Re: Are Two Engine 757 & 767 Jets Dangerous?

Date:         08 Dec 96 04:12:35 
From:         "David K. Cornutt" <cornutt@hiwaay.net>
Organization: Residential Engineering
References:   1 2
Followups:    1
Next article
View raw article
  or MIME structure

In article <airliners.1996.2699@ohare.Chicago.COM> Karl Swartz,
kls@ohare.Chicago.COM writes:
[concerning engine upgrade possibilities for the A340]
>The next step up from the CFM56 (and IAE V2500) was either the PW2000
>or the RB.211-535, both of which had more thrust than Airbus needed
>and, more significantly, weighed about twice as much.
>
>The perfect engine, then, would have been one *starting* at around
>30,000-35,000 lbs of thrust, with some growth room left (the CFM56
>is being pushed pretty far from it's original 18,000-20,000 lbs
>thrust), but without a big weight increase.  That would have meant
>a new engine, an unlikely proposition even if they had waited until
>the MD-11 was already in service.

Might this have been the CF6-32?  The reference I have says
the original version was supposed to have been 36,500 lbs thrust.
(The -32 was one of the original engine options for the 757,
and Boeing had to scramble late to be able to fit the PW2037
after GE cancelled their engine at the last minute.)  Or was
Airbus thinking IAE Superfan all along?  Either way, it
looks like they didn't quite wind up with what they started
out with.

---
David K. Cornutt, Residentially Engineered, Huntsville, AL
email: cornutt@hiwaay.net
I'm a rocket scientist.  I know the difference between an
increase and a decrease.