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, 20368 posts, RR: 59
Posted (2 years 10 months 1 week 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 20285 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 offlinelightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 13552 posts, RR: 100
Reply 1, posted (2 years 10 months 1 week 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 20055 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, 545 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (2 years 10 months 1 week 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 20030 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, 20368 posts, RR: 59
Reply 3, posted (2 years 10 months 1 week 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 19880 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, 1385 posts, RR: 1
Reply 4, posted (2 years 10 months 1 week 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 19843 times:

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


User currently offlineBoeingVista From Australia, joined Jan 2009, 1585 posts, RR: 3
Reply 5, posted (2 years 10 months 1 week 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 19591 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, 10253 posts, RR: 97
Reply 6, posted (2 years 10 months 1 week 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 19556 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, 2805 posts, RR: 59
Reply 7, posted (2 years 10 months 1 week 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 19460 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, 20368 posts, RR: 59
Reply 8, posted (2 years 10 months 1 week 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 19211 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, 391 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (2 years 10 months 1 week 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 19099 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, 20368 posts, RR: 59
Reply 10, posted (2 years 10 months 1 week 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 19092 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, 10253 posts, RR: 97
Reply 11, posted (2 years 10 months 1 week 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 18960 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, 3849 posts, RR: 11
Reply 12, posted (2 years 10 months 1 week 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 18906 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, 7007 posts, RR: 63
Reply 13, posted (2 years 10 months 1 week 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 18823 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, 1188 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (2 years 10 months 1 week 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 18820 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, 1585 posts, RR: 3
Reply 15, posted (2 years 10 months 1 week 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 18457 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, 4991 posts, RR: 41
Reply 16, posted (2 years 10 months 1 week 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 17970 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 onlineairbazar From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 8667 posts, RR: 10
Reply 17, posted (2 years 10 months 1 week 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 17143 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 Ecuador, joined Mar 2011, 540 posts, RR: 1
Reply 18, posted (2 years 10 months 1 week 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 16974 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

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



For anybody that happens to be wondering:"yes, owning your own aircraft is a 100% worth it!"
User currently offlineCXB77L From Australia, joined Feb 2009, 2695 posts, RR: 5
Reply 19, posted (2 years 10 months 1 week 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 16827 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, 5856 posts, RR: 6
Reply 20, posted (2 years 10 months 1 week 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 16758 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, 210 posts, RR: 6
Reply 21, posted (2 years 10 months 1 week 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 16402 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, 5856 posts, RR: 6
Reply 22, posted (2 years 10 months 1 week 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 16282 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, 8048 posts, RR: 5
Reply 23, posted (2 years 10 months 1 week 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 16202 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 10 months 1 week 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 15968 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?


User currently offlinefrancoflier From France, joined Oct 2001, 3849 posts, RR: 11
Reply 25, posted (2 years 10 months 1 week 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 16385 times:

Quoting flash330 (Reply 24):
There are plenty of aircraft that have been re-engined without fuss from airlines, why would the A380 be any different?

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...

Quoting seabosdca (Reply 22):
Whenever anyone buys a product,

Well, in this case, customers aren't just anyone. EK has bought almost half of the A380 ever ordered with most still undelivered. If Airbus was to tell them that their 100 shiny new jets are now worth half their residual value because a newer and better version is already out, I'm guessing they would be one not so happy customer.
I imagine a deal could be made with existing customers if the XWB version was developed soon enough, but that's unlikely as the A350's the priority.

Tepidhalibut (really?  ) has a point.

But it still perfectly would fit the bill on the mythical A389...



Looks like I picked the wrong week to quit posting...
User currently offlineflash330 From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2010, 36 posts, RR: 0
Reply 26, posted (2 years 10 months 1 week 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 16344 times:

Quoting francoflier (Reply 25):

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 XWB version until 2017 at the earliest so around 10 years


User currently offlineastuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 10253 posts, RR: 97
Reply 27, posted (2 years 10 months 1 week 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 16484 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting francoflier (Reply 25):
I can't think of an example where it would have been done so soon in the airframe's life


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 until ALL the A350 variants have hit the streets.
So I don't think you're likely to see one enter service much before 2020, personally.
By which time it may well form part of a package of responses Airbus might make to the 777X/Y3.

Then again, by 2020 there may well be better engines than the TXWB to select.
85K lb GTF anyone?  

Rgds


User currently offlinefrancoflier From France, joined Oct 2001, 3849 posts, RR: 11
Reply 28, posted (2 years 10 months 1 week 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 16401 times:

Quoting flash330 (Reply 26):
the 777 and the A340, there was only about 8 or 9 years between them both being re-engines,

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 the A388. But the base versions (77A, 77E, A342, A343 and even the A330s) were never reengined.

Revamping the A388 with new engines would be like what A and B are doing with their A320Neo and 737MAX, only decades sooner.

They'd really have to develop a new version, like the A388R, a bit like what the 77E was to the 77A (though that was a bit different still).



Looks like I picked the wrong week to quit posting...
User currently offlineabba From Denmark, joined Jun 2005, 1392 posts, RR: 2
Reply 29, posted (2 years 10 months 1 week 6 days ago) and read 15803 times:

Quoting tepidhalibut (Reply 21):
Would they kick up a fuss?



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 profit from the time when they received it until - maybe 3-4 years away from now - when the XWB powered A380 will be available at the earliest. Add to this that there will always be a day when the last old model is produced as the new one takes over.

Second: Price. There is no doubt that XWB powered A380 will be more expensive than the 900 powered model - simply because Airbus and RR can charge a higher price due to better economy. The airlines will be able to pocket some of the divided due to a more efficient engine. Certainly not the whole!

Third: commonality. Many of the operators of the A380 will also operate the A350 having the benefit of the commonality.

All in all: They might kick up a fuss - however not too loud.... being able to be compensated with a few A380 XWBs to the old price might even make then quite.


User currently onlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 12976 posts, RR: 25
Reply 30, posted (2 years 10 months 1 week 6 days ago) and read 15694 times:

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

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 talking about a spread of almost nine years.

The google tells me that the Trent 900 made its maiden flight on 17 May 2004 on Airbus' A340-300 testbed, so by that measure we're talking about a spread of almost eight years.

In Asian Aviation: Trent XWB prepares for flight, we read some juicy details (at least for enginistas!) about what things will make the TXWB better than the T900:

Quote:
The Trent XWB's 118-inch-diameter fan is the largest R-R has ever made. Adoption of a narrower rotor hub than on the Airbus A380's Trent 900 engine has contributed to a lower "hub-to-tip" ratio, with the larger fan blades ("as much as 50 percent" more surface area, R-R says) offering greater air flow and a lower drag-to-weight ratio, according to Trent XWB Chief Engineer Chris Young.

R-R has achieved a higher load differential between the various bearings in the three-shaft powerplant by combining the large fan with a smaller engine core. The "optimised bearing-load management system" results in greater loads being carried further forward in the engine. That permits better mechanical loading in the bearings, which in turn improves fuel efficiency, although Young also concedes that the "more capable" arrangement is also heavier.

"Considerable" innovation is claimed for the Trent XWB's "rising-line" compressor, in which the blades rotate at higher speeds toward the rear of the engine's intermediate-pressure (IP) stage. Performance retention, specifically fuel burn, will be enhanced through the use of increased overall pressure ratios in the two-stage IP turbine (IPT). Specific fuel consumption has been "excellent, better than expected", says Cholerton.

The Trent 900 has provided the source for the Trent XWB's low-pressure turbine (LPT), a nine-inches-shorter scaled version of that on the A380 engine. The reduced weight of the LPT serves to offset that the heavier IPT.

R-R has introduced composites material for the rear fan case, which is supplied by new partner ATK and for which development has gone well, according to Young.

I think the biggest impediment to seeing it on the A380 is the fact that the production line is solidly booked for A350s. Yes, this is a classy problem to have, but still...

The article says:

Quote:

What the company calls "proper production" will begin in the latter part of 2012, while the highest rate – 315 a year, or almost one engine a day – will be reached by about the turn of 2017-18.

Given 561 A350s are ordered, we're north of 1100 engines plus spares that need to be made. Yes, the A380 can be threaded into that stream at some point, but it's not clear where that point is, especially since each A380 will need four engines plus spares.

RR has done a fine job with its widebody engines, but from what is currently known they are not going to be taking part in the orgy of narrowbody re-engining that is going to be going on in the second half of this decade, so they have some very interesting decisions to be made in the next few years.

Surely the TXWB is bringing along better SFC, but it's also bringing along more weight. Clearly it may make sense for Airbus to want to start putting it onto the A380, but what inducement will RR have? The main inducement would be to take customers away from the GE/Pratt engine, but how likely is that? How likely would it be for existing T900 customers to want a sub-fleet of TXWBs mixed in? Isn't it just simpler to keep selling T900s?



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently online817Dreamliiner From Montserrat, joined Jul 2008, 2614 posts, RR: 2
Reply 31, posted (2 years 10 months 1 week 6 days ago) and read 15429 times:

Quoting RayChuang (Reply 23):

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.

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 ordered a 800R model?

back to topic: congrats to Airbus and Rolls Royce, hope they get positive or even better than predicted results from test flights



Reality be Rent. Synapse, break! Vanishment, This World!
User currently offlineabba From Denmark, joined Jun 2005, 1392 posts, RR: 2
Reply 32, posted (2 years 10 months 1 week 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 15201 times:

Quoting Revelation (Reply 30):
Given 561 A350s are ordered, we're north of 1100 engines plus spares that need to be made. Yes, the A380 can be threaded into that stream at some point, but it's not clear where that point is, especially since each A380 will need four engines plus spares.



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 engines for the A380 and A350...


User currently onlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 12976 posts, RR: 25
Reply 33, posted (2 years 10 months 1 week 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 14797 times:

Quoting abba (Reply 29):
First: availability. The fact that they have had the opportunity to operate the A380 with a good profit from the time when they received it until - maybe 3-4 years away from now - when the XWB powered A380 will be available at the earliest. Add to this that there will always be a day when the last old model is produced as the new one takes over.

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 useful front-line life, some turn them over much faster, but others don't.

Quoting abba (Reply 32):
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 engines for the A380 and A350...

Well, as above, TXWB is quite different in terms of materials and technology, and that means a production ramp-up, so we just aren't close to the point in time where it'd be better to having just one engine type in production.

I could see it happening in several years time once RR's production line is up and running, and IF they find a big customer willing to make a new, big commitment, for instance, if EK did drop the Gp7200 in favor of ordering at least 20+ A380s with TXWBs.



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 20368 posts, RR: 59
Reply 34, posted (2 years 10 months 1 week 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 14788 times:

Quoting Chiad (Reply 14):
Well ... it has been 8 years.
Quote Wiki: The Trent 900 first ran on May 17, 2004 on Airbus' A340-300 testbed

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 the technology got that much better from one model to the next. After all, the Trent 900 was RR's latest large engine until the XWB.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 30):
In Asian Aviation: Trent XWB prepares for flight, we read some juicy details (at least for enginistas!) about what things will make the TXWB better than the T900:

Very nice! (Titillating, I daresay! ) Thank you!

Quoting RayChuang (Reply 23):

If Airbus can offer an "A380-800R" model with the Trent XWB engine capable of around 9,000 nm still-air range,

You're talking about an aircraft with slightly less performance than the 77L but almost twice the size. Given that the 77L hasn't sold very many copies, I think that the A388R would sell even worse. Now, it was mentioned in the article above that the engine would have different loading, and so that might mean that the wing and wingbox for the A388R might have to be redesigned and recertified (can't just plug the engine on to the existing strut attachment point).

If they ever go ahead with an XWB-powered A388F, then an A388R is a no-brainer (100% common components with other A388 models=nominal extra cost).

The big issue in this case is that it would probably be eight or ten years from now, and if the -XWB, a mere eight years younger than the -900, is so much better, wouldn't it make sense for RR to design a new engine for the uprated A388?


User currently offlinetepidhalibut From Iceland, joined Dec 2004, 210 posts, RR: 6
Reply 35, posted (2 years 10 months 1 week 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 14542 times:

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 34):
After all, the Trent 900 was RR's latest large engine until the XWB.

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 product. It's not even bench certified yet !

That said, well done to RR/AI in getting it in the air ahead of bench cert.  


User currently offlineaircellist From Canada, joined Oct 2004, 1735 posts, RR: 8
Reply 36, posted (2 years 10 months 1 week 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 13504 times:

Quoting astuteman (Reply 27):
Quoting francoflier (Reply 25):
I can't think of an example where it would have been done so soon in the airframe's life


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 until ALL the A350 variants have hit the streets.
So I don't think you're likely to see one enter service much before 2020, personally.
By which time it may well form part of a package of responses Airbus might make to the 777X/Y3.

Then again, by 2020 there may well be better engines than the TXWB to select.
85K lb GTF anyone?

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 be reengined, no? Could that ease the previous owner's pains?


User currently onlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 12976 posts, RR: 25
Reply 37, posted (2 years 10 months 1 week 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 13286 times:

Quoting aircellist (Reply 36):
So, there could be the choice of cannibalizing oneself's product, or waiting to be eaten by someone else's...

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 anything around that can push the A380 off its perch at the top of the food chain right now.

Quoting aircellist (Reply 36):
But... I suppose the early A380s could be reengined, no? Could that ease the previous owner's pains?

No, they aren't going to throw away the current engines just for the 6% SFC gain, it just doesn't make economic sense.



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offlineaircellist From Canada, joined Oct 2004, 1735 posts, RR: 8
Reply 38, posted (2 years 10 months 1 week 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 12819 times:

Quoting Revelation (Reply 37):

Fair enough. Thanks!


User currently offlinePM From Germany, joined Feb 2005, 7007 posts, RR: 63
Reply 39, posted (2 years 10 months 1 week 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 12608 times:

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 XWB is good news. It makes me nervous!

The argument about irritating existing customers by pole-axing the resale value of their T900-powered A380s has been made before and I think it has some validity. But I suspect there could be ways around it if the TXWB-powered A380 was so very much better.

Another argument that has been made elsewhere is that RR have somewhat different teams of risk-sharing partners on the two Trents. Prematurely stopping production of the 900 in favour of the XWB may not be simple. But, again, I bet this obstacle could be overcome.

It strikes me that the arguments about the availability of TXWBs (or lack thereof) is the crucial one. I personally don't think we'll ever see an A380 with four TXWBs. Far more likely (at which point I acknowledge that I have no technical knowledge or expertise), is that the T900 will be steadily improved, doubtless with the application of some of the TXWB bells and whistles. The story of the Trent 700 should be the template. That engine is far, far better now than it was back in the 1990s. That way, current generation T900s aren't immediately rendered out of date and suppliers and risk-sharing partners don't face a sudden truncation of their business but airlines do get steadily better and better Rolls-Royce engines.

At which point the question becomes ... what do the Engine Alliance do about it?   

Lastly, should we now give up all hope that RR will ever drop the ridiculous TXWB name?  


User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 20368 posts, RR: 59
Reply 40, posted (2 years 10 months 1 week 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 12418 times:

Quoting tepidhalibut (Reply 35):

Ahem Trent 1000?  
Quoting PM (Reply 39):
Lastly, should we now give up all hope that RR will ever drop the ridiculous TXWB name?  

Yeah. That ship sailed...er...plane flew long ago.


User currently offlinewarden145 From United States of America, joined Aug 2010, 545 posts, RR: 0
Reply 41, posted (2 years 10 months 1 week 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 12411 times:

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 40):
Yeah. That ship sailed...er...plane flew long ago.

What does XWB even mean in this context?



ETOPS = Engine Turns Off, Passengers Swim
User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 20368 posts, RR: 59
Reply 42, posted (2 years 10 months 1 week 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 12452 times:

Quoting warden145 (Reply 41):

What does XWB even mean in this context?

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. One of the gripes that operators had about the original A350, which was a re-wing/re-engined A350, was that the fuselage cross-section needed to be bigger.


User currently offlinewarden145 From United States of America, joined Aug 2010, 545 posts, RR: 0
Reply 43, posted (2 years 10 months 1 week 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 12405 times:

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...



ETOPS = Engine Turns Off, Passengers Swim
User currently offlineWisdom From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 44, posted (2 years 10 months 1 week 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 12344 times:

Quoting aircellist (Reply 36):
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 be reengined, no? Could that ease the previous owner's pains?

Technically, no problem.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 37):
But... I suppose the early A380s could be reengined, no? Could that ease the previous owner's pains?

No, they aren't going to throw away the current engines just for the 6% SFC gain, it just doesn't make economic sense.

It's not that certain, it depends on many factors.
When the GP72/T900's reach overhaul, huge expenses are incurred. At such stage, one could make the call and decide to fit a new TXWB instead of overhauling the GP72/T900.
Moreover, the old engines can be sold to other operators who decide to not retrofit the engines and instead elect to buy these older engines to save through lower engine ownership cost.
A 6% SFC gain can be a saving of around 8 to 10 grand a day at current fuel prices, that's about the same as the lifecycle capital depreciation of the TXWB engines if bought at list prices.
Engines typically go for less than 50% off of list prices, so it should be worth retrofitting, especially if newer deliveries are equipped with them and/or if there are A350's in the same fleet and the TX380 and TXWB engines have advanced levels of commonality.

Airbus and RR better hurry, the opportunity is huge.
If they can figure out a way to fit them across all 3 widebody families, including the A330's, why not even interchangeabily with minor mx work such as intake/ exhaust and control software swap, with little compromise, they can offer customers a flexibility that would give them no reason to buy any Boeing aircraft anymore.

[Edited 2012-02-19 19:50:40]

User currently offlineBoeingVista From Australia, joined Jan 2009, 1585 posts, RR: 3
Reply 45, posted (2 years 10 months 1 week 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 12298 times:

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 34):
You're talking about an aircraft with slightly less performance than the 77L but almost twice the size. Given that the 77L hasn't sold very many copies, I think that the A388R would sell even worse.

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 seats would be irresistible for certain airlines.

Quoting PM (Reply 39):
Another argument that has been made elsewhere is that RR have somewhat different teams of risk-sharing partners on the two Trents. Prematurely stopping production of the 900 in favour of the XWB may not be simple. But, again, I bet this obstacle could be overcome.

Most of the risk sharing partners are the same for the TXWB and T900, the ones that are different won't own much of the T900 project so are unlikely to be able to influence the RR if they choose to offer the TXWB for the A380.

Quoting PM (Reply 39):
At which point the question becomes ... what do the Engine Alliance do about it?

This is an argument for the TXWB, EA might be able to make incremental improvements to keep up with an improving T900 but shifting to the TXWB would kick EA in the guts.

Quoting PM (Reply 39):
The argument about irritating existing customers by pole-axing the resale value of their T900-powered A380s has been made before and I think it has some validity. But I suspect there could be ways around it if the TXWB-powered A380 was so very much better.

EK would be the ones hacked off, this could be an issue for A.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 37):
No, they aren't going to throw away the current engines just for the 6% SFC gain, it just doesn't make economic sense

I'm sure that you can get a decent trade in on a Rolls Royce  
Quoting Revelation (Reply 30):
I think the biggest impediment to seeing it on the A380 is the fact that the production line is solidly booked for A350s. Yes, this is a classy problem to have, but still...

Why do we assume that the RR TXWB production line is sold out just because the airframe production line is?

Not saying that its going to happen but nearly all of the engineering challenges for TXWB engineering on an A380 have already been achieved, in practical terms Airbus are a lot closer to re-engining the A380 than the A320 in that they have the engine, have engineered the pylon, done any strengthening and / or fuel system work, fitted it to the plane and flown it. As Astuteman says they are now at the FADEC tuning stage.



BV
User currently offlinePM From Germany, joined Feb 2005, 7007 posts, RR: 63
Reply 46, posted (2 years 10 months 1 week 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 12228 times:

Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 45):
EK would be the ones hacked off, this could be an issue for A.

Serves them right for picking the wrong engine!  


User currently offlineBoeingVista From Australia, joined Jan 2009, 1585 posts, RR: 3
Reply 47, posted (2 years 10 months 1 week 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 12068 times:

Quoting PM (Reply 46):
Serves them right for picking the wrong engine!

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 extra k lbs of thrust out of DXB anyway.

As to TXWB availability the A350 has EIS has been moved backwards, this should free up some engines.

I mentioned strengthening in a post above but if should be noted that as far as I know no structural alterations have been made to F-WWOW plus the FF press release mentioned that the flying TXWB contained an extra 500kg of instrumentation over a production standard engine.

Quoting Wisdom (Reply 44):
especially if newer deliveries are equipped with them and/or if there are A350's in the same fleet and the TX380 and TXWB engines have advanced levels of commonality.

Its a win win that GE/RR used to have in the 767 / 747 days.

So many reasons for the A380NEO, I'd say delivery could be achieved the 2015-16 timescale and launch the A389 on the back of the NEO for 2017-19.



BV
User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 20368 posts, RR: 59
Reply 48, posted (2 years 10 months 1 week 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 12026 times:

Quoting warden145 (Reply 43):
Okay, that makes sense for the aircraft designation, but why on Earth apply that designation to the engine?

Because the engine powers the XWB? And they hit 1000 anyway, so they went in a different direction.

Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 45):
Putting XWB's on the A388 turns it into an R no other changes are necessary.

If you're going to de-rate it, sure. But if you're going to put an XWB there, it makes no sense to do so just for SFC improvement without allowing the engine to use its thrust. To do that, you need to increase the MTOW, alter the spars and wingbox, gear, add a fuel tank or two, etc.

And now you have at least as big a change as from the 772/3 to the 77L/R


User currently offlineWingedMigrator From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 2260 posts, RR: 56
Reply 49, posted (2 years 10 months 1 week 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 11941 times:

Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 47):
as far as I know no structural alterations have been made to F-WWOW

Absolutely none whatsoever, excepting a whole new engine pylon.  


User currently onlineHeavierthanair From Switzerland, joined Oct 2000, 825 posts, RR: 0
Reply 50, posted (2 years 10 months 1 week 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 11938 times:

G' day

Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 45):
in that they have the engine, have engineered the pylon, done any strengthening and / or fuel system work, fitted it to the plane and flown it.

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 A 330 the length of the 340-600 with those huge engines on it!  



Cheers

Peter



"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe." (Albert Einstein, 1879
User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 20368 posts, RR: 59
Reply 51, posted (2 years 10 months 1 week 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 11855 times:

Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 47):

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 extra k lbs of thrust out of DXB anyway.

OK. Now that you mention it... it occurs to me that TC might just order enough A388R's to make it worth it.


User currently offlineBoeingVista From Australia, joined Jan 2009, 1585 posts, RR: 3
Reply 52, posted (2 years 10 months 1 week 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 11610 times:

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 48):
If you're going to de-rate it, sure. But if you're going to put an XWB there, it makes no sense to do so just for SFC improvement without allowing the engine to use its thrust. To do that, you need to increase the MTOW, alter the spars and wingbox, gear, add a fuel tank or two, etc.

And now you have at least as big a change as from the 772/3 to the 77L/R

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 limited, the A380 was built to lift 625t with all main gears braked but could bump up the MTOW to 600 (27t) and use the extra thrust without any mods.

Wikimaths:
MTOW -> 573t

OEW -> 276t + Maximum structural payload -> 89t = 365t

MTOW - (OEW+MAX structural payload) = 208t which is our max fuel weight

Fuel weighs .8 kg/litre so that's 260,000 litres of fuel for our MAX payload at MTOW 573t but the A380 tanks will take 320,000 litres of fuel.

So the A380 is capable of holding another 60,000 litres (48t) of fuel in this MAX payload configuration, 48+573 = 621t as a full fuel max payload MTOW, 48t should give you another 4 hours + of flight.

As the MTOW is engineered in to 625t you could say that the A380 has a thrust problem, no point in releasing the MTOW if you don't have the thrust to lift it. To lift 625t would require 80-84klbs per engine? Which wasn't practical with the desired fuel characteristics at A380 inception and to achieve now would need some major re-engineering of the T900 or EA7200... but...now there is this thing called a TXWB that starts its thrust range at 84k and is 6% more efficient than a T900..    and they've built the pylon and billed it to another project and thats basically all the engineering that was required to make it fit + they are also going to get a shed load of free data. This re-engining falls into the too easy, no brainer basket.

Now, I wonder what we could get by adding sharklets  
Quoting Heavierthanair (Reply 50):
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 A 330 the length of the 340-600 with those huge engines on it!

Not really a) there were extra strength modifications b) The FTB was an A340-200, Airbus had already moved onto the 2nd Gen A340 so it wasn't an airframe that they were looking to re-engine, if they had flown it on a A340-500/600 then maybe but they didn't.

[Edited 2012-02-20 01:30:37]


BV
User currently offlineastuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 10253 posts, RR: 97
Reply 53, posted (2 years 10 months 1 week 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 11484 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 48):
If you're going to de-rate it, sure. But if you're going to put an XWB there, it makes no sense to do so just for SFC improvement without allowing the engine to use its thrust. To do that, you need to increase the MTOW, alter the spars and wingbox, gear, add a fuel tank or two, etc.

And now you have at least as big a change as from the 772/3 to the 77L/R

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 said of the GE90-115
• The A380 wing structure won't change (in configuration) - they'll just increase the scantlings of a few spars. Which can't be said of the 772LR/3ER, which had a significant span increase
• As BoeingVista points out, there's scope yet for a useful increase in MTOW/range without the extra fuel tank. A fuel tank which had already been designed for the A380F, and which the centre wing box is built to accommodate.

The changes needed to make a 600t A380 are trivial.
(time for a reminder that we've consistently been told by the Boeing fans that the changes to create the 772LR/773ER were trivial perhaps   )

They would be - Slightly strengthened wings and landing gear (for which those items have already been engineered), an 80k lb T900 or GP7000, and the last 4 sets of MLG brakes.

To make a 625t A380 requires the same as the above, but the current engines will have run out of puff by then.

I reckon a 625 tonne WOULD really want the centre tank.
But a 625 tonne A380-900 (or 1000 even    ) certainly wouldn’t   

Quoting WingedMigrator (Reply 49):
Absolutely none whatsoever, excepting a whole new engine pylon

Point taken indeed.
Having engineered that though, haven’t Airbus just done the hard bit?
I know some will point out that a test installation doesn’t require the certification integrity of an in-service installation.
But in Airbus’s shoes, would you undertake this exercise without at least half an eye on future possibilities? To suggest otherwise is ludicrous IMO

Quoting Revelation (Reply 37):
The waiting seems to be inevitable in this case, since TXWBs won't be available in suitable numbers for quite a while.

Would agree completely. Hence my prediction that an EIS would be 2019/2020 at the earliest.
For me that would time nicely with the first A380's being replaced in fleets, and the possible advent of a stretch.
It would also allow customers to plan around it.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 37):
And there really isn't anything around that can push the A380 off its perch at the top of the food chain right now

True. But by 2018 - 2020, 777X may be coming into service, which could change the picture somewhat.
Again, the timing fits....

Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 52):
Now, I wonder what we could get by adding sharklets

D'you know what? As the A380 programme was engineered for 30-40 year life, I wouldn't bet against that happening one day.
I'm willing to guess that 80m won't remain the absolute limit on wingspan forever....

Rgds


User currently offlineEPA001 From Netherlands, joined Sep 2006, 4991 posts, RR: 41
Reply 54, posted (2 years 10 months 1 week 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 11372 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 45):
Quoting PM (Reply 39):
At which point the question becomes ... what do the Engine Alliance do about it?


This is an argument for the TXWB, EA might be able to make incremental improvements to keep up with an improving T900 but shifting to the TXWB would kick EA in the guts.


Interesting. I had not looked at that point from that angle.  .

Quoting astuteman (Reply 53):
Quoting WingedMigrator (Reply 49):
Absolutely none whatsoever, excepting a whole new engine pylon

Point taken indeed.
Having engineered that though, haven’t Airbus just done the hard bit?
I know some will point out that a test installation doesn’t require the certification integrity of an in-service installation.
But in Airbus’s shoes, would you undertake this exercise without at least half an eye on future possibilities? To suggest otherwise is ludicrous IMO


That would seem the most logical thing to do to me as well. Though we have not heard anything official on that possible capability so far.

Quoting astuteman (Reply 53):
Quoting Revelation (Reply 37):
The waiting seems to be inevitable in this case, since TXWBs won't be available in suitable numbers for quite a while.

Would agree completely. Hence my prediction that an EIS would be 2019/2020 at the earliest.
For me that would time nicely with the first A380's being replaced in fleets, and the possible advent of a stretch.
It would also allow customers to plan around it.


Also it would guarantee that the Trent-XWB which would be introduced around that time will most likely be a stage II or stage III version of the engine. Because as of 2014 on the Trent-XWB will be flying in operational service on the A350. No doubts evaluations will lead to a PIP or two.  .

Quoting astuteman (Reply 53):
I'm willing to guess that 80m won't remain the absolute limit on wingspan forever....


If I recall correctly Airbus wanted a wing span of at least 83-84 meters. The current 79.8 meters is a trade-off between best performance and ICAO airplanes classification rules which define for a category F aircraft a box of 80m x 80 m maximum outer width.

And for the SUH A380-900 with Trent-XWB's we need these rules to be a bit more flexible anyway, say 85 m x 85 m?    

[Edited 2012-02-20 03:46:01]

User currently offlineabba From Denmark, joined Jun 2005, 1392 posts, RR: 2
Reply 55, posted (2 years 10 months 1 week 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 11049 times:

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 51):
Now that you mention it... it occurs to me that TC might just order enough A388R's to make it worth it.



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 they have on order? It might tip the advantage away from the 748i'!!

Or what if another major customer would go the A350/A380 - way rather than the 777/748i - if they could have engine commonality throughout their WB fleet? There will also be significant money to save here in having only one type of engine that can be interchanged.

In other words: airlines are not stupid. They know that a XWB could fit on an A380. So it is only a matter of pressing Airbus hard enough. And they are willing to listen. The spectacle around the A350 shows that!


User currently offlineBoeingVista From Australia, joined Jan 2009, 1585 posts, RR: 3
Reply 56, posted (2 years 10 months 1 week 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 11020 times:

Quoting astuteman (Reply 53):
Having engineered that though, haven%u2019t Airbus just done the hard bit?
I know some will point out that a test installation doesn%u2019t require the certification integrity of an in-service installation.
But in Airbus%u2019s shoes, would you undertake this exercise without at least half an eye on future possibilities? To suggest otherwise is ludicrous IMO

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 practice up til now) which being a fundamental change would probably have attracted some really detailed thought from RR and Airbus that they would want to flight test and take forward to the A350 so I'm guessing that it's engineered as close to production as possible.

Quoting astuteman (Reply 53):
Would agree completely. Hence my prediction that an EIS would be 2019/2020 at the earliest.

I think it will be before that.

Quoting abba (Reply 55):
Perhaps not TC....

Air Tanzania? Haha, that had me thrown for a minute be he means Tim Clark of EK  



BV
User currently offlinefrancoflier From France, joined Oct 2001, 3849 posts, RR: 11
Reply 57, posted (2 years 10 months 1 week 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 10889 times:

Quoting abba (Reply 55):
There will also be significant money to save here in having only one type of engine that can be interchanged.

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 for the A350 already, so I don't know if there would be any 'plug and play' commonality, unless the difference between all the thrust variants was just a software thing.

That said, I wonder if operators buying 'power by the hour' get a better deal from the engine manufacturer if they operate more engines of a similar type. I'm guessing they would...



Looks like I picked the wrong week to quit posting...
User currently offlineBoeingVista From Australia, joined Jan 2009, 1585 posts, RR: 3
Reply 58, posted (2 years 10 months 1 week 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 10907 times:

And lookie here, Airbus added a couple of tonnes to the A380 MTOW today, for delivery in 2013

Quote:
Airbus is to offer a higher-weight version of the A380, which will be available for delivery to customers early next year.

The airframer will raise the maximum take-off weight to 575t, corresponding to a 6t increase on the current heaviest variant and 15t above the basic specification.

It will stretch the range of the double-deck aircraft by some 150nm, said Airbus, taking its capability to around 15,500km (8,350nm) at current payloads.

Airbus said the higher-weight version would be offered for introduction to service early in 2013.

The airframer's most recent aircraft characteristics document, from November last year, listed six weight variants for the passenger type.

These had maximum take-off weights ranging up to 569t for the WV002 variant.

Airbus said the heavier version would include a 3t increase in maximum zero-fuel weight as well as maximum landing weight, with a resulting 3t increase in payload.
http://www.flightglobal.com/news/art...gher-weight-a380-from-2013-368483/



BV
User currently offlineDaysleeper From UK - England, joined Dec 2009, 873 posts, RR: 1
Reply 59, posted (2 years 10 months 1 week 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 10764 times:

Quoting francoflier (Reply 25):
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...

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 GE CF6’s in 1972 and RR RB211’s in 73.

What’s also interesting about these upgrades is that they weren’t done as a response to any sort of competition, as other than the (then deadly) DC10 it didn’t have any. Instead the motivation behind them was to increase efficiency and capability which is very similar to the situation the A380 is in now.

I don’t see Airbus offering this option anytime soon due to the lack of available resources, however I can see them eventually offering a freighter version of the 800 with the XWB as the vast majority of the engineering work for it is already done. This would then lead the way to them offering a stretched passenger version towards the end of the decade ensuring that nothing is going to come close to the 380’s CASM.


User currently offlinebreiz From France, joined Mar 2005, 1920 posts, RR: 2
Reply 60, posted (2 years 10 months 1 week 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 10666 times:

Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 47):
I mentioned strengthening in a post above but if should be noted that as far as I know no structural alterations have been made to F-WWOW plus the FF press release mentioned that the flying TXWB contained an extra 500kg of instrumentation over a production standard engine.


Are all the sensors visible on forward and aft fuselage linked to the new increased MTOW tests or to the TXWB tests?


User currently offlineferpe From France, joined Nov 2010, 2805 posts, RR: 59
Reply 61, posted (2 years 10 months 1 week 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 10555 times:

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=comm



Non French in France
User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 20368 posts, RR: 59
Reply 62, posted (2 years 10 months 1 week 5 days ago) and read 10347 times:

Quoting astuteman (Reply 53):
• The A380 wing structure won't change (in configuration) - they'll just increase the scantlings of a few spars. Which can't be said of the 772LR/3ER, which had a significant span increase

I thought the exterior wing on the 77L/W was the same as on the 772/3 other than the wingtips.

Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 56):
Air Tanzania?

Yeah. They've ordered 50 A388's with 42 options and they're looking to be the launch customer for the A380-10. Didn't you hear?  
Quoting francoflier (Reply 57):

There are several TXWB planned for the A350 already, so I don't know if there would be any 'plug and play' commonality, unless the difference between all the thrust variants was just a software thing.

It usually is. It's far cheaper for an OEM to build the same engine and then derate the lower-thrust variants than to build several different physical variants, all of which have to be separately designed and certified.


User currently offlineastuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 10253 posts, RR: 97
Reply 63, posted (2 years 10 months 1 week 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 10289 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting ferpe (Reply 61):
Here a bit more on the TXWB which is gaining some 0.35% in TSFC it seems:

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..  

Rgds


User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 20368 posts, RR: 59
Reply 64, posted (2 years 10 months 1 week 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 10199 times:

Quoting Daysleeper (Reply 59):

I don’t see Airbus offering this option anytime soon due to the lack of available resources, however I can see them eventually offering a freighter version of the 800 with the XWB as the vast majority of the engineering work for it is already done. This would then lead the way to them offering a stretched passenger version towards the end of the decade ensuring that nothing is going to come close to the 380’s CASM.

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 double-deck side-loading was the problem.


User currently offlinefrancoflier From France, joined Oct 2001, 3849 posts, RR: 11
Reply 65, posted (2 years 10 months 1 week 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 10160 times:

Quoting Daysleeper (Reply 59):
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 GE CF6’s in 1972 and RR RB211’s in 73.

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 develop and airlines ordered them 10 years in advance, it didn't matter much if they jumped on board a bit late.
But in this case, RR would effectively replace its own offering with an improved one.

They could still offer both alongside one another, if the TXWB was offered to power a higher gross weight variant and the T900 stayed on the 'standard issue' A388.



Looks like I picked the wrong week to quit posting...
User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 20368 posts, RR: 59
Reply 66, posted (2 years 10 months 1 week 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 10172 times:

Quoting francoflier (Reply 65):

They could still offer both alongside one another, if the TXWB was offered to power a higher gross weight variant and the T900 stayed on the 'standard issue' A388.

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 purchase and operate. So why would anyone buy an A388-A model when the HGW model costs less to operate, even if the acquisition cost is a bit higher? Operating costs are always much greater than acquisition costs.


User currently onlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 12976 posts, RR: 25
Reply 67, posted (2 years 10 months 1 week 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 10148 times:

Seems a post of mine went missing? I'll try to re-create it.

Quoting Wisdom (Reply 44):
When the GP72/T900's reach overhaul, huge expenses are incurred. At such stage, one could make the call and decide to fit a new TXWB instead of overhauling the GP72/T900.
Moreover, the old engines can be sold to other operators who decide to not retrofit the engines and instead elect to buy these older engines to save through lower engine ownership cost.

I don't understand this. I have a bunch of last generation engines needing expensive overhaul. Why would some else buy them? What would they do with the engines that came with their aircraft?

Quoting Wisdom (Reply 44):
A 6% SFC gain can be a saving of around 8 to 10 grand a day at current fuel prices, that's about the same as the lifecycle capital depreciation of the TXWB engines if bought at list prices.
Engines typically go for less than 50% off of list prices, so it should be worth retrofitting, especially if newer deliveries are equipped with them and/or if there are A350's in the same fleet and the TX380 and TXWB engines have advanced levels of commonality.

If the numbers add up, this argument makes more sense. If the engines will pay for themselves, they should be able to get financing to make it happen. They'll presumably take a hit on capital expenses and have to do some additional training and take on some different spares, but that's par for the course.

Quoting Wisdom (Reply 44):
Airbus and RR better hurry, the opportunity is huge.
If they can figure out a way to fit them across all 3 widebody families, including the A330's, why not even interchangeabily with minor mx work such as intake/ exhaust and control software swap, with little compromise, they can offer customers a flexibility that would give them no reason to buy any Boeing aircraft anymore.

There will be plenty of reasons to buy Boeing aircraft and non-RR engines, believe it or not.

Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 45):
Why do we assume that the RR TXWB production line is sold out just because the airframe production line is?

Not saying that its going to happen but nearly all of the engineering challenges for TXWB engineering on an A380 have already been achieved, in practical terms Airbus are a lot closer to re-engining the A380 than the A320 in that they have the engine, have engineered the pylon, done any strengthening and / or fuel system work, fitted it to the plane and flown it. As Astuteman says they are now at the FADEC tuning stage.

Good point. Above RR's statement above states there will be enough engines for A350s at 13/month in 2017. Other online sources show Airbus's ramp up will be slower than planned. I saw one quote of 5/month in 2015. Seems there is a big gap there.

Quoting astuteman (Reply 53):
True. But by 2018 - 2020, 777X may be coming into service, which could change the picture somewhat.
Again, the timing fits....

The A380 will still have a lot more capacity than the 777X, so I don't see much overlap there.

Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 58):
The airframer will raise the maximum take-off weight to 575t, corresponding to a 6t increase on the current heaviest variant and 15t above the basic specification.

They didn't mention any increase in MEW, so was this done by analysis, or did some parts have to be strengthened?

Quoting Daysleeper (Reply 59):

What%u2019s also interesting about these upgrades is that they weren%u2019t done as a response to any sort of competition, as other than the (then deadly) DC10 it didn%u2019t have any. Instead the motivation behind them was to increase efficiency and capability which is very similar to the situation the A380 is in now.

I think the situations are different. 747 was too much capacity for many airlines. DC-10 and L-1011 did undermine it, so reducing CASM and increasing range was important. A380 is being bought for its capacity and industry-leading CASM, and 777X is not in the same capacity class and is not clear how it will end up doing in CASM, so it isn't undermining A380 in the same way.



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offlinezeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 9244 posts, RR: 76
Reply 68, posted (2 years 10 months 1 week 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 10106 times:

Quoting astuteman (Reply 11):
About 6% on SFC....., so the saving could be 12t or more. on a 200t fuel burn

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 thrust is burning less fuel as a function of reduced cruise thrust plus the reduced SFC.

With the higher thrust margins, and lower fuel load required would also mean the aircraft would be capable of higher levels sooners also saving fuel. The lower fuel uplift would also mean less fuel is being burnt to carry the fuel during the sector.

I could see the current A380 becoming the R model, and the higher MTOW version being the basis for the -900 and the -F.



We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
User currently offlineabba From Denmark, joined Jun 2005, 1392 posts, RR: 2
Reply 69, posted (2 years 10 months 1 week 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 9879 times:

Quoting zeke (Reply 68):
I would think it would be more than that.



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) to offer such an upgrade.


User currently offlineBoeingVista From Australia, joined Jan 2009, 1585 posts, RR: 3
Reply 70, posted (2 years 10 months 1 week 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 9578 times:

Quoting zeke (Reply 68):
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 thrust is burning less fuel as a function of reduced cruise thrust plus the reduced SFC.

With the higher thrust margins, and lower fuel load required would also mean the aircraft would be capable of higher levels sooners also saving fuel. The lower fuel uplift would also mean less fuel is being burnt to carry the fuel during the sector.

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 burns 6(.35)% less than a T900 at 100% of design thrust how much less will it burn at 85%? Airbus will soon know from flight tests not just bench data.

I think that the above question is for lightsaber.



BV
User currently offlinelightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 13552 posts, RR: 100
Reply 71, posted (2 years 10 months 1 week 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 9529 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

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

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.

Quoting astuteman (Reply 6):
That's the same as adding 400Nm to the range of the aircraft.

I do not see the market to justify the change unless the -900 is launched. There it might be another 300Nm in range which will be needed. Then the TXWB could find its way onto increased MTOW -800s.

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

The 2nd intermediate turbine stage (with the added booster compressor stages providing a higher overall pressure ratio) should be good for 4% of the fuel burn reduction. The other 2% would be improvements in the high compressor and low turbine (areas where the technology moved on right after T1000 program launch).

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

More!  
Quoting PM (Reply 39):
Another argument that has been made elsewhere is that RR have somewhat different teams of risk-sharing partners on the two Trents. Prematurely stopping production of the 900 in favour of the XWB may not be simple. But, again, I bet this obstacle could be overcome.

That is one reason I do not see a TXWB on the A380 prior to the -900 launch. Not even if the A380F is relaunched. (Or whatever one wants to call finding a customer for the type.)

Quoting PM (Reply 46):
Serves them right for picking the wrong engine!

Right now, EK has to be happy with their engine choice.      

Quoting zeke (Reply 68):
I could see the current A380 becoming the R model, and the higher MTOW version being the basis for the -900 and the -F.

I concur. Except... if the -900 is launched first, I would see the TXWB becoming the engine for *all* high MTOW A380s. However, the engine and gear certification and development costs do not make sense to me for a MTOW less than 620t (probably higher, that is just the minimum). The A380R, by my understanding of the definition, would be with the new gear and I would expect that would be the ideal time for RR to switch the engine. (If they are able to legally do so.)

Congrats to RR.

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 66):
Operating costs are always much greater than acquisition costs.

Try telling that to any Douglas fan.   

Lightsaber



Societies that achieve a critical mass of ideas achieve self sustaining growth; others stagnate.
User currently offlinelightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 13552 posts, RR: 100
Reply 72, posted (2 years 10 months 1 week 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 9540 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 70):
If the TXWB burns 6(.35)% less than a T900 at 100% of design thrust how much less will it burn at 85%? Airbus will soon know from flight tests not just bench data.

I think that the above question is for 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* mechanically different, but would be worth changing the following components so that most of the 6% drop in fuel burn was achieved.
1. Turbine inlet guide vanes cooling reduced
2. High turbine cooling reduced
3. Re-map of the compressor stators post cooling reduction.

It would be ideal, but a high certification cost to also change:
4. Combustor cooling profile.

I personally wouldn't change the combustor cooling due to the costs of emissions re-certification, but I do not know if there is any other compelling reason for RR to change the combustor in the TXWB (and they shouldn't either at this juncture of flight testing unless something is wrong).

Lightsaber



Societies that achieve a critical mass of ideas achieve self sustaining growth; others stagnate.
User currently onlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 12976 posts, RR: 25
Reply 73, posted (2 years 10 months 1 week 4 days ago) and read 9009 times:

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 72):
Lightsaber

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?



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offlineN14AZ From Germany, joined Feb 2007, 2840 posts, RR: 25
Reply 74, posted (2 years 10 months 1 week 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 8738 times:

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 that correct?

User currently offlineferpe From France, joined Nov 2010, 2805 posts, RR: 59
Reply 75, posted (2 years 10 months 1 week 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 8388 times:

Quoting N14AZ (Reply 74):
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 that correct?

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 don't engage stuff like thrust reverse on the first flight, better look at all the values first perhaps  .



Non French in France
User currently offlinefrancoflier From France, joined Oct 2001, 3849 posts, RR: 11
Reply 76, posted (2 years 10 months 1 week 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 8264 times:

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 66):
The 77L costs the same to purchase and operate. So why would anyone buy an A388-A model when the HGW model costs less to operate, even if the acquisition cost is a bit higher?

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 with TXWB as it is. Only as a developed version, probably a higher MTOW one.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 73):
Do you think that T900 can get a PIP based on some of the TXWB improvements?

I personally doubt it. The TXWB might be an evolution of the T900, everything in it seems to have been slightly modified. The IP compressor and turbine, the LPT, the Fan...

An improvement package would likely cost almost as much as a new engine. I'm not sure develompent costs would be worth it.
And I see no reason why Airbus and RR would be in a hurry to improve the current A380 engines. They're already above expectations and are not under major threat from the competition.



Looks like I picked the wrong week to quit posting...
User currently offlinezeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 9244 posts, RR: 76
Reply 77, posted (2 years 10 months 1 week 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 8356 times:

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 71):
There it might be another 300Nm in range which will be needed.

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 nm at M0.85 @ FL360).

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 72):
I would guess about 4% less.

That would make with a lower fuel burn than a GEnx-2B67.

Quoting N14AZ (Reply 74):

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 that correct?

That Is correct, it is not designed to. On the A380 test bed they have an additional thrust lever on the rear of tevpedital for the TXWB engine, they have made a mechanical linkage which connects this o the normal thrust levers or takeoff, however it does have the reverse interlinked. Once airborne, the mechanical link is removed and the TXWB engine is operated independently of the other 3 engines.
.



We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
User currently offlineBoeingVista From Australia, joined Jan 2009, 1585 posts, RR: 3
Reply 78, posted (2 years 10 months 1 week 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 8139 times:

Quoting francoflier (Reply 76):
I personally doubt it. The TXWB might be an evolution of the T900, everything in it seems to have been slightly modified. The IP compressor and turbine, the LPT, the Fan...

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.

Quoting zeke (Reply 77):
That would make with a lower fuel burn than a GEnx-2B67.

Several percent better

Quoting N14AZ (Reply 74):
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 that correct?

Maybe not on first flight but Airbus intend to test the thrust reverser at some point.

Quote:
It will also test the advanced nacelle and thrust reverser system provided by Goodrich.

I don't know if we picked this up from the various press releases but also it looks like the FTB will be going on tour.

Quote:
This will be accomplished over a seven month period and will include hot weather as well as icing condition testing campaigns.
http://blogs.crikey.com.au/planetalk...t-for-the-a350-for-the-time-being/



BV
User currently onlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 12976 posts, RR: 25
Reply 79, posted (2 years 10 months 1 week 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 8052 times:

Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 78):
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.

I found the following info:

Quote:

Rolls-Royce introduced the first of a two-phase performance improvement for the Trent 900 engines that power the Airbus A380 airliner. Turbofans now delivered to A380 operators have a 1-percent improvement in specific fuel consumption, compared with the initial units. Second-phase improvements due to enter service during 2013 will deliver a further 0.8-percent reduction in fuel burn.

In an October 21 press briefing, Trent 900 program director Rosie Toogood explained that all the improvements introduced focus on improving air flow and cooling of the engines. The first performance improvement package includes new elliptical leading edges (ELEs), tighter low-pressure tip clearance and a new hard coating for the high-pressure compressor drum. The second performance-improvement package, which is in its final stages, will cover the following elements: optimized fan blade tip clearance, better cooling of the turbine case, improved sealing for the low-pressure turbine, ELEs for the engine section stators, re-profiling of engine frames and upgrades to the air system.

Toogood said that the Trent 900 improvements have come about directly as a result of progress made with Rolls-Royce’s new Trent 1000 and Trent XWB engines, which respectively power the Boeing 787 and A350XWB.

So we know the 2011 standard T900s have +1% SFC from the originals, and the 2013 standard is shooting for an additional 0.8% SFC gain, and these gains come from use of T1000 and TXWB tech.

So where will that leave the gap between T900 and TXWB in 2013?

Above we read:

Quoting astuteman (Reply 11):
About 6% on SFC.

But is that relative to the original T900 engines, or the PIPed ones?



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offlineastuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 10253 posts, RR: 97
Reply 80, posted (2 years 10 months 1 week 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 7909 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Revelation (Reply 79):
But is that relative to the original T900 engines, or the PIPed ones?

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. We know it has a spec SCF. We also know that's just moved about 0.5% as well, so both engines are on the move (which I guess shouldn't be a surprise).

Of course, the TXWB has yet to deliver in practice.

It's been running about a year or so now and several hundred hours, and the only "news" that's come out in that timeframe is the above improvement in planned SFC. Which would make it look like the initial indications are good..   

Popcorn time I guess

Rgds


User currently offlineimiakhtar From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 81, posted (2 years 10 months 1 week 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 7907 times:

Quoting zeke (Reply 77):

That Is correct, it is not designed to. On the A380 test bed they have an additional thrust lever on the rear of tevpedital for the TXWB engine, they have made a mechanical linkage which connects this o the normal thrust levers or takeoff, however it does have the reverse interlinked. Once airborne, the mechanical link is removed and the TXWB engine is operated independently of the other 3 engines.
FlightBlogger - Airbus A380 Trent XWB (A350) Testbed - November 10, 2011


User currently offlineBoeingVista From Australia, joined Jan 2009, 1585 posts, RR: 3
Reply 82, posted (2 years 10 months 1 week 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 7552 times:

Quoting imiakhtar (Reply 81):
FlightBlogger - Airbus A380 Trent XWB (A350) Testbed - November 10, 2011

The video confirms that the reverser on No2 (TWXB) can be selected.



BV
User currently onlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 12976 posts, RR: 25
Reply 83, posted (2 years 10 months 1 week 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 7197 times:

Quoting astuteman (Reply 80):
It's been running about a year or so now and several hundred hours, and the only "news" that's come out in that timeframe is the above improvement in planned SFC. Which would make it look like the initial indications are good..

Popcorn time I guess

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 http://www.flightglobal.com/news/art...ing-new-higher-weight-a380-341926/ to see how the A380 MTOW increase came partially through control law changes) and it's definitely not true for engines. Above we read about TXWB gaining via improved coatings, improved blade shapes, reduced tip clearances and improved cooling. Other places we read about geared turbofans (where will that show up next?) and Leap-X's use of CMC for its Phase II engines. So, plenty of reasons all around to break out the popcorn and see where things end up.



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offlineferpe From France, joined Nov 2010, 2805 posts, RR: 59
Reply 84, posted (2 years 10 months 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 6804 times:

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...-shaft-engine-technologies-368728/

IN summary the A package T1000 was 4.3% off 787 RR spec, the present package B is 2% off and the package C for the 789 will be about 1% off.

The TXWB program is going very well and they will improve TSFC with 0.35% already at EIS over the 2% better then T1000 which Airbus stated as the target spec when launching the A350 program. The A350 will thereby have some margin in the engine side to the 787 program as neither T1000 nor GEnx will beat 787 spec at 789 and 359 EIS summer 2014 (if now B and A hold that timeplan of course  )



Non French in France
User currently offlinePW100 From Netherlands, joined Jan 2002, 2594 posts, RR: 16
Reply 85, posted (2 years 10 months 5 days ago) and read 6379 times:

Quoting ferpe (Reply 84):
. . . 2% better then T1000 . . .

Is that 2% over the T1000 spec, or over T1000 missing spec by 4.3% . . . .  



Immigration officer: "What's the purpose of your visit to the USA?" Spotter: "Shooting airliners with my Canon!"
User currently offlineseabosdca From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 5856 posts, RR: 6
Reply 86, posted (2 years 10 months 5 days ago) and read 6387 times:

Quoting ferpe (Reply 84):
The TXWB program is going very well and they will improve TSFC with 0.35% already at EIS over the 2% better then T1000 which Airbus stated as the target spec when launching the A350 program.

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 generally similar engine.


User currently offlineEPA001 From Netherlands, joined Sep 2006, 4991 posts, RR: 41
Reply 87, posted (2 years 10 months 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 6201 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting seabosdca (Reply 86):
with the TXWB, a generally similar engine.

I guess the Trent-XWB is not that similar after all. Another reason to why the Trent-XWB is better performing is beyond me.


User currently offlineferpe From France, joined Nov 2010, 2805 posts, RR: 59
Reply 88, posted (2 years 10 months 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 6165 times:

Quoting PW100 (Reply 85):
Is that 2% over the T1000 spec, or over T1000 missing spec by 4.3% . . . .

It is 2% better then the spec, ie the 787 engine spec.

Quoting seabosdca (Reply 86):
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 generally similar engine.

From the flightglobal article : ""On the Trent we have delivered roughly 1% [fuel saving] per year over the life of that programme,"

The TXWB was concieved about 2-3 years later then the T1000 and with the mistakes from that in mind (to simplified LT which it shared with the GEnx ) but also advances like 2 stage IT and BLISK + "rising line" compressors.

2% better is below the time difference for the engines, given the architecture differences there will be a difference even with PIPs for the T1000.



Non French in France
User currently offlineflipdewaf From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2006, 1578 posts, RR: 0
Reply 89, posted (2 years 10 months 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 6146 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting seabosdca (Reply 86):

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 but they are only as close as any others in the trent series. There are many differences, the TXWB has a significantly higher pressure ratio and an extra IPT stage to name just 2.

Fred


User currently offlineBoeingVista From Australia, joined Jan 2009, 1585 posts, RR: 3
Reply 90, posted (2 years 10 months 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 5849 times:

Quoting seabosdca (Reply 86):
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 generally similar engine.

Its a bit puzzling to me how every manufacturing organisation involved in the 787 program is still having trouble reaching their specs.



BV
User currently offlinetdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80
Reply 91, posted (2 years 10 months 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 5757 times:

Quoting seabosdca (Reply 86):
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 generally similar engine.

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 complete idiots to have not used what they learned on the T1000 to refine their spec for the TXWB. And RR are not complete idiots. RR went into the TXWB program with a much better idea of the true performance of the engine than they did with the T1000.

Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 90):
Its a bit puzzling to me how every manufacturing organisation involved in the 787 program is still having trouble reaching their specs.

It's not every organization, for starters. More importantly, the 787 was the only all new game in town at the time it was launched and the partner model was a new thing for Boeing, so the prize for the partners and suppliers was *huge* (much larger than a "traditional" Boeing widebody program). That promoted...optimism...on behalf of many.

Tom.


User currently offlineferpe From France, joined Nov 2010, 2805 posts, RR: 59
Reply 92, posted (2 years 10 months 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 5301 times:

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 bleed, this should just about close the gap to 0 .

So in total it will be that the frames are very similar, given that the A350 delivers on it's specs of course   , the bird has not flown yet, the ugly face of unknowns unknowns can still appear  Wow!.

For the 787 the situation is that we have already digested those buggers  .



Non French in France
User currently offlineabba From Denmark, joined Jun 2005, 1392 posts, RR: 2
Reply 93, posted (2 years 10 months 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 5282 times:

Quoting ferpe (Reply 92):
But then the 787 program should have the TSFC upside of no bleed, this should just about close the gap to 0 .



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 overall advantage, I think the reason is that the jury is still out on this one.


User currently offlineBoeingVista From Australia, joined Jan 2009, 1585 posts, RR: 3
Reply 94, posted (2 years 10 months 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 5136 times:

Quoting ferpe (Reply 92):
The waterfalling of technology from the TXWB to the T1000 will close the gap but not to 0.

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.

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 91):
More importantly, the 787 was the only all new game in town at the time it was launched and the partner model was a new thing for Boeing, so the prize for the partners and suppliers was *huge* (much larger than a "traditional" Boeing widebody program). That promoted...optimism...on behalf of many.

It is the job of risk managers in both suppliers and OEM's to weed out the overly optimistic assumptions otherwise you end up with a program in perpetual crisis.



BV
User currently offlineDaysleeper From UK - England, joined Dec 2009, 873 posts, RR: 1
Reply 95, posted (2 years 10 months 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 5074 times:

Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 94):
a program in perpetual crisis.

LOL I think that just about sums up the 787 program  


User currently offlineferpe From France, joined Nov 2010, 2805 posts, RR: 59
Reply 96, posted (2 years 10 months 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 5039 times:

Quoting abba (Reply 93):
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 overall advantage, I think the reason is that the jury is still out on this one.


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. The other things is if the no bleed/more electric is weight neutral on a frame level, this I have debated with Tom, I was not convinced it was.

Might be you gain on the ULHs and it is a wash on the shorter legs, we shall see.



Non French in France
User currently offlineferpe From France, joined Nov 2010, 2805 posts, RR: 59
Reply 97, posted (2 years 10 months 20 hours ago) and read 4508 times:

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 on airframe drag.

A non bleed installation is some 40% more spacious in the air conditioning pacs (at least for the 787) then the equivalent classical design (it was the reason it was doubtful for the new SA 7X7), it requires further one extra inlet per pack of the higher drag pitot type (for the air to the electrical compressors who need good pressure recovery) rather then the low drag NACA ducts used for cooling the pacs, see this dicussion about the A350 air cond installation vs the 787:

A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 2 (by NZ1 Jan 6 2012 in Civil Aviation)

Overall this extra parasitic drag can range from 0,5% to 1% more then an installation without these double intakes. The effect of the fairings form is harder to predict. The A350 uses the smaller bleed pacs to it's advantage by storing them behind the wing/MLG thereby allowing a shallower wing-fairing in front of the MLG well. The transonic effects of this more progressive form is hard to predict, here the rather big belly fairing of the 787:



The air cond packs outlets can be seen besides the visible protrusion of the keel beam, for the inlets design see below:



What the dam before the compressor pitot inlet does when on ground could perhaps be explained by some of our B colleagues.

[Edited 2012-03-02 13:45:20]


Non French in France
User currently offlinetdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80
Reply 98, posted (2 years 10 months 13 hours ago) and read 4300 times:

Quoting abba (Reply 93):
The 787 needs to generate more electric power as nothing - not even air - comes free.

True, but the incremental electrical power required is smaller than the pneumatic power lost. Pneumatics have terrific power density but lousy efficiency. You have to extract way more energy from the engine than you get in usable power with pneumatics...electric efficiency is well into the 90%'s.

Tom.


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