Tristan7977 From United States of America, joined Feb 2013, 156 posts, RR: 0 Posted (2 years 3 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 20596 times:
I've noticed there are very few 757's that have the Pratt & Whitney engine option. What were the airlines that had P&W powered 757's? I'm new to Airliners.net so pardon me if this is a commonly answered question.
Flying is my life. It's as if it were in my blood.
skymiler From United States of America, joined Aug 2007, 565 posts, RR: 2
Reply 2, posted (2 years 3 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 20593 times:
All of DL's have P&W -- and it is one of the largest fleets! They took the former TWA 752's from AA as they were oddballs in AA's RR powered fleet, and are not afraid to add PW powered 752's on an opportunistic basis
Viscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 26388 posts, RR: 22
Reply 7, posted (2 years 3 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 20356 times:
Quoting Tristan7977 (Thread starter): I've noticed there are very few 757's that have the Pratt & Whitney engine option. What were the airlines that had P&W powered 757's?
From Boeing orders/deliveries data, original 757 customers with P&W engines (number of aircraft in parentheses):
Condor (17 752s; their 13 753s are R-R)
Far Eastern Air Transport (Taiwan) (7)
ILFC (Leasing company) (38; also 44 R-R)
Shanghai Airlines (13)
UPS (first 35; last 40 are R-R)
Uzbekistan Airlines (3)
That's 40% of all 757s built. I don't consider that "very few".
AWAS (Ireland) 20
Delta Air Lines (USA) 116
Ethiopian Airlines (Ethiopia) 5
Far Eastern Air Transport (Taiwan) 7
ILFC (USA) 38
Mid East Jet (Saudi Arabia) 1
Northwest Airlines (USA) 72
Royal Air Maroc (Morocco) 2
Shanghai Airlines (China) 13
Singapore Airlines (Singapore) 4
TWA (USA) 14
United Air Lines (USA) 133
US Air Force (USA) 4
Uzbekistan Airways (Uzbekistan) 3
AA went with RR since they guaranteed enough t/o thrust to go MEX-ORD nonstop with a full load. At the time (80s), the P&W 2037 was having higher than advertised fuel burn as well, but I understand the maintenance costs for the Pratts are a bit lower. Of course, all of this was at one time, and things might have changed. It would be great to hear from someone who has flown both and worked on both.
Somewhat louder by a few decibles. I noticed that the t/o was quieter than the RR. Because of the demand of the 757, it is common to find mixed engine fleets. ET flies three RR examples in addition to their PW birds. FX and UPS both fly PW and RR examples.
rwy04lga From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 3176 posts, RR: 8
Reply 20, posted (2 years 3 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 19605 times:
Quoting platinumfoota (Reply 14): What about preformance numbers?? Also I have noticed that the RR engines are much louder that the P&W, they sound like old vacuums (figures) ... well at least on the ramp.
They always think the new guy doesn't know anything. As a new hire with less than a month at Delta, I was deep inside the bin of a MadDog when I heard a plane taking off. I yelled to my coworker at the belt loader 'American 757' and pointed in its direction. I gained quite a bit of 'ramp credibility' from that.
Just accept that some days, you're the pigeon, and other days the statue
sparky35805 From United States of America, joined Dec 2007, 309 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (2 years 2 weeks 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 19011 times:
It is not well known,but GE engines were originally offered on 757s.Americans original 757 order was to have been GE powered.A few others were a;so interested.When American cancelled their original order and trimed their original 767-200 order in the early 80s,Ge stopped development of the engine.
mah584jr From United States of America, joined Mar 2006, 514 posts, RR: 0
Reply 24, posted (2 years 2 weeks 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 18674 times:
Quoting beachbum1970 (Reply 16): I noticed this too. You really notice it working on the ramp. The P&W engines are much quieter. I've never flown on a RR 757 before. Can anyone verify if the RR's are also noisier in the cabin?
It's interesting you ask! I've actually made a video comparing the two and I agree that the RR's are much louder. Feel free to check it out!
: We have both types here and pretty equally matched. The only thing that stands out to me a bit is the Pratt burns less fuel. Hour leg maybe 300 to 500
: The performance differences can be summed up as follows: P&W: better fuel burn, better total maintenance costs, quieter RR: marginally better T/O
: Early on the RR also had a huge MTBO advantage, the Pratts were really new at the time and needed more attention until they matured.
: One of the main reasons RR did so well on the 757 was an overall weight saving of 3 tons compared against the PW. Quite a substantial difference.
: Would a state of the art engine today, comparable in thrust to a 757's PW2000 or RB211, weigh significantly more or less?
: Interesting. Not a huge difference from inside the cabin it would seem, at least on takeoff. The RR were slightly noisier, but not a great deal more.
: Correct, had GE develope an engine for the B-757 it would have been called the CF-6-32. It would have been developed from the CF-6-50 with a smaller