MrFord From Canada, joined Jan 2001, 115 posts, RR: 1 Posted (4 years 3 weeks 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 2455 times:
I was wondering something about those -300's for some time.
I know that some of the youngest 747-300 were ordered with (or came standard from Boeing at this date ?) with -400's wings (minus winglets) and with GE CF6-80 engines in place of the -50's series that powered -200's and early -300's.
Here's two examples, the first from Air Atlanta Icelandic, the other from TG :
As far as I know, those planes were still equipped with an FE station and without any FADEC control. Do you know if the engines were a derivate of the -80's series without FADEC, or did they implement a basic engine computer in place of the old FFRATS to communicate with the EEC ?
Also, behind the wings, did those 747-300 get any other modification in MTOW, cruise speed or range ? How much range penalty did they get vs a similar -400 ?
Thanks,
Etienne
"For radar identification throw your jumpseat rider out the window."
Philsquares From Ireland, joined Mar 2004, 3818 posts, RR: 53 Reply 2, posted (4 years 3 weeks 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 2211 times:
IIRC, the 300 had a problem with the increased empty weight vs. the MTOW. Where the 400 had about a 20 ton increase in MTOW. The result was you had an aircraft that was heavier than the 200, carried a few more pax, but didn't have the same range as the 200.
I only flew the PW powered 300 with 7R4G engines. The fuel burn on those was more than the PW4056, but less than the 7Q.
I also don't remember any difference in the 200 v. 300 wing. Where as the 400 has a different wing in terms of LE operation and fuel tanks. In addition the wing fuselage joint area is more aerodynamic in the 400 v. the classic.
So basically they were only equipped with -80s engines in place of the -50s. I guess the range and climb performance are a bit better with the -80s.
While browsing on the Web, I found the type certificate of the 747 (http://www.mfom.es/aviacioncivil/certificados_tipo/275HD.pdf), and found, I think, the answer to my FADEC question. The 747-200 and -300 are certified with the GE CF6-80C2B1 @ 55 980lbs, while the -400 is certified with the CF6-80C2B1F @ 57 160lbs. I came to the conclusion that the 'F' is a FADEC-equipped engine, while the other only came with a basic EEC. I hope I'm right...
Also, while searching, I also found that the first 767 (-200 and early -300) came without FADEC. I know that the first batch delivered to United were JT9D-7R4 powered (same as the 747 ?), so they must have been mechanically controlled. Kinda like a feedback carburetor in a car I imagine !
Thanks you for your time, I like Tech/Ops a lot, we learn something new here every time !
"For radar identification throw your jumpseat rider out the window."
IFIXCF6 From United States, joined Sep 2004, 102 posts, RR: 0 Reply 5, posted (4 years 3 weeks 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 2063 times:
MrFord,
You are correct in your assesment that the "F" in the CF6 final character stands for FADEC. However, the GE non-FADEC control system is a PMC (Power Management Control). All CF6 FADEC engines are controlled by an ECU (Electronic Control Unit). The GE90 has nomeclature that toes the line with an "EEC".
The early 767-200's powered with GE were flown with CF6-80A's. An unpopular engine with only 400 or so examples produced (non-FADEC). 767-300's were powered with CF6-80C2's, they are quite numerous.
MrFord From Canada, joined Jan 2001, 115 posts, RR: 1 Reply 7, posted (4 years 3 weeks 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 1992 times:
DC10Guy,
I read somewhere that those late -300 came with both -400 engines and wings.
After watching numerous -100, -200 and -300 wings pics, I though I saw some type of new wing-body joint fairings on those -300, but now, I know that I was wrong .
I was under the impression that these -300 wings were from a smoother design, but this is probably the view of the new nacelles that fooled me !
Mike,
Thanks for the clarification. Do you happen to know the rating for those -80As ? Just curious as always .
"For radar identification throw your jumpseat rider out the window."
Philsquares From Ireland, joined Mar 2004, 3818 posts, RR: 53 Reply 8, posted (4 years 3 weeks 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 1980 times:
The 300 wing is the exact same wing that is on the 200. That's one of the reasons the 300 has the same MTOW of the 200B, 830,000. The additional 12 feet on the 400 (winglets) allow the increase to 870000 and in some cases up even higher.
Dc10guy From United States, joined Feb 2000, 2685 posts, RR: 6 Reply 9, posted (4 years 3 weeks 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 1961 times:
The CF6-80 Fadec engine has just about any thrust rating you want. Here at my airline we fly the -80A non-fadec and the -80C2 fadec models, which is on our MD11's & A300-600's. They are rated @ 63K I'm not sure what our -80A's are rated at but it's a little less. I would guess around 55K ....
Next time try the old "dirty Sanchez" She'll love it !!!
Philsquares From Ireland, joined Mar 2004, 3818 posts, RR: 53 Reply 11, posted (4 years 3 weeks 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 1940 times:
FADEC means Full Authority Digital Engine Control. While P&W used EEC (Electronic Engine Control).
No, the GE engines on the 743 are not the same what's on the 744.
On the Non FADEC engines, there is a mechanical linkage (cable) from the throttle to the fuel control unit. You advance the throttle and the cable moves and is connected to the fuel control unit. Throttle forward, more fuel is metered throughout the fuel control unit. There is no over speed, over pressure or EGT protection.
With the FADEC/EEC engine, think of the throttles as a big rheostat. The throttles are electrically connected to the electronic fuel control unit. Advance the throttle and there is an electrical signal sent to the electronic fuel control unit. More fuel is metered in, but you have over speed, over pressure and EGT protection.
The FADEC/EEC engines are great when compared to the old technology engines.
Dc10guy From United States, joined Feb 2000, 2685 posts, RR: 6 Reply 13, posted (4 years 3 weeks 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 1932 times:
On the GE motors, The CF6- 6 & -50's are non FADEC, no electric feedback or control. The CF6-80A is a "PMC" motor... Power management control. Its has a computer to help maximize performance but its not "full authority" The -80C's Don't have any cables its all "digital control & feedback" which is what's is on the 747-400's. "FADEC" has become a word now. Weather its Pratts or GE's.
Next time try the old "dirty Sanchez" She'll love it !!!
Philsquares From Ireland, joined Mar 2004, 3818 posts, RR: 53 Reply 14, posted (4 years 3 weeks 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 1931 times:
Dc10guy,
I guess someone had better tell P&W along with Boeing. They still refer to it as EEC and it's on the P7 panel, the MEL, the QRH and a host of other places.
Dc10guy From United States, joined Feb 2000, 2685 posts, RR: 6 Reply 16, posted (4 years 3 weeks 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 1924 times:
Your right Philsquares Dude. I work on Pratt powered planes too. But we as mechanics call digital engine control "FADEC" the term has become a "word" at my airline anyway. That's all I was saying about that ....
Next time try the old "dirty Sanchez" She'll love it !!!
Dc10guy From United States, joined Feb 2000, 2685 posts, RR: 6 Reply 17, posted (4 years 3 weeks 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 1926 times:
Boeing747400, If your only asking about thrust than everything is the same. Handle go forward engine go fast, handle go backward engine go slow. If your asking about "tech specs" between the two engines ... Ah ??? Lets just say they are very different.
Next time try the old "dirty Sanchez" She'll love it !!!
Tepidhalibut From Iceland, joined Dec 2004, 168 posts, RR: 4 Reply 20, posted (4 years 3 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 1835 times:
>FADEC and EEC are the same technology, just different names. Both work the same way.
Not entirely true. Many older engine types had electronic engine controls, with resistors,capacitors etc. They had EEC's, but they weren't Digital, and sometimes didn't completely control the engines : they weren't FADEC.
I believe that the RR RB211-524G was on the cusp : Having a FAFC (Full Authority Fuel Control ) digital controling fuel flow, and good old pneumatic / fluidic controls of IGVs and Bleed halves. EEC but not FADEC.
Nz1 From New Zealand, joined May 2004, 1680 posts, RR: 19 Reply 21, posted (4 years 1 week 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 1640 times:
Tepidhalibut
You are correct with regard to the RB211-524G/HT series.
Also with regard to the 744 GE engine. At Air NZ, our 744's are powered by CF6-80C2B1F engines, however I know that QF's 744ER's have CF6-80C2B7F's on them. They are quite a different engine to the B1F's, i.e. not interchangable.
The GE engines work well in our fleet, as we install them as a B6F on the 763, and when EGT margin reduces to a low level, we pull the engine, and run it on the 744 as a B1F at a lower thrust rating.
Sponsor Message: 
From Canada, joined Jan 2001, 115 posts, 
From Germany, joined Nov 2003, 779 posts, 
) and 377800 KG MTOW 
From Ireland, joined Mar 2004, 3818 posts, 
From India, joined Jul 2003, 1380 posts, 
From United States, joined Sep 2004, 102 posts, 
.
From Argentina, joined Mar 2004, 133 posts, 
From Iceland, joined Dec 2004, 168 posts, 
From New Zealand, joined May 2004, 1680 posts,