Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
A345 Or 777 - Which One Has More Engine Power?  
User currently offlineACB777 From Canada, joined Sep 2003, 350 posts, RR: 2
Posted (10 years 8 months 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 3779 times:

I am wondering which aircraft has more engine power: the Airbus A345 or the Boeing 777 with GE - 90 Engines. Does anybody know?

14 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineGigneil From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 16347 posts, RR: 85
Reply 1, posted (10 years 8 months 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 3760 times:

The 345 handily beats all A and B market 777s with any form of GE90 offered.

The 772LR with the GE90-110B1 will offer a bit more thrust - about 8,000 pounds. It has to to meet engine out performance requirements.

The 345 is actually quite overpowered for a 4-engine craft. Airbus did good.

N


User currently offlineConcordeBoy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (10 years 8 months 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 3712 times:

No A340 is of any challenge whatsoever to a 777NG when it comes to thrust or thrust ratios. The twinjets win both categories easily.

Also, the higher MTOW 772s compare similarly with the A340 classics.


User currently offlineEA777 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (10 years 8 months 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 3716 times:

Definently the B777

The A340-500 is powered by 4 Rolls Royce Trent engines each rated at
54, 000lb of thrust compared to 94,000lb on a B777.

The B777-200LR which will be competing head to head with the A340-500 when it comes into service will have each engine producing 120,000lb of thrust-more than double that of the Airbus model.


User currently offline777236ER From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (10 years 8 months 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 3694 times:

It doesn't take a genius to work out that the A340 has TWICE the engines of the 777.

The A345 has more thrust than all 777s apart from the ones with 110,000lb GE90s (772LR, 773ER?)


User currently offlineGigneil From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 16347 posts, RR: 85
Reply 5, posted (10 years 8 months 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 3689 times:

EA777-

Your post didn't make a lot of sense. While of course each individual engine on the 777 is more powerful than each individual engine on the A340, the Airbus does have twice as many.

N


User currently offlineDutchjet From Netherlands, joined Oct 2000, 7864 posts, RR: 57
Reply 6, posted (10 years 8 months 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 3682 times:

Not really a fair comparison as the A345 has 4 engines and the 777 is a twin - twins must have enough thrust to safely handle one engine out situations and emergencies.



User currently offlineConcordeBoy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (10 years 8 months 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 3678 times:

773ER's engines will produce over 115,000lbs each... 772LR's engines will do either that, or a derated 110,000lbs each

User currently offlineGigneil From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 16347 posts, RR: 85
Reply 8, posted (10 years 8 months 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 3667 times:

In the event that Boeing does offer a 772LR with the GE90-115B1, Airbus is of course prepared to offer the Trent 556 on the 345. Rumor had it that EK was going to take theirs that way, but then it seems they didn't.

They are also planning on hanging Trent 558s or 560s off the A340-600HGW. More details TBA.

N


User currently offlineEA777 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 9, posted (10 years 8 months 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 3648 times:

Gigneil

Sorry just spootted my mistake. What I meant to say is that the B777 'classics' have greater power than the A340 'classics', and so is the case with longer-legged versions of both models.

You cannot compare the A340-500 with the B777-200ER. They both operate in different markets. It would make more sence to compare the A340-600 with the B777-200LR


User currently offlineGigneil From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 16347 posts, RR: 85
Reply 10, posted (10 years 8 months 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 3628 times:

Agreed... I tried to in my post. The 772LR does have an 8k lb advantage over the 345.

But as was pointed out - its hard to draw lines. The 772 has that much power because it has to.

N


User currently offlineZak From Greenland, joined Sep 2003, 1993 posts, RR: 8
Reply 11, posted (10 years 8 months 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 3473 times:

this thread is so stupid, the engine out requirements make twins have more thrust naturally. it would actually be unwise to load up a quad with engines it doesnt need. even the 340 classics are not as underpowered as many people here indicate, but the airbus flex engine mainteance saving strategy shows alot more with their not too great thrust out of the box then with other planes like the a319.
this thread is the usual comparison of things u cant compare. the 777 has to fly and take off reliably on one engine, quads have 3 engines to do the job, so naturally twins are always by far overpowered compared to quads.
and honestly, who cares about thrust on a civil airliner as long as its safe.
they have a few things to accomplish and "thrust that impresses the aviation enthusiast" is not in that book.
safe and economical operation are the things that determine a modern airliner.
thrust to weight ratios are a topic for the military av forum



10=2
User currently offlineDw747400 From United States of America, joined Aug 2001, 1257 posts, RR: 1
Reply 12, posted (10 years 8 months 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 3417 times:

Zak,

Actually, thrust to weight ratios can have an impact on aircraft design. Thrust is, of course, one of that factors that determines climb performance, as well as initial cruise altitude. This is a contributing factor to why the 777-200 has a higher initial cruise altitude than the A340-300 (not sure about the A340NGs vs. 777NGs, so I'm not going to comment other than say I'd guess the situation is the same).

If your flying over a congested area with lots of slow moving 737s and A320s plodding along at Mach .75-.80 at FL310, its faster and more economical to climb over them and take a direct route. Of course, if an aircraft is designed to operate efficiently at a lower initial altitude and you’re not as worried about other traffic, then it doesn’t make sense to carry as much extra thrust.

Again, thrust is far from the only factor involved in climb and cruise, but to say thrust to weight ratios belong in the military forum overlooks some very important considerations.

I know this is a gross oversimplification of things, but thrust does matter!



CFI--Certfied Freakin Idiot
User currently offlineZak From Greenland, joined Sep 2003, 1993 posts, RR: 8
Reply 13, posted (10 years 8 months 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 3340 times:

@dw747400
yes of course thrust matters. but only as a factor to fullfill certain safety limits and to get to whatever is economic.
what exactly is economic for an airline depends on a zillion trillion variables as you also stated and therefore alot of airlines start co using 340 and 777 for example. i am pretty sure we both mean the same thing anyway.
all i wanted to state in the thread is that more thrust doesnt equal the "better" "faster" "whatever" plane, like car ads always imply. and somehow some people also apply that idea to planes, which is really more a thing for the mil av, where speed and such matters more then economical performance.
and since thrust plays a far bigger role in flying performance then in the economical performance of a plane, where its only one of many many factors, i felt i had to chip in that "POWER" isnt what todays airliners are about.
good example is boeings sonic cruiser flop, since more speed didnt mean more overall performance economically (in the opinion of airlines) despite the time savings. etc...  Smile



10=2
User currently offlineRaivavae From France, joined Jul 2001, 82 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (10 years 8 months 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 3248 times:

This power is only used during the initial take off sequence, climb and cruise will be at reduced power.

From a pilot point of view, how much power you have is interresting to know when you loose one of them.

and on a quad, you'll still get 3x 54.000 which is more than 120.000 for about the same weight!

i would say that in normal opération a twin is over-powered, but in emergency situations it's under-powered!


Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
B 777-300LR VS B 747-400. Which One Costs More? posted Sat Apr 7 2001 09:13:27 by United Airline
B 767VS B 777. Which One Do You Like More? posted Wed Mar 14 2001 03:16:23 by United Airline
Which Airport Has More Runways posted Tue Feb 1 2005 20:59:02 by Macc
Big Airlines: Which One Has The Best Fleet? posted Mon May 27 2002 17:09:34 by F.pier
B 747 VS B 777. Which One Do You Prefer? posted Sat Mar 10 2001 06:28:08 by United Airline
Which Airline Has More Routes? posted Sat Nov 4 2000 15:07:12 by Af3876
Which One Is More Important? posted Tue Nov 30 1999 05:25:24 by AC_A340
Which Airport Has The Largest 744 Or 777 Traffic? posted Sat Jul 12 2003 09:56:02 by BOEING747400
Which Is Better For Boeing 747ADV Or 777-400 posted Thu May 12 2005 22:32:07 by JAM747
Which Is The More Efficient: F50, DH3 Or AT4? posted Thu Feb 19 2004 16:02:48 by Pe@rson