Sponsor Message:
Aviation Technical / Operations Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Engine Thrust: Rating Vs. Real Differences  
User currently offlineA342 From Germany, joined Jul 2005, 4682 posts, RR: 3
Posted (7 years 12 months 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 5790 times:

I would like to know which earlier engines of a family have real differences to later, more powerful versions and which types are only de-rated.

I'm particularly interested in these:

the PW2000 series engines
the RR RB.211-535 series engines
the GE CF6-80A vs. -80C
the PW4056 vs. PW4062
the CFM56-5C series engines.

Thanks in advance.


Exceptions confirm the rule.
22 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineMarkC From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 259 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (7 years 12 months 15 hours ago) and read 5712 times:

There are always inproovements and upgrades over the life of an engine program. Earlier engines would have different parts than later, but that does not have as much to do with thrust level as it does from the year.

If you bought one today, there is no difference in a 94" 4000 wheather its 52, 56, 60, or 62,000 lbs besides the programming plug. It would be different than an engine made in the early 90's. 2000's are similar.


User currently offlineA342 From Germany, joined Jul 2005, 4682 posts, RR: 3
Reply 2, posted (7 years 12 months 2 hours ago) and read 5672 times:

Quoting MarkC (Reply 1):

Yes, I agree, different parts have not so much to do with thrust. But especially if an engine is at an early point in its life, different parts and thrust increases often come as a package.

As you seem to know more about this than I do, maybe yo can answer this question: Can you have a PW2037 from, say 1985, rated to PW2043 thrust ? If yes, what changes would be needed ?



Exceptions confirm the rule.
User currently offlineMarkC From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 259 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (7 years 11 months 4 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 5634 times:

I will say I am not a configuration expert, but I am familiar enough with the engine.

Very early on, increases were introduced in packages, but it usually has to do with certification. Whatever the current build standard parts at the time the 2040 was introduced are 2040 certified. At that time, chances are the 2037 build was the same.

Don't get me wrong, there are big differences with the 2000's. The most noticeable is the performance improvement package (PIP) which introduced FEGV's instead of the old strut design. It was for economy as far as I know, and not thrust. Actually, I don't know if there are any pre-PIP 2040's. I think so.

Your specific question: For one, was the 2000 in revenue service in '85? Second, there is no 2043. But I believe you can take an early version up to a 2040. I know there is one airline out there with an early fleet that is doing just that. Some of the non-certified parts have to be changed, but its not all that involved or expensive during a regular overhaul.


User currently offlineA342 From Germany, joined Jul 2005, 4682 posts, RR: 3
Reply 4, posted (7 years 11 months 4 weeks 1 day ago) and read 5604 times:

Quoting MarkC (Reply 3):
Your specific question: For one, was the 2000 in revenue service in '85? Second, there is no 2043. But I believe you can take an early version up to a 2040. I know there is one airline out there with an early fleet that is doing just that. Some of the non-certified parts have to be changed, but its not all that involved or expensive during a regular overhaul.

Thanks for the answer. There is a PW2043. It is the PW2000 version used on the 757-300. I have found the following on Wikipedia:

Quote:
The current build standard is the PW2043, providing 43,000 lbf (190 kN) thrust. The PW2043 provides good fuel efficiency and additional thrust capability at high altitudes and/or elevated temperatures. Current engines can be converted to a PW2043 through minor modification.



Exceptions confirm the rule.
User currently offlineMarkC From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 259 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (7 years 11 months 4 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 5574 times:

Wikipedia is simply wrong. I have seen a lot of their incorrect engine entries. There is much more accurate info here. Some things on manufacturers websites are even wrong.

There are currently 3 current commercial versions of the 2000 in service. 2037, 2037(M), 2040. The current build standard is actually the F117-PW-100.

There may have been an experimental 2043 version. It was certainly studied, but there are none now. I don't think it was even certified.


User currently offlineLemurs From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 1439 posts, RR: 4
Reply 6, posted (7 years 11 months 4 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 5567 times:

Quoting MarkC (Reply 5):
Wikipedia is simply wrong. I have seen a lot of their incorrect engine entries. There is much more accurate info here. Some things on manufacturers websites are even wrong.

There are currently 3 current commercial versions of the 2000 in service. 2037, 2037(M), 2040. The current build standard is actually the F117-PW-100.

That's very true...it is hard to trust websites, but I don't think the existance of a PW2043 is one of those areas where you have to question it. P&W, Boeing, and Northwest all seem to think their 757-300's are powered by PW2043's, and I see little reason to doubt them.

http://www.pratt-whitney.com/prod_comm_pw2000.asp

http://www.boeing.com/commercial/757family/pf/pf_300tech.html



There are 10 kinds of people in the world; those who understand binary, and those that don't.
User currently offlineMarkC From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 259 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (7 years 11 months 4 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 5561 times:

Those links just show that it was offered. There are zreo 2043's in service.

The newer 2000's have high temp margain, so I'm sure it would not be much of a problem at all. I'll speculate that operators did not want to take the life hit to upgrade on an aircraft that piles up a lot of cycles.

PW's website lists an Ilyushin as powered by 2000's. This was to be the 2337, and trust me, there are none of those in commercial service as well.

Not saying they will not happen. It just has not happened yet.


User currently offlineLemurs From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 1439 posts, RR: 4
Reply 8, posted (7 years 11 months 4 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 5552 times:

Quoting MarkC (Reply 7):
Those links just show that it was offered. There are zreo 2043's in service.

I can't tell for certain...there's conflicting information out there as to what powers NW's fleet of 757-300's, with more of them saying the pw2043 than not...but nothing from NW or Boeing specifically, so I don't trust them.

Given your profession and location (which I just checked now) I am more willing to believe you than the Intarwebz...assuming you're not making it up too.  Wink



There are 10 kinds of people in the world; those who understand binary, and those that don't.
User currently offlineA342 From Germany, joined Jul 2005, 4682 posts, RR: 3
Reply 9, posted (7 years 11 months 3 weeks 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 5513 times:

Quoting MarkC (Reply 7):
PW's website lists an Ilyushin as powered by 2000's. This was to be the 2337, and trust me, there are none of those in commercial service as well.

IIRC, the PW2337 is just a PW2037 adapted to the IL-96, nothing else.


Apart from that, I think if PW lists a PW2043 on its website, then it really exists. As already noted, Boeing also lists it as a powerplant option, ALONG with the 2040 and 2037.

But indeed, in the following press release from PW is says that the NW 753s are powered by the PW2040.

http://www.pratt-whitney.com/pr_0724021.asp

Maybe NW simply decided they don't need the added thrust.

Maybe no engine was built to the 2043 standard, but seems the conversion is very easy.



Exceptions confirm the rule.
User currently offlineF14D4ever From United States of America, joined May 2005, 319 posts, RR: 4
Reply 10, posted (7 years 11 months 3 weeks 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 5500 times:

Quoting A342 (Thread starter):
the GE CF6-80A vs. -80C

CF6-80A fan diameter is 86 inches vs. 93 for the -80C2, with commensurate increase in max thrust capability. Additionally, most (not all) -80C2's are FADEC-equipped, whereas the -80A was hydromechanically controlled.



"He is risen, as He said."
User currently offlinePhollingsworth From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2004, 825 posts, RR: 5
Reply 11, posted (7 years 11 months 3 weeks 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 5484 times:

Quoting A342 (Reply 9):
Maybe no engine was built to the 2043 standard, but seems the conversion is very easy.

At least on PW2043 engine has been built. The reason I say this is that the FAA issued an amendment for the PW2000 TC for the 2043 on Feb 14, 1995. To meet the FAA's conformity requirements it had to have actually operated. As to whether or not it has flown on a 757, it has been certified on the 757-300. This means that some airline ordered the 753 with a PW2043. Whether or not they currently operate any PW2000s at the PW2043 rating I cannot say.


User currently offlineA342 From Germany, joined Jul 2005, 4682 posts, RR: 3
Reply 12, posted (7 years 11 months 3 weeks 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 5448 times:

Quoting F14D4ever (Reply 10):



Quoting Phollingsworth (Reply 11):

Thanks for the answers ! Phollingsworth, do you know if the 757-200 can also be equipped with the PW2043 ?



Exceptions confirm the rule.
User currently offlinePhollingsworth From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2004, 825 posts, RR: 5
Reply 13, posted (7 years 11 months 3 weeks 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 5422 times:

Quoting A342 (Reply 12):
Thanks for the answers ! Phollingsworth, do you know if the 757-200 can also be equipped with the PW2043 ?

It is not currently certified in that combination. Of course one could always pay Boeing and Pratt to do it, but since the a/c is no-longer in production it would be highly unlikely


User currently offlineQantas744ER From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 1286 posts, RR: 4
Reply 14, posted (7 years 11 months 3 weeks 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 5412 times:

Quoting A342 (Thread starter):
the PW4056 vs. PW4062

The PW4056 mainly used on the 747-400, is used by all airlines using PW engines on their 744´s exept for China Southern Cargo.

They are the only 744 operator in the world to use the PW4062 increased thrust version on the 744

PW4056 56,750Lbs Making it the weakest 744 engine.
PW4062 62,000Lbs of thrust.

Cheers Leo



Happiness is V1 in Lagos
User currently offlineA342 From Germany, joined Jul 2005, 4682 posts, RR: 3
Reply 15, posted (7 years 11 months 3 weeks 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 5388 times:

Quoting Qantas744ER (Reply 14):

But IIRC, CX has also ordered the PW4062 for use on its new 744ERF.
IMO the 4062 would also help SS on departure from SXM, maybe the flight to ORY could be made nonstop ?

But I was rather asking about the differences between the 2 versions.



Exceptions confirm the rule.
User currently offlineQantas744ER From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 1286 posts, RR: 4
Reply 16, posted (7 years 11 months 3 weeks 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 5325 times:

Quoting A342 (Reply 15):
But IIRC, CX has also ordered the PW4062 for use on its new 744ERF.

Forgot that order.. still its only 2 operators.

The PW4062 would help for sure, on the SS 744 for SXM

And for the differeces.. there is none. Only a setting in the FMC
and some plugs are changed. And the software update allow`s more thrust.



Happiness is V1 in Lagos
User currently offlineA342 From Germany, joined Jul 2005, 4682 posts, RR: 3
Reply 17, posted (7 years 11 months 3 weeks 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 5293 times:

Quoting Qantas744ER (Reply 16):

Does the uprating reduce the life of certain parts ?



Exceptions confirm the rule.
User currently offlineTristarsteve From Sweden, joined Nov 2005, 4009 posts, RR: 33
Reply 18, posted (7 years 11 months 3 weeks 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 5290 times:

Quoting A342 (Thread starter):
the RR RB.211-535 series engines

There are two main types of RB211-535.
The earliest was the -535C. This was fitted to the first B757 built and operated by BA and Eastern. BA had a large fleet (35?) of these aircraft. All -535 except a couple are now freighters mainly with DHL.
The later -535E was an uprated ETOPS approved engine. All pax B757 now have this engine. The obvious difference is that it had wide chord fan blades instead of the clapper equipped -535C. It also had a much better fuel consumption, around 10pc improvement.


User currently offlineQantas744ER From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 1286 posts, RR: 4
Reply 19, posted (7 years 11 months 3 weeks 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 5283 times:

Quoting A342 (Reply 17):
Does the uprating reduce the life of certain parts ?

Yes, wich is why many airlines exept two havent used this thrust version..

the same is for other engines. If the engine like the CF6-80C2B1F (Standard version) with 58,000Lbs gets upgraded to a B5F with 60,000Lbs then the engine will have a higher wear etc. resulting in shorter life for some parts.

Cheers leo



Happiness is V1 in Lagos
User currently offlineMarkC From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 259 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (7 years 11 months 3 weeks 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 5275 times:

When I said "take the life hit", I am not talking about more wear for parts operating at higher thrust, I am talking about the FAA mandated life limits for rotating parts. No matter if nothing is wrong with the parts, they must be removed from service after a certain period of time.

Example: Most of the 4056 rotating parts must be scrapped at 20,000 cycles. A good percentage of those same parts operating in a 4062 must be scrapped at 15,000 cycles due to the higher stresses.

15,000 cycles is probably over 75,000 hours on a 747, and some will never even exceed this, so its not such a huge deal. A 757 is another story.


User currently offlineA342 From Germany, joined Jul 2005, 4682 posts, RR: 3
Reply 21, posted (7 years 11 months 3 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 5212 times:

Quoting Tristarsteve (Reply 18):

Thanks ! Doesn't the -535C also have a shorter nacelle, which results in the hot flow nozzle looking out of the nacelle ?

Quoting Qantas744ER (Reply 19):



Quoting MarkC (Reply 20):

Thank you ! Are there engines which don't have life limitation on certain parts if the thrust rating is increased ?



Exceptions confirm the rule.
User currently offlineQantas744ER From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 1286 posts, RR: 4
Reply 22, posted (7 years 11 months 3 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 5209 times:

Quoting A342 (Reply 21):
Thank you ! Are there engines which don't have life limitation on certain parts if the thrust rating is increased ?

Depends, because of the advances in materials etc. there will always be some engines with better longer lasting parts, than other engines.

Resulting in a longer life.

Cheers Leo



Happiness is V1 in Lagos
Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic Engine Thrust: Rating Vs. Real Differences
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...
Engine Thrust Rating posted Fri Sep 14 2001 20:46:55 by Dufo
757 Engine Thrust Comparison. posted Thu Oct 19 2006 05:09:36 by BOE773
Engine Of 772ER Vs 772LR posted Mon Jul 31 2006 01:23:07 by ORDRyan28
DC-10/MD-11 Center Engine Thrust posted Thu Nov 4 2004 08:18:55 by BrodieBrazil
Engine Thrust At Altitude? posted Mon Oct 11 2004 03:37:52 by ArmitageShanks
Need Serious Clairification Re: Engine Thrust posted Thu Oct 7 2004 23:43:18 by Lehpron
Jet Engine Thrust Percentage posted Mon Aug 9 2004 09:03:03 by Videns
Different Engine Thrust In Cruise? posted Fri Mar 26 2004 13:55:39 by KLM777
Aircraft Capabilities & Engine Thrust posted Mon Mar 10 2003 09:13:59 by BOEING747400
A CAT IIIb Vs IIIc.Differences? posted Sun Jul 28 2002 02:32:10 by Bryand

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format