Sponsor Message:
Aviation Technical / Operations Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Trent XWB V. -1000  
User currently offlineJoeCanuck From Canada, joined Dec 2005, 5433 posts, RR: 30
Posted (2 years 10 months 3 weeks 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 4259 times:

With the Trent XWB about to begin flight tests, I thought I'd post a question I've wondered about for some time. I have read here that the XWB engine is more advanced and more efficient than the T-1000 engine.

In what ways is it more advanced?

How much more efficient is it?

Which, if any, advances unique to the XWB are possible to be adapted to the T-1000?


What the...?
6 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30898 posts, RR: 87
Reply 1, posted (2 years 10 months 3 weeks 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 4209 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

The biggest change is the Trent XWB is the first in the Trent family with two Intermediate Pressure Turbines, which improves pressures and the engine's overall thermodynamic efficiency. The benefit of this is lower fuel burn at cruise. The Trent XWB is also introducing BLISKs and a new single annular combustor design.

User currently offlineastuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 10006 posts, RR: 96
Reply 2, posted (2 years 10 months 3 weeks 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 4147 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting JoeCanuck (Thread starter):
In what ways is it more advanced?

This might help....

http://www.rolls-royce.com/civil/pro.../largeaircraft/trent_xwb/index.jsp

hit the "technology" tab for a bit more information..

Rgds

[Edited 2011-10-09 09:36:53]

User currently offlineJoeCanuck From Canada, joined Dec 2005, 5433 posts, RR: 30
Reply 3, posted (2 years 10 months 3 weeks 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 3987 times:

Quoting astuteman (Reply 2):

I've already looked at the RR site but I can't find what technology in the XWB can be transferred to the T-1000. Except for blisks, (which I imagine could go into the t-1000...but no mention that I could find if or when they actually would), I couldn't figure out what technology is transferable.

Another question; if the XWB proves significantly more efficient than the T-1000 of a similar thrust range, might it be feasible to put that engine on the 787?



What the...?
User currently offlinetdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80
Reply 4, posted (2 years 10 months 3 weeks 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 3972 times:

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 3):
Another question; if the XWB proves significantly more efficient than the T-1000 of a similar thrust range, might it be feasible to put that engine on the 787?

It's technically possible, probably, but economically a dead end. You're talking about an entirely new flight test program, new strut, new nacelle. *Way* cheaper to just roll those design elements that make the XWB better into the 1000.

Tom.


User currently offlineBaroque From Australia, joined Apr 2006, 15380 posts, RR: 59
Reply 5, posted (2 years 10 months 3 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 3900 times:

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 4):
*Way* cheaper to just roll those design elements that make the XWB better into the 1000.

Which is what RR have said they will do both for the T1000 and the T900. But neither will get the extra IPT.

Some of the more significant gains seem to come in the compressor side of the engine and those gains should be migratable you would think. But it appears that part of the XWB may actually be simpler as well as better than the earlier engines. How much simplicity can be back migrated could be an interesting question. The XWB will also have better thermal coatings IIRC.


User currently offlineJoeCanuck From Canada, joined Dec 2005, 5433 posts, RR: 30
Reply 6, posted (2 years 10 months 3 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 3897 times:

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 4):

That was my basic assumption but it's good to have things confirmed.



What the...?
Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic Trent XWB V. -1000
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...
Trent XWB Tsfc Advantage Vs T1000 posted Sun Oct 19 2008 16:26:39 by Jambrain
EIS 787 Could Be 2011 After Trent 1000 Test posted Mon Aug 23 2010 03:48:31 by keesje
Trent 1000 posted Thu Jan 7 2010 11:21:42 by Kimon
No ETOPS For GEnx And Trent 1000? posted Sun Apr 26 2009 09:31:33 by A342
Can Boeing Turn 777-300A To Challenge 350-1000 XWB posted Fri Mar 20 2009 15:47:16 by PolymerPlane
Trent 1000/GENX - Guaranteed Sfc Missed? posted Tue Dec 9 2008 02:22:40 by Superstring
RR Trent 1000 For The B787 posted Tue Aug 7 2007 15:29:06 by TepidHalibut
Trent 1000 Question posted Fri Jul 27 2007 05:08:56 by BritJap
Differences Between Trent 1000 & Genx posted Sun Apr 30 2006 19:01:17 by Radelow
Enhanced Trent 1000, Leapx & GTF: New Technologies posted Fri Sep 2 2011 03:24:09 by faro

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format