115B Engines on the 200LR

[hilly32 0]

I've been looking a bit into the differences between the 200LR and the 300ER for takeoff purposes, primarily because Topcat doesn't have the 300ER as an option. I will premise this post by saying I am not a pilot, just an enthusiast and as such I am sure I am prone to reading and then quoting something that is likely wrong... So please don't hit me too hard when what I ask might seem very silly amongst those that know far more about the real 777 than I do. That said, here we go:

 

PMDG have the 200LR with 110B1 engine at 110K thrust and the 300ER with the 115B engine at 115K thrust. I suspect that this is one of the reasons, as well as the airframe being different, that Topcat 200LR can't be used for the 300ER. Probably simple.

 

When I look at Boeing's website it seems that they now list the 115B engine as the one available on 200LRs. I don't know if any customers have this engine in their 200LRs, but given the seemingly small difference in thrust and the fact that GE don't appear to offer the 110B1 (per their website), I wondered what overall difference it really makes?

 

So I'm curious... Since PMDG have modelled both the 110B1 and the 115B engines and if from the recent 747-8 post, have even modelled 4 x 110B1 engines on a 747 as well, is it possible for me to equip my 200LR with 115B engines? I looked in the aircraft.cfg file and saw the different thrust lines, but also saw the comments about thrust being handled in code. I kind of suspected that, I didn't imagine the engine configs could be changed by simply changing one number. My question is this, is there a way, without taking the model apart, to put the 115B engines on the 200LR model? No is an acceptable answer, I was just wondering if it was possible at all.

 

On a separate question, in terms of topcat performance for optimum thrust, how far apart is the 200LR and the 300ER? I saw another another post from a user who used the 200LR recs for his 300ER. I'm sure that works, I'm just curious as to how realistic it is. For what it is worth I don't follow a specific airline, I like to fly my 777 as a VIP plane with very few passengers, optimized for long range.

 

Thanks for any help/guidance

[scandinavian13 5,192]

 

 

is it possible for me to equip my 200LR with 115B engines?

 

Nope.

 

 

 

I looked in the aircraft.cfg file and saw the different thrust lines, but also saw the comments about thrust being handled in code.

 

Yeah. Definitely best to avoid modifying anything that shouldn't be modified. If this is done, then we cannot support it (we'd just ask you to uninstall/reinstall to return it to its default state).

[77west 139]

Since PMDG have modelled both the 110B1 and the 115B engines and if from the recent 747-8 post, have even modelled 4 x 110B1 engines on a 747 as well,

I don't believe PMDG "modelled" 4x 110B1 engine on the 747, they are simply using the 777 engine model while they develop the airplane (or have simply not updated the FMC text yet)

 

No 747 has an option for any GE90 model. Only CF6 or GEnX-2B. (Talking GE here)

 

RE the differences on the 777, the difference in thrust is about 4.6%, which would not normally be noticeable in human terms.

[jtsjc1 3]

Doesn't the 200LR now share the 115B with the 300ER?

[PinkPony 171]

Doesn't the 200LR now share the 115B with the 300ER?

 

 

The only difference between a -110BL1 and a -115BL1 is the different software rating plug. That is, the -110BL1 is a  de-rated -115BL1 (hardware is identical). You want to convert a -110BL1 to a -115BL1? You change the software rating plug and off you go.

 

The great majority of -200LR/F operators purchased the -110BL1 rating, as it it more than sufficent for their operating conditions. Ethiopian however, purchased the -115BL1 rating for their -200LR/Fs as their home field HAAB is at 7656' MSL. Hence they are able to have a higher RTOW with the -115BL1 than if they had the -110BL1 rating. MTOW is of course impossible out of HAAB regardless of conditions.

 

As far as I know, they are the only operator so far that has purchased the -115BL1 rating on the -200LR/F.

 

The only rating offered on the -300ER is the -115BL1. 

[jtsjc1 3]

thanks Leo.

[ddswh1pk0s 8]

The only difference between a -110BL1 and a -115BL1 is the different software rating plug. That is, the -110BL1 is a  de-rated -115BL1 (hardware is identical). You want to convert a -110BL1 to a -115BL1? You change the software rating plug and off you go.

 

The great majority of -200LR/F operators purchased the -110BL1 rating, as it it more than sufficent for their operating conditions. Ethiopian however, purchased the -115BL1 rating for their -200LR/Fs as their home field HAAB is at 7656' MSL. Hence they are able to have a higher RTOW with the -115BL1 than if they had the -110BL1 rating. MTOW is of course impossible out of HAAB regardless of conditions.

 

As far as I know, they are the only operator so far that has purchased the -115BL1 rating on the -200LR/F.

 

The only rating offered on the -300ER is the -115BL1. 

 

Thanks for that info, really interesting!

[77west 139]

The only difference between a -110BL1 and a -115BL1 is the different software rating plug. That is, the -110BL1 is a de-rated -115BL1 (hardware is identical). You want to convert a -110BL1 to a -115BL1? You change the software rating plug and off you go.

 

After paying Boeing and\or GE, of course!

 

 

 

Emirates also has the 115B on their 77L fleet.

The only rating offered on the -300ER is the -115BL1

 

Correct.

 

 

As far as I know, they are the only operator so far that has purchased the -115BL1 rating on the -200LR/F.

 

Emirates also has the 115B on their 77L Fleet.

[PinkPony 171]

Emirates also has the 115B on their 77L Fleet.

 

Negative. Emirates does not have the -115BL1 plug on their -200LR/F fleet. They are all -110B1L1 rated. 

 

Would make no sense for them considering they did not even purchase the highest MTOW Boeing offers on their -200LR fleet. The first 5-6 were delivered with 1 AUX tank (removed after a few months in service) no need for it, even when the -200LR was operating to KLAX at/near MZFW.

 

The EK -200LRs are 343,369kg MTOW

The EK -200LRFs are 347,451kg MTOW (highest Boeing offers on the -200LR/F)

 

 

Here is the breakdown of GE90 -115 and -110 ratings.

 

-115BL (no thrust bump)

-115BL1 (thrust bump option fitted)

-110B1 (no thrust bump)

-110B1L1 (thrust bump fitted)

 

Note: B1 defines the -110 rating (I accidentally omitted that in my previous post).

 

Hope that clears it up!

[77west 139]

 

 

Negative. Emirates does not have the -115BL1 plug on their -200LR/F fleet. They are all -110B1L1 rated.

I may have been thinking of Etihad ! :ph34r:

 

Quoting GE:

 

DUBAI -- Etihad Airways today announced its selection of GE engines to power its order for 56 Boeing wide-body aircraft, which is part of an extensive fleet expansion for the airline. Etihad's order includes a commitment for 25 GE9X-powered Boeing 777X, 30 GEnx-1B-powered Boeing 787-10 and one GE90-115B-powered Boeing 777-200LR aircraft. The list price for these engines is valued at more than $3 billion.

 

http://www.geaviation.com/press/ge90/ge90_20131117b.html

[PinkPony 171]

I may have been thinking of Etihad !

 

Not Etihad either 

 

The only reason the GE press release states -115B is because the engine is technically a -115B purchased with a -110B1L1 rating plug.

 

Here two sources to confirm that they have the -110B1L1 (thrust bump fitted), I forget the exact figure but EY purchased a relatively low MTOW on their -200LRF fleet. In the region of 331,000kgs vs. the 347,451kg maximum. Of course this can always be increased later by paying $$$ to Boeing for a new set of manuals. Its a paper exercise only.

 

The 5 -200LRs are all ex-air India, and have the -110B1L1 (thrust bump fitted), and have 347,451kg MTOW. Note, Air India originally ordered these with the (unpopular) small aft cargo door option. So no pallets in the aft hold, not ideal for EY but considering the extremely low price they were able to purchase these frames at, it did not end up becoming a deal breaker.

 

http://www.etihadcargo.com/documentation/documents/etihad%20fleet.pdf

 

and this Etihad Boeing technical digest article from a few years back (no mention of the 5 -200LRs of course as they had not yet purchased them from Air India).

 

[77west 139]

 

 

Note, Air India originally ordered these with the (unpopular) small aft cargo door option. So no pallets in the aft hold, not ideal for EY but considering the extremely low price they were able to purchase these frames at, it did not end up becoming a deal breaker.

 

To be honest with you, I am surprised the bought them altogether given the sad state they were suffering, in India.

[PinkPony 171]

To be honest with you, I am surprised the bought them altogether given the sad state they were suffering, in India.

 

Etihad only paid $65 million per aircraft (5 in total). Even with the re-fit and getting the MX paperwork up to date and approved by the UAE GCAA, it was truly a bargain!

[G-CIVA 62]

FWIW the entire Qatar Fleet of B77L & B777F are also equipped with the 115BL1 rated engine.