B767-300ER Motorisation
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Paris
Posts: 40
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi Everyone,
Most of the B767-300ER are equiped with the GE CF6-80C2.
But two other motorisation are available with the B767-300ER
- P&W PW4000-94
- RR RB211-524H
I would like to know your opinion/experience on each engine type in terms of fuel burn, thrust, maintenance?
Many thanks for your feedbacks.
Most of the B767-300ER are equiped with the GE CF6-80C2.
But two other motorisation are available with the B767-300ER
- P&W PW4000-94
- RR RB211-524H
I would like to know your opinion/experience on each engine type in terms of fuel burn, thrust, maintenance?
Many thanks for your feedbacks.
Initially, the CF6-80C2 was clearly the better engine choice for the 767. However Pratt was finally forced to redesign the HP compressor in the PW4000/94" to address compressor surge issues. It's been a while, but I'm thinking we certified the Ring Case Compressor (RCC) around 2003 or 04.
The RCC solved the surge issues, and had the additional benefit of improving efficiency and hence fuel consumption. The RCC was AD'ed by the FAA to solve the surge problem (which had a bad habit of occurring during Takeoff), so all PW4000/94" engines still in operation should have the updated compressor. With the RCC the PW4000 was at least the equal of the CF6-80C2 - but as for market share it was basically too little, too late.
The RB211-524G/H was never a good match to the 767 - for reasons that were never completely clear to me it was not nearly as good on the 767 as it was on the 747-400 compared to the GE and PW offerings.
The RCC solved the surge issues, and had the additional benefit of improving efficiency and hence fuel consumption. The RCC was AD'ed by the FAA to solve the surge problem (which had a bad habit of occurring during Takeoff), so all PW4000/94" engines still in operation should have the updated compressor. With the RCC the PW4000 was at least the equal of the CF6-80C2 - but as for market share it was basically too little, too late.
The RB211-524G/H was never a good match to the 767 - for reasons that were never completely clear to me it was not nearly as good on the 767 as it was on the 747-400 compared to the GE and PW offerings.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Paris
Posts: 40
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks for your detailed feedback, much appreciated.
I have a basic question, the PW4060-3 is a generation after or before the PW4000/94?
I have a basic question, the PW4060-3 is a generation after or before the PW4000/94?
Last edited by A380MSN0001; 24th Jul 2017 at 10:12.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: The Netherlands
Age: 67
Posts: 288
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Preference
Contrary to ajd1 response, I always preferred the P&W engine - faster response from idle, and that sort of things.
For beancounters, sure, the better fuel consumption/efficiency of GE would have been preferable.
tdracer, as always, very informative reply, thank you.
For beancounters, sure, the better fuel consumption/efficiency of GE would have been preferable.
tdracer, as always, very informative reply, thank you.
Last edited by EMIT; 24th Jul 2017 at 14:55. Reason: typo
Predictive responses to a less than technical question.
The owners and operators value the engine for its cost basis (ease of scheduling, fuel burn and low repair costs)
The pilots value the engine for its predicability in a safe operation.
How it meets or falls short of perfect is more on the technical side once suitable definitions are defined in the discussion.
I never ask when I get aboard a plane as a passenger now days
The owners and operators value the engine for its cost basis (ease of scheduling, fuel burn and low repair costs)
The pilots value the engine for its predicability in a safe operation.
How it meets or falls short of perfect is more on the technical side once suitable definitions are defined in the discussion.
I never ask when I get aboard a plane as a passenger now days
I have a basic question, the PW4060-3 is a generation after or before the PW4000/94?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Paris
Posts: 40
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thank you for your feedback tdracer. So according to your experience exept the cost of the maintenance which is theorically higher on PW compared to GE CF6-80C2, performances and fuel burn are more or less the same on both engines?
the 767-200 also had the JT9D too
Braathens had them on their 2 a/c in 1985
Braathens had them on their 2 a/c in 1985
EIS of the 767-200 was with the JT9D-74RD/7R4E engine in 1982, quickly followed by the CF6-80A/-80A2. The longer 767-300 version followed a few years later, again with both engine types. Max thrust for both engine types was about 50,000 lbs.
The PW4000 and CF6-80C2 were certified in the 1988 time frame. The -80C2 was initially the non-FADEC 'PMC' version, followed about a year later by the FADEC, with the RB211-524G/H about a year after that. All three engine types had the advantage of more thrust (~62k for the PW, ~60k for the CF6-80C2B6 and RB211-524H) and significantly better fuel burn than the JT9D and CF6-80A engines. Most of the JT9D and CF6-80A powered 767s were converted to freighters years ago (and many retired by now).
As I noted earlier, the PW4000, CF6-80C2, and RB211-524G/H engines are common between the 767 and the 747-400. Interesting tidbit, initially GE resisted the FADEC version of the CF6-80C2 - they didn't feel the advantages of FADEC outweighed the costs (and the PMC version was quite a nice hydro control). Boeing said 'fine, but were not putting throttle cables in the 747-400 - if you want to be on the -400 you need to go FADEC'.
A380 - when I said there is currently little to choose between the CF6-80C2 and the PW4000, it's across the board - maintenance, fuel burn, etc. It's really down to what the operator wants with neither engine having a clear advantage.
The PW4000 and CF6-80C2 were certified in the 1988 time frame. The -80C2 was initially the non-FADEC 'PMC' version, followed about a year later by the FADEC, with the RB211-524G/H about a year after that. All three engine types had the advantage of more thrust (~62k for the PW, ~60k for the CF6-80C2B6 and RB211-524H) and significantly better fuel burn than the JT9D and CF6-80A engines. Most of the JT9D and CF6-80A powered 767s were converted to freighters years ago (and many retired by now).
As I noted earlier, the PW4000, CF6-80C2, and RB211-524G/H engines are common between the 767 and the 747-400. Interesting tidbit, initially GE resisted the FADEC version of the CF6-80C2 - they didn't feel the advantages of FADEC outweighed the costs (and the PMC version was quite a nice hydro control). Boeing said 'fine, but were not putting throttle cables in the 747-400 - if you want to be on the -400 you need to go FADEC'.
A380 - when I said there is currently little to choose between the CF6-80C2 and the PW4000, it's across the board - maintenance, fuel burn, etc. It's really down to what the operator wants with neither engine having a clear advantage.
