feb 94 02:15:35 PST
References:   1
Followups:    1
Next article
View raw article
  or MIME structure

In article <airliners.1994.897@ohare.Chicago.COM> Karl Swartz write:

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

Agree.  I don't think the 180-minute rule is the problem.  The B767-200ER is
the only twin that barely has the range to fly nonstop from the West Coast
to Japan, let alone other North Pacific routes, and the -200 is way too
small for the Japanese market.  I think that's why you don't see any twins
flying across the North Pacific.  (The B-market B777 will have significant
longer range.)  In the South Pacific, Air New Zealand and QANTAS operate
extensive over-water extended-range twin services with their B767's.  Even
with its extensive ETOPs, QANTAS still remains to be one of the world's
safest airlines.

[The rest of the article is kind of nitpicking, I hope Karl won't mind.]

|EH>The A340 has 4 CFM56 engines (same basic type certified for B737
|EH>and B757).
|The 757 uses RB.211-524 or PW2000-series engines, both significantly
|larger th the CFM56.  

The Rolls powerplant for the B757 should be the RB.211-535.

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

If one compares the CFM56-5C (32,500 lb to 34,000 lb thrust for the A340)
and the -5B (31,500 lb thrust for the A321), then the thrust increase is
less dramatic.  Nonetheless, -5C has one more booster and one more low
pressure (LP) turbine stage than the -2/-3/-5A/-5B.  I can be wrong, but I
think the CFM56-5C is also the first non-Rolls-high-by-pass-turbofan engine
that mixes the by-pass and core flows (for improved sfc and thrust).  (If
you don't know what I'm talking about, take a look at a -5C or a non-L1011
RB.211 engine, notice the fan cowling extend all the way to the exhaust.)

|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), 

But P&W already has a lot of problems with its PW4460 on the MD-11's.
Both Swissair and China Air Lines grounded their MD-11 fleet for serveral
weeks(?) because of engine problems.

|probably much less a new engine
|than the high-thrust CFM56-5C2/-5C3/-5C4 of the A340.

I think the -5C3 designation was skipped.

|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.

GE only offers the CF6-80E1 for the A330's.  The plan for a smaller GE90
on the A330 was cancelled a while ago.

|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.

To the best of my knowledge, Trent *is* a 'direct' derivative of the
RB.211-524; I think Rolls just decided to call it something more 'trendy'.
Comparing to the -524, the Trent 700 has one additional IP compressor stage
(equivalent to booster) and one additional LP stage.  Pratt did the same
thing with their PW4168 (vs. PW4x60).

|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.

This is probably why Airbus chose the A330/340 path.  Its development cost
is minimal; it's also a lot less risky than the B777, at least, initially.
Moreover, Airbus had secured nearly 200 A330/340 orders before Boeing
could launch the B777.

[ Personal opinions of ] Andrew Chuang