Aircraft Engines
 

Which are the best engines for which planes?:ok:

A330 two CF6-80E1 or PW4000 or RR Trent 700
B737 Pratt & Whitney JT8D or the CFM56-3/7
B757 RB211 or the p&w alternate in the PW2040/2043
B777 the RR trent 800 P&W400 or the GE90
B787 the trent 100 or GNEX similar on the A350
A380 The Trent 900 or Engine alliance GP7200

Similar on other planes.

Whose your favoroute aircraft engine manufactuer?
Your favouroute engine?
Why airlines go for one engine and not the other?
And anything else on aircraft engine choice? i.e their performance, why RR get more power from smaller engines than others, any news on engine development, Why airlines have differnet engines on same plane in their fleet etc?

Thanks BA :ok:

Being British i naturaly prefer the Rolls Royce engine. Although on the 777 i think taht that GE have a better engine than RR, the fact GE cover the whole 777 family it is also better at cutting matinance costs with its similarity.
On the 757 I think the RB211 is a far superior engine compared to the poor, underpowered and not as reliable P&W alternative.(If you could call it that.)
So GO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Rolls Royce and Dominate the World!:ok:

Although im britsh i prefer the nostalgia of P&W in the good old days:D Aghhhh

Thanks Guys:ok: Anyone who prefers GE. Or anything else on the engines.

I am familiar with the RB211s on the 57s - great engine and Rolls is an excellent company to do business with.

The CFM56 is another winner here. Ask any MX guy - this is one reliable piece of kerosene burning machinery.

While I have no direct experience with the 777, I do know that the GE90 is an outstanding powerplant. This engine exceeded customer expectations - not unlike the aircraft it powers.

On 777s fitted with Trent 800s with certain FE carrier, average on-wing time is just 7,400 hours. Average hour:cycle ratio is around 2.5:1 which probably doesn't help but, even so, this on-wing time seems very low to me. Anyone know what the GE or PW alternatives deliver under similar conditions?

From an earlier thread over a year ago:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Have you seen an aircraft pricing guide? I have one sitting on my desk, actually from two different sources,

and they both show RB211-524 powered 747-400s and 767s as +20% less value than a comparable GE or Pratt.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

744 RR engines are always are having problems with :

1. attrition liner damage/replacement

2. ogv infill panel separation/ogv cracking

3. titanium acoustic panel delamination

4. ice breaker panel delamination

5. thrust rev motor failure

6. flex drive cable breaking/seizure

6. thrust rev sense line failure/leaking

7. bleed valve sense line failure/leaking

8. selector seq valve malfunction

9. sense line clamp failure

10. interservices structure cracking

11. N1 fan vibrations

747-400 GE engines nothing goes wrong except the odd thrust rev does not deploy and a bit of anti ice fluid poured into the cdu can fix this.

GE engines a little bit harder to work on with but a better fuel burn than RR.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

I always seek out the local P&W rep and tell him how much I admire any Pratt engine built before 1950! :cool:

From a visit to MH 15 years ago - I have a T-shirt (honest!) proclaiming how proud they were to have mixed fleet 747's with ALL THREE engines! :ooh:

Rollers?
 

Well, I have 19,000 hours in RR powered airplanes, with no particular engine problems to date.
RR truly makes REALLY good engines.
Don't leave home without one, or three...or 4:}

p and w " dependable engines "
 

jt8d they are excellent , i fly the 737 200 for 3500 hs never had a problem best regards , please keep safe skyes

In our fleet we have both RB211's and GE's. From an operators point of view, I would go with GE. The GE's virtually have no quirks. The RB's require continious ignition more than the Ge's, and they are more prone to hot starts. However, the RB's are slightly more powerful than the GE's, and they burn less fuel (4% LESS!). But still, as a operator in our fleet. GE rules.

Barit,

Today none of the principal appraisers mark-down RR 744 values compared to PW/GE - they're all the same. Our 524H-Ts are getting 26,000 hrs on-wing on a 8:1 hour:cycle ratio whereas our PW4056CNs get 15,000 tops (which is a lot better than pre-mod). It's because the H-T is so good that I can't understand why the Trent 892 is so poor.

Dutch,

That's interesting: what actual engine models are you describing?

Cheers

Torque

As said
This makes little sense as in todays high oil prices are pushing A and B to make more efficiant airlines with more efficent engines with RR and GE, so why go with the less economical choice? :ugh:

What i was wondering is why so few airlines have RR on there 747s. It is a modern and efficent jet. While we here at BA have them.(I know we have too) So why dont others?:ok:

1) Commonality across A/C types

2) Marketing effectiveness (guarantees etc.)

3) Operational record (dispatch reliability, IFSD rate, longterm cost/hr)

4) Purchase price, incl. concessions

5) Irrational bias

I think irrational bias is the usual culprit!:}

The Rollers have much better reverse effectiveness than GEs and Pratts.

I can think of a snide comment or two but am too much a gentleman to share my thoughts... :E

I was just wondering why that is a snide comment barit. Afterall this is a technical forum:confused:

Seems like its gone a bit quiet here!!!!!!!!!!!!

Which are the best engines for which planes?:ok:

And in the wise words of Delia Smith-


Lets be havin ye then!:}