Okay, okay, after thinking about it some I'll admit I was wrong, but I'll try to clear some things up.
First of all, engines can vary in quality from one to the next. Anytime you see a thrust listed, this is usually the minimum acceptable thrust level that the engine will produce at maximum power. This means that this value is only a minimum limit, therefore all engines of the same model will produce thrust somewhere above this limit.
Engine makers define several different categories of thrust. The thrusts listed on the GE
site posted by Gigneil are ideal
thrusts. Ideal thrust is the hypothetical thrust that engine will produce without including losses of the inlet and exhaust systems. This allows it to be presented independent of different aircraft installations. So even these thrusts are a bit higher than what the engine actually will do.
When you see a thrust rating (like 72K for the E1A3), this value refers to a scaled reference thrust of the engine moving at 0.25 Mach. As Mach number increases, thrust decreases. So if you take the thrust of the engine at 0.25 Mach, and then scale this thrust up by some defined value (usually set by either Boeing or Airbus), this gives you the thrust rating.
Why use the thrust at 0.25 Mach to determine static thrust? The reason is that the thrust at 0.25 Mach is significantly more important than the thrust at 0 Mach. Who cares about how much thrust the engine produces when the aircraft isn't moving? The important thrust value is the thrust available during takeoff roll.
So will an E1A3 reach 72K at 0 Mach? Maybe, maybe not. Honestly, it's not really as important as the thrust at 0.25 Mach. But if you want the thrust at 0 Mach, then the numbers listed by Gigneil are probably more accurate ones to use for comparisons.
Have I got everyone totally confused?
[Edited 2004-02-12 16:51:47]