Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Delta B772 Range  
User currently offlineCx750 From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 155 posts, RR: 0
Posted (9 years 3 months 1 week 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 3317 times:

Could anyone shed some light on the range capabilities of DL's B772s? Specifically, can it fly either ATL-PEK or PVG if they get the final China slot?

In addition, what engines do they have on their B772s? Thanks.

20 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineDrerx7 From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 5062 posts, RR: 8
Reply 1, posted (9 years 3 months 1 week 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 3302 times:

Yes--they have comparable range to Continental's 777s which as you know fly EWR-HKG routinely.


Third Coast born, means I'm Texas raised
User currently offlineDelta07 From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 96 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (9 years 3 months 1 week 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 3286 times:

I believe the B777-232ER is powered by two RR-Trent 892.


NO URLS in signature
User currently offlineDeltaMIA From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 1672 posts, RR: 17
Reply 3, posted (9 years 3 months 1 week 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 3199 times:

DL claims they can fly 8150 miles. If true it would be right around 900 miles more than the distance from ATL-PEK. I think that is around 7200 miles.


It's a big building with patients, but that's not important right now.
User currently offlineCx750 From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 155 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (9 years 3 months 1 week 11 hours ago) and read 2944 times:

Is it safe to assume that the RR-Trent 892 provides the B772 with the longest range? What engines do other major B777 carriers have? SQ,BA,JL etc..

Thanks.


User currently offlineConcordeBoy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (9 years 3 months 1 week 6 hours ago) and read 2785 times:

can it fly either ATL-PEK or PVG if they get the final China slot?

Yes



Is it safe to assume that the RR-Trent 892 provides the B772 with the longest range?

No, it isn't.




What engines do other major B777 carriers have?

Basic choices are:
GE90-115B and its deration (GE90-110B1)
GE90-94B and its derations (GE90-90B) and progenitors (GE90-92B, -85B, etc)

Trent895
Trent892 and its derations (most carriers op it at 90K lb/ft, not 92K... also 884B) and progenitors (Trent875, 877, 884)

PW4098 (sh!tty engine that PW basically had to give away to the only airline who ops it)
PW4090
PW4084 and its progenitors (PW4074, 4077)


SQ,BA,JL etc..

SQ: Trent884B, Trent892, and soon the GE90-115B
BA: GE90-76B, GE90-85B, GE90-90B, Trent895-17
JL: PW4077, PW4090, GE90-115B


User currently offlineNewark777 From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 9348 posts, RR: 30
Reply 6, posted (9 years 3 months 1 week 6 hours ago) and read 2772 times:

Isn't the GE90-115B only available on the 777-300, or is it the other way around?

Harry



Why grab a Heine when you can grab a Busch?
User currently offlineConcordeBoy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (9 years 3 months 1 week 6 hours ago) and read 2771 times:

PW4098 (sh!tty engine that PW basically had to give away to the only airline who ops it)


...interesting thing worth noting about the PW4098 though:

KE's 773As actually have a power-to-weight ratio that is GREATER than the most powerful 773ERs that are set to arrive in a few months... who knew?  Wow!


User currently offlineConcordeBoy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (9 years 3 months 1 week 6 hours ago) and read 2764 times:

Isn't the GE90-115B only available on the 777-300, or is it the other way around?

All 777s which exceed 700,000lb in MTOW, must use some variation of the GE90-115B (be it that model, a future up-rate thereof, or its -110B1 deration)


User currently offlineRyanL1011 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 9, posted (9 years 3 months 1 week ago) and read 2585 times:

PW4098 (sh!tty engine that PW basically had to give away to the only airline who ops it)
PW4090
PW4084 and its progenitors (PW4074, 4077)>>>



Sorry pal but I have to strongly disagree on this one

Not only is the PW the most powerful engines on the 777, they are very reliable and have few issues, if any. The GEs and Trents are also great engines, and there have been very few problems reported with them. Before you bash something get the facts straight and have some PROOF.




User currently offlineNewark777 From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 9348 posts, RR: 30
Reply 10, posted (9 years 3 months 1 week ago) and read 2570 times:

It's not proof, but here's another thread talking about the failures of the P&W 777 engines. It appears it's about fuel burn, not power. (It's near the bottom).

http://www.airliners.net/discussions/tech_ops/read.main/106251/4/

BTW Speaking of proof, I'd like to see some proof of your own to prove the P&W's being the better engines.

Harry



Why grab a Heine when you can grab a Busch?
User currently offlineJpetekYXMD80 From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 4355 posts, RR: 27
Reply 11, posted (9 years 3 months 1 week ago) and read 2563 times:

Basic choices are:
GE90-115B and its deration (GE90-110B1)
GE90-94B and its derations (GE90-90B) and progenitors (GE90-92B, -85B, etc)


Too bad deration isnt a word  Laugh out loud



The Best Care in the Air, 1984-2009
User currently offlineGigneil From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 16345 posts, RR: 86
Reply 12, posted (9 years 3 months 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 2543 times:

Not only is the PW the most powerful engines on the 777, they are very reliable and have few issues, if any

You're wrong. Perhaps you should get the facts? I didn't see any proof in your post.

Firstly, the GE90-115B is the most powerful engine available for the 777.

The PW4098, while powerful, consumes so much fuel that hanging it on the plane actually decreases its range compared to the weaker engines from the competitor. There is only a single customer for it, and PW basically gave them the engine, and even further only for their 773s. Every other customer for it bailed out and some even gave up on the 777 as a result of their displeasure.

The PW4090 is fine, but same problem. The higher MTOWs are not available with this engine, so 772ERs fitted with it are cripples compared to the planes powered by offerings from the other two manufacturers.

The PW4077 was great for the A market. Super light, and not too bad on the fuel.

There's a reason why the PW engines are the least sold in this market market.

N


User currently offlineBOEING747400 From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 319 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (9 years 3 months 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 2477 times:

Does anybody know the fuel burn rate of the PW 4098? I'd like to compare figures of the fuel burn rate of GE 90 series vs PW 4000 series vs RR Trent 800 series on B777 models. Can anybody please provide me with the numbers? Thanks.

User currently offlineConcordeBoy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 14, posted (9 years 3 months 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 2311 times:

Not only is the PW the most powerful engines on the 777

not exactly sure from whence you derive that amusing tidbit, as the GE90-115B is certified to produce about 17,000 more lb/ft of thrust than the best from PW



The GEs and Trents are also great engines, and there have been very few problems reported with them.

I guess that's why they're both far better sellers for the 777 family than PW, right?  Nuts



Too bad deration isnt a word

Too bad 31,900 Google hits and a simple dictionary definition completely beg to differ:
de·ra·tion [dee rásh’n] (past de·ra·tioned, past participle de·ra·tioned, present participle de·ra·tion·ing, 3rd person present singular de·ra·tions)
transitive verb

1. stop rationing: to stop rationing a commodity, usually because the supply has become adequate
2. reduction in ability or capability, usually in reference to mechanical performance or output of energy.




Every other customer for it bailed out and some even gave up on the 777 as a result of their displeasure.

*cough* United and Lan Chile *cough cough*  Laugh out loud




Does anybody know the fuel burn rate of the PW 4098?

I have the specs on my home computer... but wont have access to that for a few hours. What I can tell you is that the engine missed its projected specs by nearly 3%; which may not sound like much, but is actually a complete and total disaster for the product.


User currently offlineJpetekYXMD80 From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 4355 posts, RR: 27
Reply 15, posted (9 years 3 months 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 2259 times:

Damn, dictionary.com didnt have any entry. Oh well, just had to take a shot to correct you for once!

*insert piazza*

 Sad



The Best Care in the Air, 1984-2009
User currently offlineRyanL1011 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 16, posted (9 years 3 months 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 2083 times:


Here is where I got the info from, have a problem with it, talk to boeing  Smile

http://www.boeing.com/commercial/777family/777technical.html



User currently offlineRyanL1011 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 17, posted (9 years 3 months 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 2077 times:

When I was refering to the PWs not having any problems with it I was refering to mechanical problems. I could care less about fuel consumption, and yes I know the airlines do care about fuel consumption, I care about power and reliability, something that the PWs HAVE.

User currently offlineGigneil From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 16345 posts, RR: 86
Reply 18, posted (9 years 3 months 5 days ago) and read 2049 times:

The point is that the PW4098 doesn't exist, for all intents and purposes. Only a few were built, and none will ever be built again.

N


User currently offlineRyanL1011 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 19, posted (9 years 3 months 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 1952 times:

Hmm lets see, doing some past history checks, ANA has 34+ aircraft with the PW engines... you got United... as well as 5 or 6 other carriers that come to mind... It most certainly does exist. Nice try though... :-Þ

User currently offlineConcordeBoy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 20, posted (9 years 3 months 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 1822 times:

Um Ryan... you do realize that absolutely none of the airlines you mentioned operate the PW4098.

In fact, UA was one of the three airlines pushing PW hardest to create it; yet UA later threw up its hands and ran away from that engine, once its horrific specs were made apparent.


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...
Door Comes Off Of A Delta B772 In ATL posted Thu Feb 3 2005 01:48:18 by Pilottim747
Air India B772 Range? SYD Flights. posted Mon Nov 22 2004 01:42:14 by 6thfreedom
Delta/Long Range, High Capacity posted Fri Aug 13 1999 19:18:36 by Flyf15
Delta Creditors Agree With Delta posted Thu Dec 21 2006 02:57:41 by MD88Captain
Delta BOD Formally Rejects LCC posted Tue Dec 19 2006 14:06:47 by MD88Captain
Delta Gives Up Gates At Boston Logan posted Mon Dec 18 2006 18:07:17 by WMUPilot
Delta Adds HHH Direct Service posted Mon Dec 18 2006 15:12:55 by Tvnewsguy08
Delta To File For $12 Bln Reorganisation - WSJ posted Mon Dec 18 2006 10:38:51 by DAL767400ER
Delta Upgrading Equipment To Central America? posted Sun Dec 17 2006 22:45:50 by Luisca
Delta Ship 122 AOG At SJO This Afternoon posted Sun Dec 17 2006 00:42:51 by Tomascubero