Sponsor Message:
Aviation Technical / Operations Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
A380 Vs 777 Engine Size  
User currently offlineOkees From Canada, joined Sep 2005, 424 posts, RR: 5
Posted (8 years 4 months 3 weeks 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 32767 times:

Hi, i did a search but couldnt find anything regarding this topic. I was wondering which aircraft has a bigger engine, the A380 or the 777? I believe its the 777 but im not sure.

Thanks


mobs jakis
26 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineIkramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21474 posts, RR: 60
Reply 1, posted (8 years 4 months 3 weeks 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 32767 times:

the 777 by a little bit.

might try looking at RR website, considering they make engines for both planes and list their dimensions there.



Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offlineDw747400 From United States of America, joined Aug 2001, 1257 posts, RR: 1
Reply 2, posted (8 years 4 months 3 weeks 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 32767 times:

IIRC, it depends on the model 777 and engine manufacturer. Some of the early models have smaller engines (in terms of fan diameter) than the A380, but the GE90-115B found on the 777-300ER is the largest jet in the world.

I'd look up some more specifications for you, but I've got to run out. I'm sure someone else can give you some additional details such as exact diameter and thrust numbers.

[Edited 2006-03-01 22:50:56]


CFI--Certfied Freakin Idiot
User currently offlineIkramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21474 posts, RR: 60
Reply 3, posted (8 years 4 months 3 weeks 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 32767 times:

yeah, I just checked RR and they are both basically the same size, as are the 787/350 engines, all within a few inches of fan diameter.

I think at GE though, the 777 fan is bigger than the GE partnered engine on the A380.



Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offlineEMBQA From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 9364 posts, RR: 11
Reply 4, posted (8 years 4 months 3 weeks 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 32767 times:

There was a thread a few months back but I could not find it...

The Boeing 777 engine is much bigger.

GE90-

Fan Dia: 135"
Length: 287"

RR Trent 900-

Fan Dia:116"
Lenght: 179"



"It's not the size of the dog in the fight, but the size of the fight in the dog"
User currently offlineDAYflyer From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 3807 posts, RR: 3
Reply 5, posted (8 years 4 months 3 weeks 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 32767 times:

Quoting EMBQA (Reply 4):
GE90-

Fan Dia: 135"
Length: 287"

RR Trent 900-

Fan Dia:116"
Lenght: 179"

A surprising difference until one considers the thrust of the respective engines (75,000 lbs vs 110,000 IIRC)



One Nation Under God
User currently offlineBR076 From Netherlands, joined May 2005, 1086 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (8 years 4 months 3 weeks 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 32767 times:

Quoting EMBQA (Reply 4):

The Boeing 777 engine is much bigger.

but A380 has 4  Wink



ú
User currently offlineJacobin777 From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 14968 posts, RR: 60
Reply 7, posted (8 years 4 months 3 weeks 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 32767 times:

Quoting BR076 (Reply 6):
but A380 has 4

but the 777 is much lighter and the question was which engine, which is assumed as "per engine"...... Wink


MyAviation.net photo:
Click here for bigger photo!
Photo © Jacobin777




"Up the Irons!"
User currently offlineAndessmf From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (8 years 4 months 3 weeks 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 32767 times:

Highlight of my year 2005, driving home by KMHR and finding that the 777LR has been there for a week!!!!!! And they kept it quiet!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Anyway, stayed and asked a few questions, ended up they were leaving shortly. Saw the van carry the crew to the plane (is that woman test pilot single??) and marvelled at the size of the 115s. Thats what I call 'engine envy'. The takeoff was even better.


User currently offlineOkees From Canada, joined Sep 2005, 424 posts, RR: 5
Reply 9, posted (8 years 4 months 3 weeks 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 32767 times:

Thanks guys, i guess the conclusion is.. 777 engine > A380 engine. thanks!

okees



mobs jakis
User currently offlineStealthZ From Australia, joined Feb 2005, 5678 posts, RR: 45
Reply 10, posted (8 years 4 months 3 weeks 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 32767 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting EMBQA (Reply 4):
GE90-

Fan Dia: 135"
Length: 287

Remarkable really, Fan is so big you could almost consider using a 737 fuselage section as an engine cowling.. have to be a 737, 717 fuselage would be too small!



If your camera sends text messages, that could explain why your photos are rubbish!
User currently offlineDw747400 From United States of America, joined Aug 2001, 1257 posts, RR: 1
Reply 11, posted (8 years 4 months 3 weeks 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 32767 times:

Quoting Okees (Reply 9):
Thanks guys, i guess the conclusion is.. 777 engine > A380 engine. thanks!

Had some time to check the facts now. Both the PW40XX series and Trent 800 series used on the 777 are smaller (fan diameter) than the GP7000 and Trent 900 on the A380 (110", 112", 116", and 116" respectively). The GE90, is of course, singificantly larger in all incarnations.

In terms of power, the Trent 900 produces more thrust (76,500 on the A380F and certified to 80,000) than the first generation 777 engines (starting at 74,000 for the PW and 75,000 for the Trent).



CFI--Certfied Freakin Idiot
User currently offlineZeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 8864 posts, RR: 75
Reply 12, posted (8 years 4 months 3 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 32767 times:

I thought the 380 had a larger outside diameter but a smaller fan over the ge90-115b


We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
User currently offlineTepidHalibut From Iceland, joined Dec 2004, 209 posts, RR: 6
Reply 13, posted (8 years 4 months 3 weeks 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 32767 times:

Quoting Dw747400 (Reply 11):
In terms of power, the Trent 900 produces more thrust (76,500 on the A380F and certified to 80,000) than the first generation 777 engines (starting at 74,000 for the PW and 75,000 for the Trent).

True, but the same Trent 800 engine hardware can also be operated at Trent 895 rating - 95,000 lbf ! More thrust that the Trent 900. (Which is certified for 70,000lbf thru 80,000lbf with the same build spec.)

Generally, engines are getting bigger. At a thrust, the bigger the fan diameter, the slower the fan has to turn to produce that thrust/airflow. The slower the fan, the quieter it is. It also contributes to efficiency, and less energy from Bird Impacts.

HTH.


User currently offline777WT From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 875 posts, RR: 1
Reply 14, posted (8 years 4 months 3 weeks 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 29768 times:

Quoting Andessmf (Reply 8):
is that woman test pilot single??)

 rotfl  she's old enough to be a grandma!


User currently offlinePrebennorholm From Denmark, joined Mar 2000, 6385 posts, RR: 54
Reply 15, posted (8 years 4 months 3 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 29531 times:

The A380 engines are not particularly large these days. The pax version flies with 70k lbs thrust engines.

That's even less than the heaviest 330 which have up to 73k lbs engines (ex. PW 4173).

But what counts for certification is the combined thrust with one engine shut down at the most unfavorable time during take off run. Then the A380 will have 3 x 70 = 210k lbs while the heaviest 777 will have 1 x 115 = 115k lbs remaining thrust.

The somewhat heavier A380F has 77k lbs engines.

Also the present A380-800 is a baseline version with a stretch potential. On the other hand I would assume that the 777-300ER has reached the tops of its capacity potential.



Always keep your number of landings equal to your number of take-offs, Preben Norholm
User currently offlineDfwRevolution From United States of America, joined Jan 2010, 961 posts, RR: 51
Reply 16, posted (8 years 4 months 3 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 29525 times:

Quoting Prebennorholm (Reply 15):
On the other hand I would assume that the 777-300ER has reached the tops of its capacity potential.

The Ge90-115B is certified at 115,000 lbf but GE has performed extended, stable runs at 127,000 lbf.

The Ge90 core itself is but a baby compared to some of the maritime and utility turbines Ge manufactures, and the Ge90/Trent could likely be scaled to 150,000 lbf before significant design and logistic problems would arise.

Quoting TepidHalibut (Reply 13):
True, but the same Trent 800 engine hardware can also be operated at Trent 895 rating - 95,000 lbf !

The Trent 895 doesn't run at 95,000 lbf


User currently offlinePrebennorholm From Denmark, joined Mar 2000, 6385 posts, RR: 54
Reply 17, posted (8 years 4 months 2 weeks 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 29360 times:

Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 16):
The Ge90-115B is certified at 115,000 lbf but GE has performed extended, stable runs at 127,000 lbf.

All engines have performed extended, stable runs at considerably higher thrust levels than what they later were certified for in airline use.

Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 16):
Ge90/Trent could likely be scaled to 150,000 lbf before significant design and logistic problems would arise.

Yes, you are right.

But to utilize such an engine we would need a one million lbs MTOW twin. That's hardly a stretched 777. It would need a new, larger wing, new landing gears. And the fuselage of the 300 variant is already pretty close to the 80m limit. It is already longer than the 380 and almost as long as the 346.

A 150k lbs engine would of course have to demonstrate extended and stable runs at 160-170k lbs before being certified.



Always keep your number of landings equal to your number of take-offs, Preben Norholm
User currently offlineLouA340 From Canada, joined Oct 2005, 385 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (8 years 4 months 2 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 29025 times:

I'm not an expert here, but I just presume that since the A380 has 4 engines and the 777 only had 2, it would justify the 777 having a larger engine since it would need more thrust per engine.
And in a rare situation where u have an engine failure on a 777, the other engine should be able to muscle out enough thrust to keep the aircraft in the air.



RyEng
User currently offlineStarlionblue From Greenland, joined Feb 2004, 16994 posts, RR: 67
Reply 19, posted (8 years 4 months 2 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 28947 times:

Quoting LouA340 (Reply 18):
And in a rare situation where u have an engine failure on a 777, the other engine should be able to muscle out enough thrust to keep the aircraft in the air.

And enable climb from the ground at max takeoff weight.



"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots."
User currently offlineZkpilot From New Zealand, joined Mar 2006, 4802 posts, RR: 9
Reply 20, posted (8 years 4 months 1 week 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 28664 times:

Hey all, I remember reading an email about a year ago regarding what affects modern technology, specifically engines. It went something like this...
The largest jet engine for commercial airliners is the Ge 90 turbofan which is on the Boeing 777 aircraft.
Currently this is likely to be the largest turbofan to be built for many years. The reason being that to transport this engine from the manufacturer to the aircraft requires a slightly older technology...trains.
Trains are rather fixed on where they can go because they are on rails and need to pass under bridges/tunnels that are big enough to fit the engine.
Rails are of a certain fixed width and to transport a larger engine would require wider rails.
Rail width, is another piece of technology which goes back before modern trains and was origionally taken from the standard width of a horse drawn carriage.
Horse drawn carriage had its wheel width taken back from the size of tracks on the roads/paths of the day.
These track sizes on roads and paths have been around for many hundreds of years, in fact they were origionally designed to a standard size to take chariots.
Chariots... who was the first major nation to use chariots? The Roman Empire!!!
so in 2500 years the best transportation that we can come up with is limited by the size of something that leads all the way back to the Roman Empire! Aren't we so advanced? or was it they that were advanced?  Smile



56 types. 38 countries. 24 airlines.
User currently offlineDon81603 From Canada, joined Jul 2005, 1185 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (8 years 4 months 1 week 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 28209 times:

Quoting StealthZ (Reply 10):
Remarkable really, Fan is so big you could almost consider using a 737 fuselage section as an engine cowling.. have to be a 737, 717 fuselage would be too small!

Actually, this comment reminds me of a "visit" I had to the T7 assembly line about 6 or 7 years ago (I think). I was delivering 2 T7 engine strut assemblies from the Beoing plant in Winnipeg, and while they were unloading, I was staring thunderstruck at this massive plane. One of the workers commented that "you could pass the fuse of a 737 through the engine nacelle of this beast."

That day I knew I wanted to eventually fly on one of these birds. When I got the chance, I slept the entire flight  Sad



Eagles may soar, but weasels don't get sucked into jet engines.
User currently offlineYYZYYT From Canada, joined Apr 2005, 947 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (8 years 4 months 1 week 19 hours ago) and read 28118 times:

Quoting Zkpilot (Reply 20):
Rail width, is another piece of technology which goes back before modern trains and was origionally taken from the standard width of a horse drawn carriage.
Horse drawn carriage had its wheel width taken back from the size of tracks on the roads/paths of the day.
These track sizes on roads and paths have been around for many hundreds of years, in fact they were origionally designed to a standard size to take chariots.
Chariots... who was the first major nation to use chariots? The Roman Empire!!!
so in 2500 years the best transportation that we can come up with is limited by the size of something that leads all the way back to the Roman Empire! Aren't we so advanced? or was it they that were advanced?

Sorry, that's an urban legend:

http://www.snopes.com/history/american/gauge.htm

including the bit about the most modern form of transportation being dictated by Roman technology....

signed,
YYZ "spoilsport" YYT


User currently offlineVikkyvik From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 9774 posts, RR: 27
Reply 23, posted (8 years 4 months 1 week 5 hours ago) and read 27961 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Don81603 (Reply 21):
One of the workers commented that "you could pass the fuse of a 737 through the engine nacelle of this beast."

That question has been asked a lot, and is (unfortunately) not true. I don't feel like looking up the specifics (I've done it enough), but the 737's fuselage diameter is about a foot larger than the GE-90's cowling diameter.

It's still a huge engine!

~Vik



"Two and a Half Men" was filmed in front of a live ostrich.
User currently offlineBongo From Colombia, joined Oct 2003, 1863 posts, RR: 5
Reply 24, posted (8 years 4 months 1 week ago) and read 27941 times:

http://www.airliners.net/discussions/tech_ops/read.main/120593


MDE: First airport in the Americas visited by the A380!
25 Don81603 : Huge doesn't begin to describe it! At the time, I'd never even heard of the T7, so when the foreman said that you could fit the 737 through the nacel
26 DarkBlue : Yeah, I don't recall the specifics either, but I think this myth comes from the fact that a 737/727 interior width is about the size as the GE90 nace
Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic A380 Vs 777 Engine Size
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...
777 Engine Differences--PW Vs GE/RR posted Sat Jun 4 2011 20:24:54 by washingtonian
Boeing 777 Engine And APU Questions posted Wed Dec 29 2010 14:36:15 by Thrust
A330/777 Engine Changes To RR Trent posted Sat Jul 17 2010 14:22:39 by faro
777 Engine Startup - Why Such A Low Sound? posted Mon Jan 18 2010 12:43:13 by Edoca
777 Engine Question posted Mon Dec 31 2007 13:26:48 by Thrust
787-8/9 Vs 777-200LR posted Thu Dec 13 2007 19:43:06 by CO787EWR
777 Engine Change posted Thu Dec 6 2007 10:08:13 by LMP737
777 Engine Change Video posted Thu Dec 6 2007 06:45:32 by LMP737
Battery VS. APU Engine Start? posted Fri Nov 2 2007 09:42:14 by BR715-A1-30
747sp Vs 777-200 Cabin Floor Area posted Fri Apr 13 2007 23:23:15 by SCAT15F
777 Engine Change Video posted Thu Dec 6 2007 06:45:32 by LMP737
Battery VS. APU Engine Start? posted Fri Nov 2 2007 09:42:14 by BR715-A1-30
747sp Vs 777-200 Cabin Floor Area posted Fri Apr 13 2007 23:23:15 by SCAT15F
A330/777 Engine Changes To RR Trent posted Sat Jul 17 2010 14:22:39 by faro
777 Engine Startup - Why Such A Low Sound? posted Mon Jan 18 2010 12:43:13 by Edoca
777 Engine Question posted Mon Dec 31 2007 13:26:48 by Thrust
787-8/9 Vs 777-200LR posted Thu Dec 13 2007 19:43:06 by CO787EWR
777 Engine Change posted Thu Dec 6 2007 10:08:13 by LMP737
777 Engine Change Video posted Thu Dec 6 2007 06:45:32 by LMP737
Battery VS. APU Engine Start? posted Fri Nov 2 2007 09:42:14 by BR715-A1-30
747sp Vs 777-200 Cabin Floor Area posted Fri Apr 13 2007 23:23:15 by SCAT15F

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format