Singapore_Air From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2000, 13606 posts, RR: 25 Posted (1 year 8 months 4 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 5463 times:
Singapore Airlines Limited has announced that it has selected the Rolls Royce Trent 900 engine for the additional 9 Airbus A380-800s which were options converted to firm orders.
The 9 aircraft will be delivered between 2010 and 2011.
Source: Singapore Airlines Limited
01 OCTOBER 2009: This user has retired from aviation to the status of lurker. Thanks Airliners.net for some great times
WINGS From Portugal, joined May 2005, 2780 posts, RR: 74 Reply 3, posted (1 year 8 months 4 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 5251 times:
Quoting Ramzi (Reply 1): So that brings them to a total of 28 A380-841s?
Just a confirmation of engine selection for their order placed at Farnborough in 2006. So now Singapore Airlines have selected the Rolls Royce Trent 900 to power all 19 frames ordered to this date.
Timboflier215 From United Kingdom, joined May 2005, 684 posts, RR: 0 Reply 5, posted (1 year 8 months 4 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 4519 times:
Why did it take them so long to confirm the engine supplier? Squeezing as much as they could from RR? And when will they confirm their engine choice for the A350's they have on order?!
Lightsaber From United States, joined Jan 2005, 4947 posts, RR: 85 Reply 6, posted (1 year 8 months 4 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 4455 times:
Quoting Stitch (Reply 4): And somewhere in the world, PM is raising a glass.
Where is he?
Sheesh... I can only talk about KE ordering 3 more A380's.
Quoting Timboflier215 (Reply 5): Why did it take them so long to confirm the engine supplier? Squeezing as much as they could from RR? And when will they confirm their engine choice for the A350's they have on order?!
Rumor (and only rumor) is that SQ demanded RR guarantee a fuel burn improvement on the Trent 900's. Yes, its well known RR is developing improvements to cut the fuel burn, but SQ as demanding delivery date and performance guarantees for the improved engines.
Combined with the 6MT planed weight loss, this will allow a growth in the A380's payload and/or range. From my perspective, I would love to see the A380 flying SIN-LAX. I see no reason with the airframe weight improvements, the engine fuel burn improvements, and minor planned aerodynamic improvement why the A380 wouldn't replace the A345 on that route.
And yes, the GP7200 is going to go through the same process and the Trent 900's.
Lightsaber
Need to throw a party every six months to organize the place.
A350 From Georgia, joined Nov 2004, 1094 posts, RR: 23 Reply 7, posted (1 year 8 months 4 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 4229 times:
Quoting Lightsaber (Reply 6): Combined with the 6MT planed weight loss, this will allow a growth in the A380's payload and/or range. From my perspective, I would love to see the A380 flying SIN-LAX. cloudnine I see no reason with the airframe weight improvements, the engine fuel burn improvements, and minor planned aerodynamic improvement why the A380 wouldn't replace the A345 on that route. bigthumbsup
WOW, I did expect an A388R to fly SIN-LAX one day in the second half of the next decade, but seeing Lightsaber predicting the "just" improved model will do it within a couple of years is amazing. BTW, that might be the story why SQ keeps their A345s.
A350
Photography - the art of observing, not the art of arranging
Astuteman From United Kingdom (England), joined Jan 2005, 6148 posts, RR: 84 Reply 8, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 3119 times:
Quoting Lightsaber (Reply 6): Combined with the 6MT planed weight loss, this will allow a growth in the A380's payload and/or range. From my perspective, I would love to see the A380 flying SIN-LAX. I see no reason with the airframe weight improvements, the engine fuel burn improvements, and minor planned aerodynamic improvement why the A380 wouldn't replace the A345 on that route.
I wonder if we'll se any MTOW "creep" to aid that process?
The RTO was conducted at 575 tonnes, so it might be possible to squeeze another 6MT into the frame without significant changes.
Mind you, that might result in fuel load bumping up against capacity by then, which brings us back to SFC improvements...
Quoting A350 (Reply 7): WOW, I did expect an A388R to fly SIN-LAX one day in the second half of the next decade, but seeing Lightsaber predicting the "just" improved model will do it within a couple of years is amazing
And of course, the A388R is a different beast to the one we're talking about.
That plane will be a minimum of 600 MT MTOW, at which it would outrange the current plane by about 800Nm-900Nm.
Not enough?
OK. There's always 625 MT MTOW
It's perhaps worth bearing in mind that Airbus have said the FULL scope of the OEW reductions won't be completed until 2012, a bit more than "a couple of years"....
Francoflier From France, joined Oct 2001, 1898 posts, RR: 10 Reply 9, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 3029 times:
Would SQ realistically have ordered engines from a different supplier for those extra A380? Even though they might not be exactly the same engines as the ones they already have, it wouldn't really have made sense to have 2 engine suppliers on a fleet so small....
Looks like I picked the wrong week to quit posting...
Astuteman From United Kingdom (England), joined Jan 2005, 6148 posts, RR: 84 Reply 10, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 3011 times:
Quoting Francoflier (Reply 9): Would SQ realistically have ordered engines from a different supplier for those extra A380? Even though they might not be exactly the same engines as the ones they already have, it wouldn't really have made sense to have 2 engine suppliers on a fleet so small....
Does beg the question of whether, and/or how the planned improvements might get retro-fitted to earlier frames......
(for either engine OEM)
Francoflier From France, joined Oct 2001, 1898 posts, RR: 10 Reply 12, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 2842 times:
Quoting Astuteman (Reply 10): Does beg the question of whether, and/or how the planned improvements might get retro-fitted to earlier frames......
(for either engine OEM)
I see what you mean, and yes, it'd be interesting to know. But if they had chosen EA, then it would have been impossible to retrofit the early RR powered frames altogether. Making that choice even more absurd.
Now that you raised the point, it would be interesting to know how many RR powered frames will be powered by the actual engines and if they could be retrofitted with the new version without too much certification work...
Looks like I picked the wrong week to quit posting...
Parapente From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2006, 422 posts, RR: 0 Reply 13, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 1844 times:
can someone tell me.Is the core of the Trent 900 the same diamentions as the core of the Trent XWB? They put out essentially the same power although the XWB fan is 3rd generation.It would seem strange that Rolls would mahe a huge investment in two essentially identical engines.If this is so one assumes that the technilogy being developed for the XWB engine (ceramic bliscs,hotter/higher pressure etc) would be the developments that they could "easily" swap into the 900.The Trent engine is "modular" and they have done this kind of retrofitting before I believe.
Timboflier215 From United Kingdom, joined May 2005, 684 posts, RR: 0 Reply 14, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 1747 times:
Quoting Astuteman (Reply 15): They were demanding a contractual commitment from RR to improvements in fuel burn.
And since they have now signed, can we assume that they have the guarantees that they were looking for?!
RJ111 From United Kingdom, joined Sep 2004, 3059 posts, RR: 9 Reply 16, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 1608 times:
Unlike the additional 9 airframes themselves, there was no reason for SQ to order the engines so early. So they may as well have waited until they had seen it in service in case the engine was a massive disappointment I guess. Stranger things have happened.
Have they selected a 787 engine yet? I really hope they become the first airline to order or operate all Trent models. However i wouldn't be suprised to see them choose the GE on the 787. It seems to be the more popular choice.
Astuteman From United Kingdom (England), joined Jan 2005, 6148 posts, RR: 84 Reply 18, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 1113 times:
Quoting Parapente (Reply 16): can someone tell me.Is the core of the Trent 900 the same diamentions as the core of the Trent XWB? They put out essentially the same power although the XWB fan is 3rd generation.It would seem strange that Rolls would mahe a huge investment in two essentially identical engines
The Trent XWB is designed to go some 12 000 lb beyond the Trent 900 - eventually.
Significantly enhanced blade aerodynamics, though, means that the cores will be similar in size, despite the 2" bigger fan, and c. 15% greater potential airflow.
In consequence, the bypass ratio will go up even further.
However, I don't think the cores will be anything like identical.
The -XWB core will employ more advanced aerodynamics, but perhaps more significantly, will consist of WAY fewer parts than the Trent 900 core, through the extensive use of "blisks". The advancement will reduce the core weight by 15% compared to the Trent 900, and make it much simpler/cheaper to assemble.
I understand that a fair amount of the aerodynamic technology, can, and will, be back-fit to the Trent 900. However, the basic engine architecture will limit the improvements that can be made (e.g. its unlikely that there will be a change in bypass ratio of any significance on the Trent 900).
Other than that, I believe the engines are pretty similar, just generally progressed to the next technology increment on the Trent XWB.
Lightsaber From United States, joined Jan 2005, 4947 posts, RR: 85 Reply 19, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 1060 times:
Quoting Astuteman (Reply 8):
I wonder if we'll se any MTOW "creep" to aid that process?
I'm sure we'll see that.
Quoting Astuteman (Reply 8): It's perhaps worth bearing in mind that Airbus have said the FULL scope of the OEW reductions won't be completed until 2012, a bit more than "a couple of years"....
I forgot about the 2012 completion timeframe. Sigh... so these SQ airframes might only be 3MT lighter... Ugh... that would require more MTOW to make SIN-LAX. But it could be done!
Lightsaber
Need to throw a party every six months to organize the place.
AirbusA6 From United Kingdom (England), joined Apr 2005, 1127 posts, RR: 0 Reply 20, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 761 times:
Quoting RJ111 (Reply 16):
Have they selected a 787 engine yet? I really hope they become the first airline to order or operate all Trent models. However i wouldn't be suprised to see them choose the GE on the 787. It seems to be the more popular choice.
With RR opening a Trent assembly line in Singapore, it would be surprising if they chose the GEnx for the 787...
it's the bus to stansted (now renamed national express a4 to ruin my username)
Sponsor Message: 
From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2000, 13606 posts, 
From Lebanon, joined Oct 2006, 231 posts, 
From Portugal, joined May 2005, 2780 posts, 
From United States, joined Jul 2005, 15819 posts, 
I see no reason with the airframe weight improvements, the engine fuel burn improvements, and minor planned aerodynamic improvement why the A380 wouldn't replace the A345 on that route. 
From Georgia, joined Nov 2004, 1094 posts, .gif){kind=small}
From United Kingdom (England), joined Jan 2005, 6148 posts, 
From France, joined Oct 2001, 1898 posts, 
From Maldives, joined Nov 2003, 1530 posts, 
From Japan, joined Feb 2005, 5046 posts, 
But it could be done! 
Printer friendly format 
