Date: 08 Dec 96 04:12:35 From: "David K. Cornutt" <firstname.lastname@example.org> Organization: Residential Engineering References: 1 2 Followups: 1
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: email@example.com I'm a rocket scientist. I know the difference between an increase and a decrease.