FlightGlobal.com
Home
Premium
Archive
Video
Images
Forum
Atlas
Blogs
Jobs
Shop
RSS
Email Newsletters
You are in:
Home
Aviation History
1989
1989 - 3936.PDF
TECHNICAL: PROPULSION CFM56 turbofan for Airbus A340 ready for tests The first CFM International CFM56-5C engine, set to be the powerplant for the Airbus Industrie A340, is about to enter the development test programme leading to US Federal Aviation Administration (FAA and the French Direction Generate a lAviation Civile (DGAC) certification. The engine will be tested for lOOh at Snecma's Villaroche establishment. Testing will then continue at the General Electric (GE) Air craft Engines test site near Pee bles, Ohio. Development of the CFM56-5C will entail more than 5,000h of testing, including more than 2,500h each at Snecma and at GE. The testing will continue until the last quarter of 1991, with certification planned for that year. The CFM56-5C will be certi fied initially at a thrust rating of 14,750kg and will enter service at 14,150kg. The engine is ca pable of growth to beyond 15,400kg if needed for the A340. The engine has a four-stage low pressure compressor, rather than the three-stage device of the CFM56-5A from which it is derived. The CFM56-5C fan is 1.84m in diameter versus the 1.73m for the CFM56-5A fan. Design changes have been incorporated in the core, primarily for the high operating pressures and temperatures. IAE in Tupolev talks BY ALAN POSTLETHWAITE International Aero Engines is engaged in talks with the Sovi ets on powering the Tupolev Tu- 334 medium-range airliner (above) now under develop ment. Denying that its officials were in Moscow for further dis cussions earlier this month, IAE describes the state of negotia tions as "active" and says the consortium "would be happy to go on any new platform". The five-nation consortium is considering providing a version of the V2500 turbofan now in service on the Airbus Industrie A320, following an approach by Tupolev officials at the Paris Air Show in June. Few details have emerged but it seems Tupolev is interested in a derated version of the 11,345kg V2500 to power its new aircraft, which will seat a maximum of 137 passengers. Tupolev has said that it needs a pair of engines, R-R-535E4s set shop-visit goal Forty per cent of the Rolls-Royce RB211-535E4s are achieving 10,000h between shop visits or since initial installation, according to the company which is marking the fifth anniversary of the E4's entry into service. The E4 version, with a thrust of 18,150kg compared with the 16,950kg of the -535C, has achieved basic removal rates of .057 per l,000h over the past five years and a current basic removal rate of .043. Of the "high-time" engines, one has reached 16,388h with Monarch Airlines and an Eastern Air lines engine has logged over 7,674 landings and take-offs. Another engine, in service with America West, has completed nearly 15,000h on the wing since new. More than 300 RB211-535s of both types are now in service. Of these, 19 operators are flying 93 Boeing 757s with a total of 232- 535E4 engines. The RB.211-535 maintains an edge over the competing Pratt & Whitney PW2000 in sales. • each delivering 7,500kg static thrust and 1,300kg in the cruise. Tupolev's motives for consid ering the V2500 are unclear. Most likely is that it is seeking an engine to make the aircraft exportable outside Eastern Europe in an attempt to find new work for its factories as military aircraft production is cut. The closest Western type is the Fokker 100. It is also possible, however, that Tupolev sees the V2500 as a shortcut to getting its new air craft into service. The accent of the Tu-334 development pro gramme is on speed. The aircraft uses many components and sys tems from the larger Tu-204 twinjet so that it can be flying in 1991 and swiftly pressed into service with Aeroflot, which is rapidly re-equipping much of its fleet with more modern aircraft. Tupolev was saying earlier in 1989 that it would first use a derivative of the Lotarev D436T turbofan and later move to a completely new propfan engine—also from Lotarev. The move might be an indication that Lotarev is unable to meet deliv ery schedules with its engines, that it is failing to meet the specified fuel efficiency of .63kg/ kN.h, or that Tupolev has dropped the idea of a propfan— just as US airframe builders have shelved the* notion because of unfavourable oil prices. Tupolev was unavailable for comment. Tupolev has said the new Soloviev engine which powers the Tu-204 burns less fuel than expected, but Soviet press re ports continue to claim that the initial engines fail to meet fuel efficiency targets. The November edition of the magazine Grazhdanskaya Aviatsiya says the Soloviev PS- 90A turbofans are less economi cal than expected and too heavy. Against this backdrop, it is cred ible that Lotrarev is having prob lems with its engines. The latest talks are just one avenue of discussion between IAE partner Rolls-Royce and the Soviets. The UK engine firm has already admitted to talks on powering other Soviet airliners and is considering working with them on an engine for the super sonic business jet mooted by Sukhoi and the USA's Gulf- stream Aerospace. The two parties have exam ined the possibility of fitting RB.211-535E4 engines to the Ilyushin 11-96-300 in place of the broadly similar Soloviev PS-90A turbofans. The Soviet press article reports numerous difficulties Aeroflot faces in bringing the Tu-204 into service next year. Facilities to train crews and technicians are likely to be inadequate and the responsiblities of those in charge blurred by the number of authorities involved, it says. There is only one flight simulator and one systems trainer—in Tupolev's Ulyanovsk factory 1,000km from where the Tu-204 will be introduced. Flight and technical documentation would not be published until 1992. So far five aircrews have been training with Tupolev. The lipe crew of three will be pilots up to 45, the captain an ex-Tu-154 captain and the co-pilot from a Tu-134. The magazine also reports on fears that the Tu-204 will be unable to give the target utilisation of 12h per day and 3,000h per year because of excessive maintenance requirements which prevent long periods away from base. Lack of a digital fault diagnosis system, in adequate minimum equipment lists, lack of flexibility in mainte nance schedules and poor ground handling equipment are noted. It also says that the aircraft might be prevented from landing at some airfields used by the Tu- 154 because of runway loads. The magazine says, however, that the Tu-204 will earn more per flight hour than the Tu-154 and will pay for itself in four years if it achieves the 3,000h annual utilisation target. • FLIGHT INTERNATIONAL 20 December 1989-2 January 1990
Sign up to
Flight Digital Magazine
Flight Print Magazine
Airline Business Magazine
E-newsletters
RSS
Events
