Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Trent XWB Completes First Flight  
User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 19384 posts, RR: 58
Posted (2 years 5 months 1 week 3 hours ago) and read 19913 times:


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Peraudeau Florent
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © T.Laurent

http://www.rollsroyce.com/civil/news/2012/120218_XWB.jsp

Surprised nobody has posted it yet. Big milestone for this engine. The fan is only 2" larger than the Trent 900 powering the A380.

98 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently onlinelightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12884 posts, RR: 100
Reply 1, posted (2 years 5 months 1 week 2 hours ago) and read 19683 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Congrats to Airbus. Airbus made a wise move to slightly delay initiation of engine testing to meke a few changes.

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/art...ock-trent-xwb-first-flight-365023/

Quoting DocLightning (Thread starter):
The fan is only 2" larger than the Trent 900 powering the A380.

We have a few here on a.net who believe the A389 will be Trent XWB powered.   

Lightsaber



Societies that achieve a critical mass of ideas achieve self sustaining growth; others stagnate.
User currently offlinewarden145 From United States of America, joined Aug 2010, 501 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (2 years 5 months 1 week 2 hours ago) and read 19658 times:

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 1):
We have a few here on a.net who believe the A389 will be Trent XWB powered.

Forgive the dumb question, but would there be any logic to retrofitting this engine to the 380-800? Seems to me it may make sense from a fleet commonality standpoint, but I openly admit to not knowing much on the subject...



ETOPS = Engine Turns Off, Passengers Swim
User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 19384 posts, RR: 58
Reply 3, posted (2 years 5 months 1 week 1 hour ago) and read 19508 times:

Quoting warden145 (Reply 2):
Forgive the dumb question, but would there be any logic to retrofitting this engine to the 380-800?

Depends. If they were to do so, it would be to support a significant increase in MTOW. That would make an A380 with 77L/A345 range.

The trouble is that there aren't many routes that need that sort of range with that big of a plane. There are few enough routes that support a 77L/A345.


User currently offlineflood From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 1381 posts, RR: 1
Reply 4, posted (2 years 5 months 1 week ago) and read 19471 times:

Nice little video from Airbus:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cMjFf1N5juw&hd=1


User currently offlineBoeingVista From Australia, joined Jan 2009, 1558 posts, RR: 3
Reply 5, posted (2 years 5 months 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 19219 times:

Quoting warden145 (Reply 2):
Forgive the dumb question, but would there be any logic to retrofitting this engine to the 380-800? Seems to me it may make sense from a fleet commonality standpoint, but I openly admit to not knowing much on the subject...
Quoting DocLightning (Reply 3):
Depends. If they were to do so, it would be to support a significant increase in MTOW. That would make an A380 with 77L/A345 range.

It would bring CASM down, saving 10T of fuel per trip is logic by itself.



BV
User currently offlineastuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 9976 posts, RR: 96
Reply 6, posted (2 years 5 months 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 19184 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting DocLightning (Thread starter):
The fan is only 2" larger than the Trent 900 powering the A380.

Just as well they painted the XWB engine blue. I'd swear to God watching the Airbus video that it looks identical to the other 3 engines on the aircraft.....

Like it was meant to be there.....

Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 5):
It would bring CASM down, saving 10T of fuel per trip is logic by itself.

At least 10t. Dependent on stage length of course.
Sounds pretty compelling to me. That's the same as adding 400Nm to the range of the aircraft.

Add in fleet commonality as well..

Rgds


User currently offlineferpe From France, joined Nov 2010, 2800 posts, RR: 59
Reply 7, posted (2 years 5 months 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 19088 times:

Quoting DocLightning (Thread starter):
Surprised nobody has posted it yet.

Well we were busy following the flight to see that they did things right for the A350  .

www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/ge...ral_aviation/read.main/5351041/#69


Here the Airbus press release which came already a couple of hours after the flight:

http://www.airbus.com/newsevents/new...ight-on-airbus-a380-test-aircraft/

"The aircraft took off from Airbus facilities in Toulouse and performed a flight of more than five hours during which the engine covered a wide range of power settings at altitudes up to 43,000ft. The aircraft handling qualities were evaluated from low speeds to Mach 0.9. The engine not only operated flawlessly, but also demonstrated its new-generation fuel efficiency and low noise.

The Trent XWB development engine, specially fitted with test sensors to measure hundreds of parameters, was mounted on the A380’s inner left engine pylon, replacing one of the aircraft’s Trent 900 engines. The crew on board this first flight were: Airbus Experimental test pilots Terry Lutz and Frank Chapman; Experimental Test Flight Engineer Pascal Verneau; and Flight Test Engineers Emanuele Costanzo and Tuan Do.

“The A350 XWB’s engine performed excellently during its first flight-test, just as we expected,” said Charles Champion, Executive Vice President of Engineering at Airbus. “This is a promising start to the Trent XWB’s flight-test programme which will ensure a thorough real-life testing of the engine, nacelle and its systems.” He adds: “This will allow for a high level of powerplant integration, maturity and reliability to be achieved by the time it flies on the first A350 XWB aircraft.” "

And a picture of the flight:

http://i298.photobucket.com/albums/mm262/ferpe_bucket/A350_Trent_XWB_engine_first_flight_on_A380_in_flight.jpg

The engine looks pretty at home there Big grin .

It is good there is a separate thread as this can cover the possible use on the A380   .

[Edited 2012-02-18 22:24:11]


Non French in France
User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 19384 posts, RR: 58
Reply 8, posted (2 years 5 months 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 18839 times:

Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 5):

It would bring CASM down, saving 10T of fuel per trip is logic by itself.

Wait... it's just a few years younger than the -900 and it's that much better???


User currently offlinepacksonflight From Iceland, joined Jan 2010, 379 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (2 years 5 months 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 18727 times:

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 3):
The trouble is that there aren't many routes that need that sort of range with that big of a plane. There are few enough routes that support a 77L/A345.

The 380 specially with those new XWB engines could do SYD LHR nonstop pretty much as it is. just put some fuel in the center tank....


User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 19384 posts, RR: 58
Reply 10, posted (2 years 5 months 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 18720 times:

Quoting packsonflight (Reply 9):
The 380 specially with those new XWB engines could do SYD LHR nonstop pretty much as it is. just put some fuel in the center tank....

Someone better at this than I can run the numbers, but I doubt that would be enough thrust to support that mission. Even still, a lot of passengers on LHR-SYD want to be able to stop halfway through the flight and walk around.


User currently offlineastuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 9976 posts, RR: 96
Reply 11, posted (2 years 5 months 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 18588 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 8):
Wait... it's just a few years younger than the -900 and it's that much better???

About 6% on SFC....., so the saving could be 12t or more. on a 200t fuel burn (like DXB-LAX)

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 10):
Someone better at this than I can run the numbers, but I doubt that would be enough thrust to support that mission.

The current Trent 900's are good for MTOW's of 600 tonnes or so. Remember they still have another 10 000lb + thrust up their sleeves over the engines currently flying.

The 87 000lb of the "standard" Trent XWB should allow MTOW's of around 625 tonnes to 630 tonnes, which is still within the scope of the wing and landing gear configurations, I believe. I say configurations because obviously those items would need to be strengthened.

A 625 tonne A380 with 87k lb Trent XWB's?   
How much plane do you need?  

Rgds


User currently offlinefrancoflier From France, joined Oct 2001, 3735 posts, RR: 11
Reply 12, posted (2 years 5 months 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 18534 times:

Nice to see the XWB program finally entering the visible stages of development.

And congrats to RR/Airbus on the apparently very successful flight.

I'm going to join the choir here and say that the first thing that springs to mind when looking at that is to wonder what's keeping them from slapping 3 more of these on that beast.

I know there's a lot more to it than that, but I'm pretty sure Airbus is seriously considering crossing the development paths of these 2 again in the future...



Looks like I picked the wrong week to quit posting...
User currently offlinePM From Germany, joined Feb 2005, 6867 posts, RR: 63
Reply 13, posted (2 years 5 months 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 18451 times:

Quoting flood (Reply 4):
Nice little video from Airbus:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cMjFf...&hd=1

Airbus do this kind of thing so well!   


User currently offlineChiad From Norway, joined May 2006, 1131 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (2 years 5 months 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 18448 times:

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 8):
Wait... it's just a few years younger than the -900 and it's that much better???

Well ... it has been 8 years.
Quote Wiki: The Trent 900 first ran on May 17, 2004 on Airbus' A340-300 testbed


User currently offlineBoeingVista From Australia, joined Jan 2009, 1558 posts, RR: 3
Reply 15, posted (2 years 5 months 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 18085 times:

Quoting astuteman (Reply 6):
Just as well they painted the XWB engine blue. I'd swear to God watching the Airbus video that it looks identical to the other 3 engines on the aircraft.....

Hang on are you saying that RR have done the Apple trick of changing the model number and calling it an upgrade? Yes Mr Enders we were going to call it the Trent 900-4S but you're right, Trent XWB sounds much better..  
Quoting astuteman (Reply 11):
A 625 tonne A380 with 87k lb Trent XWB's?
How much plane do you need?

And with any luck the TXWB @ 87klbs will be lighter than a T900 @ 72klbs so further lightening the airframe.



BV
User currently offlineEPA001 From Netherlands, joined Sep 2006, 4702 posts, RR: 38
Reply 16, posted (2 years 5 months 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 17598 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 1):
We have a few here on a.net who believe the A389 will be Trent XWB powered.  

OK, I will admit. I am guilty as charged.  .

Quoting astuteman (Reply 11):
Quoting DocLightning (Reply 8):
Wait... it's just a few years younger than the -900 and it's that much better???

About 6% on SFC....., so the saving could be 12t or more. on a 200t fuel burn (like DXB-LAX)

Which is a huge number if you ask me.

Quoting astuteman (Reply 11):
A 625 tonne A380 with 87k lb Trent XWB's?   
How much plane do you need?  

Well, it has to be the 85 meters long SUH version of the A389 of course.      

Quoting francoflier (Reply 12):
Nice to see the XWB program finally entering the visible stages of development.

Well, the parts of the plane are coming together quite nicely. That is very well documented in the A350-XWB development thread. But maybe you meant the engine by itself?

Quoting francoflier (Reply 12):
And congrats to RR/Airbus on the apparently very successful flight.

Those are indeed in place.  .

Quoting PM (Reply 13):
Airbus do this kind of thing so well!  

Luckily for us they do.  .

Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 15):
And with any luck the TXWB @ 87klbs will be lighter than a T900 @ 72klbs so further lightening the airframe.

Combined with continuously ongoing weight saving programs this will make the airframe better and better and better.  .

[Edited 2012-02-19 03:30:24]

User currently offlineairbazar From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 8202 posts, RR: 10
Reply 17, posted (2 years 5 months 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 16771 times:

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 3):
The trouble is that there aren't many routes that need that sort of range with that big of a plane. There are few enough routes that support a 77L/A345.

That's because they don't carry enough people to keep CASM down. And there's also the advantage of operating a more fuel efficient A380 over current long haul routes.

Quoting ferpe (Reply 7):
It is good there is a separate thread as this can cover the possible use on the A380

Understatement of the month, perhaps  


User currently offlinenotaxonrotax From Netherlands, joined Mar 2011, 394 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (2 years 5 months 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 16602 times:

Hi,

I was just watching the documentary "how to build a jet engine" that covers the ins & outs of the RR-factories around Britain. In that, they show the initial stage of the XWB, so a big coincidence I saw this thread today.

Is the XWB similar in size to the 777 engines?

Quoting astuteman (Reply 11):
A 625 tonne A380 with 87k lb Trent XWB's?

Exciting stuff.......I bet that's what KLM is hoping for?? (hope hope)

No Tax On Rotax



Als vader voorlicht, kan je merken dat hij achter ligt.
User currently offlineCXB77L From Australia, joined Feb 2009, 2596 posts, RR: 5
Reply 19, posted (2 years 5 months 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 16455 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
CHAT OPERATOR

Quoting notaxonrotax (Reply 18):
Is the XWB similar in size to the 777 engines?

Trent XWB = 118in fan diameter
GE90 = 128in

Source: http://www.rolls-royce.com/Images/tr...t_xwb_product_sheet_tcm92-5753.pdf
http://www.geaviation.com/engines/commercial/ge90/ge90-115b.html



Boeing 777 fanboy
User currently offlineseabosdca From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 5311 posts, RR: 4
Reply 20, posted (2 years 5 months 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 16386 times:

Add me to the chorus of those who are almost more interested in XWB-powered A380s than XWB-powered A350s...

I just can't even imagine how versatile operators would find an aircraft with nearly 9000 nm range and lower CASM than anything else in the sky. The only weakness is cargo capacity. But there's a fix for that...  


User currently offlinetepidhalibut From Iceland, joined Dec 2004, 209 posts, RR: 6
Reply 21, posted (2 years 5 months 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 16030 times:

Quoting seabosdca (Reply 20):
Add me to the chorus of those who are almost more interested in XWB-powered A380s than XWB-powered A350s

The Engineer in me is similarly interested, but the businessman in me (there's a lot of space in there) thinks it's unlikely. Let's say certification takes three years, and there are currently 100 Tr900 engines in service with four airlines. In three years, lets say 300 Trent 900 engines and 10 operators (guesswork). That's a lot of big airlines (BA, DLH, Singapore, Qantas, etc) with 'inferior engines' if the XWB ends up on the A380, making their second hand sale value much lower, and frankly, they're penalised for choice of RR Tr900s.
Would they kick up a fuss?
Damned right. Much financial leverage would be applied. Who knows, maybe Free TXWBs Engines would be in the compensation package. Plus, all the development, research and production costs for the Tr900.... apparently wasted. Even worse, that's a tricky precedent that RR has set. When the Trent XWC is developed...will they now have to give that away?

I'm not saying that it can't happen, or even that it won't happen, but there's more to it than just engineering.

(And yes, I am a miserable old sot.)


User currently offlineseabosdca From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 5311 posts, RR: 4
Reply 22, posted (2 years 5 months 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 15910 times:

Quoting tepidhalibut (Reply 21):
Damned right. Much financial leverage would be applied. Who knows, maybe Free TXWBs Engines would be in the compensation package.

I very much doubt it. Whenever anyone buys a product, it is always with full awareness that a better product may show up. And while an XWB-powered A380 may be much better than a T900-powered A380, the T900 operators have had several profitable years in service already by the time the XWB-powered variant shows. Perhaps there will be adjustments around the edges to keep the buyers of the very last T900-powered frames happy, but in general I see no need for any compensation or for the T900 buyers to be upset.


User currently offlineRayChuang From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 7987 posts, RR: 5
Reply 23, posted (2 years 5 months 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 15830 times:

If Airbus can offer an "A380-800R" model with the Trent XWB engine capable of around 9,000 nm still-air range, I think even Air India would snap them up in no time flat, especially flying from New Delhi, Mumbai or Bangalore directly to JFK non-stop. It would make it possible for QF to fly between LAX and SYD/MEL with bigger passenger/cargo loads, too.

User currently offlineflash330 From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2010, 36 posts, RR: 0
Reply 24, posted (2 years 5 months 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 15596 times:

Quoting tepidhalibut (Reply 21):

There are plenty of aircraft that have been re-engined without fuss from airlines, why would the A380 be any different?


25 Post contains images francoflier : I can't think of an example where it would have been done so soon in the airframe's life, though I'm sure someone will come up with something... Well
26 flash330 : the 777 and the A340, there was only about 8 or 9 years between them both being re-engines, the A380 entered service in 2007 and no one expects an XW
27 Post contains images astuteman : Of course that depends on when you think "soon" is. Personally I can't see either Airbus or RR turning their attention to a Trent XWB powered A380 un
28 francoflier : The re-engined versions of the 777 and A340 were bigger, longer ranged versions of these frames. Essentially what the hypothetical A389 would be to t
29 abba : I think that there are a few things to be said. First: availability. The fact that they have had the opportunity to operate the A380 with a good prof
30 Post contains links Revelation : How soon we forget A380's first flight was 27 April 2005, so getting on seven years ago, and A350XWB's first flight is projected to be 2014, so we're
31 817Dreamliiner : They can barely fill those routes with a 777, and they can barely pay for their 787s, and your really think they would buy an A380 even if they order
32 abba : I would imagine - everything else being equal (which is only rarely the case) - that it would be easier for RR to produce only one rather than two en
33 Revelation : However the production ramp-up for the A380 has been pretty slow, so not that many frames will be in use. Typically airlines expect 12-15 years of us
34 Post contains images DocLightning : Still, as compared to the CF6/PW4k/RB211 engines it's replacing, it's a leap forward. In engine time, eight years isn't a whole lot. I'm surprised th
35 Post contains images tepidhalibut : Ahem Trent 1000? Of course, all the planning by a.net members seems to naturally assume that the TXWB with be a right-first-time, all targets met pro
36 aircellist : So, there could be the choice of cannibalizing oneself's product, or waiting to be eaten by someone else's... But... I suppose the early A380s could
37 Revelation : The waiting seems to be inevitable in this case, since TXWBs won't be available in suitable numbers for quite a while. And there really isn't anythin
38 aircellist : Fair enough. Thanks!
39 Post contains images PM : I can hardly claim to be disinterested, impartial, unbiased or wholly objective when it comes to RR but it does seem that all the news about the Trent
40 Post contains images DocLightning : Yeah. That ship sailed...er...plane flew long ago.
41 warden145 : What does XWB even mean in this context?
42 DocLightning : Extra wide-body. The A350 is the first single-deck widebody that Airbus has made that has a larger fuselage diameter than the A300/A310/A330/A340. On
43 warden145 : Okay, that makes sense for the aircraft designation, but why on Earth apply that designation to the engine? I imagine that's a rhetorical question...
44 Wisdom : Technically, no problem. It's not that certain, it depends on many factors. When the GP72/T900's reach overhaul, huge expenses are incurred. At such
45 Post contains images BoeingVista : Why? No one is forcing you to use all the range. Putting XWB's on the A388 turns it into an R no other changes are necessary. HKG to NYC with 500 sea
46 Post contains images PM : Serves them right for picking the wrong engine!
47 Post contains images BoeingVista : They still have a chance to redeem themselves, if they switched say 50 EA's to TXWB's I'm sure that airbus would build them EK could do with a few ex
48 DocLightning : Because the engine powers the XWB? And they hit 1000 anyway, so they went in a different direction. If you're going to de-rate it, sure. But if you'r
49 Post contains images WingedMigrator : Absolutely none whatsoever, excepting a whole new engine pylon.
50 Post contains images Heavierthanair : G' day The same could have been said about the A 340 with the Trent 900 engine! Why did they not use that as a base for a stretched twin - imagine an
51 DocLightning : OK. Now that you mention it... it occurs to me that TC might just order enough A388R's to make it worth it.
52 Post contains images BoeingVista : But you don't really need to do that, the A380 still has 50t of growth built in without any modifications and is generally MTOW limited not fuel limi
53 Post contains images astuteman : I’m not convinced of that at all. • The engine is to all intents and purposes the same size and weight as the T900, which absolutely can't be sai
54 Post contains images EPA001 : Interesting. I had not looked at that point from that angle. . That would seem the most logical thing to do to me as well. Though we have not heard a
55 abba : Perhaps not TC.... However what if - say - CX said that thy would get on board with an XWB A380 due to performance and commonality with the A350s the
56 Post contains images BoeingVista : RR have stated that the TXWB is hung in a different way from previous Airbus engines (from the fan and rear case rather than the core which was A's p
57 francoflier : I'm not sure that the TXWB, if developed for use on the A380, would be interchangeable with those used on the A350. There are several TXWB planned fo
58 Post contains links BoeingVista : And lookie here, Airbus added a couple of tonnes to the A380 MTOW today, for delivery in 2013 http://www.flightglobal.com/news/art...gher-weight-a380-
59 Daysleeper : Perhaps the most relevant example would be the 747 within just 5 years of it’s launch it got numerous engine upgrades with the JT9D-7 in 1971, the
60 breiz : Are all the sensors visible on forward and aft fuselage linked to the new increased MTOW tests or to the TXWB tests?
61 Post contains links ferpe : Here a bit more on the TXWB which is gaining some 0.35% in TSFC it seems: http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/gener...With%20First%20Flight&channel=com
62 Post contains images DocLightning : I thought the exterior wing on the 77L/W was the same as on the 772/3 other than the wingtips. Yeah. They've ordered 50 A388's with 42 options and th
63 Post contains images astuteman : For clarity, I believe the article states that the TXWB is seeing a reduction in TSFC of 0.35%. Which I'm guessing is the message you want to convey.
64 DocLightning : IIRC, the A388F has done so poorly that it is currently not being built, right? Was the objection that it was underpowered? I thought that awkward do
65 francoflier : This was rather a case of different manufacturers offering to power an aircraft with their engines. In a time before aircrafts took 20 years to devel
66 DocLightning : Boeing still offers the 777-200ER but nobody is really buying it unless they already have the model in their fleets. The 77L costs the same to purcha
67 Revelation : Seems a post of mine went missing? I'll try to re-create it. I don't understand this. I have a bunch of last generation engines needing expensive over
68 zeke : I would think it would be more than that. Remember it is TSFC, where T is the thrust, an 84 klb engine that is being operated at 85% of it design thr
69 abba : If that is the case - and I have no reason not to believe it - Airbus must be under major pressure from potential new operators of the A380 (at least
70 BoeingVista : This is the free data I referred to in an earlier post, Airbus get to fly the engine at A380 thrust levels as well as A350 thrust levels. If the TXWB
71 Post contains images lightsaber : Not a dumb question. As others have noted... Only for a very high MTOW. I do not see the TXWB prior to the -900 stretch. I do not see the market to j
72 lightsaber : I would guess about 4% less. However... the A380 TXWB won't have the same cooling as the A350XWB IMHO. We'll see two engines that are *almost* mechan
73 Revelation : Do you think that T900 can get a PIP based on some of the TXWB improvements? If so, how much of the 6% gain could be retrofitted?
74 N14AZ : Sorry if I may get back to the original topic (FF): from that video it looks to me as if they didn't use the thrust reverser of the XWB engine. Is tha
75 Post contains images ferpe : That is what I saw as well, thereby the remark from the 2nd test pilot: "in the coming weeks will test all parts for the engine package". Guess you d
76 francoflier : Well, that was my point, really. A new engine on a 'different' airframe. I'm just saying that I very much doubt that the A388 will ever be offered wi
77 zeke : If it is the sort of reduction as you were saying in reply 72, we are looking at a couple of hours additional flight time, not just 36 minutes (300 n
78 Post contains links BoeingVista : Some TXWB technology is already earmarked for a T900 PIP for 2013 but yes there is a limit to how much you can transfer without rebuilding the engine
79 Revelation : I found the following info: So we know the 2011 standard T900s have +1% SFC from the originals, and the 2013 standard is shooting for an additional 0
80 Post contains images astuteman : A good question, to which I honestly don't know the answer. It's clear the T900 is a moving target. The other variable is of course the TXWB itself.
81 Post contains links imiakhtar : FlightBlogger - Airbus A380 Trent XWB (A350) Testbed - November 10, 2011
82 BoeingVista : The video confirms that the reverser on No2 (TWXB) can be selected.
83 Post contains links Revelation : Indeed, and that's a good thing. Lots of people here complain about how the twinjet tube with wings has stagnated, and that's really not true (read h
84 Post contains links and images ferpe : There is a long and well written article on the T1000, TXWB and future Trent technologies in todays Flightglobal: http://www.flightglobal.com/news/art
85 Post contains images PW100 : Is that 2% over the T1000 spec, or over T1000 missing spec by 4.3% . . . .
86 seabosdca : It's a bit puzzling to me how RR is having such trouble reaching spec with the T1000 and yet alleges it is exceeding a stricter spec with the TXWB, a
87 EPA001 : I guess the Trent-XWB is not that similar after all. Another reason to why the Trent-XWB is better performing is beyond me.
88 ferpe : It is 2% better then the spec, ie the 787 engine spec. From the flightglobal article : ""On the Trent we have delivered roughly 1% [fuel saving] per
89 flipdewaf : I think that the only way they are similar is that they are both triple spool high bypass turbofans and thats about it, yes they share similar tech b
90 BoeingVista : Its a bit puzzling to me how every manufacturing organisation involved in the 787 program is still having trouble reaching their specs.
91 tdscanuck : Different specs. It's always very dangerous to compare actual performance against spec when the two specs aren't the same. RR would have to be comple
92 Post contains images ferpe : The waterfalling of technology from the TXWB to the T1000 will close the gap but not to 0. But then the 787 program should have the TSFC upside of no
93 abba : Well - yes. The 787 needs to generate more electric power as nothing - not even air - comes free. When Airbus claims that no bleed represent no overa
94 BoeingVista : No it won't, nor can it unless RR are planning to re-architecture the T1000 IP, the engines are similar but they are not the same. It is the job of r
95 Post contains images Daysleeper : LOL I think that just about sums up the 787 program
96 ferpe : There was a pretty good thread on that some months ago, it kind of concluded that the no bleed had a chance to be more efficient, go and check it out
97 Post contains links and images ferpe : There is one effect that I did not mention when it comes to what is the airframe level net gain of a non bleed architecture vs a bleed one, the effect
98 tdscanuck : True, but the incremental electrical power required is smaller than the pneumatic power lost. Pneumatics have terrific power density but lousy effici
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...
FI-Trent XWB Run For First Time posted Fri Jun 18 2010 04:17:14 by astuteman
RR Trent 1000 First Flight? posted Tue Mar 27 2007 01:11:12 by BoeingBus
Mitsubishi MRJ First Flight posted Sat Sep 24 2011 10:33:42 by MasseyBrown
MRJ On Track For First Flight In 2012 posted Fri Aug 26 2011 11:35:18 by lightsaber
Aboulafia, Akbar Al Baker Take Aim At RR Trent XWB posted Tue Nov 30 2010 05:05:27 by keesje
40 Years Ago Today: First Flight L-1011 posted Mon Nov 15 2010 20:43:01 by 474218
Trent XWB Engine Testing - Any News? posted Fri Sep 10 2010 07:14:13 by LH452
Qatar Airways First Flight To Brazil And Argentina posted Wed Jun 23 2010 14:38:50 by QatarA340
When Is The 787-9 First Flight? posted Sun Jun 20 2010 14:00:50 by hannahpa
AC YYZ-PDX First Flight Today 6/17 posted Thu Jun 17 2010 00:05:10 by ramprat74