EPA001 From Netherlands, joined Sep 2006, 5452 posts, RR: 40
Reply 3, posted (2 years 8 months 4 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 2474 times:
Quoting imiakhtar (Reply 2): He also mentioned another interesting snippet which will be bad news for RR Trent lovers: the trent family is going to be replaced by a new, more composite engine.
That is inevitable. Developments go on and on. This is the next step in their evolution. i wonder which aircraft they are thinking about to introduce such an engine. The B777-X is most probably getting GE engines, maybe again exclusively?
Exiting times. But the Trent family is not done yet with still new versions under development. .
CM From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (2 years 8 months 4 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 2472 times:
Quoting LAXintl (Thread starter): With over 17,000 flights at ANA, the Trent 1000 has delivered dispatch reliability of more than 99.9 per cent, along with delivering 100 per cent inflight reliability.
Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 1): said that it had been the smoothest ever entry into service for an engine.
Hmmm, how quickly we forget the flights lost to gearbox issues. I know this was not directly a RR issue, and not technically a "schedule interrupt", but certainly not what I would describe as "smooth".
Who knows. Or maybe the A380-900? I read that RR was trying to offer a newer engine then the T-XWB for the proposed B777-X. But that could also possibly find a place under the wings of an A380-900, or later an A380-1000? If they are ever built of course.
JordanFittz From United States of America, joined Oct 2012, 8 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (2 years 8 months 4 weeks 1 day ago) and read 2473 times:
The engine in question is the RB3025, a concept engine for the 777X which would utilise a composite fan and entirely composite fan case. In comparison the Trent XWB currently only uses composite on the rear section of the fancase.
As this is only a concept engine it may never see the light of the day, it all depends on who Boeing selects to power the 777X. However RR now have the ability to incorporate this technology for whichever new large engine they conceive, wether its for a future Boeing or Airbus widebody.
I might add that the XWB 97k or Trent 1000 TEN will not use a composite fan or fancase.
Deltal1011man From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 10236 posts, RR: 16
Reply 16, posted (2 years 8 months 4 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 2459 times:
Quoting EPA001 (Reply 3): The B777-X is most probably getting GE engines, maybe again exclusively?
I wouldn't think so.
One would think Boeing would want to offer something for those with Trents on the 787. More than likely a new Rolls would still have more in common than a GEnx and a 777-X GE engine(i guess a new GE90?)
IMO 777 will be a two engine game like the 787....once again Pratt sits on the sideline.
trex8 From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 5248 posts, RR: 14
Reply 19, posted (2 years 8 months 4 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 2457 times:
So for the technically challenged I can understand using new materials for the fan etc is a big deal but why is changing the fan case to composites a big deal. I can see it could get hot but it isn't rotating at x0000 rpm etc!
tdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12710 posts, RR: 80
Reply 22, posted (2 years 8 months 4 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 2454 times:
Quoting PM (Reply 15): Meanwhile, if ANA are so happy with their Trents, I wonder why they haven't yet confirmed an engine choice for their recent order...
Because they're in negotiations...it's gonna be RR...the only time when a carrier ever swaps engines mid-stream is when the engine they have is severely underperforming or they're absorbing a huge fleet with another engine type. Neither applies in this case.
Quoting trex8 (Reply 19): So for the technically challenged I can understand using new materials for the fan etc is a big deal but why is changing the fan case to composites a big deal. I can see it could get hot but it isn't rotating at x0000 rpm etc!
It saves several hundred pounds per engine (more than a thousand pounds per aircraft). That type of weight savings is nearly unheard of for a straight-out material swap.
It's not particularly hot...fan ducts rarely get over 200F, even on a hot day takeoff, and the case is shielded somewhat by the acoustic liner anyway.
ferpe From France, joined Nov 2010, 2805 posts, RR: 60
Reply 23, posted (2 years 8 months 4 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 2454 times:
Quoting imiakhtar (Reply 20): On the Trent XWB, he mentioned it is currently achieving a 16% fuel burn reduction over the Trent 700. That delta will increase after some fine tuning though.
I understand the T700 to be around TSFC 0.58 lb/hr/lbf, now 16% down on that is 0.50 which would be sensational. Airbus has said 2% better then the 787 spec which I believe is 0.528, that would be 0.518 .
jumpjets From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2012, 983 posts, RR: 0
Reply 24, posted (2 years 8 months 4 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 2454 times:
Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 22): ...the only time when a carrier ever swaps engines mid-stream is when the engine they have is severely underperforming or they're absorbing a huge fleet with another engine type
I don't think either of those conditions applied when BA swapped from GE to RR for their second tranche of 772 orders - there may have been other specific reasons but it does illustrate that swaps between suppliers are not unheard of.
: He didn't mention specifics unfortunately. Rolls-Royce has a target of a 1% fuel burn saving per annum for new engines, and the Trent XWB was meeting
: One of the main advantages the Trent has over other engines is its weight saving. Typically over 3.5 tons on a B757. Making it even m,ore lightweight