Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Trent 772 Engines Question  
User currently offlinedennys From France, joined May 2001, 894 posts, RR: 1
Posted (3 years 6 months 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 2727 times:

Hello
could RR Trend 772 ( set on. A330s ) have powered A340-500 or -600 ( instead of Trend 553 and Trend 556 ) ?
Any answer will be welcome
regards
dennys

8 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlinetrex8 From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 4787 posts, RR: 14
Reply 1, posted (3 years 6 months 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 2502 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

I think the issue is that the Trent 700 was designed for twins, so TO power (one engine out requirement) is substantially higher than cruise requirements for a similar aircraft of same weight but with more than two engines.

User currently offlineSASMD82 From Netherlands, joined Mar 2007, 781 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (3 years 6 months 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 2193 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

If so, Airbus would have choosen to select the Trent 700s for the A345 and A346. I think this would have created the same 'problem' as with the A343: an underpowered aircraft.

User currently offlineBongodog1964 From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2006, 3638 posts, RR: 3
Reply 3, posted (3 years 6 months 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 2173 times:

The Trent 772 has around 72,000lb of thrust, the 556 around 56,000lb. Thus it has far more available power than required. i would imagine that the 772 is also heavier, and the wing might not be able to take the weight.

User currently offlineAA777223 From United States of America, joined Feb 2006, 1249 posts, RR: 6
Reply 4, posted (3 years 6 months 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 2117 times:

Quoting SASMD82 (Reply 2):
If so, Airbus would have choosen to select the Trent 700s for the A345 and A346. I think this would have created the same 'problem' as with the A343: an underpowered aircraft.

I think the opposite problem would have occurred. The 776 generates 20K more lbs of thrust, per engine than the 556. This would be an OVERpowered aircraft... way overpowered.



Sic 'em bears
User currently offlineSpeedbird128 From Pitcairn Islands, joined Oct 2003, 1648 posts, RR: 2
Reply 5, posted (3 years 6 months 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 2063 times:

Quoting SASMD82 (Reply 2):
I think this would have created the same 'problem' as with the A343: an underpowered aircraft.

A340 is not underpowered. It has sufficient thrust provisions for its missions.
Sure it doesn't climb to A.nut requirements, but none have crashed because it was "underpowered".



A306, A313, A319, A320, A321, A332, A343, A345, A346 A388, AC90, B06, B722, B732, B733, B735, B738, B744, B762, B772, B7
User currently offlinetrex8 From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 4787 posts, RR: 14
Reply 6, posted (3 years 6 months 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 1912 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Speedbird128 (Reply 5):
Quoting SASMD82 (Reply 2):
I think this would have created the same 'problem' as with the A343: an underpowered aircraft.

A340 is not underpowered. It has sufficient thrust provisions for its missions.
Sure it doesn't climb to A.nut requirements, but none have crashed because it was "underpowered".

As people who actually fly the A340 and 744 have said time and time again the A343 actually reaches cruise altitude quicker than a 744. If I understand them correctly to use a car analogy the 747s 0-30 acceleration may be faster but the A343's time to 60 is faster and speed at a quarter mile is higher.


User currently offlineSASMD82 From Netherlands, joined Mar 2007, 781 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (3 years 6 months 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 1837 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting trex8 (Reply 6):

Correction: I mean, the take off roll of A343 is loooooong and it climbs out slowly. The A345 and A346 climb out much faster. You are right, I meant an overpowered airplane.

Trex8, I agree: A fully loaded A772 (don't know about the 77W) for a mission such as AMS-LIM/EZE, it stays at 31,000 ft for a long time. After 6 or 7 hours, it climbs to a higher altitude. A fully loaded A343 (ICN-MUC) climbs to flight level 370 directly.


User currently offlinedennys From France, joined May 2001, 894 posts, RR: 1
Reply 8, posted (3 years 5 months 2 weeks 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 1352 times:

Many thanks for all answer
regards
dennys


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...
NZ Refit & 772 Delivery Question posted Fri Oct 7 2005 02:38:59 by 767ER
Airlines & Engines Question posted Sun Nov 17 2002 21:05:51 by BOEING747400
Question On SQ, DL, And EK 777 Engines posted Tue Oct 30 2007 22:54:20 by Kaitak744
AF 772 Question posted Sun May 13 2007 20:58:54 by Cleared2Land4
DL's New 772 Service JFK-BOM Question posted Tue Jun 20 2006 03:07:18 by Willyj
TK Fleet Question: Why Both Types Of Engines? posted Tue Sep 27 2005 15:09:23 by Aleksandar
UA HNL-SFO 26MAR05 Extra Section Question Re: 772 posted Fri Mar 25 2005 04:12:57 by FA4UA
4 Engines In The Avro RJ- Question? posted Thu Dec 30 2004 21:57:47 by Elcapi1980
MH 772 9M-MRJ Question posted Mon Dec 6 2004 19:21:07 by VivaGunners
767 Question : Why RR Engines Were So Unpopular? posted Thu Nov 20 2003 04:46:46 by Aleksandar