PPRuNe Forums

Go Back   PPRuNe Forums > Fragrant Harbour Forums > Fragrant Harbour Wannabes
Forgotten your Username/Password?
PPRuNe Email Register FAQ Calendar Advertise Mark Forums Read

Fragrant Harbour Wannabes A forum for those applying to Cathay Pacific, Dragonair or any other Hong Kong based airline or operator. Use this area for both Direct Entry Pilot and Cadet-scheme queries


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 17th July 2008, 23:26   #1 (permalink)
howitzer
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: All over
Posts: 6
CX 777 Variants Engines

I'm having some trouble narrowing down the exact Trent series on the different variations that CX has for the 777

I understand the -300ER has only the GE90-115B, my question pertains to the -200, -200ER, and the -300

I show the -200 having 890's with 90,000 lbs of thrust.

The -300 having 877s with 77,000 lbs of thrust.

Are these correct? If so, why does the -300 have less power than the -200?

Thanks for any info you're able to offer.

howitzer is offline  
Reply
Old 18th July 2008, 00:55   #2 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Charlie X-Ray Too Fife Too
Posts: 68
those 200s are equipped with Trent 877 and providing 77,000 lbf as you stated, and 300s equipped with Trent 892 and giving 90,000 lbf.
cx252 is offline   Reply
Old 18th July 2008, 01:44   #3 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 168
777 engines and thrust ratings as follows:

777-200:
RR Trent 877, rated at 76,900 lb thrust
777-300:
RR Trent 892, rated at 84,000 lb thrust (the basic engine is rated at 92,000 lb thrust, but CX engines are rated at the lower thrust. The full thrust isn't needed for the CX operation because the aircraft have a lower MTOW of 263T. The lower thrust rating reduces costs.)
777-300ER:
GE90-115BL2, rated at 115,000 lb thrust
BuzzBox is offline   Reply
Old 18th July 2008, 16:30   #4 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Planet Earth
Posts: 129
Actually the 777-300s used to have Trent 892s but when they were derated to 84,000lbs of thrust, the engines were technically no longer Trent892s. A new designation was given to the engines that CX operates which are unique in that they provide only 84,000lbs of thrust for take off, but then as the aircraft climbs into higher altitudes where 84,000lbs is not enough to keep a good rate of climb going on a max weight aircraft, the engines slowly increase their thrust rating to 92,000lbs.

The designation by Rolls Royce for these engines is the Trent 884b.
geh065 is offline   Reply
Old 19th July 2008, 05:01   #5 (permalink)
howitzer
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: All over
Posts: 6
Thanks for the help.

howitzer is offline  
Reply
Old 19th July 2008, 15:04   #6 (permalink)
BuzzBox
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 168
A bit more background to the RR Trent 892/884 used by CX on the 773:

The 777-300 initially came to CX with Trent 884 engines.

Although the Trent 884 thrust rating is adequate to cover takeoff, MCT and go around thrust requirements, its climb thrust is marginal.

After discussion with RR and Boeing, an agreement to use the Trent 892 max climb thrust rating was reached, with takeoff thrust remaining at 84,000 lb.

At the time of the agreement, the only thrust ratings available for the 777-300 were the Trent 884 and Trent 892, so the only way to implement the use of Trent 892 max climb thrust was to use the Trent 892 rating plug.

In order to comply with the 84,000 lb takeoff thrust rating certification, the 777-300 fleet was restricted to only use TO1 and TO2 (TO1 closely approximates 84,000 lb thrust).

In the longer term a unique thrust rating was created to incorporate the take-off thrust of the Trent 884, with the climb thrust of the Trent 892.

Hence the Trent 884B thrust rating:

Takeoff
- Same rating as Trent 884 TO (equivalent to Trent 892 TO1)

Climb
- Same rating as Trent 892

MCT
- Hybrid rating Trent 884/Trent 892
- Below 21000' same as Trent 884
- 21-25000' Trent 884-Trent 892
- above 25000' Trent 892

Go Around
- Same rating as Trent 884

Clear as mud?

BuzzBox is offline  
Reply
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes


Posting Rules
vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Boeing 737-800 variants Spoilermixer Tech Log 2 24th November 2005 11:22
Loss of Thrust on Both Engines B767 variants. Hudson Tech Log 10 5th March 2005 14:49
Engine variants... LEM Tech Log 1 12th December 2003 22:58
King Air variants ? concordino Questions 5 13th May 2003 03:52


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 17:03.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
SEO by vBSEO 3.2.0 RC7
© 1996-2008 The Professional Pilots Rumour Network

As these are anonymous forums the origins of the contributions may be opposite to what may be apparent. In fact the press may use it, or the unscrupulous, or sciolists*, to elicit certain reactions.

*"sciolist"... Noun, archaic. "a person who pretends to be knowledgeable and well informed".