Re: Are Two Engine 757 & 767 Jets Dangerous?

Date:         27 Dec 96 13:32:17 
From:         Chuanga@cris.com (H Andrew Chuang)
Organization: Concentric Internet Services
References:   1 2
View raw article
  or MIME structure


In article <airliners.1996.2741@ohare.Chicago.COM> David K. Cornutt (cornutt@hiwaay.net) wrote:
>
> Might this have been the CF6-32?

I don't think so.  When AA ordered 60(?) PW2000s around 1980 (?) (which
AA later cancelled), GE killed the CF6-32 program.  The PW2000 was
an extremely fuel-efficient engine in its class.  Because of the PW2000,
R-R had to quickly come up with the -535E4 upgrade to replace the -535C2.
I believe British Airways is the only airline that still has 757s with
a variant of the original -535C2.

The A340 was launched in 1987.  Hence, there is no way the CF6-32 was
under consideration.

> 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.
>

Yes, the V2500 Superfan was a top candidate and Lufthansa was very keen
on the Superfan A340.  However, the V2500 might have similar thrust
constraints like the CFM56.  It's not necessary a physical constraint.
Pratt and Rolls must have signed an agreement limiting the thrust range
of the V2500 the partners can develop in order to protect their
respective product lines (i.e., the RB.211-535 and the PW2000).