747-400 engine differences
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Here, there, and everywhere
Posts: 1,123
Likes: 0
Received 12 Likes
on
7 Posts
It is not the money that matters. It is the fact that you were able to get information out that will be forever gone. it is like the test pilot books I am reading. Fantastic information about companies and aircraft that we would otherwise never get to know.
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Here, there, and everywhere
Posts: 1,123
Likes: 0
Received 12 Likes
on
7 Posts
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Here, there, and everywhere
Posts: 1,123
Likes: 0
Received 12 Likes
on
7 Posts
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Europe
Posts: 182
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just my tuppence worth.
From a line maintenance point of view the RR has always been easier to service. The gearbox is on the fan case with all the accessories. Starter motor, IDG, Fuel and oil pump packs etc. Access is simple, just open the fan cowl and away you go. The GE and PW philosophy was to cram as much as possible around the hot core section which means you need a pump to open the C Ducts/ Thrust Reverser halves. More time consuming and in my opinion more difficult access.
The GE CF6 is a brilliant bit of kit though. Incredibly reliable.
From a line maintenance point of view the RR has always been easier to service. The gearbox is on the fan case with all the accessories. Starter motor, IDG, Fuel and oil pump packs etc. Access is simple, just open the fan cowl and away you go. The GE and PW philosophy was to cram as much as possible around the hot core section which means you need a pump to open the C Ducts/ Thrust Reverser halves. More time consuming and in my opinion more difficult access.
The GE CF6 is a brilliant bit of kit though. Incredibly reliable.
Although being rather a desk driver and havn´t touched hardware for a long (too long?) time, I always found the wiring on the T700 (and other RR engines) superior to CF6 / PW for my part of the job - proper routings, markings, colour codes. It always seemed to me as if in GE/PW, the wiring guy came last in the design phase and had to find his ways along all the obstacles along his routes. And I somehow got along with the RR manuals much better.
In the IAE A320 or the 340-600, I find the EPR to be rather unintuitive to use... especially since I started studying the 737NG first.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: USA
Posts: 2,516
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In the IAE 320, I’m only vaguely aware that it’s there. I use N1 for just about everything.
Wow, an old thread comes back to life 
OK, starting (must have missed this first time around). In general, the PW4000 was harder to start than the CF6-80C2. It was standard practice to spin the PW4000 up to close to max motoring before putting the fuel on - the CF6 you could turn on fuel at 15% N2 and get a reliably good start. So the Pratt took more air to start. When Boeing built the LCF (aka Dreamlifter) for hauling around 787 parts, they removed the APU (putting a fuel line through where they spit the fuselage to load/unload was too big a challenge), so ground carts were needed for starting - turns out it needed to be pretty good ground cart to get enough air to reliably start.
EPR vs. N1 is a long standing controversy. N1 has a huge advantage of being an easy measurement relative to EPR which requires reliable measurement of two pressures - one in an area that can be prone to icing (inlet EPR probes require ~ 500 watts of power to heat - which also makes reliable temperature measurements tricky). OTOH, EPR is better related to actual thrust - and the thrust/EPR relationship is pretty much constant (TO EPR is pretty much constant below cornerpoint temperature). N1 has that whole messy square root of theta temperature meaning thrust set N1 changes with temperature.
Wiring (and to a lesser extent plumbing) - Rolls certainly looked like it was designed. Pratt and Rolls both just sort of added it when everything else was done - it looks like a mess.
OK, starting (must have missed this first time around). In general, the PW4000 was harder to start than the CF6-80C2. It was standard practice to spin the PW4000 up to close to max motoring before putting the fuel on - the CF6 you could turn on fuel at 15% N2 and get a reliably good start. So the Pratt took more air to start. When Boeing built the LCF (aka Dreamlifter) for hauling around 787 parts, they removed the APU (putting a fuel line through where they spit the fuselage to load/unload was too big a challenge), so ground carts were needed for starting - turns out it needed to be pretty good ground cart to get enough air to reliably start.
EPR vs. N1 is a long standing controversy. N1 has a huge advantage of being an easy measurement relative to EPR which requires reliable measurement of two pressures - one in an area that can be prone to icing (inlet EPR probes require ~ 500 watts of power to heat - which also makes reliable temperature measurements tricky). OTOH, EPR is better related to actual thrust - and the thrust/EPR relationship is pretty much constant (TO EPR is pretty much constant below cornerpoint temperature). N1 has that whole messy square root of theta temperature meaning thrust set N1 changes with temperature.
Wiring (and to a lesser extent plumbing) - Rolls certainly looked like it was designed. Pratt and Rolls both just sort of added it when everything else was done - it looks like a mess.
Yeah N1 is definitely easier to calculate, since it's kinda a Tachometer by design... and yes, EPR is the more accurate of the 2.
An innovation that I've seen (ig in the A350) is the presence of 'calculated thrust' gauges which are meant to be more intuitive to use.
So, the PW4000, if given inadequate bleed... would give you a nasty Hot Start or the FADECs would auto-cut the fuel and turn the start into a Dry Crank Motoring phase?
An innovation that I've seen (ig in the A350) is the presence of 'calculated thrust' gauges which are meant to be more intuitive to use.
So, the PW4000, if given inadequate bleed... would give you a nasty Hot Start or the FADECs would auto-cut the fuel and turn the start into a Dry Crank Motoring phase?
TD , a belated thanks to you [ and all engineers ] for safely designing , making , servicing all our flying machines for the last 52 yrs .
I'd buy your book ..
It's a delight to read your explantions and stories . You have the knack of making them understandable and enjoyable to an old tractor driver with wings .
Seem to remember we could auto start 2 Rolls on 744s until you got Hot 'n High .. Then 1 . Then Manual start .
Agree on the Rolls sound , whether inside or out the -22bs on our by then old Tristars forever embedded . More like a big diesel winding up before fuel goes in . And 'wot a privilege to have handled 4 Rb 211-524Hs on t/o .
rgds condor .
I'd buy your book ..
It's a delight to read your explantions and stories . You have the knack of making them understandable and enjoyable to an old tractor driver with wings .
Seem to remember we could auto start 2 Rolls on 744s until you got Hot 'n High .. Then 1 . Then Manual start .
Agree on the Rolls sound , whether inside or out the -22bs on our by then old Tristars forever embedded . More like a big diesel winding up before fuel goes in . And 'wot a privilege to have handled 4 Rb 211-524Hs on t/o .
rgds condor .
Yeah N1 is definitely easier to calculate, since it's kinda a Tachometer by design... and yes, EPR is the more accurate of the 2.
An innovation that I've seen (ig in the A350) is the presence of 'calculated thrust' gauges which are meant to be more intuitive to use.
So, the PW4000, if given inadequate bleed... would give you a nasty Hot Start or the FADECs would auto-cut the fuel and turn the start into a Dry Crank Motoring phase?
An innovation that I've seen (ig in the A350) is the presence of 'calculated thrust' gauges which are meant to be more intuitive to use.
So, the PW4000, if given inadequate bleed... would give you a nasty Hot Start or the FADECs would auto-cut the fuel and turn the start into a Dry Crank Motoring phase?
Autostart wasn't basic on the PW4000/747-400 - autostart was an add-on box called an SCU (Supplemental Control Unit). It didn't work very well though...
Junkman - I'd still have to make all the effort to write the darned thing...
