Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Txwb Getting Ready For A380 Test  
User currently offlineferpe From France, joined Nov 2010, 2805 posts, RR: 59
Posted (3 years 1 month 2 weeks 3 days ago) and read 23438 times:

Here is a picture of the TXWB being readied for a test on MSN001 of A380:


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © T.Laurent



They will start with ground test and then fly the ship "later this year".

[Edited 2011-10-08 08:56:36]

[Edited 2011-10-22 01:49:21 by moderators]


Non French in France
108 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently onlinewolbo From Netherlands, joined Mar 2007, 493 posts, RR: 1
Reply 1, posted (3 years 1 month 2 weeks 3 days ago) and read 23450 times:

C'mon Airbus, just stick 4 of those TXWBs on the A380 and sell them like hotcakes.  

User currently offlineastuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 10169 posts, RR: 97
Reply 2, posted (3 years 1 month 2 weeks 3 days ago) and read 23333 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting ferpe (Thread starter):
Here is a picture of the TXWB being readied for a test on MSN001 of A380:

Thanks for the link. I can't wait to be able to compare the TXWB and T900 (or GP7000) underneath the wing of an A380..

Rgds


User currently offlineElbowRoom From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2008, 180 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (3 years 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 22967 times:

Most exciting thing I've seen in aviation since the 787 first flight. Good luck RR and Airbus   

User currently offlineLufthansa From Christmas Island, joined May 1999, 3224 posts, RR: 10
Reply 4, posted (3 years 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 20757 times:

for the A380-900 perhaps ?
could end up offering unbeatable economics!


User currently offlineAsiaflyer From Singapore, joined May 2007, 1147 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (3 years 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 20624 times:

Does anyone know what commitment Airbus have made towards the maker of the current engines, as I believe the TXWB would make the Trent 900 as well as the GP7000 obsolete if it was offered?


SQ,MI,MH,CX,KA,CA,CZ,MU,KE,OZ,QF,NZ,FD,JQ,3K,5J,IT,AI,IC,QR,SK,LF,KL,AF,LH,LX,OS,SR,BA,SN,FR,WF,1I,5T,VZ,VX,AC,NW,UA,US,
User currently offlineCentre From Canada, joined Mar 2010, 490 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (3 years 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 20368 times:

Quoting Lufthansa (Reply 4):
for the A380-900 perhaps ?
could end up offering unbeatable economics!

It already looks perfectly proportional on the wing  



I have cut 4 times, and it's still short.
User currently offlinesimonriat From UK - England, joined Jul 2010, 138 posts, RR: 1
Reply 7, posted (3 years 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 19735 times:

Sorry not really up on engines could someone possibly tell me why this emgine is so special?

Thanks in advance.
Simon


User currently offlineChiad From Norway, joined May 2006, 1168 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (3 years 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 19050 times:

Quoting simonriat (Reply 7):
Sorry not really up on engines could someone possibly tell me why this emgine is so special?

I guess PM, astuteman and others could tell you lot's more than I can.
But the Rolls-Royes Trent XWB is the power-plant for all versions of the Airbus A350 XWB.
A derivative of it will probably power the A380-900.
Here's more info from Wiki:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rolls-Royce_Trent#Trent_XWB


User currently offlinethegeek From Australia, joined Nov 2007, 2638 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (3 years 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 18771 times:

Quoting simonriat (Reply 7):
Sorry not really up on engines could someone possibly tell me why this emgine is so special?

It's thought to be a significant advance on the Trent 900. Adding a second IPT stage will improve the pressure ratio and therefore the theoretical efficiency, but I'm pretty sure the advances are more significant than just that. Think CF6-80 -> GE90B.


User currently offlineicna05e From France, joined Feb 2006, 298 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (3 years 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 18395 times:

Is the aim really only the A389? I hope they can also sell em on the 388, that would make it an even sweeter airplane to the beancounters. And eventually the passengers...

Engine Alliance would be in trouble. As for RR being hesitant to throw the T900 out yet before a significant ROI, I don't think it makes any sense. The Txwb obviously benefits from all the R&D put into the T900 so any Txwb sale can be seen as a T900 ROI. And they should market it to get an even bigger share of the A380 future sales.


User currently offlineBaroque From Australia, joined Apr 2006, 15380 posts, RR: 59
Reply 11, posted (3 years 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 18164 times:

Quoting icna05e (Reply 10):
As for RR being hesitant to throw the T900 out yet before a significant ROI, I don't think it makes any sense. The Txwb obviously benefits from all the R&D put into the T900 so any Txwb sale can be seen as a T900 ROI. And they should market it to get an even bigger share of the A380 future sales.

That is how you and me probably PM and with reservations Astuteman think. The A reservations are because he will know more of the contractual obligations. But, as I understand it, the partners in the T900 are not exactly the same as for the TXWB, so while the two engines seem to be pretty fungible to us, this may not quite be the case for RR. Even to the point where I suspect we have been told by those who really do know that the 389 will be T900 and not TXWB.

On the plus side, we have also been told that many of the features of the TXWB will be back migrated to the T900. Presumably these could include blisks and the better compressor conditions from better CFD for the blades (or brades if any of them happen to come from Japan) and better thermal coatings but not the extra stage. So there will be limits to improvements in the PR and hot end efficiencies. Oh yes, maybe a better fan back migrated too.

It will be interesting when the release the engine weight for the TXWB - I suspect it could surprise.


User currently offlineLarshjort From Denmark, joined Dec 2007, 1507 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (3 years 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 18130 times:

Quoting icna05e (Reply 10):
Is the aim really only the A389? I hope they can also sell em on the 388, that would make it an even sweeter airplane to the beancounters. And eventually the passengers...

The TrentXWB is designed for the Airbus 350, but it is a wet dream of many to see it on the A380. A lot has happened in th 5-6 years between the design of the T900 and Txwb started.

/Lars



139, 306, 319, 320, 321, 332, 34A, AN2, AT4, AT5, AT7, 733, 735, 73G, 738, 739, 146, AR1, BH2, CN1, CR2, DH1, DH3, DH4,
User currently offlineEPA001 From Netherlands, joined Sep 2006, 4850 posts, RR: 40
Reply 13, posted (3 years 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 18105 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting wolbo (Reply 1):
C'mon Airbus, just stick 4 of those TXWBs on the A380 and sell them like hotcakes.  

That would be so nice.  .

Quoting astuteman (Reply 2):
I can't wait to be able to compare the TXWB and T900 (or GP7000) underneath the wing of an A380..

I am sure the data will be quite interesting.  .

Quoting Centre (Reply 6):
It already looks perfectly proportional on the wing

It does indeed, though we should see more pictures from more angles to be better able to make the final "judgement" on the looks.

Quoting Baroque (Reply 11):
It will be interesting when the release the engine weight for the TXWB - I suspect it could surprise.

The lower it would be, the bigger the surprise?     .


User currently offlineart From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2005, 3387 posts, RR: 1
Reply 14, posted (3 years 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 17590 times:

Quoting icna05e (Reply 10):
As for RR being hesitant to throw the T900 out yet before a significant ROI, I don't think it makes any sense. The Txwb obviously benefits from all the R&D put into the T900 so any Txwb sale can be seen as a T900 ROI. And they should market it to get an even bigger share of the A380 future sales.

Aside from contractual commitments to development partners on the T900, I think RR should offer the TXWB for the A380 because it might make the difference between RR getting the engine order from airlines and GP7200 getting the order. Better for one of your products to cannibalise sales of another than to get no sale at all! No sale = no ROI on either T900 or TXWB.


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31240 posts, RR: 85
Reply 15, posted (3 years 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 17571 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting icna05e (Reply 10):
As for RR being hesitant to throw the T900 out yet before a significant ROI, I don't think it makes any sense.

It's not just RR, however. As Baroque noted, there are partners on the T900 who want to make money. And the fewer Trent 900s that Rolls sells impacts the operating costs of the engine as that means less spares so maintenance prices increase, which won't make operators happy.

Also, it's not unreasonable to expect that the Trent XWB would not be available on the A380 until the end of the decade. That means at least 90 A380s will have been delivered with Trent 900 power (assuming VS never takes delivery). If Rolls tosses the T900 to the curb in favor of the Trent XWB, that means those operators have to scrap those engines and order Trent XWBs plus pay whatever additional conversion costs there are to hang them off the plane. I imagine that's not going to sit well with operators, either.  

And with so many customers for the Trent 900, that gives Rolls a nice base to spread Performance Improvement Packages (PIPs) across, so the Trent 900 is going to get better on it's own.


User currently offlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 12840 posts, RR: 25
Reply 16, posted (3 years 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 16134 times:

Quoting Baroque (Reply 11):

That is how you and me probably PM and with reservations Astuteman think. The A reservations are because he will know more of the contractual obligations. But, as I understand it, the partners in the T900 are not exactly the same as for the TXWB, so while the two engines seem to be pretty fungible to us, this may not quite be the case for RR. Even to the point where I suspect we have been told by those who really do know that the 389 will be T900 and not TXWB.

On the plus side, we have also been told that many of the features of the TXWB will be back migrated to the T900. Presumably these could include blisks and the better compressor conditions from better CFD for the blades (or brades if any of them happen to come from Japan) and better thermal coatings but not the extra stage. So there will be limits to improvements in the PR and hot end efficiencies. Oh yes, maybe a better fan back migrated too.

Not to mention that RR has the classy problem of getting the TXWB's production ramped up for the 500+ A350XWBs already ordered, thus they have 1000+ engines to make. At some point it would be feasible to incorporate orders for A380, but that point isn't now.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 15):
If Rolls tosses the T900 to the curb in favor of the Trent XWB, that means those operators have to scrap those engines and order Trent XWBs plus pay whatever additional conversion costs there are to hang them off the plane.

I'm not following. RR certainly wouldn't do this, they'd offer the TXWB in parallel with the T900, if they offer the TXWB at all. Why do you think otherwise?



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offlineWingedMigrator From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 2243 posts, RR: 56
Reply 17, posted (3 years 1 month 2 weeks 2 days ago) and read 15741 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 15):
If Rolls tosses the T900 to the curb in favor of the Trent XWB, that means those operators have to scrap those engines and order Trent XWBs plus pay whatever additional conversion costs there are to hang them off the plane.

Even at 90 frames the T900 fleet would be not much smaller than the T500 fleet (130 frames) so I'm not sure why you consider that not viable. And why in the world would anyone scrap perfectly good engines?


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31240 posts, RR: 85
Reply 18, posted (3 years 1 month 2 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 15580 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting WingedMigrator (Reply 17):
Even at 90 frames the T900 fleet would be not much smaller than the T500 fleet (130 frames) so I'm not sure why you consider that not viable.

I do consider it viable, but the more T900s that Rolls-Royce can sell the more viable it becomes and the more encouragement Rolls-Royce has to offer PIPs, which will make the engine better and encourage more A380 customers to select the engine.

If Rolls offers the Trent XWB and the Trent 900, existing Trent 900 customers have to weigh operating a mixed fleet. They also have to weigh that if Rolls stops securing orders for Trent 900s, Rolls has little incentive to offer PIPs so the Trent 900 will not improve and will become more and more expensive to operate and these higher operating costs would also impact the resale value of A380s with the Trent 900, making them less desirable in the marketplace and harder to re-sell (or re-sell at a good price).


User currently offlineBaroque From Australia, joined Apr 2006, 15380 posts, RR: 59
Reply 19, posted (3 years 1 month 2 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 15062 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 18):
If Rolls offers the Trent XWB and the Trent 900, existing Trent 900 customers have to weigh operating a mixed fleet. They also have to weigh that if Rolls stops securing orders for Trent 900s, Rolls has little incentive to offer PIPs so the Trent 900 will not improve and will become more and more expensive to operate and these higher operating costs would also impact the resale value of A380s with the Trent 900, making them less desirable in the marketplace and harder to re-sell (or re-sell at a good price).

Given this consideration, it is a bit surprising that RR do not make their map for development more clear. But then again, it may well be that they do just that to potential customers, while keeping us and presumably they hope the EA folk guessing a bit more than EA and we would prefer.

Maybe looking at EA developments might be the best way to work out which way RR will go.

At present figuring out the fate of the T900 demands a bit of tea leaf reading skill, but I am pretty sure more than one post over the past 3 or 4 years has indicated the RR plans for this machine. You probably need a good memory and attention to the provenance of suggestions to pick it up, I think we have been told it is along the lines of improve the T900.

Should the TWXB prove to be such a sharp improvement on the T900, RR might have the difficult choice of ditching its plans or suffering a lot of criticism. Getting out of contractual commitments might be impossible. But if they do wish to change, this comment becomes of great significance:

Quoting Revelation (Reply 16):
Not to mention that RR has the classy problem of getting the TXWB's production ramped up for the 500+ A350XWBs already ordered, thus they have 1000+ engines to make. At some point it would be feasible to incorporate orders for A380, but that point isn't now.

At some point this becomes a potentially critical issue. It is going to take a while for the TXWB production to be able to cope with A350 needs. I am sure planning is going on NOW, but they ain't going to tell us.

Look at how silent RR were over the dreaded oil pipe on the T900 engine on Nancy Bird. Just admitting they were at fault would have been a help earlier in the piece as clearly they were. So I don't think that RR are going to get very chatty about the future of the T900.

The thing that might be critical for the TXWB getting aboard the 388 could be weight. I suspect it MIGHT weigh quite a bit less than you would predict by looking at similar engines from RR. A couple of tonnes off the empty weight of an A388 could be a deciding factor perhaps.

[Edited 2011-10-09 16:14:25]

User currently offlinebeeweel15 From United States of America, joined Nov 2003, 1777 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (3 years 1 month 2 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 15024 times:

Quoting Baroque (Reply 19):
The thing that might be critical for the TXWB getting aboard the 388 could be weight. I suspect it MIGHT weigh quite a bit less than you would predict by looking at similar engines from RR. A couple of tonnes off the empty weight of an A388 could be a deciding factor perhaps.

Can this engine work on the 777-200LR and 300ER if Boeing would allow it.


User currently offlineBaroque From Australia, joined Apr 2006, 15380 posts, RR: 59
Reply 21, posted (3 years 1 month 2 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 15001 times:

Quoting beeweel15 (Reply 20):
Quoting Baroque (Reply 19):
The thing that might be critical for the TXWB getting aboard the 388 could be weight. I suspect it MIGHT weigh quite a bit less than you would predict by looking at similar engines from RR. A couple of tonnes off the empty weight of an A388 could be a deciding factor perhaps.

Can this engine work on the 777-200LR and 300ER if Boeing would allow it.

Even the biggest version for the A35J is too small for those planes. And that is after allowing for lighter fuel loads IIRC.

GE will have to fix the GE 90-115bs. Lightsaber is needed to tell us how much revision would be required to include contra-rotation to that engine but near-new engine does come to mind! Without contra, the GE 90 is going to lag quite a bit.

It may well be not so much if B will allow it, but rather if GE will even begin to let B allow it!!


User currently offlinethegeek From Australia, joined Nov 2007, 2638 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (3 years 1 month 2 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 14981 times:

Quoting beeweel15 (Reply 20):
Can this engine work on the 777-200LR and 300ER if Boeing would allow it.

(a) Boeing won't allow it
(b) produces significantly less thrust

So no.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 15):

I don't doubt these factors. However, how is that RR's problem?

I'd hope by the end of the decade more than 90 A380s are delivered. Typo?


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31240 posts, RR: 85
Reply 23, posted (3 years 1 month 2 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 14964 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Baroque (Reply 19):
Given this consideration, it is a bit surprising that RR do not make their map for development more clear.

Rolls plans (planned?) to have a PIP out this year for the Trent 900 that introduced elliptical leading-edge modifications throughout the entire compression system, including improved high- and intermediate-pressure (HP/IP) compressor blades and vanes. They were looking at a 1% reduction in SFC and planned to make it standard on production engines starting this year.



Quoting thegeek (Reply 22):
I don't doubt these factors. However, how is that RR's problem?

t's RR's problem if it makes new customers consider Engine Alliance or to not consider adding more A380-800s in favor of, perhaps, 777Xs (which will have GE power).



Quoting thegeek (Reply 22):
I'd hope by the end of the decade more than 90 A380s are delivered. Typo?

I expect they will have more, hence my statement "at least 90".  


User currently offlineBaroque From Australia, joined Apr 2006, 15380 posts, RR: 59
Reply 24, posted (3 years 1 month 2 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 14938 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 23):
Quoting Baroque (Reply 19):
Given this consideration, it is a bit surprising that RR do not make their map for development more clear.

Rolls plans (planned?) to have a PIP out this year for the Trent 900 that introduced elliptical leading-edge modifications throughout the entire compression system, including improved high- and intermediate-pressure (HP/IP) compressor blades and vanes. They were looking at a 1% reduction in SFC and planned to make it standard on production engines starting this year.

Interesting. Do we know if this is part of the XWB sourced mods or do they date back further in history?

That is quite a push. Could one wonder if the A380 will start to do to the 77W what it did to the A346 though in a less easily comparable way?


25 Stitch : The changes are similar to elliptical leading-edge modifications made to the HP compressor introduced to International Aero Engines' V2500 in the Sel
26 icna05e : Thanks Baroque, artand Stitch for enlightenning my lantern! Woaw, the enginemaking market is much more complicated than I thought it would be. I'm sur
27 Baroque : Even more interesting!! Is IAE where the mod originated, or as with most developments had it a very mixed parentage? The other point to wonder about
28 BoeingVista : One of the things that the 77X has to do to remain competitive with the A350-1000 is to go on a diet so the question should be how much weight does s
29 Baroque : I am sure there are a few smiles of sympathetic amusement at that need for a trip around the virtuous circle that we have all been instructed about.
30 thegeek : I can't imagine that MTOW will be reduced. It would be the first time in the history of aviation for a new version of a plane of the same size to hav
31 BoeingVista : Because thats probably as big as the current TXWB will scale, but I had forgotten that Boeing has said it wants to increase span so there is unlikely
32 Baroque : Well that is what a few folk think. Others prefer the version that whatever the 35J can do, the 77Wxsuper can do much more better. Must grab a couple
33 Post contains images astuteman : Easy Tiger Rgds
34 Post contains images Revelation : Interesting how the TXWB thread is about A380 and now 777 engines, and the XWB fuse section thread is now about the 787! Unfortunately there's not mu
35 Post contains images N14AZ : This is something I always wanted to know and maybe this is right moment to ask: how can you actually assess the performance of a single (test-) engi
36 Baroque : You have a point about discussion transfer. There is probably a law to be formulated from those observations. And as for news filtering out, you do h
37 Post contains links and images wolbo : Updated photo of the Trent XWB on miscalnoor.blogspot.com. Looking good.
38 Baroque : You don't get the faintest suspicion that RR feels it is going to be very proud of the TXWB do you? Pity the engine has such a god-awful name!![Edite
39 Post contains images astuteman : Needs a number, doesn't it Nice. Rgds
40 Post contains images PM : About once a year (gosh, is it that time already?!), I speculate that the A380-900 will be launched as the A380XL (geddit?!) and that RR will hang fo
41 Burkhard : We speak about T900-powered ones, the 100ds for Emirates don't have Trents. First advantage is, that you do not need it, the aircraft can fly safe wi
42 Post contains images frigatebird : Uhm, that name would probably sound like last century technology How about Trent 2000? GE's new engine for the 777 doesn't have the most compelling n
43 Post contains images Stitch : When one of the Chinese A350XWB customers ordered the plane, they also ordered "Trent 1800" engines for it. The Trent 1700 was the nomenclature for t
44 Post contains links and images wolbo : Two more photos from Airbus.
45 Post contains images Jacobin777 : I cannot wait to hear that bad boy spool up and get cranking and see a video of it on youtube. Seeing an A380 fly with a XWB engine will be quite a vi
46 AirbusA6 : That also satisfies the current obsession with the lucky '8' I wonder if they were tempted to remove the Goodrich sticker from the cowling, seeing th
47 Post contains images EPA001 : Very nice. I have not seen a picture yet which better shows the difference between the Trent XWB and the Trent-900 under the same wing. That hopefull
48 BoeingVista : Why? RR have just joined a GTF JV with PW. Last week they were mortal enemys this week they are friends again!
49 Baroque : Also puts a different perspective on why RR did not increase fan diameter for the largest TXWB. (Note I did not write change the fan!!!)
50 Post contains images astuteman : Doesn't seem to be too much of a problem with ground clearance does there? I'm mighty glad they've painted the Trent XWB deep blue so that we can act
51 KPDX : Cool looking engine, huge aswell! Is it bigger than the GE90/GEnx?
52 Post contains images WingedMigrator : It'll be the one with the 5% thinner contrail That seems like a mighty clean strut integration job... I wonder why they engineered it so neatly?
53 Post contains images astuteman : Should be able to spot it from miles away.... A good question. To tease us, would be my bet Rgds
54 Post contains images AustrianZRH : You think the chemtrail dispenser is already installed on the testbed ? Really a beautiful engine, I hope her inner values can live up to the expecta
55 Post contains images Asiaflyer : From the same company who makes the RR luxury cars. What else to expect? Almost surprised that we don't see oak panels on the outside.
56 Stitch : It is larger than the GEnx, but not the GE90.
57 Post contains images teme82 : Err... BMW makes the cars RR only makes AC engines.
58 Post contains images astuteman : Er, it makes lots of other things besides Aero Engines. Admittedly luxury cars is not one of them Rgds
59 jdevora : I asume that he was only counting A380s with RR engines. Cheers JD
60 Post contains images teme82 : Yeah marine engines, for GTS's etc... Hey PM what is the first thing that pops in your mind when some one says "Derby" ??
61 PM : Brian Clough?
62 Baroque : Or in my case, still Sunderland as in Ncle United v Sunderland, Question for Lightsaber. that is a very nice pic of the fan in reply 44. What does it
63 Post contains images BoeingVista : Really? I'd have said "County" and then Peter Taylor rather than Clough, you must be older than me
64 Post contains images PM : According to our profiles, anything between 10 and 20 years older. And I feel it!
65 Post contains images teme82 : lol... Where RR makes its' aero engines? In Derby
66 Post contains images PM : Oh, THAT Derby! You mean almost the only place left in Britain where we actually make anything? And, let the record recall, we wouldn't even have tha
67 teme82 : Well I think that the prototypes are made in Derby. If memory serves me right they have their testing rigs in there. And the carbon foot print would b
68 PM : Yeah, I'm just being silly. RR = Derby. It'll be a sad day when that's not the case.
69 Post contains links and images StanleyJ : Yeah baby, hubba hubba! http://www.flickr.com/photos/aircraf...266469046/in/photostream/lightbox/
70 Post contains images astuteman : That's wierd. I recognise parallax may be at play, but if anything, the TXWB looks slightly smaller (and curvier) than the Trent 900 that it is sitti
71 Baroque : And we still do not know the weight. RR have been busy, so it might be neither parallax nor our eyes - more waiting.
72 astuteman : As a more serious answer to your question, my friend, it strikes me that, given the similarities in characteristics between the two engines, there wa
73 astuteman : Indeed. Of course, our enthusiasm for the obvious may be setting us up for a big fall. But I have to say that my first impression from that photo is
74 Baroque : Could be. Wish I knew if it will ever fill the other three positions on those wings. Agreed. Lightsaber will know better, but better/different materi
75 Post contains images StanleyJ : Regarding apparent size+curviness of the TXWB vs. T900, if you look on Flickr at the full sized photo, it's actually an optical illusion. Dark objects
76 BoeingVista : Ok, so T900 first flown in 2004 weighs in at about 6500kg, how much weight could you shave in 7 years and 2 redesigns especially as the T900 was the
77 BoeingVista : Back in the day I used to work in Coventry there were several RR factories still operating in the city at that time, from memory they built Helicopte
78 Post contains images astuteman : Couldn't say.... Nearly every day, though, I see an awful lot of guys with their overalls on, without going anywhere near an aero engine... 625t? Tha
79 Focker : Ehh, 5% of 6,500kg is 325kg rather than 1,300kg, unfortunately...
80 BoeingVista : 4 engines per aircraft, I did the maths for you..
81 Post contains images EPA001 : I agree and I would not have thought that a different shaped nacelle would have that much influence of the total appearance of the aircraft. I am ple
82 Post contains images Baroque : Would be nice. And they were supposed to be striving for weight loss, blisks and all, but don'f forget the extra IPT stage. I remember L telling us o
83 Post contains images ferpe : Before A starts to invest in a longer body and more MTOW they could stretch todays frame with 400nm if the TXWB would be have a 5% lower SFC. That is
84 thegeek : Call it what you want but a number of people do believe that if there is to be one stretch only (virtually certain), why not go for broke? The ~6m st
85 cmf : What are the implications of going outside the 80 x 80 box?
86 abba : How different are the teams of partners between the T900 and the TXWB? I guess (know nothing) that they must be rather similar and I wonder how many
87 thegeek : To be honest, I'm not 100% sure on that, but if the lack of facilities at airports destroys the business case for the ~85m A380 then it would be an a
88 Baroque : Good questions and reasonable suppositions. Stay tuned to find out the answer. There is the additional issue that RR planed to run the T900 for quite
89 Post contains links and images BoeingVista : I guess it all depends on what is written in the contact with T900 partners is there an agrement for RR to offer the T900 exclusively for the A388 or
90 Baroque : Thanks for that, I had assumed that the trade off would be more on the compressor side as in the blisks. And that, ok trawling, but where are you act
91 ghifty : This is exciting! I remember when the 747 was flying around with the GENx and I absolutely can't wait to see an A350 parked next to a 787. IMO, it see
92 Post contains links wolbo : RR first performance improvement for the Trent 900 engine is entering production providing a 1% improvement in SFC followed by a further 0.8% improvem
93 Post contains images EPA001 : Thanks for all the interesting details on the Trent-XWB flying on the A380. I have learned a couple of new things. .
94 Baroque : Great information wolbo but it comes from a "Rosie Toogood". Surely someone is having a lend!!!! However, the rest sounds plausible enough: explained
95 Post contains links BoeingVista : The 9.5% from T500 came from here but I was also able to find some powerpoints and presentations created by RR floating around that compared the T500
96 Baroque : Thanks for those. Pity they have not let out a later version of the PPT (presumably they have a few around). Indeed it looks as if while SFC might be
97 flipdewaf : Sorry if I havent read through properly the above posts but is there any indication as to when this might fly? Thanks, Fred
98 Baroque : From the first of BoeingVista's links: way for some time in the Rolls-Royce engineering department at Derby and it is about to be stepped up a gear o
99 BoeingVista : Yes, it would be interesting to see the 2011 version of this document as a few things have changed since 2010, when I get time I'll see if its out th
100 Post contains images solnabo : Can someone please help me in this jungle of engines for B787 and A350XWB, I´m in a total limbo 1) Does RR Trent make one type for B787´s and anothe
101 Brenintw : Brief answers to your questions: 1) Yes, there are two different versions of the Trent for each airframe. The Trent 1000 on the 787 and the Trent XWB
102 Revelation : No problem. Charter member of the a.net enginistas here, ready to serve. Yes, Trent 1000 for B787 and Trent XWB for A350XWB. Currently it's just RR,
103 Post contains images solnabo : Thanx guys ! It´s all clear now, limbo´s gone //Mike
104 BoeingVista : I'm sure that there are people who work for GE scratching their heads wondering exactly how this has happened but once RR officially signs up AF/KLM
105 r2rho : Should be fairly soon. It'll start by doing static engine runs, then low&high-speed taxis, then rejected take-offs, then, if all has gone well, f
106 Baroque : That was Fred 97, but no matter I was curious too. Could already have happened bearing in mind the thread is two weeks old now???
107 Post contains images EPA001 : I believe AF/KLM already confirmed that they will order the A350 with the RR engines, but the contract is most probably still to be signed. But that
108 r2rho : No, I meant two weeks from my post. The thread started at a/c roll-out. Engine runs started this week AFAIK.
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...
KLAX Getting Ready For The A380...Finally! posted Mon Apr 24 2006 11:15:05 by EK413
Sukhoi Super Jet Engines Ready For Flight Test. posted Wed Dec 5 2007 08:11:07 by SIBILLE
Zurich (ZRH) Is Getting Ready For The A 380 posted Thu Oct 26 2006 13:55:08 by ZRH
Ontario Airport Gets Ready For A380 Ops posted Thu Mar 16 2006 16:03:39 by Mptpa
LAX To Be Ready For A380 In 2007 posted Wed Feb 1 2006 20:01:43 by Laxintl
Finnair's OH-LGG Getting Ready For Service posted Tue Jan 10 2006 14:10:46 by OHLBU
Changi Airport Ready For A380 posted Tue Aug 16 2005 09:17:17 by Sq212
DFW's New Intl Terminal D Ready For A380 posted Mon Jul 25 2005 00:49:26 by AAgent
Runway Hamburg NOT Extended For A380 Test Flight posted Sat Aug 21 2004 10:15:03 by FJWH
Airport Operator: "Lax Ready For A380 By 2006" posted Tue May 18 2004 16:06:36 by Teahan