Qantas 747-400 with Pratt and Whitney Engines

[tuppaware]

Qantas 747-400 with GE CF6 Engines

So I did a Fiji Status run on the weekend and whilst sitting in the QP in International in SYD I noticed a QF 747-400ER (I think) that had PW engines rather then the standard RR ones.

Is this normal? I have never seen a QF 744 without RR's
I didnt get its Aircraft Registration.

(edit - GE CF6 engines not PW)

 

[markis10]

Thats normal, the ERs are P&W powered.

 

[samh004]

To provide further info, check The Qantas Source.

The original batch of 18 Rolls-Royce engined aircraft were delivered between 1989-1992. However by the end of the 90s QANTAS required further capacity. To this end three new Rolls-Royce engined aircraft were ordered and three second-hand General Electric powered aircraft were acquired from Asiana and Malaysia Airlines. Due to the Asian Financial Crisis these three aircraft were obtained at highly competitive rates. The ex-Malaysia Airlines jets were later temporarily grounded when engineers found cracks within the fuselage. Six new General Electric jets were delivered in 2002-3.

 

[oz_mark]

I always thought they were GE CF6's.

 

[maninblack]

I always thought they were GE CF6's.

You are correct.

 

[tuppaware]

And Qantas is the only user of ER.

 

[markis10]

Woops, I was thinking of the 767-200s and their P&Ws, my bad, I do miss their distinct noise though.

 

[tuppaware]

Woops, I was thinking of the 767-200s and their P&Ws, my bad, I do miss their distinct noise though.

For some reason that brought up memories of flying on Australian Airlines A300-B4 in 1989 as a kid.

 

[markis10]

For some reason that brought up memories of flying on Australian Airlines A300-B4 in 1989 as a kid.

You mean VH- TAA or Try Another Airbus which were GEs as well

 

[NM]

The three "ugly sisters", VH-OEB, VH-OBC and VH-OED were also GE powered.

The GE engine is about a ton lighter than the RR and slightly more fuel efficient, which is one reason those aircraft frequented the Pacific route.

 

[tuppaware]

The three "ugly sisters", VH-OEB, VH-OBC and VH-OED were also GE powered.

The GE engine is about a ton lighter than the RR and slightly more fuel efficient, which is one reason those aircraft frequented the Pacific route.

So why did QF go with RR? Because of the english connection with them>?

 

[samh004]

So why did QF go with RR? Because of the english connection with them>?

I would imagine there are numerous reasons, but wouldn’t know the specifics.

 

[NM]

So why did QF go with RR? Because of the english connection with them>?

QF had purchased their earlier model 747's with RR RB211 engines, so I expect they anticipated some benefits with taking the later version of the same engine on the newer aircraft - economies of scale, leverage engineering experience etc.

But for many years RR was not able to deliver on the performance guarantees for the 747-438 and was rumoured to paying QF considerably in compensation under their contract. Of course any real details of that contract or any compensation is not publicly known and only rumours abound.

Of course its also possible that the airline industry works the same way as the IT industry where vendor decisions are more often made on the gold course than by a detailed technical or cost analysis.

 

[serfty]

I would imagine there are numerous reasons, but wouldn’t know the specifics.

Care to suggest some?

 

[oz_mark]

ISTR that the RR's had some advantages in hot climates.

(and with the ER's, RR was not an option!)

 

[samh004]

Care to suggest some?

Well without knowing any, it’d just be wild speculation, which is similar to saying that they were chosen because they’re English, however I would imagine a deal was reached on pricing of a lot of them for the fleet that was better than GE, and as above, they might work better in different conditions that GE don’t.

Perhaps they were also promised more thrust like in the A380 that GE couldn’t give. Of course, this is all as wild as saying they were chosen because they’re English

 

[markis10]

Care to suggest some?

V Pod capability comes to mind, given its frequent use by QF lately.

 

[tipsy.skipsy]

Many 744 in the world use RR RB211, reason being the triple spool technology that goes with it , at that time when the first 744 came online there were many performance enhancements such as the famous winglets , many Cathay Pacific 744 have RB 211's, the triple spool technology of the 744 was top of the range in it's time.


Sent from my iPhone using AFF Mobile

 

[NM]

V Pod capability comes to mind, given its frequent use by QF lately.

As explained to me by a QF engineer recently:

You need the VPod capability if you operate RR engines . The design of the RR engine means that its a major job to break it down small enough to fit into the cargo hold. While P&W and GE engines "come apart" in a different manner.

To change a RR engine core is a major task and is often achieved by replacing the entire engine (cowling, reversers, core etc). With PW and GE engines, just open the cowl at the bottom and hinge it open using rams that mount onto the engine. Prop the cowl open to hold it independent of the engine core, drop out the engine core, lift in a new one, re-connect the cowl rams and close the cowl. All done in quick-smart time.

So for transport, a GE engine is shipped with the core and the cowl/reverser etc separate inside the cargo hold while the RR engine is shipped on the 5th pod.

To work on the RR engine core in-situ, the engineer needs to climb/slide inside the bypass area through the cowl. Very awkward and time consuming. Ask the engineers which manufacturer's engines they prefer to work on . It was described like trying to change the spark plugs on a V12 Jaguar without opening the bonnet or jacking up the car. You can reach on through the wheel arches or by removing the glove box. To change the V12 you remove the entire car body and pull out the engine, gear box, drive shaft, differential and radiator as one unit from the chassis.

Apparently the RR engine is also more complex, with the bearing box supporting three independent concentric shafts rather than the two shafts in GE engines.

It would seem that the engine choice was not left in the hands on the engineers, but more a decision of the bean counters and management relationships.

 

[JohnK]

I would imagine there are numerous reasons, but wouldn’t know the specifics.

Not to worry. I am sure someone that knows the reason(s) will post them on this thread soon.