Superstring From Austria, joined Jun 2007, 46 posts, RR: 0 Posted (5 years 9 months 2 weeks 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 10385 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.
Zeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 7726 posts, RR: 73 Reply 1, posted (5 years 9 months 2 weeks 5 days ago) and read 10356 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
EELonghorn From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 42 posts, RR: 0 Reply 2, posted (5 years 9 months 2 weeks 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 10245 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.
Sponsor Message: 
From Austria, joined Jun 2007, 46 posts, 
From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 7726 posts, 
From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 42 posts, 
From Australia, joined Apr 2006, 15380 posts, 
Sponsor Message: 
Printer friendly format
