Why 777-300ER has GE engines?But 200 and 300 have RR?
TDracer, methinks you meant Al Shepard, not Scott Carpenter?
I know better What the
was I thinking? I must have been really drunk at the time
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 78
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It'll be interesting to see what is developed for the 777-10X. 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 78
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
msbbarratt stated:
RR's tend to have better climb fuel burn due to the triple spools, whereas GE's tend to have better cruise fuel burn. So for shorter stage lengths, the Trent 8115 likely would have held the advantage, whereas the GE90 would do better on longer stage lengths.
The 787 was always going to have two engine choices and RFPs were sent to GE, RR and P&W.
The original A350 also would have had two (Airbus agreed to give GE the first two years of production to develop an engine). Once Airbus decided to go bigger, that effectively killed GE's interest (and I assume Airbus was as wary of a large-thrust P&W GTF on the A350 as Boeing was having it on the 787).
What's we'll never know is whether the Trent 8115 would have made it better still....AFAIK GE's big twin spools weigh a lot more than RR's big trip-spool equivalents; that sounds like a bad thing for everyone except GE.
It's quite interesting to note that the 787 launched with RR. The airlines presumably didn't want to be denied the choice this time round.
The original A350 also would have had two (Airbus agreed to give GE the first two years of production to develop an engine). Once Airbus decided to go bigger, that effectively killed GE's interest (and I assume Airbus was as wary of a large-thrust P&W GTF on the A350 as Boeing was having it on the 787).
AFAIK GE's big twin spools weigh a lot more than RR's big trip-spool equivalents; that sounds like a bad thing for everyone except GE.
All the engines have gotten much heavier as the fans have gotten bigger and the bypass ratios higher (the GEnx-2B fan is nearly a foot larger in diameter than the CF6-80C/E series engines, produces similar thrust, burns way less fuel, but weighs well over a thousand pounds more).
One of the problems with the 3 spool design is makes bearing design particularly difficult, and there have been a number of uncontained engine failures as a result (a bearing failure on an L1011 center engine tried to cut the airplane in two when the liberated fan came through the cabin, and we all remember what happened on the Singapore A380 a few years back
). As a result, all Rolls engines now have a number of elaborate, expensive, and heavy safety systems to keep bearing failures from resulting in uncontained failures.The end result is that, as far as I've been able to tell, Rolls engines on Boeing airplanes have not had a meaningful weight advantage relative to GE.
Fan/turbine failures are not unique to RR. ALL engine manufacturers have had to compromise to reduce failures. There is a thread here somewhere arguing the for/against of RR & GE/PW etc.
Think it needs pointing out that it wasn't Boeing buying exclusivity on the -110/115B engines, it was GE buying exclusivity on the -200F/LR/-300ER series.
Airbus didn't have then, and don't have now, any use of a 110-115K lbs engine; the A350-1000 is 'only' in need of around 95-100K, and that aircraft wasn't even on the drawing board when Boeing launched the 777-200LR/F/-300ER.
Regardless, GE's investment turned out to be a money spinner for both them, Boeing and the airlines operating the aircraft.
Airbus didn't have then, and don't have now, any use of a 110-115K lbs engine; the A350-1000 is 'only' in need of around 95-100K, and that aircraft wasn't even on the drawing board when Boeing launched the 777-200LR/F/-300ER.
Regardless, GE's investment turned out to be a money spinner for both them, Boeing and the airlines operating the aircraft.
Be interesting to know how much of a money spinner for GE as who is paying for all the additional inspections and module changes at present ? Great engine for the crews but dont stay on wing for long at present.
Think it needs pointing out that it wasn't Boeing buying exclusivity on the -110/115B engines, it was GE buying exclusivity on the -200F/LR/-300ER series.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: nowhere
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Think it needs pointing out that it wasn't Boeing buying exclusivity on the -110/115B engines, it was GE buying exclusivity on the -200F/LR/-300ER series.
Airbus didn't have then, and don't have now, any use of a 110-115K lbs engine; the A350-1000 is 'only' in need of around 95-100K, and that aircraft wasn't even on the drawing board when Boeing launched the 777-200LR/F/-300ER.
Airbus didn't have then, and don't have now, any use of a 110-115K lbs engine; the A350-1000 is 'only' in need of around 95-100K, and that aircraft wasn't even on the drawing board when Boeing launched the 777-200LR/F/-300ER.
If so, it would explain the so-called Airbus jealousy and finally get the previous poster to stop annoying us with head banging.
Last edited by JammedStab; 12th Sep 2013 at 15:27.
Has this exclusivity for the -115 prevented Airbus from developing a direct competitor to the 777 due to the lack of an engine available to power it.
The point that both SMT and I are trying (and clearly failing) to get across is that the exclusivity is in the opposite direction to that which you are implying.
To put it simply:
Boeing agreed with GE that the GE90 will be the only engine offered on the 777-200LR/F/-300ER - TRUE
GE agreed with Boeing that GE won't offer the GE90 to any other manufacturer (e.g. Airbus) - FALSE
It follows that there is no constraint preventing Airbus building a 777-sized, GE90-powered aircraft should they wish to.
The fact that they haven't is doubtless because they don't think the market is big enough, and they have their hands full with the A380 and A350, not because GE won't sell them an engine.
Please let me know when I can stop banging my head, it's starting to hurt.
Fan/turbine failures are not unique to RR. ALL engine manufacturers have had to compromise to reduce failures. There is a thread here somewhere arguing the for/against of RR & GE/PW etc.
. The specific point I was addressing was weight - while a 3 spool has a theoretical weight advantage, it practice it has not panned out that way. One reason for that is the particular difficulties of bearing design inherent in a 3 spool design, the resultant nasty failure modes, and the extra systems Rolls has had to implement to address those failure modes - systems that the 2 spool engines don't need.In the RB211/L1011 incident I noted, a bearing failure sheared the fan shaft, resulting in a semi-intact fan assembly departing the engine while still rotating at several hundred rpm. This made a very effective rotating saw that tried to cut the plane in half. Fan shaft failures on 2 spool engines have never liberated the fan (the fan shaft failure of a GEnx on a new 787 test flight last year was pretty much benign). As a result, Rolls had to implement a 'fan catcher' - a heavy structure that would retain the fan if the fan shaft failed. This is just one example.
BTW, I'd rather GE didn't have such a dominant market share - it makes them a real pain to deal with
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Cumbria
Posts: 170
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I assume :
http://www.airdisaster.com/reports/ntsb/AAR82-05.pdf
Eastern Airlines Flight 935 1981-09-22
http://www.airdisaster.com/reports/ntsb/AAR82-05.pdf
Eastern Airlines Flight 935 1981-09-22
Originally Posted by tdracer
The specific point I was addressing was weight - while a 3 spool has a theoretical weight advantage, it practice it has not panned out that way.
There is about 1000 lbs weight advantage to the RR Trent compared to the GP7000 on the A380. 4000 lbs per a/c.
Posted from Pprune.org App for Android
and the 777X will once again be in its own category pumping in the no competition dollars while the A-350 sells at a nice (although typical) Airbus discount price.
According to "internet sources"
There is about 1000 lbs weight advantage to the RR Trent compared to the GP7000 on the A380. 4000 lbs per a/c.
There is about 1000 lbs weight advantage to the RR Trent compared to the GP7000 on the A380. 4000 lbs per a/c.
My friends on the 787 program tell me the Trent 1000 does not have a weight advantage over the GEnx-1B.
A330
RR Trent 700 10549 lbs
GE CF6-80E1 11225 lbs
PW 4168 12900 lbs
B787
RR Trent 1000 12710 lbs
GEnX-1B 12822 lbs
Not a lot in it on the 787 as you say.
RR Trent 700 10549 lbs
GE CF6-80E1 11225 lbs
PW 4168 12900 lbs
B787
RR Trent 1000 12710 lbs
GEnX-1B 12822 lbs
Not a lot in it on the 787 as you say.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: nowhere
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You quote SMT Member's post without appearing to understand it.
The point that both SMT and I are trying (and clearly failing) to get across is that the exclusivity is in the opposite direction to that which you are implying.
To put it simply:
Boeing agreed with GE that the GE90 will be the only engine offered on the 777-200LR/F/-300ER - TRUE
GE agreed with Boeing that GE won't offer the GE90 to any other manufacturer (e.g. Airbus) - FALSE
It follows that there is no constraint preventing Airbus building a 777-sized, GE90-powered aircraft should they wish to.
The fact that they haven't is doubtless because they don't think the market is big enough, and they have their hands full with the A380 and A350, not because GE won't sell them an engine.
Please let me know when I can stop banging my head, it's starting to hurt.
The point that both SMT and I are trying (and clearly failing) to get across is that the exclusivity is in the opposite direction to that which you are implying.
To put it simply:
Boeing agreed with GE that the GE90 will be the only engine offered on the 777-200LR/F/-300ER - TRUE
GE agreed with Boeing that GE won't offer the GE90 to any other manufacturer (e.g. Airbus) - FALSE
It follows that there is no constraint preventing Airbus building a 777-sized, GE90-powered aircraft should they wish to.
The fact that they haven't is doubtless because they don't think the market is big enough, and they have their hands full with the A380 and A350, not because GE won't sell them an engine.
Please let me know when I can stop banging my head, it's starting to hurt.
Airbus, GE dispute could delay A350 plane
An escalating dispute between Airbus and jet-engine supplier General Electric Co could delay deliveries of the European airplane maker's A350 extra wide body jet, the Wall Street Journal said on Monday.
GE and Airbus, owned by European aerospace and defense company EADS, disagree because the largest version of the A350 is to compete with the largest version of Boeing Co's 777 aircraft for which GE is the exclusive engine supplier, the WSJ said citing Airbus and GE officials.
GE officials told the WSJ they will not build a new engine that competes with the one they supply for the 777 but the company has offered Airbus a version of the new GEnx engine which it is creating for the Dreamliner.
Airbus executives said the engine would work only for the two smaller sizes of the three proposed A350 sizes.
Airbus and GE have both said negotiations about the engines for the A350 are continuing but the WSJ reported that no resolution appeared imminent."
So you say that Boeing and GE don't have an agreement restricting GE from selling its biggest engines to Airbus. Well you are probably correct but if GE on its own refuses to supply Airbus, then the effect is the same.
The article says Airbus wanted the GE engines to power the largest of its proposed three sizes of A-350 the largest of which to directly compete with the 777-300 no doubt. But GE has refused to provide an engine for the A350-1000 version which Airbus clearly wanted. GE itself said that it didn't want to provide a competitor to the 777.
So perhaps the original jealousy comment referred to all this but I don't know. But it does answer your question of "To power what, exactly ?" To which the answer of course is....the A-350-1000.
So now Rolls is powering the A350 and maxing out their Trent engine to barely meet A350-1000 requirements. Meanwhile, the 777 is moving up to larger and heavier things powered by GE. And now longtime Airbus widebody operator Lufthansa(who just loves to buy locally) looks set to move over significantly to Boeing. The A350 can have fun competing with the 787 stretch. They will both definitely sell some at nice discounts. Try getting one of those discounts on the 777X. The replacement for the former 747 cash cow is coming.
And you can stop banging your head now that I have answered your questions. We'll leave that to Airbus over not having access to the GE90-115.
Lufthansa Said to See Boeing-Airbus Split on Jet Order - Bloomberg
Last edited by JammedStab; 16th Sep 2013 at 02:59.