MarkC From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 259 posts, RR: 0 Reply 1, posted (7 years 2 months 3 weeks 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 5178 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.
MarkC From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 259 posts, RR: 0 Reply 3, posted (7 years 2 months 3 weeks 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 5100 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.
A342 From Germany, joined Jul 2005, 4658 posts, RR: 4 Reply 4, posted (7 years 2 months 3 weeks 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 5070 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.
Lemurs From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 1439 posts, RR: 4 Reply 6, posted (7 years 2 months 3 weeks 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 5033 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.
MarkC From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 259 posts, RR: 0 Reply 7, posted (7 years 2 months 3 weeks 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 5027 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.
Lemurs From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 1439 posts, RR: 4 Reply 8, posted (7 years 2 months 3 weeks 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 5018 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.
There are 10 kinds of people in the world; those who understand binary, and those that don't.
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.
Phollingsworth From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2004, 825 posts, RR: 6 Reply 11, posted (7 years 2 months 3 weeks 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 4950 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.
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.
Qantas744ER From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 1271 posts, RR: 4 Reply 19, posted (7 years 2 months 2 weeks 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 4749 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.
MarkC From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 259 posts, RR: 0 Reply 20, posted (7 years 2 months 2 weeks 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 4741 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.