Sponsor Message:
Aviation Technical / Operations Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Rolls Royce Engines On Qantas A380s  
User currently offlineThrust From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 2688 posts, RR: 10
Posted (3 years 8 months 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 2820 times:

Hi there. I had a question on the thrust restrictions RR has imposed on Qantas, mainly because I read in an article that with the new thrust restrictions, Qantas would have to fly the A380s with only 80 passengers if it were to operate SYD-LAX efficiently. I wanted to know how long these restrictions are expected to last, and if RR is working on a solution to allow Qantas to continue flying SYD-LAX at full capacity.


Fly one thing; Fly it well
14 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlinestealthz From Australia, joined Feb 2005, 5689 posts, RR: 44
Reply 1, posted (3 years 8 months 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 2708 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Thrust (Thread starter):
Qantas would have to fly the A380s with only 80 passengers if it were to operate SYD-LAX efficiently.

I am not sure SYD-LAX, 80 passengers, A380 and efficiently go together in one sentence.

Quoting Thrust (Thread starter):
RR is working on a solution to allow Qantas to continue flying SYD-LAX at full capacity.

I would be reasonably certain they are!



If your camera sends text messages, that could explain why your photos are rubbish!
User currently offlinestitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30879 posts, RR: 86
Reply 2, posted (3 years 8 months 12 hours ago) and read 2553 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

As I understand it from posts, the main issue is that take-off thrust is significantly restricted so out of LAX they have to really dial back the TOW.

Once Rolls corrects the issue and full take-off thrust can be restored, no more payload restrictions will be necessary.


User currently offlineRendezvous From New Zealand, joined May 2001, 516 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (3 years 7 months 4 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 2427 times:

Why does a couple of thousand pounds of thrust make such a huge difference to takeoff performance?

User currently offlinetdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80
Reply 4, posted (3 years 7 months 4 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 2404 times:

Quoting Rendezvous (Reply 3):
Why does a couple of thousand pounds of thrust make such a huge difference to takeoff performance?

If you're close to the performance limits for the runway, which these flights are, a couple of thousand pounds of thrust is the difference between being able to stop on the runway in the case of a rejected takeoff, and an overrun. If your thrust is capped, and the runway is fixed, the only way to bring the numbers back into a legal takeoff is to shed payload.

Tom.


User currently offlineprebennorholm From Denmark, joined Mar 2000, 6421 posts, RR: 54
Reply 5, posted (3 years 7 months 4 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 2252 times:

Quoting Rendezvous (Reply 3):
Why does a couple of thousand pounds of thrust make such a huge difference to takeoff performance?

Do we know that it is only "a couple of thousand pounds"? I think not.

What we know is:

1. QF is operating their T900s at a cap below 72klbs

2. SQ and LH at least before the mishap had a 70klbs cap on their T900s.

3. SQ and LH have not changed their A380 schedules.

Maybe all three T900 operators have them capped at 60 or 65klbs, or something like that?

If SQ and LH also have them reduced somewhat, but that doesn't do any (serious) harm to their schedule, then their PR department for sure would find no reason to brag about that reduction to the world press.

I don't think I have missed one single post about the T900 mishap, but I haven't seen any hard number to which it is temporarily capped. The absense of "noise" from SQ and LH easily leads to the assumption that they haven't had their engines reduced below 70klbs, but that's only an assumption until we see hard numbers, which we probably never will.



Always keep your number of landings equal to your number of take-offs, Preben Norholm
User currently offlineqantas744ER From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 1288 posts, RR: 4
Reply 6, posted (3 years 7 months 4 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 2243 times:

Quoting prebennorholm (Reply 5):
Do we know that it is only "a couple of thousand pounds"? I think not.

What we know is:

1. QF is operating their T900s at a cap below 72klbs

2. SQ and LH at least before the mishap had a 70klbs cap on their T900s.

3. SQ and LH have not changed their A380 schedules.

Maybe all three T900 operators have them capped at 60 or 65klbs, or something like that?

If SQ and LH also have them reduced somewhat, but that doesn't do any (serious) harm to their schedule, then their PR department for sure would find no reason to brag about that reduction to the world press.

I don't think I have missed one single post about the T900 mishap, but I haven't seen any hard number to which it is temporarily capped. The absense of "noise" from SQ and LH easily leads to the assumption that they haven't had their engines reduced below 70klbs, but that's only an assumption until we see hard numbers, which we probably never will.

You got this wrong.

1. QF's T972 has 72,000Lbs of thrust. And up to the accident pushing TOGA would result in this thrust.

Now pushing TOGA gives 70,000Lbs as they changed the software to match the T970. Because in the end the 972 is a 970 with a higher thrust plug.

2. LH and SQ have the T970 and have 70,000Lbs at TOGA.

Your "capped" thrust idea is wrong. The only time they do not operate at their TOGA thrust is when they are at a FLEX thrust setting (assumed temp) which just happens to be 99% of takeoffs. However, TOGA and thus max. available thrust is always available if necessary.



Happiness is V1 in Lagos
User currently offlineprebennorholm From Denmark, joined Mar 2000, 6421 posts, RR: 54
Reply 7, posted (3 years 7 months 4 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 2221 times:

Quoting qantas744ER (Reply 6):
Now pushing TOGA gives 70,000Lbs as they changed the software to match the T970.

That's the "assumption" I was mentioned. But there is more to it.

QF says that their A380 can handle the SYD-LAX route only with 80 pax instead of 470 pax. That means that TOW has to be reduced by some 90,000 lbs - or 7.2% of certified MTOW.

Going from 72 to 70klbs TOGA is a 2.8% reduction.

On no transport plane at any condition do you sacrifise 7.2% TOW for a TOGA reduction of 2.8%.

So the thread starter is correct when indicating that something in the numbers doesn't fit. There is something more to it which neither you nor I know about.

The numbers above assume that with 470 pax QF's SYD-LAX flights were operated at MTOW. I do not know if that was true. But if they did it at slightly less than MTOW, or if they could carry any additional cargo, then the unexplained "gap" in the numbers just becomes bigger.



Always keep your number of landings equal to your number of take-offs, Preben Norholm
User currently offlineAesma From France, joined Nov 2009, 6592 posts, RR: 9
Reply 8, posted (3 years 7 months 4 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 2206 times:

Personally I wonder if the numbers are not just BS from QF, and in reality they just don't want to risk another engine blowing up, but in the middle of the Pacific. So the route is on hold until they get revised engines.


New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
User currently offlineqantas744ER From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 1288 posts, RR: 4
Reply 9, posted (3 years 7 months 4 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 2191 times:

Quoting prebennorholm (Reply 7):
That's the "assumption" I was mentioned. But there is more to it.

QF says that their A380 can handle the SYD-LAX route only with 80 pax instead of 470 pax. That means that TOW has to be reduced by some 90,000 lbs - or 7.2% of certified MTOW.

Going from 72 to 70klbs TOGA is a 2.8% reduction.

On no transport plane at any condition do you sacrifise 7.2% TOW for a TOGA reduction of 2.8%.

So the thread starter is correct when indicating that something in the numbers doesn't fit. There is something more to it which neither you nor I know about.

The numbers above assume that with 470 pax QF's SYD-LAX flights were operated at MTOW. I do not know if that was true. But if they did it at slightly less than MTOW, or if they could carry any additional cargo, then the unexplained "gap" in the numbers just becomes bigger.

I see what your saying as clearly that TOGA reduction could not cause such a MTOW reduction, however like you said its all "assumptions" even though I seriously doubt there would be a reason to cap under 70K since LH and SQ have been operating the aircraft normally for a while now.

And would they really be able to do LHR-SIN-LHR at some 510-520k kgs with 60k lbs of thrust? I dont have RTOW numbers for the A380 to check takeoff performance.

Also keep in mind that for QF at LHR SOP is TOGA to 1000' Accel. 4000' to meet the noise/climb requirements. No way they can achieve that on 65k...thats for sure.

I believe that the statement by QF regarding '80 pax.' on SYD/MEL-LAX is a little over the top and probably based of the worst possible conditions at takeoff etc.



Happiness is V1 in Lagos
User currently offlinestitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30879 posts, RR: 86
Reply 10, posted (3 years 7 months 3 weeks 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 2090 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

LH and SQ are operating their A380s on shorter stage lengths than QF was SYD/MEL-LAX, though. It's been stated that all of QF's A388's are now operating on SYD-LHR, so with the stopover, they're now running the same stage lengths SQ and LH are so they should be able to work with the same 70k thrust settings.

User currently offlineprebennorholm From Denmark, joined Mar 2000, 6421 posts, RR: 54
Reply 11, posted (3 years 7 months 3 weeks 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 2031 times:

Quoting qantas744ER (Reply 9):
I see what your saying as clearly that TOGA reduction could not cause such a MTOW reduction...

Okay, we agree that the numbers 470 pax / 72klbs and 80 pax / 70klbs don't add up. That there is simply more to it.

Quoting qantas744ER (Reply 9):
I believe that the statement by QF regarding '80 pax.' on SYD/MEL-LAX is a little over the top and probably based of the worst possible conditions at takeoff etc.

That is one valid assumption. But then you must also accept that under the same "worst possible conditions" with 72klbs engines they could carry only some 200 pax, not 470.

Of those four figures (470, 72, 80 and 70) QF has told us only three of them, the three first mentioned. They have never told us the figure 70. The only thing we know about that last figure is that AESA and RR has told us that it is less than 72.

Assuming that QF didn't lie to us with the three figures provided, then we can in fact ourselves calculate the fourth figure. and it becomes 65-ish when assuming that the A380 with 72klbs was pretty much stretched to the limits on SYD-LAX with full pax load. And somewhat lower than 65 in case it wasn't really stretched to the limits.

Quoting qantas744ER (Reply 9):
Also keep in mind that for QF at LHR SOP is TOGA to 1000' Accel. 4000' to meet the noise/climb requirements. No way they can achieve that on 65k...thats for sure.

When limiting capabilities, then there will be noise abatement profiles which cannot be made any longer. But since the A380 making a little more noise on the ground will still be more quiet than a vintage B744, then I think that will be tolerated by the authorities.

If QF's T900s are limited to something in the 60'es instead of 70klbs, then it would make no sense if SQ and LH haven't got the same limitation. And in that case they will just fly happily around on their sufficiently short sectors and long runways, just like QF does these days on their SYD-SIN-LHR route. Everything becomes a lot easier when you don't need to fill the last 100 or 200,000 lbs of fuel tank capacity.



Always keep your number of landings equal to your number of take-offs, Preben Norholm
User currently offlineAesma From France, joined Nov 2009, 6592 posts, RR: 9
Reply 12, posted (3 years 7 months 3 weeks 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 1993 times:

I have heard a theory that QF has a tendency to abuse its engines (backed by the other recent uncontained failure they had, on a 744ER last summer), so it's possible RR has slapped a lower limit on them than on SQ and LH.

BTW, I think the problem is LAX-SYD, and not the other way around, because they can't use the longest runway at LAX.



New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
User currently offlinezeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 9002 posts, RR: 75
Reply 13, posted (3 years 7 months 3 weeks 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 1953 times:

Quoting Thrust (Thread starter):
I wanted to know how long these restrictions are expected to last,

I believe they have already been lifted, they were brought in by EASA, and removed by EASA.

Quoting prebennorholm (Reply 7):
So the thread starter is correct when indicating that something in the numbers doesn't fit. There is something more to it which neither you nor I know about.

It would be the one engine out climb gradients. The aircraft could takeoff with the normal passenger payload and suffer an engine failure and still climb away, however their climb gradient would not meet the gradients required of a quad.

The ways to improve climb gradients is by either accelerating along the runway more to get more energy before rotating (known as V2 over speed), or if your runway length is limited, is to have more excess thrust available.

The amount of excess thrust does not need to be that significant, just significant enough to cause vertical acceleration beyond equilibrium that would meet the required climb gradient.

Anyone flown a C150 and C152 on a hot day would understand the improvement in climb gradient the C152 has with the extra 4 hp.



We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
User currently offlineRendezvous From New Zealand, joined May 2001, 516 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (3 years 7 months 3 weeks 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 1946 times:

Does the A380 have any valid performance data available to fly with say 60,000lb thrust?


I'm not sure I agree with the engine out climb gradient. Surely at MTOW the A380 can meet engine out climb gradients with the 'regular' 70,000lb thrust engines? While I completely agree that a little extra power can make a significant difference to the climb gradient, I don't think this is limiting. Really what is being said is that A380's with the 70,000lb engines can never take off at MTOW in case they have an engine failure.

I apologize if I have misunderstood what you were saying.

LAX MEL and SYD don't really have high terrain around them that would be limiting?


Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic Rolls Royce Engines On Qantas A380s
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...
Question About Rolls-Royce Engines posted Sun Oct 12 2008 12:23:05 by MCIGuy
Rolls Royce Engines - Unreliable Or Over-worked? posted Mon Feb 19 2007 11:49:55 by Noelg
Is It Called HMU On Pratt & Rolls Royce Fadec Engs posted Sat Jan 19 2008 07:48:54 by Xms3200
Cabin Crew On Qantas A330's posted Wed Jun 9 2010 23:52:54 by Jackbr
Rolls Royce Engine posted Wed May 26 2010 08:40:38 by Claude
Any Foreign Engines On Russian Aircraft? posted Fri Mar 12 2010 17:57:35 by stevenjehly
Starting Engines On A Windy Day posted Sat Dec 19 2009 00:40:46 by COTPARampGuy
Cost PER Hour To Operate A Rolls-Royce RB211 22C posted Wed Dec 2 2009 13:40:30 by Jetcost
Bleedless Engines On KC-135/707? posted Wed Apr 16 2008 05:28:38 by LockstockNL777
Window "Pops" On Qantas 747-300 posted Sat Mar 29 2008 01:21:25 by Peh

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format