I've been interested at looking at Delta's A330 fleet lately. I'm pretty sure all of them were once part of Northwest because the last two letters of their registration are "NW." I knew Northwest chose the Pratt and Whitney PW4000 for their A330 fleet and I do see Delta A330s with the Pratt and Whitney engines equipped. However today I was looking a picture of a Delta Airbus A330-300 landing at Atlanta, and I noticed that there were engine spikes on he engines, which is how I can distinguish the difference between all three A330 engine types (RR, PW, GE.) I looked up the aircraft, and sure enough Airfleets.net said it had GE CF6 engines equipped. However I noticed that for that aircraft its registrations ended in "NW", which I'm pretty sure means it was once part of the Northwest fleet. So basically my question is, did Delta either rip the PW engines off some of their A330s, and replace them with General Electric ones, or did they purchase new ones with GEs already equipped. And if they did purchase new ones with General Electric engines Why do their registrations end in "NW?"

Delta registered some if not all of the new a330s with NW to honor the North West heritage. All the GE powered A330-300s are the new 242T variant while the PW powered are the lower weight variant a330-300. Ships 3322-3331 are the GE engines while ships 3301-3321 are the PW. The a330-200 have RR.

DL777200LR wrote:

Delta registered some if not all of the new a330s with NW to honor the North West heritage. All the GE powered A330-300s are the new 242T variant while the PW powered are the lower weight variant a330-300. Ships 3322-3331 are the GE engines while ships 3301-3321 are the PW. The a330-200 have RR.

The A330-200s also have PW engines, not RR as stated.

Jeremy

Yea sorry was thinking about the A330-900 which will have RR.

CaptainAce wrote:

did Delta either rip the PW engines off some of their A330s, and replace them with General Electric ones

Has anyone ever switched engine types on an A330? I'm not sure it's ever happened?

kurtverbose wrote:

Has anyone ever switched engine types on an A330? I'm not sure it's ever happened?

Yes, China Southerns initial batch of A330s came with RR engines, then they switch to PW for the next batch and are going back to RR on its third batch of 10 A330s.

817Dreamliiner wrote:

kurtverbose wrote:

Has anyone ever switched engine types on an A330? I'm not sure it's ever happened?

Yes, China Southerns initial batch of A330s came with RR engines, then they switch to PW for the next batch and are going back to RR on its third batch of 10 A330s.

No, I meant as the op suggested, have an A330 with one type of engines installed, removed them and fitted another type. Not subsequently ordering more A330's with different engines.

817Dreamliiner wrote:

kurtverbose wrote:

Has anyone ever switched engine types on an A330? I'm not sure it's ever happened?

Yes, China Southerns initial batch of A330s came with RR engines, then they switch to PW for the next batch and are going back to RR on its third batch of 10 A330s.

I don't think that is what he meant to ask. Did any airline ever re engine their existing fleet from PW to RR or vice versa. I don't know no for sure but I would bet non has ever been re engined. I don't think there has been a successful re engine for quite some time. Most had to do with stage 2 to stage 3 conversions like the DC8 and 727.

kurtverbose wrote:

No, I meant as the op suggested, have an A330 with one type of engines installed, removed them and fitted another type. Not subsequently ordering more A330's with different engines.

Well then you should have said that.

There are two examples of this (sort of).

F-WWKA was built as A333 number 1, with the GE CF6-80E1. It was subsequently re-engined with the Trent 772B and eventually sold to Cathay Pacific. It's now B-HLJ

F-WWKB was converted to Trents as well then sold to CX. Now B-HLK although that one isn't used any more.

817Dreamliiner wrote:

kurtverbose wrote:

No, I meant as the op suggested, have an A330 with one type of engines installed, removed them and fitted another type. Not subsequently ordering more A330's with different engines.

Well then you should have said that.

Even skim reading my post with CaptainAce's quote would've made my question very clear to you, as it was to Dalmd88. The problem is not with my writing but your inability to read.

I am unsure what you guys are talking about "engine spike" can you explain or post a picture to help differentiate between the different a330 variations with the different engines?

gsg013 wrote:

I am unsure what you guys are talking about "engine spike" can you explain or post a picture to help differentiate between the different a330 variations with the different engines?

GE CF6-80 "spike" engines:



Pratt 4168/70:



RR Trent 700:



I hope you appreciate my paint skills.

CaptainAce wrote:

I've been interested at looking at Delta's A330 fleet lately. I'm pretty sure all of them were once part of Northwest because the last two letters of their registration are "NW." I knew Northwest chose the Pratt and Whitney PW4000 for their A330 fleet and I do see Delta A330s with the Pratt and Whitney engines equipped. However today I was looking a picture of a Delta Airbus A330-300 landing at Atlanta, and I noticed that there were engine spikes on he engines, which is how I can distinguish the difference between all three A330 engine types (RR, PW, GE.) I looked up the aircraft, and sure enough Airfleets.net said it had GE CF6 engines equipped. However I noticed that for that aircraft its registrations ended in "NW", which I'm pretty sure means it was once part of the Northwest fleet. So basically my question is, did Delta either rip the PW engines off some of their A330s, and replace them with General Electric ones, or did they purchase new ones with GEs already equipped. And if they did purchase new ones with General Electric engines Why do their registrations end in "NW?"

The PMNW fleet are A330-323s with PW468A motors. DL has 21 of these birds. Also the 332 fleet has PW4168As also. The 339s will have Trent 7000s.

DL later order 10 A330-302s with CF6-80E1A4 motors (and was the launch customer for the 242t 333). The regs are NXXXNW because it was simpler and cleaner just to run with the NW regs. You'll notice that they are inline with the PW fleet vs starting off with new numbers. So far the 242T frames are being run along side with the ex NW frames.
With LAX-HND and JFK-TLV going to the 333 we will see if DL runs these routes with just the 242t fleet or mixes them up with the Pratt frames.

[quote="DL777200LR"]Delta registered some if not all of the new a330s with NW to honor the North West heritage. All the GE powered A330-300s are the new 242T variant while the PW powered are the lower weight variant a330-300. Ships 3322-3331 are the GE engines while ships 3301-3321 are the PW. The a330-200 have RR.[/quote]
That is nothing more than a feel good rumor created by exNW folks.

Like i said above, it was just easier/cleaner to go with NW than try to find a DA/DL/DE/DN reg for them. (in general its getting harder and harder to find complete reg sets with those endings which is why some fleets have things like NXXXDQ or NXXXDZ. Or random regs like some 737/757s.)

Trent engines still have spikes. They're just not visible unless you look up the tailpipe due to the longer cowling.

Starlionblue wrote:

Trent engines still have spikes. They're just not visible unless you look up the tailpipe due to the longer cowling.

Ditto the Pratts, they're just hidden behind the core duct. The GE on the 330 is the "most-peeled onion" if you will.

Channex757 wrote:

There are two examples of this (sort of).

F-WWKA was built as A333 number 1, with the GE CF6-80E1. It was subsequently re-engined with the Trent 772B and eventually sold to Cathay Pacific. It's now B-HLJ

F-WWKB was converted to Trents as well then sold to CX. Now B-HLK although that one isn't used any more.

B-HLJ and B-HLK were transferred to Dragonair (now Cathay Dragon) in early 2016 and are still in service.

LH707330 wrote:

Starlionblue wrote:

Trent engines still have spikes. They're just not visible unless you look up the tailpipe due to the longer cowling.

Ditto the Pratts, they're just hidden behind the core duct. The GE on the 330 is the "most-peeled onion" if you will.

Others might know better but I was led to believe that one reason GE designs longer spikes into their engine exhausts is to do with an oil breather system. It's most noticeable on the CFM56. Trents have this on the bottom of the engine, but GE throws theirs out into the gas stream.

Channex757 wrote:

LH707330 wrote:

Starlionblue wrote:

Trent engines still have spikes. They're just not visible unless you look up the tailpipe due to the longer cowling.

Ditto the Pratts, they're just hidden behind the core duct. The GE on the 330 is the "most-peeled onion" if you will.

Others might know better but I was led to believe that one reason GE designs longer spikes into their engine exhausts is to do with an oil breather system. It's most noticeable on the CFM56. Trents have this on the bottom of the engine, but GE throws theirs out into the gas stream.

I think that mostly the reason is that RR went for an extended cowling to guide the bypass air more accurately. The downside is added weight and skin friction drag I suppose.

The Trent is a shorter engine and also lighter. The three shaft design makes for a shorter gas generator section.

it's also one reason why the Trent 1000 has more stuff bolted to the fan casing. There's less real estate to fix it to elsewhere. The Trent 7000 has that full length cowl as this works well with the engine, and much of it is composite. The reverser design is also much different to the other two designs, and doesn't require a ring of vanes to reverse the flow of bypass air when the cowl slides.

If you watch a Trent 700 winding up, the oil breather on the bottom normally pushes out some oil fumes. GE designs push those fumes out into the exhaust.

Channex757 wrote:

The Trent is a shorter engine and also lighter. The three shaft design makes for a shorter gas generator section.

It's important we don't generalise.

Whilst your weight point certainly holds true for the Trent 800 and 777, it isn't the case with the engine platforms on the 380, 330, 747 and 787. There is a negligible engine weight difference on the latter models

Chaostheory wrote:

Channex757 wrote:

The Trent is a shorter engine and also lighter. The three shaft design makes for a shorter gas generator section.

It's important we don't generalise.

Whilst your weight point certainly holds true for the Trent 800 and 777, it isn't the case with the engine platforms on the 380, 330, 747 and 787. There is a negligible engine weight difference on the latter models

Either way, the triple-spool is shorter. As Starlionblue mentioned, the RR designs with the long cowl weigh more, but have better aerodynamics. There was a thread a while back where we discussed this, and how the trade study probably favors the long duct with the RR engines because they're shorter, so the lesser weight penalty is worth the aero benefit.

Chaostheory wrote:

Channex757 wrote:

The Trent is a shorter engine and also lighter. The three shaft design makes for a shorter gas generator section.

It's important we don't generalise.

Whilst your weight point certainly holds true for the Trent 800 and 777, it isn't the case with the engine platforms on the 380, 330, 747 and 787. There is a negligible engine weight difference on the latter models

The three shaft engine is shorter. Period. Shorter means less heavy gas generator case required.

The design of the Trent 700 cowl also negates the need for a reverser ring of inconell vanes and double D ring sliders together with fold in doors. The T700 instead uses a mostly composite cowl with no sliding reverser, and four reverser doors that redirect most of the bypass flow. The CFM56 uses a similar system on Airbus aircraft. It's lighter and simpler.

The T700 is the lightest of all three engines. Apparently the Pratt is heaviest, then the CF6 and the Trent 700 the lightest as it's a simpler and shorter design of cowl with a plenum chamber just aft of the reversers.

Out of interest - why is the "petal" reverser, if simpler and better, not more common, with only 3 aircraft families using them (A330RR, A340-200/300 and A320CFM)

Seems to me this design also provides some aerodynamic braking as the petals stick out into the airflow

Channex757 wrote:

Chaostheory wrote:

Channex757 wrote:

The Trent is a shorter engine and also lighter. The three shaft design makes for a shorter gas generator section.

It's important we don't generalise.

Whilst your weight point certainly holds true for the Trent 800 and 777, it isn't the case with the engine platforms on the 380, 330, 747 and 787. There is a negligible engine weight difference on the latter models

The three shaft engine is shorter. Period. Shorter means less heavy gas generator case required.

The design of the Trent 700 cowl also negates the need for a reverser ring of inconell vanes and double D ring sliders together with fold in doors. The T700 instead uses a mostly composite cowl with no sliding reverser, and four reverser doors that redirect most of the bypass flow. The CFM56 uses a similar system on Airbus aircraft. It's lighter and simpler.

The T700 is the lightest of all three engines. Apparently the Pratt is heaviest, then the CF6 and the Trent 700 the lightest as it's a simpler and shorter design of cowl with a plenum chamber just aft of the reversers.

My point was in reference to weight. Also, the cowls and reversers are more often than not an Airbus or Boeing part and thus irrelevant to the points made.

Without looking it up, on wing, there is less than 150kg difference between a T700 and CF6. On the 787, the T1000 is heavier by the same amount and the new T1000-TEN is heavier still. Not to mention the RB211 is by far the heaviest of the three on the 744. That's irregardless of the overall length.

77west wrote:

Out of interest - why is the "petal" reverser, if simpler and better, not more common, with only 3 aircraft families using them (A330RR, A340-200/300 and A320CFM)

Seems to me this design also provides some aerodynamic braking as the petals stick out into the airflow

On the A330/Trent700 at least, the "flower power" thrust reverser is the heaviest. I'm not sure whether the same holds true on the 320 cfm56 vs v2500.

Secondly, the typical cascade TRs are usually more effective.

Chaostheory wrote:

Without looking it up, on wing, there is less than 150kg difference between a T700 and CF6. On the 787, the T1000 is heavier by the same amount and the new T1000-TEN is heavier still. Not to mention the RB211 is by far the heaviest of the three on the 744. That's irregardless of the overall length.

Apples and oranges. The RB211 on that aircraft includes the cowl and reversers, which are integral to the engine design. The others are weighed in as bare engines.

Rolls Royce tends to offer different design features to the other two. This makes many weight comparisons void as it's the same story as Boeing and Airbus planes. One quotes prices complete, the other as a bare shell. Rolls Royce shipped the RB211 as a complete unit that could be fitted to the 744 or 763 with a software change.

The difference between the Trent 1000 and GEnx is indeed 130kg, but things change and future iterations of the Trent 1000 could be substantially less if RR goes for more composites and debuts their composite fan. Weights actually mean little as it's all about how the engines perform, and RR show much less degradation on the wing than competition engines. That's also what sells the T700.

Channex757 wrote:

Chaostheory wrote:

Without looking it up, on wing, there is less than 150kg difference between a T700 and CF6. On the 787, the T1000 is heavier by the same amount and the new T1000-TEN is heavier still. Not to mention the RB211 is by far the heaviest of the three on the 744. That's irregardless of the overall length.

Apples and oranges. The RB211 on that aircraft includes the cowl and reversers, which are integral to the engine design. The others are weighed in as bare engines.

Rolls Royce tends to offer different design features to the other two. This makes many weight comparisons void as it's the same story as Boeing and Airbus planes. One quotes prices complete, the other as a bare shell. Rolls Royce shipped the RB211 as a complete unit that could be fitted to the 744 or 763 with a software change.

The difference between the Trent 1000 and GEnx is indeed 130kg, but things change and future iterations of the Trent 1000 could be substantially less if RR goes for more composites and debuts their composite fan. Weights actually mean little as it's all about how the engines perform, and RR show much less degradation on the wing than competition engines. That's also what sells the T700.

Fine.

Bare engine weights for the A330 taken from our A330 fleet emergency action plan. We operate a T700 fleet but have leased GE and PW birds too:

T700 5300kg
CF6-80 5600kg
PW4168 5800kg

As I said earlier, there is a negligible difference in weights on other platforms when comparing bare weight so it's a fallacy to state the three spool architecture lends a weight advantage. Also, the Trent 800 and Trent 900 do have higher rates of EGT margin deterioration compared to their rivals so that's another blanket statement to be avoided

Now with all that faffery done with, I agree weight has little bearing on how the engine performs. I've said it before that the T700 is a beast of an engine and definitely the best option on the A330. Similarly, the T1000 from a technical perspective is shaping up to be a much better engine than the GEnx1, especially in performance limiting conditions.