jet engine specs!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: In da north country
Age: 62
Posts: 452
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
jet engine specs!
there was a link a while back, about the various manufacturers engine models and their respective thrust outputs. Can anyone lead me that way? Specifically, the Pratt JT-9's and Rolls Royce RB-211's? Help,please, and i will buy you a beer, promise!
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Sydney NSW
Posts: 513
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
beware sfc!
Beware beware. GE quote thrust specific fuel consumption on their lie-sheets for sea-level ISA takeoff conditions. Most everybody else will quote for a cruise Mach No and Flight Level.
Thus a GE lie-sheet might say 0.33lb/lb-hr whilst RR quote say 0.57 but if the actual reference conditions are omitted comparison is not only odious but as much use as a chocolate teapot.
If I had a dollar for every bean-counter (and sometimes a pilot) who says "Why don't we fit GE, they consume nearly half as much as a Roller?" I'd be a rich man.
The GE in good nick on my biggie just before I retired was doing 0.587lb/lb-hr at best cruise, opening out to 0.603lb/lb-hr when a tad "off-axis". I derived these figs from aerodynamic data gleaned over the years and courses in Seattle and working back from fuel flow figs.
When looking at figures it is a case of apples v. oranges and caveat emptor.
Best Rgds
The E
Thus a GE lie-sheet might say 0.33lb/lb-hr whilst RR quote say 0.57 but if the actual reference conditions are omitted comparison is not only odious but as much use as a chocolate teapot.
If I had a dollar for every bean-counter (and sometimes a pilot) who says "Why don't we fit GE, they consume nearly half as much as a Roller?" I'd be a rich man.
The GE in good nick on my biggie just before I retired was doing 0.587lb/lb-hr at best cruise, opening out to 0.603lb/lb-hr when a tad "off-axis". I derived these figs from aerodynamic data gleaned over the years and courses in Seattle and working back from fuel flow figs.
When looking at figures it is a case of apples v. oranges and caveat emptor.
Best Rgds
The E
The requested URL........was not found on this server 
Has it been moved?
Has it been moved?
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Houston/TX - USA
Posts: 20
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Greetings Enicalyth… although it is true that measuring and comparing SFC at sea level vs. cruise is totally absurd, I have looked at several performance numbers for a B777-200 fitted with PW 4000, GE 90 and RR Trent 800 and although the RR has an advantage over the GE installation in the total weight of the propulsion system, the GE installation has a fuel burn advantage. If memory serves me right, the break over point was approximately four (4) hours of flight time. We are also seeing a significant improvement with the 3D compressor installation. Unfortunately the PW installation does not even come close…
To your other point, if I had a $ for every time some half-cocked bean counter ran off making decisions based on numbers they had no clue what meant… or if it even made sense, I would have been retired too…
And yes… enjoy your retirement
Dag
To your other point, if I had a $ for every time some half-cocked bean counter ran off making decisions based on numbers they had no clue what meant… or if it even made sense, I would have been retired too…
And yes… enjoy your retirement
Dag
