GE 1960s CF6 engine early viarant maintenance manual+IPC+ student maintenance training manuals sorted out from public websites

This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

m13katyusa2020

Senior Airman
460
529
Mar 26, 2022
GE CF6 was a type of engine developed from TF39 used on C-5 in 1960s, which generally produces a power from 200kN to 300kN, weighing about 4 tons. It's used on Airbus A300, A330. Boeing 747, Boeing 767 and Douglas DC-10.
1654176652222.png
GE 1960s CF6 engine early viarant maintenance manual+IPC are here:
CF6 engine maintenance manual refer to retired A310 maintenance manual ATA-72 thanks to Scoutdominator50:
OR: A310's CF6 engine maintenance manual here or this one uploaded 2 months ago, this way:


CF6 engine IPC refer to retired DC-10 IPC ATA-72:

OR: DC-10's CF6 engine IPC ATA-72 here or this one uploaded 1 months ago, this way:

GE CF6 engine early viarant student maintenance training manuals sorted out from public websites.

Disclaimer: These items are shared for reference, sharing for non-profitable use only.
This manuals and blueprints are not meant to be used for current update material for certification / repair, but make an excellent reference for the scholar, collector, modeler or aircraft buffs .... For proprietary reasons we generally only provide civil manuals and blueprints on long-out-of-production Aircraft / Engines / Helicopter. The information is for reference only and we do not guarantee the accuracy or currency of any manuals.


Reference herein to any specific commercial products by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise, is not meant to imply or suggest any endorsement by, or affiliation with that manufacturer or supplier. All trade names, trademarks and manufacturer names are the property of their respective owners.


The following 10 pdf attachments are for maintenance training manuals, basic line maintenance training manual, borescope manual, component location manual, and type certificate datasheet on public websites, including type certificate FAA published on its public site:
 

Attachments

  • training-manual-ata-71-80-cf6-80-c2.pdf
    26.9 MB · Views: 98
  • datasheet-CF6-80E1.pdf
    310.1 KB · Views: 57
  • datasheet-CF6-80C2.pdf
    303.7 KB · Views: 53
  • E23EA.pdf
    138.7 KB · Views: 55
  • E13NETCDS.pdf
    1.8 MB · Views: 50
  • cf6-80e1-components-location.pdf
    2.5 MB · Views: 62
  • DC10-engine-cf6-50-c2-fam-manual.pdf
    30.6 MB · Views: 82
  • Cf6-maintenance-training-ata70-80-december-2011.pdf
    20.6 MB · Views: 76
  • cf6-80e1-borescope-manual.pdf
    13 MB · Views: 62
  • ge-cf6-80-c2-Line-basic-maintenance-training-manual.pdf
    34.7 MB · Views: 77
Last edited:

m13katyusa2020

Senior Airman
460
529
Mar 26, 2022
Theoretically, to gain 22kN thrust but don't have such a large engine, we could try to merge 3 JT8D engine PODs with 78kN takeoff thrust with less engine technology, producing a takeoff thrust of 234kN, almost the same with CF6, but is obviously less economical, consuming about 33% more fuel, with a range drop of 25% as approximately calculated.
1654313670709.png 1654179198454.png 1654183926073.png

For JT8D 1960s early series maintenance manuals and ipc, refer to:
P&W JT8D/Volvo RM8 Engine Early version Maintenance Manuals with ipc, and early AL-31 engine 1980s manual and partial drawing:
concept application: DC-10-10 twin for low-bypass gravel runway kit:
For Thrust reverser of the 3-engine pod, it came with a difficult problem, to maintain the thrust-reverse capability.
But reversing the heat in the front of the wing causes the heat at a temperature of 200 Centigrades, would do harm to the structure of large planes in the long term, causing a great economical loss, but JT8D bypass ratio is relatively small so that the thrust reverser couldn't rely on the cold flow of the engine to gain enough reverse thrust.
So I came with an idea, that use an extra large airbrake on the engine cowl, to replace the thrust reverser of JT8D for tri-engine pod used on large planes.
It's roughly calculated that the extra-large airbrakes are 3m width * 1m height, and lie on the side of the engine cowlings, with a hole at the root of the airbrake to reduce the danger of structural failure and gain more stability.
Special: The airbrakes are extended foward-swept, but they're not fixed at the end of the engine, but conncted at the head of the engine, to give the airbreak enough stability so that the foward-swept high-efficient airbrake would automatically close once the hydraulic of the airbrake system fails.
Performance: a pair of such large engine cowl airbrake would produces more than 20kN reverse thrust each while the airspeed is greater than 75 knots and the airbrakes fully opened.
For the tri-engine pod, the upper engines use a pair of airbrakes, the 2nd engine down uses DC-8 style combined thrust reverser.
1654746844418.png 1654864998323.png
Application: Gravel Runway Kits:
724958-03af074f7d973b439959ca2b51db9074.png
724959-0197c7aa81e6f7b92926f6309a34b2c9.png
724960-943add6f75137e01d3c812a8162365bc.png
724946-63dd94e81735b3e97d9f2559cb0fc91d.png
724948-8df1ca5e2898e48e9a23b833d179a82d.png

For inlet shape modification, it's fine to refer the multi-engine pod shape before for the anti-interference methods, such as
Boeing B52. 1654585973972.png Convair B-36: 1654586133788.png As well as Boeing B-47: 1654586180428.png

For civil jets, concorde even merges 2 not-so-relieable O593 engines in a single fairing to reduce drag and approved by FAA, and merging 3 much-more relieable JT8D engines seems not perfect but much safer than concorde's engine pods.
British Airways Concorde Supersonic jet historical manuals - AFM, AMM, WDM, SRM, IPC
Now that concorde could get FAA type certificate after professional modifications of the engines, I think the possibility to get FAA type certificate after professional modifications is very possible only on the view of tech.
Even after concorde were all retired, FAA type certificate of it still remained until 2009, after 6 years of its retirement.
That concludes it's still acceptable for civil jets to combine multi-engines together only from the point of safety.
1654781056399.png


For combined thrust reverser tech general manuals, refer to the pdf attachment there:
 

Attachments

  • DouglasDC-8MaintenanceGeneralTraining_Manual.pdf
    15.2 MB · Views: 67
Last edited:

J_P_C

Senior Airman
570
1,316
Feb 21, 2010
Warsaw
this is theoretical exercise of course - in my opinion configuration of engines pods shown on drawing except of presenting excessive interference drag is difficult / impossible to push through certification process
 

m13katyusa2020

Senior Airman
460
529
Mar 26, 2022
for such arrangement you have to use separate clamshell door type TR operating on mixed flow - because of bypass ratio of the JT8D engine cold flow TR performance may be close to hopeless
Thanks for your advise, for such an annoying tech problem, I came up with a new idea, to replace the thrust reverser of the tri-pod JT8D to solve the annoying problem of heat flow reverser of JT8D which might effect the life of structures, especially when the wing-mounted jets are crowdedly designed, producing similar reverse thrust when at an airspeed >80knots.
1654746844418.png 1654865062775.png
It's roughly calculated that the extra-large airbrakes are 3m width * 1m height, and lie on the side of the engine cowlings, with a hole at the root of the airbrake to reduce the danger of structural failure and gain more stability.
Special: The airbrakes are extended foward-swept, but they're not fixed at the end of the engine, but conncted at the head of the engine, to give the airbreak enough stability so that the foward-swept high-efficient airbrake would automatically close once the hydraulic of the airbrake system fails.
Performance: a pair of such large engine cowl airbrake would produces more than 20kN reverse thrust each while the airspeed is greater than 75 knots and the airbrakes fully opened.
 
Last edited:

J_P_C

Senior Airman
570
1,316
Feb 21, 2010
Warsaw
Thanks for your advise, for such an annoying tech problem, I came up with a new idea, to replace the thrust reverser of the tri-pod JT8D to solve the annoying problem of heat flow reverser of JT8D which might effect the life of structures, especially when the wing-mounted jets are crowdedly designed, producing similar reverse thrust when at an airspeed >80knots.
View attachment 672852 View attachment 672853
It's roughly calculated that the extra-large airbrakes are 3m width * 1m height, and lie on the side of the engine cowlings, with a hole at the root of the airbrake to reduce the danger of structural failure and gain more stability.
Special: The airbrakes are extended foward-swept, but they're not fixed at the end of the engine, but conncted at the head of the engine, to give the airbreak enough stability so that the foward-swept high-efficient airbrake would automatically close once the hydraulic of the airbrake system fails.
Performance: a pair of such large engine cowl airbrake would produces more than 20kN reverse thrust each while the airspeed is greater than 75 knots and the airbrakes fully opened.
this solution is structurally inefficient - your airbrake and supporting structure will carry plenty of unneeded weight. What is the reason for tri old inefficient low bypass ratio engine installation instead single turbofan? just for fun? :D Such arrangement is inherently dangerous and non certifable - in a case uncontained failure of single engine you are loosing all three.
 

J_P_C

Senior Airman
570
1,316
Feb 21, 2010
Warsaw
weight/performance is simplest and best benchmark - your solution (engine only) - ~15k lb / 63000 lbf thrust, single CF-6-80E 11300k lb / 65000 lbf of thrust. installation weight - rough assasement for delta 50% advantage for the single engine type, aero performance advantage 10-20% in favour of single engine pod.
For the airbrake design - as you shown on your sketch - i would rather use mass flow to compare performance vs. TR system - if you will do so result will be pretty obvious....
 

m13katyusa2020

Senior Airman
460
529
Mar 26, 2022
this solution is structurally inefficient - your airbrake and supporting structure will carry plenty of unneeded weight. What is the reason for tri old inefficient low bypass ratio engine installation instead single turbofan? just for fun? :D Such arrangement is inherently dangerous and non certifable - in a case uncontained failure of single engine you are loosing all three.
For civil jets, concorde even merges 2 not-so-relieable O593 engines in a single fairing to reduce drag and approved by FAA, and merging 3 much-more relieable JT8D engines seems not perfect but much safer than concorde's engine pods.
British Airways Concorde Supersonic jet historical manuals - AFM, AMM, WDM, SRM, IPC
Now that concorde could get FAA type certificate after professional modifications of the engines, I think the possibility to get FAA type certificate after professional modifications is very possible only on the view of tech.
Even after concorde were all retired, FAA type certificate of it still remained until 2009, after 6 years of its retirement.
That concludes it's still acceptable for civil jets to combine multi-engines together only from the point of safety.
1654781056399-png.png

Usage:
Fpr the low-bypass engine usage, could be used for gravel-runway modification, almost all the civil airplanes equipped with CF6, such as B747, B767, DC-10, MD-11, B787, as well as A330, to convert to millitary front-line transport aircrafts, with only gravel runway modification used on 737-200.
So, that would greatly increase the stragitic millitary air transport ability in emergency with ablility to takeoff and landing on extremely-easy-to-repair gravel runway, when a large-scale war exploded, which could add the number of large transport FLEETS for more than 5 times of the C-17 built number to operate on gravel runways.
724958-03af074f7d973b439959ca2b51db9074-png.png
724959-0197c7aa81e6f7b92926f6309a34b2c9-png.png
724960-943add6f75137e01d3c812a8162365bc-png.png
724946-63dd94e81735b3e97d9f2559cb0fc91d-png.png
724948-8df1ca5e2898e48e9a23b833d179a82d-png.png
 
Last edited:

J_P_C

Senior Airman
570
1,316
Feb 21, 2010
Warsaw
but why if CF6 are available inmuch bigger quantity than JT8D?? no changes needed... Just swapping engines to according to your idea will not add to A330 capabilityto operate fromgravel airstrips
 

Users who are viewing this thread