Sponsor Message:
Aviation Technical / Operations Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
PW4056 On The 744  
User currently offlineQantas744ER From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 1288 posts, RR: 4
Posted (7 years 10 months 3 weeks 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 8587 times:

Got a question, the PW4056 has 56,750Lbs of thrust compared to the
GE CF6-80C2B1F ( 58,000Lbs) and the RR RB211-524G (58,000Lbs)

So for operators like CX, SQ, UA etc. does this mean that their 744´s will have
a "longer" takeoff roll than the other two engine types? And this will result in a slower climb rate right?

And for the pilots.. how does it compare, is there a real difference?

Cheers Leo


Happiness is V1 in Lagos
12 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineJetMech From Australia, joined Mar 2006, 2687 posts, RR: 53
Reply 1, posted (7 years 10 months 3 weeks 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 8588 times:

Quoting Qantas744ER (Thread starter):
So for operators like CX

Erm... Do you mean MH Qantas744ER? I am pretty sure CX does not currently have P&W powered 744's, although they will have some P&W powered 747 (744?) freighters in the future.

[Edited 2006-10-03 19:04:45]


JetMech split the back of his pants. He can feel the wind in his hair.
User currently offlineAvro85 From Belgium, joined Jun 2005, 236 posts, RR: 2
Reply 2, posted (7 years 10 months 3 weeks 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 8580 times:

Quoting Qantas744ER (Thread starter):
So for operators like CX, SQ, UA etc. does this mean that their 744´s will have
a "longer" takeoff roll than the other two engine types? And this will result in a slower climb rate right?

I would rather suspect that the planes with the PW engines will be certified with a smaller MTOW.... I'm not sure  Wink

Chris


User currently offlineQantas744ER From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 1288 posts, RR: 4
Reply 3, posted (7 years 10 months 3 weeks 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 8568 times:

Quoting JetMech (Reply 1):
I am pretty sure CX does not currently have P&W powered 744's, although they will have some P&W powered 747 (744?) freighters in the future.

Actually they do.. just check the database... they are all ex SQ planes.

Quoting Avro85 (Reply 2):
I would rather suspect that the planes with the PW engines will be certified with a smaller MTOW.... I'm not sure Wink

Nope because the SQ and CX (ex SQ) 744´s all have the max MTOW for the 744, 875,000Lbs

Cheers Leo



Happiness is V1 in Lagos
User currently offlineJetMech From Australia, joined Mar 2006, 2687 posts, RR: 53
Reply 4, posted (7 years 10 months 3 weeks 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 8567 times:

Quoting Qantas744ER (Reply 3):
Actually they do.. just check the database... they are all ex SQ planes.

Yep, you are quite right Qantas744ER   . I stand corrected.

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Matthew C. Lyons



[Edited 2006-10-03 19:39:21]


JetMech split the back of his pants. He can feel the wind in his hair.
User currently offlineEssentialpowr From United States of America, joined Sep 2000, 1820 posts, RR: 2
Reply 5, posted (7 years 10 months 3 weeks 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 8553 times:

Quoting Qantas744ER (Thread starter):
Got a question, the PW4056 has 56,750Lbs of thrust compared to the
GE CF6-80C2B1F ( 58,000Lbs) and the RR RB211-524G (58,000Lbs)

So for operators like CX, SQ, UA etc. does this mean that their 744´s will have
a "longer" takeoff roll than the other two engine types? And this will result in a slower climb rate right?

If all 3 engine types are operated at max rated thrust on respective a/c that weigh the same amount, the Pratt powered a/c will have slightly less performance in all flight regimes. In practice, it is a negligible difference.

Cheers-


User currently offlineQantas744ER From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 1288 posts, RR: 4
Reply 6, posted (7 years 10 months 3 weeks 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 8532 times:

Quoting JetMech (Reply 4):
Yep, you are quite right Qantas744ER   . I stand corrected.

No problem.. thats what aviation is all about, righ? Learning new things Big grin

Quoting Essentialpowr (Reply 5):
If all 3 engine types are operated at max rated thrust on respective a/c that weigh the same amount, the Pratt powered a/c will have slightly less performance in all flight regimes. In practice, it is a negligible difference.

Thanks, that pretty much what i wanted to know  Smile

Cheers-



Happiness is V1 in Lagos
User currently offlineTristarSteve From Sweden, joined Nov 2005, 3999 posts, RR: 34
Reply 7, posted (7 years 10 months 3 weeks 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 8506 times:

On a max weight take off out of Hot Singapore, for a 12hr flight our B744 uses reduced power take off. So you would only notice that you have PW engines on really long flights. Up to then everything would be the same, same take off roll at the same thrust, just the PW engine would come up against a limitation a little earlier than a RR or GE engine. Say a 13 hr flight instead of a 13.5 hr flight. So if your route profile does not include ant flights over 13hrs, you would never notice it.

User currently offlineEssentialPowr From United States of America, joined Sep 2000, 1820 posts, RR: 2
Reply 8, posted (7 years 10 months 3 weeks 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 8499 times:

Quoting TristarSteve (Reply 7):
On a max weight take off out of Hot Singapore, for a 12hr flight our B744 uses reduced power take off. So you would only notice that you have PW engines on really long flights. Up to then everything would be the same, same take off roll at the same thrust, just the PW engine would come up against a limitation a little earlier than a RR or GE engine. Say a 13 hr flight instead of a 13.5 hr flight. So if your route profile does not include ant flights over 13hrs, you would never notice it.

This is a more than a bit confusing. If the a/c and take off weight weights are the same, and all 3 engines are operated at max rated thrust as provided above, the Pratt powered a/c has less performance. What diff does the 13 vs 13.5 hr flight distinction mean? If the engines have the same SFC, then the Pratt w/ less thrust has MORE range.


User currently offlineAvro85 From Belgium, joined Jun 2005, 236 posts, RR: 2
Reply 9, posted (7 years 10 months 3 weeks 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 8478 times:

Quoting Qantas744ER (Reply 3):
Nope because the SQ and CX (ex SQ) 744´s all have the max MTOW for the 744, 875,000Lbs

OK thanks for clarifying. Sorry for the mistake ...

Chris


User currently offlineTristarsteve From Sweden, joined Nov 2005, 3999 posts, RR: 34
Reply 10, posted (7 years 10 months 3 weeks 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 8380 times:

Quoting EssentialPowr (Reply 8):
What diff does the 13 vs 13.5 hr flight distinction mean?

OK, sorry finding it difficult to explain.
At the same weight on the same runway at the same OAT all three engine types would have a similar take off thrust requirement. As one of these factors increases then the PW engined aircraft will reach its linits before the others.
For example for a max zero fuel weight departure on the same runway, the PW engine aircraft would be able to carry less fuel than the other two. This would make its planned mission shorter, or for the same mission it would have to offload payload in able to take the required fuel.
On the B744 out of SIN for LON with max zero fuel weight, this would not be noticed as we use derated thrust.
You would need a longer mission, or a shorter runway to notice the restriction.


User currently offlinePhilSquares From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 11, posted (7 years 10 months 3 weeks 3 days ago) and read 8373 times:

Just to throw this in, the RR powered aircraft are substantially heavier, so they won't have the same fuel, the RR are also slightly heavier than the PW, so again, the fuel won't be the same.

In reality, there is no discernible difference. The difference in thrust is neglible.


User currently offlineEssentialPowr From United States of America, joined Sep 2000, 1820 posts, RR: 2
Reply 12, posted (7 years 10 months 3 weeks 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 8352 times:

Quoting Tristarsteve (Reply 10):
As one of these factors increases then the PW engined aircraft will reach its linits before the others.

I agree.

Quoting Tristarsteve (Reply 10):
For example for a max zero fuel weight departure on the same runway, the PW engine aircraft would be able to carry less fuel than the other two. This would make its planned mission shorter, or for the same mission it would have to offload payload in able to take the required fuel.

Negative. Same a/c remember, certified to the same weights, same day, but different engines? The MZFW won't be limiting. If there was a runway or climb limitation in which max rated thrust was required, then the Pratt powered a/c would be penalized with a runway or climb limit, which would lower MGTOW with a reduction in either payload or gas.

You stated (I copied it from my post):

Quoting EssentialPowr (Reply 8):
On a max weight take off out of Hot Singapore, for a 12hr flight our B744 uses reduced power take off. So you would only notice that you have PW engines on really long flights.

Therefore, no runway or climb limit is assumed by that statement. I assumed a max rated thrust t/o, then, and assumed equal SFCs. Since the pratt powered a/c is producing less thrust at equal SFCs as the other types, it uses less fuel for takeoff and climb. For equal MGTOWs (again, exact same a/c), that reduced fuel burn in climb translates to more range for the Pratt powered a/c, b/c it burned less gas in the t/o and climb regimes, and we can assume that cruise thrust is equal for all 3 types.

Make sense?

[Edited 2006-10-04 19:15:24]

[Edited 2006-10-04 19:16:14]

[Edited 2006-10-04 19:18:42]

Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic PW4056 On The 744
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...
Tri-motor - What's That On The Wing? posted Thu Nov 9 2006 00:50:53 by TimePilot
What Are These Intakes For On The 777? posted Wed Nov 1 2006 04:13:28 by Gh123
Established On The Localizer, When? posted Fri Oct 13 2006 02:00:12 by IAHFLYR
What Is This Lump On The 737? posted Sun Oct 1 2006 13:18:37 by Monteycarlos
"descend On The Ils" Question posted Mon Sep 25 2006 21:42:28 by JulianUK
Broken Recline On JL 744; posted Sun Sep 10 2006 07:28:48 by Ktachiya
MD-80 Elevator Position On The Ground posted Mon Aug 28 2006 18:17:01 by ALbyDAL
Alpha Speed - Whats The History On The Name posted Wed Aug 16 2006 14:11:08 by HAWK21M
What's This Little Hump On The 747? posted Sat Jul 22 2006 18:48:45 by Alphafloor
What Is This On The Archer? posted Fri Jul 14 2006 21:16:22 by Sushka

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format