Sponsor Message:
Aviation Technical / Operations Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Attn Enginistas: New Trent XWB Presentation  
User currently offlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 11919 posts, RR: 25
Posted (2 years 5 months 1 week 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 7580 times:

On the AirInsight web site, Addison Shonland's areticle titled "Catching up with F-WWOW" at http://airinsight.com/2011/11/10/catching-up-with-f-wwow/ talks about the use of F-WWOW as a flying testbed for the Trent XWB.

The article has a link to an interesting RR presentation at http://airinsight.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/RR-Final.pdf

Slides at the end of the pitch describe how RR feels it has solved all the issues related to the uprated A350-1000 engine and calls the Trent XWB "the most advanced civil turbofan". How's that for boldness?

http://airinsight.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/trent-1.jpg


Inspiration, move me brightly!
9 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineEPA001 From Netherlands, joined Sep 2006, 4593 posts, RR: 38
Reply 1, posted (2 years 5 months 1 week 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 7522 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Good find. Thanks for posting this.  

User currently offlineferpe From France, joined Nov 2010, 2792 posts, RR: 59
Reply 2, posted (2 years 5 months 1 week 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 7411 times:

One can sense that RR is really happy with their situation on the TXWB:

1. They have an important high margin DA product line for themselves which has sold 2*570 engines even before the first engine fly.

2. They have been able to leverage their last 5 or so engines + EU sponsored research programs into the latest developed big engine in the market.

3. They claim it should be the best there is right now and it should be, it is one generation younger then T1000 and GEnx.

4. The development which keeps the competition up at night is for another class of engines with a different mission profile.

5. The TXWB program seems to have gone well this far

No wonder one can feel their confidence shining through, they could be worse of    .



Non French in France
User currently offlinelightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12419 posts, RR: 100
Reply 3, posted (2 years 5 months 1 week 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 7327 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

I want to know how RR can increase rotational speed 6% *and* grow the core. That changes the blade mach number which changes:
1. Profile optimization (mach # control in the compressors and turbines)
2. Peak mach number (which impacts blade design).

I like how a couple hundred million dollars of engineering is passed off as easy. That will be fun work...

Quoting ferpe (Reply 2):
One can sense that RR is really happy with their situation on the TXWB:

I would be happy too.  

The two stage intermediate turbine should pay high dividends. How I would like to know the new turbine inlet temperatures... (I do not have the rumor mill to find out that level of proprietary detail.)

Lightsaber



I've posted how many times?!?
User currently offlineAA737-823 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 5638 posts, RR: 11
Reply 4, posted (2 years 5 months 1 week 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 7327 times:

Now, if they can only get it to run without leaking oil into itself and catching fire... poor Qantas.
All the advanced tech in the world doesn't do you any good when you've got portions of your turbine at the bottom of the Pacific.


User currently offlineferpe From France, joined Nov 2010, 2792 posts, RR: 59
Reply 5, posted (2 years 5 months 1 week 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 6986 times:

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 3):
I want to know how RR can increase rotational speed 6% *and* grow the core. That changes the blade mach number which changes:
1. Profile optimization (mach # control in the compressors and turbines)
2. Peak mach number (which impacts blade design).

Isn't that the point, IMO the original idea to make the 93klbf variant was to spin the engine faster without changing the profiles, this would have introduced a mismatch per your post. Now they touch=enlarge the core (how they do that I don't know, that means increase mass flow, does not have to mean increased radial dimensions) then they can change the blade profiles as there should be less commonality anyway with the 84k version.

Could they "increase the core" by just spinning it faster and retuning all the blades, thus leaving all the castings the same (perhaps with tuned stator vane aero)?



Non French in France
User currently offlineBaroque From Australia, joined Apr 2006, 15380 posts, RR: 59
Reply 6, posted (2 years 5 months 1 week 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 6800 times:

Quoting Revelation (Thread starter):
Revelation

Thank you most kindly for drawing out attention to this. Sort of answers a whole host of questions left hanging from the last time, but replaces them with some more specific ones such as

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 3):
I want to know how RR can increase rotational speed 6% *and* grow the core. That changes the blade mach number which changes:
1. Profile optimization (mach # control in the compressors and turbines)
2. Peak mach number (which impacts blade design).

To which question one can add, and maintains the same SFC, presumably TSFC.

Another point of interest from the slides is:
2 stage IP turbine for efficiency and growth

We knew about the efficiency bit, but the growth is interesting. Growth, presumably beyond 97k and how far and what for????? Is the 35J about to grow too?

But very very interesting.

Also does the article mean a static test engine for over 40 hours at over 92k or the flying engine at 92k? I presume the former, but the way the article is written it could be the latter.


User currently offlineferpe From France, joined Nov 2010, 2792 posts, RR: 59
Reply 7, posted (2 years 5 months 1 week 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 6722 times:

I have one additional question for an engine like the TXWB 97k:

1. The take-off thrust is 97klbf they day when max thrust is needed (which is less then 5% of it's time).

2. The cruise thrust (where the engine spends more then 95% of it's time and where the fuel consumption is really important) for a 35J should be around 15klbf per engine dependent on how much fuel=weight has been burned.

How are those 2 widely different conditions playing into the optimization of the engine? IMO the cruise thrust must be the primary optimization point for e.g. the aero in the engine with the max thrust being a case of "yes it works". The variable guide vanes and (stopped) bleeds can help but the engine must be tuned to run at pretty suboptimal SFC at high thrust settings?

So then what % RPM diff does a 97 to 15 klbf thrust change represent in a Trent (i.e. how different are the working Mach numbers for the blades between max and cruise thrust?). I understand the different spools will not follow each other 100% but lets take the fan/LP spool. It is not a linear relationship IMO; 100% to 75%?.

[Edited 2011-11-12 00:01:36]


Non French in France
User currently offlineastuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 9835 posts, RR: 96
Reply 8, posted (2 years 5 months 1 week 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 6703 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Revelation (Thread starter):
Slides at the end of the pitch describe how RR feels it has solved all the issues related to the uprated A350-1000 engine and calls the Trent XWB "the most advanced civil turbofan". How's that for boldness?

Bold?
The TXWB is easily the most recent large turbofan in development.
If it isn't the most advanced, they want shooting. Never mind "boldness"  

Many thanks for the article link by the way   

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 3):
I like how a couple hundred million dollars of engineering is passed off as easy

That's what being good gets you  

Rgds


User currently offlineSchorschNG From Germany, joined Sep 2010, 500 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (2 years 5 months 1 week 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 6589 times:

Interesting that most parts are not produced in the UK, but somewhere else.
Another batch of blue collar jobs going offshore.
Will entire UK work in accounting in the future?

If the Trent XWB is successful, I expect a slightly shrinked version for the future A380-900/800R.



From a structural standpoint, passengers are the worst possible payload. [Michael Chun-Yung Niu]
Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic Attn Enginistas: New Trent XWB Presentation
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...
RR Reveals Trent XWB Upgrade Plan For A350-1000 posted Tue Mar 3 2009 05:24:53 by Aviationbuff
Trent XWB Tsfc Advantage Vs T1000 posted Sun Oct 19 2008 16:26:39 by Jambrain
Enhanced Trent 1000, Leapx & GTF: New Technologies posted Fri Sep 2 2011 03:24:09 by faro
737s - Always A New Configuration... posted Sat Oct 8 2011 08:50:10 by ZANL188
New Kind Of Exit Sign posted Fri Sep 23 2011 08:24:55 by Lucce
Ovens On New Narrow Bodied Jets posted Thu Sep 1 2011 19:40:01 by bristolflyer
New Security Checkpoint At BOS, Terminal C - Done? posted Sun Jul 31 2011 22:51:26 by AlnessW
New Composite Airliners, Why No Paint Issues? posted Sun Jul 17 2011 16:14:50 by Northwest727
Should Gulfstream Try Airbus New Concept Design? posted Sat Jun 18 2011 18:20:41 by 747400sp
DRAG/FF Percentages For New Aircraft posted Thu Jun 16 2011 10:21:40 by krisyyz

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format