Although several customers signed preliminary contracts for this variant, the International Aero Engines board decided in April 1987 to stop the development of the SuperFan, which forced Airbus to partly re-design the A340.
In July 1986 IAE confirmed to conduct a preliminary design study for a concept examining a high-bypass engine which used the V2500 core components.
Prior to that study the IAE shareholders Rolls-Royce plc, Pratt & Whitney and MTU Aero Engines had examined several configuration for a high-bypass engine, including several design features like a variable fan blade pitch, a geared fan or counterrotating concepts (geared as well as ungeared).
[2] Due to the application of existing technology, the costs as well as the risks for the SuperFan development program were appraised lower than those of the competing CFM56-5 engine.
[3][2] First voices indicating not only the high risks associated with the new geared turbofan technology but also the potential failure to deliver the SuperFan in time appeared in February 1987.
No official statement was made after that decision, but Ralph Robins, managing director of Rolls-Royce and board member of IAE, indicated problems with the low-pressure system posed a serious threat to deliver the engine in 1992.
He admitted that Lufthansa had realized the risks in the SuperFan program but had relied on the experience and reputation of the IAE shareholding companies.
When asked for the delay's reason, he revealed that in a meeting at the beginning of 1987 IAE presented several technical problems that had arisen: not only the gearbox was mentioned, but also the variable-pitch mechanism and the bypass outlet duct.
In order to achieve comparable performance data to the SuperFan-powered version, the wingspan was extended by 2.6 meters to allow a larger fuel capacity.
To ensure a good performance also in partload ratings and to support the thrust reverser, a variable-pitch mechanism for the 18 fan blades would have been installed.