Sponsor Message:
Aviation Technical / Operations Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Trent 900 Vs. EA GP7200 Fuel Burn  
User currently offlineSuperstring From Austria, joined Jun 2007, 46 posts, RR: 0
Posted (7 years 1 month 3 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 12930 times:

First of all I want to encourage everybody not to put biased opionios into this thread (because very often such topics lead to a RR vs. GE duel, so try to be objective)

Well my question is very simple. Is there a (significant) fuel burn difference between the GP7200 and the trent 900?

If so (well EA claims to be more efficient) how big is this differenvce and what does this mean for the operating envelope (I could read that the trent 900 has a weight advantage so maybe on shorter missions <5000nm the trent 900 would compensate for this disadvantage). Maybe anyone has also got some data about the noise emissions.

3 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineZeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 9111 posts, RR: 75
Reply 1, posted (7 years 1 month 3 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 12905 times:

Quoting Superstring (Thread starter):
Well my question is very simple. Is there a (significant) fuel burn difference between the GP7200 and the trent 900?

20 nm difference, the GP7200 will do 8000 nm, while a Trent 900 will do 7980 nm with the same mission.



We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
User currently offlineEELonghorn From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 42 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (7 years 1 month 3 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 12794 times:

Quoting Zeke (Reply 1):
20 nm difference, the GP7200 will do 8000 nm, while a Trent 900 will do 7980 nm with the same mission.

one forth of one percent ~(20/7980) is not

Quoting Superstring (Thread starter):
(significant)


User currently offlineBaroque From Australia, joined Apr 2006, 15380 posts, RR: 59
Reply 3, posted (7 years 1 month 2 weeks 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 12694 times:

Quoting Zeke (Reply 1):
20 nm difference, the GP7200 will do 8000 nm, while a Trent 900 will do 7980 nm with the same mission.

Bearing in mind climb performance differences, would that mean the Trent would have slightly lower fuel consumption on shorter hops such as Syd-Sing?

If that were the case, the two engine types could be about the same on Syd to LHR???


Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic Trent 900 Vs. EA GP7200 Fuel Burn
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • Tech/Ops related posts only!
  • Not Tech/Ops related? Use the other forums
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
  • DETAILED RULES
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)


Similar topics:More similar topics...
737-700W Vs A319 Fuel Burn Differences posted Sun Feb 12 2006 18:10:22 by Rsbj
Fuel Burn Delta A340-500 Vs. 777-200LR posted Mon Feb 6 2006 16:21:33 by UAL747-600
Garrett Vs Allied Signal APU Fuel Burn posted Thu Mar 17 2005 12:52:46 by MaerskMech
SFC Vs Raw Fuel Burn posted Sat Oct 30 2004 15:03:09 by Hugh3306
Fuel Burn - How They Stack Up posted Sat Aug 4 2007 08:56:38 by WingedMigrator
A340-300 Vs. A330-300 Fuel Consumption posted Fri Jun 1 2007 03:33:46 by CPHGuard
Fuel Burn Statistics posted Mon Jan 8 2007 16:54:04 by Cba
1 Engine Taxi / Fuel Burn posted Fri Dec 29 2006 01:59:09 by HPLASOps
B773ER Fuel Burn Rates posted Fri Oct 13 2006 03:35:39 by AF022
DHC-8 Fuel Burn Question posted Tue Sep 26 2006 23:21:12 by Cruisertk421
SFC Vs Raw Fuel Burn posted Sat Oct 30 2004 15:03:09 by Hugh3306
PW1100G To Beat Fuel Burn Expectations posted Tue Feb 18 2014 08:35:39 by KarelXWB
Tracking Fuel Burn % To The Drop? posted Mon Jan 20 2014 05:43:15 by VC10er

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format