Stitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 32276 posts, RR: 85
Reply 2, posted (8 years 7 months 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 11533 times:
In the high-thrust regime, right now GE holds the edge, though the Trent 8104 was a very advanced engine in it's own right and the technology has been incorporated in the new Trent 1000 for the 787, the Trent 1700/XWB for the A350, and the Trent 900 for the A380.
The latest members of the Trent line are a three-spool design which is expected to allow RR to increase the thrust of their 787 and A350 engines more quickly and easily then GE will be able to do with the two-spool nx series.
Commavia From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 12488 posts, RR: 62
Reply 3, posted (8 years 7 months 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 11524 times:
Different airlines have different experiences. AA, for example, has had excellent experiences with Rolls Royce engines, while Continental likes GE engines. It just depends on the airline and the circumstances -- both make excellent products.
Scouse From United States of America, joined Jul 2006, 77 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (8 years 7 months 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 11441 times:
what are the service intervals for both engines and are the service requirements the same. The operating cost difference there can be very big.
American cars only seem to be able to last 3000 miles between oil changes but some of the European models are now at 18000 miles although they are on the more expensive synthetic oils but that still means less $ per mile, is the difference the same for jet engines? MX for any airline that run the big GE and Trent engines would be the best judge on the performance difference, do we have any on A.net?
The airline would be very happy to service the engines half as much as long as they were reliable even though they may have cost 20% more to begin with.
So it is not all about maximum thrust and mtow but return on the $ and which one is the best in that area which is what the airlines are most interested in?
I will vote for the Trent, mainly because I like the noise that they make on take off.
Quoting Scouse (Reply 5): So it is not all about maximum thrust and mtow but return on the $ and which one is the best in that area which is what the airlines are most interested in?
Yep, that's what it is all about, the big picture. Engineering is all about the skillful balance of conflicting requirements (compromise), and I dare say that the people involved in the engineering of jet engines are masters of this juggling game.
Most of the desirable characteristics one may wish to have in an engine have inter-linked and/or diametrically opposed requirements with respect to their fruition in reality, thus, a single device encompassing and accommodating all of these characteristics is impossible.
Power, fuel efficiency, weight, durability, toughness, operational flexibility, maintainability and cost; choose 2 or 3 of these qualities and forget the rest.
Quoting Scouse (Reply 5): I will vote for the Trent, mainly because I like the noise that they make on take off.
I am very interested in all jet engines regardless of the manufacturer as the engineering behind these mechanical devices is simply amazing, but for some reason, I have a soft spot for Rolls-Royce in particular .
[Edited 2006-11-02 15:01:12]
JetMech split the back of his pants. He can feel the wind in his hair.