Slovacek747
Topic Author
Posts: 634
Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2006 7:10 pm

KLM 777 Engines!

Sun Jan 29, 2006 11:27 am

I know the 777 has different engine thrust varients depending on what the airline wants... Continental has the strongest thrust (90,000 lbs) on their engines and United has a less powerful engine... So my question is:

What thrust engine does KLM have on their 777?

Slovacek747
 
Alitalia744
Posts: 3777
Joined: Thu Mar 30, 2000 8:22 am

RE: KLM 777 Engines!

Sun Jan 29, 2006 12:24 pm

Quoting Slovacek747 (Thread starter):
Continental has the strongest thrust (90,000 lbs) on their engines

Continental's aren't the strongest. CO flies their 772ERs with GE90-90 engines (offering 90,000lbs of thrust). The strongest GE powered engine on the 772ER is the -94B which offeres 94,000lbs of thurst...

KL uses -94Bs
Some see lines, others see between the lines.
 
User avatar
Starlionblue
Posts: 17053
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2004 9:54 pm

RE: KLM 777 Engines!

Sun Jan 29, 2006 12:39 pm

When it comes to 777s (or for that matter any airliner), the 777-300ER has the most powerful engines, the GE90-115B at 115200lb. This is the most powerful jet engine ever in service.
"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots." - John Ringo
 
Slovacek747
Topic Author
Posts: 634
Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2006 7:10 pm

RE: KLM 777 Engines!

Sun Jan 29, 2006 1:01 pm

yes I understand the 773 is a more powerful engine.. I should have been more specific and said the 772. Why does KLM need the strongest engine (94,000 lbs) of thrust and United have much "weaker" ones? Does KLM really need them? United is a big company and fly many lucrative routes that are long... It seems that the 90K or 94K lb engines would better meet their needs... Correct me if I am wrong..

Slovacek747
 
User avatar
Jetlagged
Posts: 2562
Joined: Sun Jan 23, 2005 3:00 pm

RE: KLM 777 Engines!

Sun Jan 29, 2006 4:24 pm

It's not really a question of "my engines are bigger than yours" one-upmanship. It just comes down to which version of GE90 was available when the aircraft were obtained. KLM's aircraft are a lot newer than Continental's and United's, so have the latest engine.

Even though a better engine comes along later it's unlikely an operator would consider an engine change, assuming it's technically feasible.
The glass isn't half empty, or half full, it's twice as big as it needs to be.
 
User avatar
HAWK21M
Posts: 29867
Joined: Fri Jan 05, 2001 10:05 pm

RE: KLM 777 Engines!

Sun Jan 29, 2006 6:02 pm

Quoting Jetlagged (Reply 4):
Even though a better engine comes along later it's unlikely an operator would consider an engine change, assuming it's technically feasible

Would a Weight difference Exist between versions.
regds
MEL
I may not win often, but I damn well never lose!!! ;)
 
User avatar
Jetlagged
Posts: 2562
Joined: Sun Jan 23, 2005 3:00 pm

RE: KLM 777 Engines!

Sun Jan 29, 2006 7:09 pm

Quoting HAWK21M (Reply 5):
Would a Weight difference Exist between versions.

Presumably. I would guess a GE90-94B weighs more than a GE90-90, but I don't know by how much.
The glass isn't half empty, or half full, it's twice as big as it needs to be.
 
User avatar
Starlionblue
Posts: 17053
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2004 9:54 pm

RE: KLM 777 Engines!

Mon Jan 30, 2006 1:08 am

Some of these have already been raised:
- Availability of engine at time of delivery.
- Weight of engine.
- Cost of engine. Maybe the savings from buying a less powerful version outweight the payload restrictions.
- Route structure.
"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots." - John Ringo
 
Grbld
Posts: 349
Joined: Tue Dec 06, 2005 9:25 pm

RE: KLM 777 Engines!

Mon Jan 30, 2006 1:21 am

KLM's 772s are ER versions and have a higher MTOW than UAL's 772s. Perhaps UAL has some ERs as well, I don't know, but a big portion of their fleet are regular 772s. The stronger engines allow the aircraft to take off and fly at higher altitudes at higher weights (= more payload = more revenue).

KLM also has about 25 more seats in the 777s than UAL, so on any given route, the plane's probably going to be heavier than the UAL version. Hence, stronger engines are a plus.

Grbld
 
AFC_Ajax00
Posts: 740
Joined: Tue Nov 21, 2000 5:33 am

RE: KLM 777 Engines!

Mon Jan 30, 2006 4:20 am

Continental actually has GE90-92B's on their 777s; downrated to 90,000lbs of thrust. As mentioned above, KLM's 772ER's are rated at a higher MTOW than those of UA; if I remember correctly, this is because the PW engines required for the higher MTOW had horrible SFC so UA elected to take a lower MTOW with engines they knew would perform in accordance with the spec's.
Once you have tasted flight, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skyward; for there you long to return
 
gigneil
Posts: 14133
Joined: Fri Nov 08, 2002 10:25 am

RE: KLM 777 Engines!

Mon Jan 30, 2006 6:15 am

United's PW choice has been disasterous for them.

United had made the choice to power their 777-200ER fleet with PW4098s and a 656,000 pound MTOW.

The PW4098's fuel burn was so bad that it would have severely eaten into the range of the plane, and there was no way UA could profitably operate them.

What I don't understand is why the 656,000 pound MTOW is not an option on PW4090 powered frames... 90k pounds is more than sufficient to get the plane off the ground. Continental flies the longest 777 routes in the world with 656,000 pound 777-200ERs with 90k engines.

N
 
Slovacek747
Topic Author
Posts: 634
Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2006 7:10 pm

RE: KLM 777 Engines!

Mon Jan 30, 2006 6:55 am

The GE90 engines are the way to go for the 777. With the option of a 90K or 94K lb thrust engine, the airline has many options and can fly farther with much more payload. The GE90 engines are also very reliable and I believe they are working out well for CO.

Slovacek747
 
User avatar
Starlionblue
Posts: 17053
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2004 9:54 pm

RE: KLM 777 Engines!

Mon Jan 30, 2006 1:15 pm

Quoting Slovacek747 (Reply 11):
The GE90 engines are the way to go for the 777. With the option of a 90K or 94K lb thrust engine, the airline has many options and can fly farther with much more payload.

There's more to it that thrust levels. What about purchase/lease cost, maintenance cost, delivery dates, etc?
"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots." - John Ringo
 
Qantas744er
Posts: 1149
Joined: Sat Jun 04, 2005 4:36 am

RE: KLM 777 Engines!

Tue Jan 31, 2006 6:02 am

Sry but your wrong if it comes to thrust the RR Trent 895 with 95,000 pounds of thrust is currently the most powerfull engine for the boeing 777-200ER the 95 is currently only in service with BA so they have the highest MTOW for the 777-200ER.


Cheers Leo
Happiness is V1 in Lagos
 
Slovacek747
Topic Author
Posts: 634
Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2006 7:10 pm

RE: KLM 777 Engines!

Tue Jan 31, 2006 6:27 am

Thanks for correcting me Qantas744ER... I've never known for RR to have the 95K thrust engine... Why is BA the only company to operate it and are they happy with its performance?

Slovacek747
 
777236ER
Posts: 12213
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2001 7:10 am

RE: KLM 777 Engines!

Tue Jan 31, 2006 6:53 am

Quoting Qantas744ER (Reply 13):
Sry but your wrong if it comes to thrust the RR Trent 895 with 95,000 pounds of thrust

The Trent 895 has 93400lb of static thrust. The GE90-94B has 93700lb of static thrust.
Your bone's got a little machine
 
Qantas744er
Posts: 1149
Joined: Sat Jun 04, 2005 4:36 am

RE: KLM 777 Engines!

Tue Jan 31, 2006 8:26 am

Call me an idiot but here it states the 895 has 95,000
http://www.rolls-royce.com/civil_aer...ts/airlines/trent800/technical.jsp

Cheers Leo
Happiness is V1 in Lagos
 
DfwRevolution
Posts: 8544
Joined: Sat Jan 09, 2010 7:31 pm

RE: KLM 777 Engines!

Tue Jan 31, 2006 8:39 am

Quoting Gigneil (Reply 10):
What I don't understand is why the 656,000 pound MTOW is not an option on PW4090 powered frames... 90k pounds is more than sufficient to get the plane off the ground

I know this question has been keeping Concordeboy awake at night for months  Wink

After a whole thread on this topic (which I admit I could not find), perhaps it's just a simple matter that no one has asked for the option?

Quoting Qantas744ER (Reply 13):
Sry but your wrong if it comes to thrust the RR Trent 895 with 95,000 pounds of thrust is currently the most powerfull engine for the boeing 777-200ER

777236ER is correct, the inaptly named Trent 895 is not the most powerful 772ER power option. However, it is significantly lighter than the marginally more powerful Ge90-94B.
 
User avatar
airportugal310
Posts: 3208
Joined: Sun Apr 11, 2004 12:49 pm

RE: KLM 777 Engines!

Tue Jan 31, 2006 9:26 am

Trent 895 2000 95,000lb
423kN Boeing 777-200
(656,000lb)
Boeing 777-300
(660,000lb) 305

368 7700

5750


That is directly from Rolls Royce site as provided by Leo (Qantas744ER)

Why everyone is on here trying to tell him hes wrong is beyond me.
I sell airplanes and airplane accessories
 
ContinentalFan
Posts: 343
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2000 2:47 am

RE: KLM 777 Engines!

Wed Feb 01, 2006 4:53 am

Quoting Gigneil (Reply 10):
The PW4098's fuel burn was so bad that it would have severely eaten into the range of the plane, and there was no way UA could profitably operate them.

I thought only KE ordered the 4098? I coulda sworn that UA had lower rated PW4000s.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 33 guests