Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Eads Meets On A350 Airliner, RR -> Trent 1000  
User currently offlineKeesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Posted (9 years 3 months 2 weeks 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 7094 times:

The board of European aerospace giant EADS was meeting in Amsterdam on a project to launch the Airbus A350 airliner.

http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stori...world_business/view/151555/1/.html

Seems a logical step towards Le Bourget.

Related Topic :
Rolls-Royce, Airbus in talks to offer adapted Trent 1000 engine on Airbus A350

http://www.forbes.com/home/feeds/afx/2005/06/07/afx2080426.html



32 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineScbriml From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2003, 12566 posts, RR: 46
Reply 1, posted (9 years 3 months 2 weeks 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 6983 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Good news if RR are now on board. Always best for the customers to have an engine choice.


Time flies like an arrow, but fruit flies like a banana!
User currently offlineMGA From Nicaragua, joined Mar 2005, 726 posts, RR: 3
Reply 2, posted (9 years 3 months 2 weeks 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 6777 times:

Rolls Royce Group PLC has proposed an adapted version of the Trent 1000 engine destined for the Boeing Co Dreamliner 787 as an option for the Airbus SAS A350

What do they mean? SAS the airline? I´m confused!  Sad

Also, wouldnt it be better if they would offer diferrent options than theyre competeing product(company)? Same engines on A350 and 787 seems odd...

MGA



Que viva el guaro, el dinero y los aviones!!!
User currently offlineNorCal From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 2459 posts, RR: 5
Reply 3, posted (9 years 3 months 2 weeks 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 6667 times:

Quoting MGA (Reply 2):
Also, wouldnt it be better if they would offer diferrent options than theyre competeing product(company)? Same engines on A350 and 787 seems odd...

one has bleedless engines (787) one has bleed engines (350). Bleedless is "claimed" to be better, but we'll just have to wait and see


User currently offlineGlom From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2005, 2818 posts, RR: 10
Reply 4, posted (9 years 3 months 2 weeks 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 6632 times:

Quoting NorCal:
Bleedless is "claimed" to be better, but we'll just have to wait and see

Whether or not it reduces fuel burn is in doubt. The principle advantage of bleedless systems, other than allowing fresher air in the cabin, is that it reduces maintenance costs (which helps the environment in its own small way). In bleed air engines, there are generators and pneumatics driving the a/c systems. In bleedless engines, there is only the generator and no messy pneumatic systems to deal with. That makes the design simpler, maintenance simpler and also allows the engines to be more easily interchangeable.


User currently offlineGigneil From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 16347 posts, RR: 84
Reply 5, posted (9 years 3 months 2 weeks 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 6631 times:

Quoting MGA (Reply 2):
What do they mean? SAS the airline? I´m confused!  

The name of the company is Airbus S.A.S.

N


User currently offlineScbriml From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2003, 12566 posts, RR: 46
Reply 6, posted (9 years 3 months 2 weeks 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 6628 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting MGA (Reply 2):
What do they mean? SAS the airline?

Often causes confusion! SAS is the company suffix (I can't remember what it actually stands for) - in the UK it would be Ltd. or in the US maybe Corp. Hope I've made that clear!



Time flies like an arrow, but fruit flies like a banana!
User currently offlineScbriml From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2003, 12566 posts, RR: 46
Reply 7, posted (9 years 3 months 2 weeks 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 6605 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Glom (Reply 4):
The principle advantage of bleedless systems, other than allowing fresher air in the cabin, is that it reduces maintenance costs (which helps the environment in its own small way). In bleed air engines, there are generators and pneumatics driving the a/c systems. In bleedless engines, there is only the generator and no messy pneumatic systems to deal with. That makes the design simpler, maintenance simpler and also allows the engines to be more easily interchangeable.

All in theory at the moment - yet to be proven in practice.



Time flies like an arrow, but fruit flies like a banana!
User currently offlineNYC777 From United States of America, joined Jun 2004, 5762 posts, RR: 47
Reply 8, posted (9 years 3 months 2 weeks 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 6604 times:

Quoting Glom (Reply 4):
That makes the design simpler, maintenance simpler and also allows the engines to be more easily interchangeable.

It also makes the aircraft lighter as you don't have to put in the associates duct work that is necessary with bleed air.



That which does not kill me makes me stronger.
User currently offlineDAYflyer From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 3807 posts, RR: 3
Reply 9, posted (9 years 3 months 2 weeks 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 6594 times:

It will be interesting to see how the two theoretical approaches to the engine work out; interesting to see which one works better in the real world.


One Nation Under God
User currently offlineScbriml From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2003, 12566 posts, RR: 46
Reply 10, posted (9 years 3 months 2 weeks 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 6571 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting NYC (Reply 8):
It also makes the aircraft lighter as you don't have to put in the associates duct work that is necessary with bleed air.

Presumably, all you're saving in the whole a/c system is the ducting from the engines to the fueslage? Where does the air come from for a bleedless a/c system - presumably some ducting is still needed from the inlet to the a/c distribution?



Time flies like an arrow, but fruit flies like a banana!
User currently offlineRichardPrice From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 11, posted (9 years 3 months 2 weeks 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 6514 times:

Quoting NYC777 (Reply 8):
It also makes the aircraft lighter as you don't have to put in the associates duct work that is necessary with bleed air.

The engine is also more efficient because less airflow is diverted from thrust. More total thrust means less fuel used to generate the same thrust.


User currently offlineGlom From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2005, 2818 posts, RR: 10
Reply 12, posted (9 years 3 months 2 weeks 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 6495 times:

Quoting RichardPrice:
More total thrust means less fuel used to generate the same thrust.

The only with this is that the engine has to work the generator harder to produce the power to run the systems that are pneumatic in other aircraft. If the generator is a more efficient way of doing this than pneumatics then I can see how there would be savings.


User currently offlineMrocktor From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 1668 posts, RR: 49
Reply 13, posted (9 years 3 months 2 weeks 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 6433 times:

Quoting Glom (Reply 12):
The only with this is that the engine has to work the generator harder to produce the power to run the systems that are pneumatic in other aircraft. If the generator is a more efficient way of doing this than pneumatics then I can see how there would be savings.

Taking shaft power from the engine is very much more energy efficient then extracting compressor air, in fact the first thing you usually do with bleed air is pass it through a pre-cooler (basically throwing away energy eh?).

A large advantage to the bleedless arrangement, from the engine point of view, is not having to deal with the variable bleed extraction. This means you can design and operate the compressor "right on the dot" in terms of thermal cycle optimization, where a bleed engine has to be able to operate within a range of bleeding scenarios. This clearly is not a huge issue, since RR seems confident that adapting the -1000 to bleed air is feasible. I would guess FADEC allows for a "no bleed" and a "bleed" regime on the same hardware.

The big question is how much more efficient the "no bleed" regime is. I have seen guesses ranging from 1% do 3%, but even if the larger figure is true, its still a manageable (if significant) difference.

mrocktor


User currently offlineIkramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21532 posts, RR: 59
Reply 14, posted (9 years 3 months 2 weeks 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 6428 times:

Quoting Scbriml (Reply 7):
All in theory at the moment - yet to be proven in practice.

well, military tests of fighters with bleedless vs. bleed engines show substantial improvements. but of course, they have different airhandling requirements for a fighter pilots.



Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offlineSjoerd From Belgium, joined Aug 2003, 361 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (9 years 3 months 2 weeks 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 6387 times:

Nowhere (I can find) it is mentioned anymore that the B787s engines will be bleedless...

Sjoerd



Flanders + Wallonnia + Brussels = the UNITED STATES of BELGIUM
User currently offlineGlom From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2005, 2818 posts, RR: 10
Reply 16, posted (9 years 3 months 2 weeks 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 6370 times:

Quoting Sjoerd:
Nowhere (I can find) it is mentioned anymore that the B787s engines will be bleedless...

That'll come as a shock to the engine manufacturers who now don't have an engine to sell.


User currently offlineRJ111 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 17, posted (9 years 3 months 2 weeks 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 6343 times:

They're still bleedless. Boeing just no longer emphasises this fact since the engine manufacturers revealed the savings are actually quite modest.

[Edited 2005-06-07 23:16:28]

User currently offlineGigneil From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 16347 posts, RR: 84
Reply 18, posted (9 years 3 months 2 weeks 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 6286 times:

Quoting Sjoerd (Reply 15):
Nowhere (I can find) it is mentioned anymore that the B787s engines will be bleedless...

What are you talking about?

N


User currently offlineSjoerd From Belgium, joined Aug 2003, 361 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (9 years 3 months 2 weeks 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 6261 times:

Quoting Gigneil (Reply 18):
What are you talking about?

I looked on Boeing's website, GE's and RR's and nowhere it is mentioned that the engines (GEnx, Trent 1000) they're developping will be bleedless...
In the beginning it was described like that.

Sjoerd



Flanders + Wallonnia + Brussels = the UNITED STATES of BELGIUM
User currently offlineF14D4ever From United States of America, joined May 2005, 319 posts, RR: 4
Reply 20, posted (9 years 3 months 2 weeks 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 6219 times:

Quoting Glom (Reply 12):
The only [problem?] with this is that the engine has to work the generator harder to produce the power to run the systems that are pneumatic in other aircraft.

AvWeek (March 28, p.51) suggests the generator load will be about four times that of a conventional bled engine. That kind of load can do nasty things to core compressor stall (surge) margin. R R claim to have solved this by extracting shaft power off the intermediate spool of their three-spool Trent 1000. Loading the I.P. shaft unloads the H.P. shaft, improving HPC stall margin. It's all very nicely described and charted in the article. Get yourself a copy.

Kinda makes me wish GE had a three-spool configuration. They've studied it on occasion, but have stayed with the two-spool config.

Sorry if this is drifting a bit off-topic.



"He is risen, as He said."
User currently offlineConcordeBoy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 21, posted (9 years 3 months 2 weeks 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 6201 times:

Quoting RJ111 (Reply 17):
since the engine manufacturers revealed the savings are actually quite modest.

...when/where did they reveal that?


User currently offlineA350 From Germany, joined Nov 2004, 1100 posts, RR: 22
Reply 22, posted (9 years 3 months 2 weeks 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 6094 times:

I never had any doubt that that a Trent 1000 powered A350 will come.

A350



Photography - the art of observing, not the art of arranging
User currently offlineAirbusA6 From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2005, 2013 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (9 years 3 months 2 weeks 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 6034 times:

What's the technical difference between the Trent 900 (from the A380) and non bleedless Trent 1000? They both seem to produce about 70k?


it's the bus to stansted (now renamed national express a4 to ruin my username)
User currently offlineTrex8 From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 4769 posts, RR: 14
Reply 24, posted (9 years 3 months 2 weeks 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 5612 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting ConcordeBoy (Reply 21):
Quoting RJ111 (Reply 17):
since the engine manufacturers revealed the savings are actually quite modest.

...when/where did they reveal that?

try reading AWST occasionally, also their quote of a 787 manager about how they don't seem to be finding the degree of weight savings from bleedless that they thought they would


25 Abba : This must be a matter of balance because you will still need to compress air for the cabin. Hence you will need to have some devise - a compressor -
26 SonicZoom87 : Just wondering, what airliners have the most powerful engines including of those who haven't come out yet? B777? A380? or the future A350/B787?
27 AirTran737 : Would that still be the 777-300 with the GE-90-115B?
28 GEnxPower : GE90-115B still holds the record for per engine basis. The A380F has the max total thrust, but it comes from 4 engines in total. B787 is an all electr
29 Sq212 : Wow! Do they really need 1 MW of power? such power is enough to power our entire building (20 floor with 3,000 sq. m. floor area).
30 Post contains links Revelation : Looks like the result of the vote on the A350 is "Non!", at least for now... http://www.airliners.net/discussions...eneral_aviation/read.main/2158487/
31 Sebolino : S.A.S. stands for Société Anonyme Simplifiée.
32 Brons2 : Well even 1% would be a lot of money over a year's time in airline operations.
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Air China Orders RR Trent 1000 For 787s posted Wed Sep 13 2006 13:58:36 by PanAm_DC10
ILFC Orders RR Trent-1000 For B787s posted Mon Jul 17 2006 11:22:58 by PanAm_DC10
RR Confirm Trent 1700 For A350 posted Thu Oct 6 2005 12:55:32 by PanAm_DC10
Eads To Fund A350 With Bonds To DCX/French Gov. posted Thu Dec 7 2006 20:23:32 by N328KF
Airbus Refuses To Rule Out State Loans On A350 posted Mon Dec 4 2006 22:07:42 by Wingnut767
Surveillance Vid Of Airliner Collision >1 Yr Ago posted Tue Aug 1 2006 10:14:56 by AerospaceFan
Eads Meeting On A380 In May 06 posted Mon Jun 26 2006 18:42:18 by Breiz
Airbus Says 'Airbus Guessed Wrong On A350' posted Wed May 24 2006 06:48:43 by Elvis777
FR Article On A350/A320 Successor Logic Etc. posted Mon May 22 2006 13:22:15 by Joni
Airbus CEO Sees Mid-2006 Decision On A350 Changes posted Tue Apr 25 2006 18:06:06 by Sangas