Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
Max Q
Topic Author
Posts: 8899
Joined: Wed May 09, 2001 12:40 pm

777A compared to ‘derated ER’

Wed Nov 21, 2018 2:18 am

Singapore had / has ? some 777ER models
which they deliberately derated for regional operations


I believe this was done by a paperwork reduction of maximum take off and other weights and maximum engine thrust was reduced and limited with electronic adjustment



This gave SIA a much lighter triple that burned less fuel and paid less in landing fees, although it didn’t have the performance of a regular ER it was more than adequate for regional flights


Not the most efficient solution to the mission, later it was covered by the A333
and now the 787-10 is starting to fill that
niche


So how did these ‘derated’ triples compare in weight, engine thrust and performance to the ‘original’ lightweight 777A models operated by UA / BA / CX ?
The best contribution to safety is a competent Pilot.


GGg
 
strfyr51
Posts: 5106
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2012 5:04 pm

Re: 777A compared to ‘derated ER’

Wed Nov 21, 2018 5:59 am

Actually? OK as long as no fuel was in the center tank of the ER version
 
VSMUT
Posts: 5498
Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2016 11:40 am

Re: 777A compared to ‘derated ER’

Wed Nov 21, 2018 10:13 am

Max Q wrote:
This gave SIA a much lighter triple that burned less fuel


Are you sure? The engine were the same, so for a similar payload and fuel on board, fuel consumption would likely have been the exact same.
 
BravoOne
Posts: 4094
Joined: Fri Apr 12, 2013 2:27 pm

Re: 777A compared to ‘derated ER’

Wed Nov 21, 2018 10:44 am

Their Operating Empty Weight probably did not change much other the revised seating and galley arrangements. Mostly a function of paperwork. The derated engines are most likely a function of the fuel control / computer logic, but have no weight implications.
 
Max Q
Topic Author
Posts: 8899
Joined: Wed May 09, 2001 12:40 pm

Re: 777A compared to ‘derated ER’

Wed Nov 21, 2018 12:18 pm

Maximum take off weight was reduced significantly, albeit ‘artificially’


Operating at similar weights as an ER would not change the burn but as the aircraft generally operated at much lighter weights fuel burn should improve
The best contribution to safety is a competent Pilot.


GGg
 
BravoOne
Posts: 4094
Joined: Fri Apr 12, 2013 2:27 pm

Re: 777A compared to ‘derated ER’

Wed Nov 21, 2018 1:01 pm

Operated a 767-200ER that had AFM reductions in MTOGW. When we wanted to revise it upwards to it's original delivered weights, Boeing wanted a significant charge for this paper mod. I think we did it with a paper STC and saved probably 50K.
 
VSMUT
Posts: 5498
Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2016 11:40 am

Re: 777A compared to ‘derated ER’

Wed Nov 21, 2018 2:08 pm

Max Q wrote:
Maximum take off weight was reduced significantly, albeit ‘artificially’


Operating at similar weights as an ER would not change the burn but as the aircraft generally operated at much lighter weights fuel burn should improve


If you operated an ER on the same routes with the same payload, the weight and fuel burn would be the same. You don't take more fuel just because you have a higher MTOM.
 
Max Q
Topic Author
Posts: 8899
Joined: Wed May 09, 2001 12:40 pm

Re: 777A compared to ‘derated ER’

Thu Nov 22, 2018 1:45 am

VSMUT wrote:
Max Q wrote:
Maximum take off weight was reduced significantly, albeit ‘artificially’


Operating at similar weights as an ER would not change the burn but as the aircraft generally operated at much lighter weights fuel burn should improve


If you operated an ER on the same routes with the same payload, the weight and fuel burn would be the same. You don't take more fuel just because you have a higher MTOM.



This is true


What I’m really trying to see here is how a
purpose built 777A compares to an artificially ‘derated’ ER as SIA operated


Is the MGTOW the same ?

What was the engine thrust on the derated
aircraft?

Etc.,

Interested in a comparison
The best contribution to safety is a competent Pilot.


GGg
 
BravoOne
Posts: 4094
Joined: Fri Apr 12, 2013 2:27 pm

Re: 777A compared to ‘derated ER’

Thu Nov 22, 2018 2:52 pm

While I cannot find a reference for the EOW on a 777A, the 777-200ER is heavier, that I'm sure off. Therefore givien the same payload one could assume that the -200ER is heavier and would burn a greater amount of fuel over the same city pairs on any given day. How much?

Maybe 3% would be my guess all things being equal.
 
Max Q
Topic Author
Posts: 8899
Joined: Wed May 09, 2001 12:40 pm

Re: 777A compared to ‘derated ER’

Fri Nov 23, 2018 6:10 am

Well thanks for the post B1 but that wasn’t really my question


This topic and it’s point has been missed !
The best contribution to safety is a competent Pilot.


GGg
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 15911
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

Re: 777A compared to ‘derated ER’

Fri Nov 23, 2018 4:44 pm

I think your assumption that the regional 772s were lighter was false, I think they were heavier and still capable of flying 12 hr flights.

They had newer engines which reduces burn.
“Don't be a show-off. Never be too proud to turn back. There are old pilots and bold pilots, but no old, bold pilots.” E. Hamilton Lee, 1949
 
Chaostheory
Posts: 1180
Joined: Wed Mar 06, 2013 2:09 am

Re: 777A compared to ‘derated ER’

Fri Nov 23, 2018 9:42 pm

Max Q wrote:
VSMUT wrote:
Max Q wrote:
Maximum take off weight was reduced significantly, albeit ‘artificially’


Operating at similar weights as an ER would not change the burn but as the aircraft generally operated at much lighter weights fuel burn should improve


If you operated an ER on the same routes with the same payload, the weight and fuel burn would be the same. You don't take more fuel just because you have a higher MTOM.



This is true


What I’m really trying to see here is how a
purpose built 777A compares to an artificially ‘derated’ ER as SIA operated


Is the MGTOW the same ?

What was the engine thrust on the derated
aircraft?

Etc.,

Interested in a comparison


The paper mgtow ultimately depends on the operator. Unless there is someone here with access to or knowledge of SIA fleets specs, you're not going to get your answer.

Keep in mind that derate can be very much operator specific. both in terms of max operating weights and engine thrust.

I know for the 772/ER, in addition to SIA, PIA, AF, Saudia and BA operate(d) derated 772ERs.

BA has/had a varying number of max weights whilst I believe AF and PIA derated theirs to ~275t
 
strfyr51
Posts: 5106
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2012 5:04 pm

Re: 777A compared to ‘derated ER’

Sat Nov 24, 2018 2:50 am

BravoOne wrote:
Operated a 767-200ER that had AFM reductions in MTOGW. When we wanted to revise it upwards to it's original delivered weights, Boeing wanted a significant charge for this paper mod. I think we did it with a paper STC and saved probably 50K.

The mod to make a B767-200 into a -er was to activate the Center tank in the cockpit with a new fuel panel. All the plumbing and Pumps were already installed so the Mod was pretty quick and the overwater gear just had to be installed. Ai United it was done in a 3 day visit just to install Placards, Seat back Placards, Life Vests. Rafts, New slide rafts on the Doors and to re-weigh the airplane to re-calculate the new weight and Moment. After the first one? All the rest could be done over the weekend for the 18 remainders (we only had 19 B767-222's)
 
BravoOne
Posts: 4094
Joined: Fri Apr 12, 2013 2:27 pm

Re: 777A compared to ‘derated ER’

Sat Nov 24, 2018 8:34 pm

Thanks, my post was strictly regarding the gross weight adjustments and had nothing to do with coverting a -200 to an ER. Keep in mind that some -200ER's have a full jetison system for the higher gross weight versions.
 
BravoOne
Posts: 4094
Joined: Fri Apr 12, 2013 2:27 pm

Re: 777A compared to ‘derated ER’

Sat Nov 24, 2018 8:38 pm

zeke wrote:
I think your assumption that the regional 772s were lighter was false, I think they were heavier and still capable of flying 12 hr flights.

They had newer engines which reduces burn.


Actually UAL was having marginal payload/range issues fro Europe to KORD with their A models so I'm not sure where you come up with the 12 hour flights. As others have said, many of these range issue are very operator specific.
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 15911
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

Re: 777A compared to ‘derated ER’

Sat Nov 24, 2018 9:18 pm

We are not talking about United, we are talking about SQ.
“Don't be a show-off. Never be too proud to turn back. There are old pilots and bold pilots, but no old, bold pilots.” E. Hamilton Lee, 1949
 
BravoOne
Posts: 4094
Joined: Fri Apr 12, 2013 2:27 pm

Re: 777A compared to ‘derated ER’

Sat Nov 24, 2018 10:25 pm

Max Q wrote:
Singapore had / has ? some 777ER models
which they deliberately derated for regional operations


I believe this was done by a paperwork reduction of maximum take off and other weights and maximum engine thrust was reduced and limited with electronic adjustment



This gave SIA a much lighter triple that burned less fuel and paid less in landing fees, although it didn’t have the performance of a regular ER it was more than adequate for regional flights


Not the most efficient solution to the mission, later it was covered by the A333
and now the 787-10 is starting to fill that
niche


So how did these ‘derated’ triples compare in weight, engine thrust and performance to the ‘original’ lightweight 777A models operated by UA / BA / CX ?



So how did these ‘derated’ triples compare in weight, engine thrust and performance to the ‘original’ lightweight 777A models operated by UA / BA / CX ?

Sorry but looks to me that UAL is part of the discussion.? Anyway...what difference does it make?
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 15911
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

Re: 777A compared to ‘derated ER’

Sat Nov 24, 2018 11:16 pm

No every thread on this site does not need to include “this is what we did at united”, the OP was asking about the SQ regional 77Es.

They were not 77As, they were 77Es with lower MTOW but still good enough to get to LHR and AKL.
“Don't be a show-off. Never be too proud to turn back. There are old pilots and bold pilots, but no old, bold pilots.” E. Hamilton Lee, 1949
 
Pacific
Posts: 1148
Joined: Fri Mar 10, 2000 2:46 pm

Re: 777A compared to ‘derated ER’

Sun Nov 25, 2018 4:51 am

Wasn't the question about the economies of operating a 772ER paper derated to 772A performance levels versus an actual 772A?

Does a 772A have lower OEW versus a derated 772ER?
How would they compare in fuel burn when flown on the same regional missions?
 
Max Q
Topic Author
Posts: 8899
Joined: Wed May 09, 2001 12:40 pm

Re: 777A compared to ‘derated ER’

Sun Nov 25, 2018 5:12 am

BravoOne wrote:
Max Q wrote:
Singapore had / has ? some 777ER models
which they deliberately derated for regional operations


I believe this was done by a paperwork reduction of maximum take off and other weights and maximum engine thrust was reduced and limited with electronic adjustment



This gave SIA a much lighter triple that burned less fuel and paid less in landing fees, although it didn’t have the performance of a regular ER it was more than adequate for regional flights


Not the most efficient solution to the mission, later it was covered by the A333
and now the 787-10 is starting to fill that
niche


So how did these ‘derated’ triples compare in weight, engine thrust and performance to the ‘original’ lightweight 777A models operated by UA / BA / CX ?



So how did these ‘derated’ triples compare in weight, engine thrust and performance to the ‘original’ lightweight 777A models operated by UA / BA / CX ?

Sorry but looks to me that UAL is part of the discussion.? Anyway...what difference does it make?




Correct

That’s what this topic was about, comparing the A model 777 with those ER
versions, SIA for example that were deliberately downrated by their operators for regional operations
The best contribution to safety is a competent Pilot.


GGg
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 15911
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

Re: 777A compared to ‘derated ER’

Sun Nov 25, 2018 5:48 am

Pacific wrote:
Wasn't the question about the economies of operating a 772ER paper derated to 772A performance levels versus an actual 772A?

Does a 772A have lower OEW versus a derated 772ER?
How would they compare in fuel burn when flown on the same regional missions?


See above

"I think your assumption that the regional 772s were lighter was false, I think they were heavier and still capable of flying 12 hr flights.

They had newer engines which reduces burn."

The 77E was about 3 tonnes heavier than a 77A.
“Don't be a show-off. Never be too proud to turn back. There are old pilots and bold pilots, but no old, bold pilots.” E. Hamilton Lee, 1949
 
Pacific
Posts: 1148
Joined: Fri Mar 10, 2000 2:46 pm

Re: 777A compared to ‘derated ER’

Sun Nov 25, 2018 7:27 am

Thanks Zeke for the information. The newer engines burning less fuel despite the 3t weight disadvantage is impressive. Even more impressive because the engines are less than half a generation apart.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 23 guests

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos