Sponsor Message:
Aviation Technical / Operations Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
More PW4090 Questions  
User currently offlineConcordeBoy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Posted (9 years 1 month 3 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 5136 times:

No airline utilizes (or apparently, is allowed to) the PW4090 at higher than 90,000lbs... hence the artificial MTOW restriction to 648,000lbs for users thereof.

This, despite the fact that the engine is actually certified to 91,790lbs... in league with the Trent892-17 and GE90-92B, yet those engines' users enjoy the full 656,000lb MTOW allotments.


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Søren Geertsen



....why is this?

Isn't this an enormous disadvantage for Pratt, particularly after the spectacular failure that was the PW4098?

17 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineDfwRevolution From United States of America, joined Jan 2010, 958 posts, RR: 51
Reply 1, posted (9 years 1 month 3 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 5112 times:

Quoting ConcordeBoy (Thread starter):
....why is this?

Man this really must be keeping you up at night, huh?  Wink

I don't have any contacts, so you got me. Has BCAinfosys been on here in a while? Maybe try emailing the tech department at UA or somethin (a long-shot, but maybe worth a try)


User currently offlineConcordeBoy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (9 years 1 month 3 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 5085 times:

Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 1):
Man this really must be keeping you up at night, huh?

...it bugs me dammit  mad 

Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 1):
Has BCAinfosys been on here in a while?

Dunno. Not that he'd know the answer, but no, haven't seen 'im.  Silly


User currently offlineSATL382G From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (9 years 1 month 3 weeks 1 day ago) and read 5018 times:

Quoting ConcordeBoy (Thread starter):
No airline utilizes (or apparently, is allowed to) the PW4090 at higher than 90,000lbs... hence the artificial MTOW restriction to 648,000lbs for users thereof.

Are the airlines not allowed to use this rating or do they just not want to pay for it even though there equipment is capable of it?


User currently offlineConcordeBoy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (9 years 1 month 3 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 5014 times:

Good question.

I've yet to see any official information, but I'd say the latter if I had to venture a guess... since every single PW4090 airline has gone that route, even those who've expressed their desire for more power out of PW.

Lan Chile also comes to mind-- they cancelled their entire 777 ambitions after Pratt's f^ckups with the PW4098's SFC.


User currently offlineAaron747 From Japan, joined Aug 2003, 8021 posts, RR: 26
Reply 5, posted (9 years 1 month 3 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 4990 times:

I don't really care about specifics...I'm just in love with how the damn things sound...


If you need someone to blame / throw a rock in the air / you'll hit someone guilty
User currently offlinePPVRA From Brazil, joined Nov 2004, 8930 posts, RR: 40
Reply 6, posted (9 years 1 month 2 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 4882 times:

Little off-topic question:

Do pilots need different certification to fly, say, a 777 with PW Vs. a 777 equiped with GE engines?

Sorry about going off-topic, but it would be nice to know that.

Cheers,
PPVRA



"If goods do not cross borders, soldiers will" - Frederic Bastiat
User currently offlineTrex8 From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 4605 posts, RR: 14
Reply 7, posted (9 years 1 month 2 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 4857 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting ConcordeBoy (Thread starter):
This, despite the fact that the engine is actually certified to 91,790lbs

are you sure it was certified to that thrust or they were able to run it up to that during testing??


User currently offlineStarlionblue From Greenland, joined Feb 2004, 16980 posts, RR: 67
Reply 8, posted (9 years 1 month 2 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 4855 times:

Quoting PPVRA (Reply 6):

Do pilots need different certification to fly, say, a 777 with PW Vs. a 777 equiped with GE engines?

Nope, just differences training.



"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots."
User currently offlineConcordeBoy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 9, posted (9 years 1 month 2 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 4831 times:

Quoting Trex8 (Reply 7):
are you sure it was certified to that thrust or they were able to run it up to that during testing??

Nope, they've run it even higher than that.


User currently offlineTrex8 From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 4605 posts, RR: 14
Reply 10, posted (9 years 1 month 2 weeks ago) and read 4796 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting ConcordeBoy (Reply 9):
Nope, they've run it even higher than that

could this just be a case of different parameters, eg temp, altitude?? I know some GE engines can be several thousand lbs thrust between different sources and its only due to different standard conditions


User currently offlinePPVRA From Brazil, joined Nov 2004, 8930 posts, RR: 40
Reply 11, posted (9 years 1 month 1 week 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 4780 times:

Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 8):

Thanks Starlion.

PPVRA



"If goods do not cross borders, soldiers will" - Frederic Bastiat
User currently offlineTimT From United States of America, joined Jun 2001, 168 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (9 years 1 month 1 week 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 4699 times:

Back in the early days of TWA's 767 powered with JT9D-7R4's TW was having some trouble with top of descent stalls, (pull power back and BOOM). It was rumored around TWA that P&W had certified the engine to 41,000 feet using a test cell certified for 39,000 feet. What we eventually found was the after 2 or 3 HP compressor overhauls that the cases were not as round as they should have been and the compressor blade tip clearance was short on one side and long on the other. And didn't necessarily coincide. After the overhaul procedure was modified to correct the clearance problems, the stalls diminished.

User currently offlineLightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12799 posts, RR: 100
Reply 13, posted (9 years 1 month 1 week 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 4589 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting ConcordeBoy (Thread starter):
No airline utilizes (or apparently, is allowed to) the PW4090 at higher than 90,000lbs... hence the artificial MTOW restriction to 648,000lbs for users thereof.

The reason for the pw4090 thrust limit is simple: Emissions. The pw4090 at 90,000lbf of thrust puts out 99.2% of the allowed ICAO NOx emissions. This is the highest certified thrust that Pratt is allowed to sell on the market. You are not allowed to fly into/out of a FAA or JAA airport without meeting ICAO emissions. In other words, the pw4090 is certified for 91,700lbf of thrust in every criteria *except* emissions. But you're not allowed to miss even one certification criteria... Note that the pw4090 has no trouble with the smoke or Carbon monoxide portions of the emissions certification.

The pw4098 has Pratt's 1st generation low emission combustor, the Talon I. This reduced emissions enough that even with the fuel efficiency miss its fine emission wise. Now why hasn't Pratt put a Talon I or Talon II combustor into the pw4090? Cost. The joke in the engine business is that "emissions are forever" as very few engines get recertified emissions due to the large costs involved. One exception is the pw4062 (with a Talon II) as UPS made emissions a criteria in their A300 purchase decision. Also the pw4068 was recertified with the Talon II. (As part of the botched pw4072 thrust increase).)

The one and only exception with a permanent emission waiver was the Concorde.

Lightsaber



Societies that achieve a critical mass of ideas achieve self sustaining growth; others stagnate.
User currently offlineGigneil From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 16347 posts, RR: 85
Reply 14, posted (9 years 1 month 1 week 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 4565 times:

Quoting Lightsaber (Reply 13):
One exception is the pw4062 (with a Talon II) as UPS made emissions a criteria in their A300 purchase decision. Also the pw4068 was recertified with the Talon II. (As part of the botched pw4072 thrust increase).)

Do you mean the 4156 and the 4168? They're different engines.  Smile

N


User currently offlineLightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12799 posts, RR: 100
Reply 15, posted (9 years 1 month 1 week 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 4517 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Gigneil (Reply 14):

Do you mean the 4156 and the 4168? They're different engines

Gigneil, You are correct that they were sold as 4156 and 4168. I should have only used the 4168, there isn't a 4068! My bad!
Pratt Naming convention #XYZ
#=serier (e.g., 4000)
X=airframer (0=Boeing, 1=airbus, 2=McD)
YZ=thrust in thousands of pounds.

Pratt developed the combustor for the 4156 in a 4062. Why not! And it leaves the combustor certified for the 62k thrust level. I tend to default to calling them the 40XX as that was a bad habit in my old department in Pratt. Mea culpa. We'd refer to each family as the 62k, 68k, 90k, or 98k pw4000. oops. Recall that even if a thrust is an "upthrust" (e.g., the 62k pw4262), all of the lower thrusts become just derates (e.g., the 4156) of that engine family.

Now, technically, the 4156 and 4056/4062 are the EXACT same engine (if a generation 3 build. Earlier builds cannot be upthrusted to 62k, the fan and case aren't built for the stress), just with different interface points and of course computer logic. You can modify a 4056 to a 4156 in minutes for a few hundred bucks worth of parts. (Tubes, electrical connectors, and the Fadac logic chip.) Note: to go to the higher thrust might require different restrictors in the fuel injectors and other trivial parts. (But Pratt charges big $$$ for the higher thrust license and controls that but charging for the fadac logic chip.)

The 4056/4156 to 4062/4262 are all 94" Pratt 4000 series for 747, 767, A300, and MD11
The 4168 is the Pratt 100" diameter fan 4000 series custom for the A330
The 4084/4090 is the Pratt 112" diameter fan 4000 series custom for the 777.
The infamous 4098 kept the 112" fan (kept nacelle geometry) but had a reduced bypass ratio due to a larger core.

Note and appology to those in opperations: I understand you can't be this sloppy with the number. E.g., the mx on a 4156 is on a different schedule than a 4262 even though they are the exact same engine (exception fadac logic, signal connector, fuel connector, and possibly fuel injector restrictors) as they leave the factory! Same exact build of materials except for the parts mentioned.

Lightsaber



Societies that achieve a critical mass of ideas achieve self sustaining growth; others stagnate.
User currently offlineTrex8 From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 4605 posts, RR: 14
Reply 16, posted (9 years 1 month 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 4406 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

thanks for all that great info, what exactly did happen to the 4072??

User currently offlineLightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12799 posts, RR: 100
Reply 17, posted (9 years 1 month 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 4394 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Trex8 (Reply 16):
thanks for all that great info, what exactly did happen to the 4072??

The Pw4072, at the higher thrust level, had a temperature exceedence out of the compressor surge vents that would have required a nacelle material change and recertification. Due to GE having made some good sales of the CF-6 via lease incentives, Pratt didn't thing the return on a nacelle recertification was there. Also, Pratt was under contractual obligation to have *zero* nacelle modifications from the pw4068 to pw4072... so the plug was pulled.

Lightsaber



Societies that achieve a critical mass of ideas achieve self sustaining growth; others stagnate.
Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic More PW4090 Questions
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • Tech/Ops related posts only!
  • Not Tech/Ops related? Use the other forums
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
  • DETAILED RULES
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)


Similar topics:More similar topics...
757/67 More APU Questions posted Thu Apr 6 2006 01:30:24 by Taguilo
More APU Questions posted Thu Mar 23 2006 14:10:26 by Taguilo
More Wake Vortex Questions... posted Fri Sep 10 2004 08:38:17 by Videns
More Detailed Etops Questions posted Mon Nov 20 2000 23:10:35 by Prebennorholm
Why 2 Engines More Efficient Than 3, Or 4? posted Thu Nov 16 2006 03:13:12 by MarkC
Two DC9 Questions posted Wed Nov 15 2006 21:21:33 by DrDeke
MD82-questions about type rating posted Sat Nov 4 2006 17:45:03 by Dash8pilot
A340-500 Belly Load Questions posted Wed Oct 25 2006 15:58:43 by Stylo777
A320 Questions Of The Day posted Sun Oct 1 2006 22:29:22 by Symphonik
RVR Fog And Holding In The Stack - Questions posted Mon Sep 25 2006 21:35:59 by Julianuk

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format