A664:
The claim quoted in the article is that parts "need replacement after operating 75 take-offs at the 72,000lb maximum thrust level", so I understand that the engine can sustain more take-offs at lower thrust settings.
Light went on, I hadn't digested all of it. Thanks! You helped me connect the max rated versus "max typically used" dots.
Then it might be possible to fly a single aircraft to LAX and back up to 75 times (150 flights) before its engines have to be changed. If you use the aircraft on multiple routes - most of which don't need maximum thrust - you will get even more flights between replacements.
Got it.
Colpaz
On the 75 cycles bit - I'm certainly not an expert, but have read this thread from the beginning; My understanding is that the 75 cycle limitation is as a result of spline wear problems documented in a few ADs, and is certainly not the original spec of the engine.
I missed that, thanks!
RR: max continuous registers. The others would be for me "contingency power."
bear:
The 972 should have been given a miss, relative to Qantas and their long haul aspirations. Eight thousand pounds of Thrust left in the Hangar in favor of 970's must seem like to drool over about now, for Qantas.
What can 970's cost in MTOW and Pax/Freight? Some, I suppose, but again, the 972 is a mission killer as it stands now.
Potential mission killer, bear? If RR have got an adaptation or mod that accounts for the promised verus currently realized gap, will they not return to all of Qantas 972's full capability (or agreed/contracted) in due course as each engine is modified/inspected/refitted on (or perhaps off?) wing? Who and how that is funded is of course something for Qantas and RR to sort out between them ... and I will guess make sure the regulating agencies are happy with the final resolution.
I may have misread your post, and you are only looking at the short term with that prognosis.
Turbine D: much appreciate your well crafted thoughts, insights and explanations.