Sponsor Message:
Aviation Technical / Operations Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
KLM 777 Engines!  
User currently offlineSlovacek747 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Posted (8 years 5 months 3 weeks 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 5991 times:

I know the 777 has different engine thrust varients depending on what the airline wants... Continental has the strongest thrust (90,000 lbs) on their engines and United has a less powerful engine... So my question is:

What thrust engine does KLM have on their 777?

Slovacek747

19 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineAlitalia744 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 4742 posts, RR: 45
Reply 1, posted (8 years 5 months 3 weeks 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 5969 times:

Quoting Slovacek747 (Thread starter):
Continental has the strongest thrust (90,000 lbs) on their engines

Continental's aren't the strongest. CO flies their 772ERs with GE90-90 engines (offering 90,000lbs of thrust). The strongest GE powered engine on the 772ER is the -94B which offeres 94,000lbs of thurst...

KL uses -94Bs



Some see lines, others see between the lines.
User currently offlineStarlionblue From Greenland, joined Feb 2004, 16991 posts, RR: 67
Reply 2, posted (8 years 5 months 3 weeks 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 5967 times:

When it comes to 777s (or for that matter any airliner), the 777-300ER has the most powerful engines, the GE90-115B at 115200lb. This is the most powerful jet engine ever in service.


"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots."
User currently offlineSlovacek747 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (8 years 5 months 3 weeks 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 5957 times:

yes I understand the 773 is a more powerful engine.. I should have been more specific and said the 772. Why does KLM need the strongest engine (94,000 lbs) of thrust and United have much "weaker" ones? Does KLM really need them? United is a big company and fly many lucrative routes that are long... It seems that the 90K or 94K lb engines would better meet their needs... Correct me if I am wrong..

Slovacek747


User currently offlineJetlagged From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 2543 posts, RR: 24
Reply 4, posted (8 years 5 months 3 weeks 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 5914 times:

It's not really a question of "my engines are bigger than yours" one-upmanship. It just comes down to which version of GE90 was available when the aircraft were obtained. KLM's aircraft are a lot newer than Continental's and United's, so have the latest engine.

Even though a better engine comes along later it's unlikely an operator would consider an engine change, assuming it's technically feasible.



The glass isn't half empty, or half full, it's twice as big as it needs to be.
User currently offlineHAWK21M From India, joined Jan 2001, 31667 posts, RR: 56
Reply 5, posted (8 years 5 months 3 weeks 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 5897 times:

Quoting Jetlagged (Reply 4):
Even though a better engine comes along later it's unlikely an operator would consider an engine change, assuming it's technically feasible

Would a Weight difference Exist between versions.
regds
MEL



Think of the brighter side!
User currently offlineJetlagged From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 2543 posts, RR: 24
Reply 6, posted (8 years 5 months 3 weeks 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 5883 times:

Quoting HAWK21M (Reply 5):
Would a Weight difference Exist between versions.

Presumably. I would guess a GE90-94B weighs more than a GE90-90, but I don't know by how much.



The glass isn't half empty, or half full, it's twice as big as it needs to be.
User currently offlineStarlionblue From Greenland, joined Feb 2004, 16991 posts, RR: 67
Reply 7, posted (8 years 5 months 3 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 5800 times:

Some of these have already been raised:
- Availability of engine at time of delivery.
- Weight of engine.
- Cost of engine. Maybe the savings from buying a less powerful version outweight the payload restrictions.
- Route structure.



"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots."
User currently offlineGrbld From Netherlands, joined Dec 2005, 353 posts, RR: 3
Reply 8, posted (8 years 5 months 3 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 5794 times:

KLM's 772s are ER versions and have a higher MTOW than UAL's 772s. Perhaps UAL has some ERs as well, I don't know, but a big portion of their fleet are regular 772s. The stronger engines allow the aircraft to take off and fly at higher altitudes at higher weights (= more payload = more revenue).

KLM also has about 25 more seats in the 777s than UAL, so on any given route, the plane's probably going to be heavier than the UAL version. Hence, stronger engines are a plus.

Grbld


User currently offlineAFC_ajax00 From United States of America, joined Nov 2000, 775 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (8 years 5 months 3 weeks 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 5743 times:

Continental actually has GE90-92B's on their 777s; downrated to 90,000lbs of thrust. As mentioned above, KLM's 772ER's are rated at a higher MTOW than those of UA; if I remember correctly, this is because the PW engines required for the higher MTOW had horrible SFC so UA elected to take a lower MTOW with engines they knew would perform in accordance with the spec's.


Once you have tasted flight, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skyward; for there you long to return
User currently offlineGigneil From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 16347 posts, RR: 85
Reply 10, posted (8 years 5 months 3 weeks 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 5703 times:

United's PW choice has been disasterous for them.

United had made the choice to power their 777-200ER fleet with PW4098s and a 656,000 pound MTOW.

The PW4098's fuel burn was so bad that it would have severely eaten into the range of the plane, and there was no way UA could profitably operate them.

What I don't understand is why the 656,000 pound MTOW is not an option on PW4090 powered frames... 90k pounds is more than sufficient to get the plane off the ground. Continental flies the longest 777 routes in the world with 656,000 pound 777-200ERs with 90k engines.

N


User currently offlineSlovacek747 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 11, posted (8 years 5 months 3 weeks 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 5686 times:

The GE90 engines are the way to go for the 777. With the option of a 90K or 94K lb thrust engine, the airline has many options and can fly farther with much more payload. The GE90 engines are also very reliable and I believe they are working out well for CO.

Slovacek747


User currently offlineStarlionblue From Greenland, joined Feb 2004, 16991 posts, RR: 67
Reply 12, posted (8 years 5 months 3 weeks 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 5602 times:

Quoting Slovacek747 (Reply 11):
The GE90 engines are the way to go for the 777. With the option of a 90K or 94K lb thrust engine, the airline has many options and can fly farther with much more payload.

There's more to it that thrust levels. What about purchase/lease cost, maintenance cost, delivery dates, etc?



"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots."
User currently offlineQantas744ER From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 1286 posts, RR: 4
Reply 13, posted (8 years 5 months 3 weeks 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 5507 times:

Sry but your wrong if it comes to thrust the RR Trent 895 with 95,000 pounds of thrust is currently the most powerfull engine for the boeing 777-200ER the 95 is currently only in service with BA so they have the highest MTOW for the 777-200ER.


Cheers Leo



Happiness is V1 in Lagos
User currently offlineSlovacek747 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 14, posted (8 years 5 months 3 weeks 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 5493 times:

Thanks for correcting me Qantas744ER... I've never known for RR to have the 95K thrust engine... Why is BA the only company to operate it and are they happy with its performance?

Slovacek747


User currently offline777236ER From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 15, posted (8 years 5 months 3 weeks 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 5483 times:

Quoting Qantas744ER (Reply 13):
Sry but your wrong if it comes to thrust the RR Trent 895 with 95,000 pounds of thrust

The Trent 895 has 93400lb of static thrust. The GE90-94B has 93700lb of static thrust.


User currently offlineQantas744ER From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 1286 posts, RR: 4
Reply 16, posted (8 years 5 months 3 weeks 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 5459 times:

Call me an idiot but here it states the 895 has 95,000
http://www.rolls-royce.com/civil_aer...ts/airlines/trent800/technical.jsp

Cheers Leo



Happiness is V1 in Lagos
User currently offlineDfwRevolution From United States of America, joined Jan 2010, 960 posts, RR: 51
Reply 17, posted (8 years 5 months 3 weeks 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 5451 times:

Quoting Gigneil (Reply 10):
What I don't understand is why the 656,000 pound MTOW is not an option on PW4090 powered frames... 90k pounds is more than sufficient to get the plane off the ground

I know this question has been keeping Concordeboy awake at night for months  Wink

After a whole thread on this topic (which I admit I could not find), perhaps it's just a simple matter that no one has asked for the option?

Quoting Qantas744ER (Reply 13):
Sry but your wrong if it comes to thrust the RR Trent 895 with 95,000 pounds of thrust is currently the most powerfull engine for the boeing 777-200ER

777236ER is correct, the inaptly named Trent 895 is not the most powerful 772ER power option. However, it is significantly lighter than the marginally more powerful Ge90-94B.


User currently offlineAirPortugal310 From Palau, joined Apr 2004, 3575 posts, RR: 2
Reply 18, posted (8 years 5 months 3 weeks 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 5432 times:

Trent 895 2000 95,000lb
423kN Boeing 777-200
(656,000lb)
Boeing 777-300
(660,000lb) 305

368 7700

5750


That is directly from Rolls Royce site as provided by Leo (Qantas744ER)

Why everyone is on here trying to tell him hes wrong is beyond me.



I sell airplanes and airplane accessories
User currently offlineContinentalFan From United States of America, joined Oct 2000, 356 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (8 years 5 months 3 weeks 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 5291 times:

Quoting Gigneil (Reply 10):
The PW4098's fuel burn was so bad that it would have severely eaten into the range of the plane, and there was no way UA could profitably operate them.

I thought only KE ordered the 4098? I coulda sworn that UA had lower rated PW4000s.


Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic KLM 777 Engines!
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...
B 777 Engines Vs. A 380 Engines posted Fri Jun 17 2005 00:04:05 by Bongo
777 Engines - Precautions For Such Power? posted Wed May 18 2005 17:29:40 by Alphafloor
KLM's 777 Crew Rest Questions posted Sun Jan 25 2004 15:08:31 by SafetyDude
Major Avionics Upgrade On KLM 777-200ER's posted Sun Oct 26 2003 18:24:03 by Rohan737
777 Engines - Subjective Impressions posted Tue Jul 30 2002 15:42:15 by CF-CPI
777 Engines Question posted Sun Jan 13 2002 23:55:47 by DC10Tony
777 Engines - GE/PW/RR - Biggest? posted Thu Apr 19 2001 15:04:55 by Blackened
BA 777 W/GE-90 And Trent 800 Engines - Route Ques? posted Mon Dec 13 2004 17:48:29 by Philhyde
Width Of Gear, Engines, Wingtips, A380, 777,744 posted Mon Jan 5 2004 21:22:10 by Seagull
777-200,300ER Vs 747-400 Engines posted Sun May 6 2001 21:45:57 by Frequentflyer5
777 With De-rated Engines posted Tue Nov 22 2011 19:59:04 by embrider
Why Do UA's 777's Engines Smoke? posted Tue Mar 4 2008 18:56:22 by UltimateDelta
B 777 Engines Vs. A 380 Engines posted Fri Jun 17 2005 00:04:05 by Bongo
777 Engines - Precautions For Such Power? posted Wed May 18 2005 17:29:40 by Alphafloor
KLM's 777 Crew Rest Questions posted Sun Jan 25 2004 15:08:31 by SafetyDude
Major Avionics Upgrade On KLM 777-200ER's posted Sun Oct 26 2003 18:24:03 by Rohan737
777 Engines - Subjective Impressions posted Tue Jul 30 2002 15:42:15 by CF-CPI
777 Engines Question posted Sun Jan 13 2002 23:55:47 by DC10Tony
777 Engines - GE/PW/RR - Biggest? posted Thu Apr 19 2001 15:04:55 by Blackened
777 With De-rated Engines posted Tue Nov 22 2011 19:59:04 by embrider

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format