Cenci From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2001, 11 posts, RR: 0 Posted (12 years 3 months 2 weeks 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 2651 times:
i am a student working on a comparision project for the GE90-94B and the Rolls Royce trent 895 and have been asked to select the best choice for the 777.
please help me gather info on performance, cost, reliability and any other usefull info on the engines as i have written and surfed all day but to no avail!
my contact email is richardcenci@hotmail.com and i would appreciate any useful data or your opinions
TEDSKI From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 1, posted (12 years 3 months 1 week 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 2551 times:
The 95,000lb thrust RR Trent 895 is a 3-spool designed engine with 100% lightweight titanium fan blades. The 94,000lb thrust GE90-94B is a 2-spool designed engine with composite fan blades with titanium edges for protection against foreign objects that the engine might injest. British Airways ordered on their last batch of new 777-200ERs the RR Trent 895.
Raggi From Norway, joined Oct 2000, 958 posts, RR: 1 Reply 2, posted (12 years 3 months 1 week 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 2535 times:
The GE engine has a higher bypass-ratio, is bigger, more fuel efficient, but weighs more than the Trent.
Customers for the GE90-94B so far are Air France
( launch customer and -operator ), Alitalia and JAL.
Tedski`s right about the titanum fan blades...
F-WWAI From Andorra, joined Dec 1999, 131 posts, RR: 0 Reply 3, posted (12 years 3 months 1 week 23 hours ago) and read 2506 times:
You are up with a very difficult task if you want to do it at your school.
You actually need information from Boeing about the aircraft and from each engine manufacturer about their engine. The best would be you position yourself with that job inside Boeing where all that information is available. Why do you not just ask for a student practiceship there, ewplaining what you want to do?
all the best,
FW
Jkelley480 From United States of America, joined Feb 2000, 127 posts, RR: 0 Reply 4, posted (12 years 3 months 1 week 8 hours ago) and read 2486 times:
I was going to ask why you did not include P&W in your comparison, but you'll have enough work with just 2 types!
King767 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 5, posted (12 years 3 months 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 2467 times:
Also, don't forget, for airlines who want to expand with the 777-200LR and 777-300ER, the GE90 has been selected to power the aircraft. So, airlines planning to expand operations, the -90 might be a good choice.
-Tom
TEDSKI From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 6, posted (12 years 3 months 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 2459 times:
What is the difference between the 777-200ER and 777-200LR? If they are almost the same in size, why couldn't Boeing offer the same lightweight 100% titanium fan bladed P&W 4000 and RR Trent 800 series engines on the LR model as the ER and offers only the heavy composite fan bladed GE90?
Dynkrisolo From United States of America, joined Feb 2001, 1834 posts, RR: 7 Reply 8, posted (12 years 3 months 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 2448 times:
Light weight titanium and heavy composite blade??? FWIW, the density of the GE90 fan blades is smaller than that of the PW4000 or Trent fan blades.
Dynkrisolo From United States of America, joined Feb 2001, 1834 posts, RR: 7 Reply 10, posted (12 years 3 months 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 2445 times:
If they burn the same amount of fuel, then the heavier engine will definitely have the disadvantage. In this case, the GE90 burns less fuel than either the PW4000 or the Trent 800. As a result, for long-range operations, the GE90 has the advantage in spite of its heavier weight.
Cenci From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2001, 11 posts, RR: 0 Reply 11, posted (12 years 3 months 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 2420 times:
basically i am a student working for British Airways, thats why i havent included the PW 4000 in my comparison.
although i will probably mention it in my final report the main aim is to chose the best suitable engine from the selection BA already have i.e. the GE90 and RRTrent.
Anyway, i seemed to have found a fair bit of info on the internet but am having some problems with in depth stuff so anyone with any leads on cost, performance, reliability etc please get in touch
Noswodic From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 12, posted (12 years 2 months 3 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 2400 times:
One factor in the RR-PW-GE battle for engine dominance
which is not technical has been the commercial behavour of GE when it saw that RR was pulling ahead in market share terms.
The Airlines, even American, had come to the conclusion that RR was the best whole life cycle and lowest technical risk.
GE responded by doing a deal with Boeing that froze RR out of the 777-200X and 777-300X programme. Boeing may have regretted that move subsquently.
This move by GE perhaps is the biggest endorsement of RR. Also I think RR may have the inside on carbon fibre fan blades that even 3D computer simulation and design
cannot replace
B787 From Australia, joined May 2005, 152 posts, RR: 0 Reply 13, posted (12 years 2 months 3 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 2386 times:
The LR is the new LongerRange version of the 200ER, to go farther you need more fuel, more fuel means higher MTOW, Higher MTOW means BIGGER engines, the RR and P&W engines were tapped out trying to get into the 100,000 lb thrust class, GE had more room to grow, but to make the investment in the 115,000 engines they didn't want to get killed by the competition between 3 engine companies where they all are giving away their engines and making it up on spares. RR and P&W didn't want to make the same investment to build a 115,000lb thrust engine.
Sponsor Message: 
From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2001, 11 posts, 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
From Norway, joined Oct 2000, 958 posts, 
From Andorra, joined Dec 1999, 131 posts, 
From United States of America, joined Feb 2000, 127 posts, 
From Australia, joined May 2005, 152 posts, 
Sponsor Message: 
Printer friendly format
