nema
Topic Author
Posts: 479
Joined: Fri Feb 24, 2006 3:18 am

A380 Flying Into EMA With Trent XWB Engine

Fri Nov 09, 2012 5:08 pm

Must have been an amazing site to those driving along the M1 motorway today when the A380 flew over on short final to EMA.

It was showing off (and testing) the Trent XWB engine which is destined for the A350.

Wish i had the time to have be there, only 30 miles from where i live.

Here are some images...

http://www.itv.com/news/central/upda...east-midlands-airport-in-pictures/


http://www.itv.com/news/central/2012...er-lands-at-east-midlands-airport/
There isnt really a dark side to the moon, as a matter of fact its all dark!
 
emalad
Posts: 365
Joined: Tue May 30, 2006 9:51 pm

RE: A380 Flying Into EMA With Trent XWB Engine

Fri Nov 09, 2012 7:43 pm

Wow, would have been amazing to see it land at EMA. My dad works ar RR and the staff got a 30 notification that it was coming over Derby and the factory.
 
Glareskin
Posts: 1001
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 9:35 pm

RE: A380 Flying Into EMA With Trent XWB Engine

Fri Nov 09, 2012 8:23 pm

The engine diameter doesn't look very big. I expected more something like the engines of the 777.
There's still a long way to go before all the alliances deserve a star...
 
User avatar
Aesma
Posts: 7474
Joined: Sat Nov 14, 2009 6:14 am

RE: A380 Flying Into EMA With Trent XWB Engine

Fri Nov 09, 2012 9:35 pm

Well it's bigger than anything else aside from the GE90. It's not that impressive because it's on the wing of a very big airplane. In fact it's bigger than its cousin the Trent 800 which is an engine for the 777.
New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
 
flyingturtle
Posts: 4588
Joined: Mon Oct 31, 2011 1:39 pm

RE: A380 Flying Into EMA With Trent XWB Engine

Sat Nov 10, 2012 2:14 pm

Hmm, a little question:

For what reason are 4-engined A/C not equipped with larger-diameter #2 and #3 engines? Ground clearance would be the same. So the reason must be commonality, so that you can save the trouble of training mechanics for another engine type, and having to store additional replacement parts?

Well, an airline with the 350 and the 380... but I agree the plane will look ugly. 


David
Keeping calm is terrorism against those who want to live in fear.
 
User avatar
jambrain
Posts: 146
Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2008 8:52 am

RE: A380 Flying Into EMA With Trent XWB Engine

Sat Nov 10, 2012 2:21 pm

Quoting Glareskin (Reply 2):
The engine diameter doesn't look very big. I expected more something like the engines of the 777.
http://vimeo.com/53176215#t=130

You can see in this still that is is significantly larger then the 900.
Jambrain
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Crew
Posts: 11734
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

RE: A380 Flying Into EMA With Trent XWB Engine

Sat Nov 10, 2012 4:43 pm

Quoting flyingturtle (Reply 4):
For what reason are 4-engined A/C not equipped with larger-diameter #2 and #3 engines? Ground clearance would be the same. So the reason must be commonality, so that you can save the trouble of training mechanics for another engine type, and having to store additional replacement parts?

Several reasons:
1. It costs billions to develop each engine size. So no one is going to develop multiple engines for one airlines. They will spend the money instead on a more competitive engine. We're talking an added cost of about $500 a takeoff here or $1.25 (US dollars) per flight per passenger.
2. As you noted commonality. Every size has different parts. The training isn't an issue, it is all the certification of all the different part sizes. This is mostly in that cost in point #1.
3. You do not gain much. The engines are optimized for the best cruise thrust versus nacelle drag for the mission. Savings of about $0.03 in fuel per flight.
4. Engine out: The airframe must work with any one engine failing. Having different engine sizes complicates rudder certification. I am unable to estimate the cost of this quickly.
5. It takes a large number of one engine out there to debug an engine. The CF-6 on the A330 has different issues than the CF6 on the 767. This means added fuel burn of about $0.02 later in the engine life due to fewer PIPs.
6. Engine rotation. In general, the oldest engine on the airframe is placed on an inside position as that is the safest place for an engine out and older engines are the most likely to have an issue. So if the inner and outer engines are of different sizes, that messes up maintenance schemes and would add a cost of about 50 US cents (half a dollar) to every passenger for every flight if that flexibility were to be removed. Why pay that for a negligible fuel burn savings? The added maintenance costs would outweigh any propulsion advantage.

So net, the added cost per flight is about $1.74 per passenger. So cost/benefit says keep to one engine type.

Heck, its common for different airframes to share engines (or their cores) due to high development costs. Since widebody engines sell so few engines, we saw the same engines on the 767, DC-10/MD-11, 744, A300, and if one stretches commonality L1011. It is likely any future quad will be lucky to even gain a custom fan diameter. Quads are tough business cases to start with.

Besides, the next quad is likely to be a BWB. With the changed engine packaging, it will necessitate a quad have four identical engines and if built as a 3-holer, the engines must be of same size for the engine out condition (rudders on a BWB must be drag rudders and that constrains the design).

Lightsaber
"They did not know it was impossible, so they did it!" - Mark Twain
 
flyingturtle
Posts: 4588
Joined: Mon Oct 31, 2011 1:39 pm

RE: A380 Flying Into EMA With Trent XWB Engine

Sat Nov 10, 2012 8:22 pm

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 6):

Thank for taking your time to answer. Of course, I didn't think of these problems, but now I understand.



David
Keeping calm is terrorism against those who want to live in fear.
 
User avatar
Aesma
Posts: 7474
Joined: Sat Nov 14, 2009 6:14 am

RE: A380 Flying Into EMA With Trent XWB Engine

Sat Nov 10, 2012 8:52 pm

Quoting flyingturtle (Reply 4):
For what reason are 4-engined A/C not equipped with larger-diameter #2 and #3 engines? Ground clearance would be the same.

I don't understand what you mean, ground clearance would not be the same with bigger number 2 and 3 engines. With 1 and 4 it would, since those are higher.

And then if we assume that current engines are ideally sized on quads, using bigger engines 1 and 4 would lead to using smaller 2 and 3 than current ones, or it wouldn't make sense. Then you have the two most powerful engines the farthest from centerline, and many new issues arise.
New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: AdsBot [Google], CARST, Google [Bot], jking629, KarelXWB, krsw757, Mani87, mdavies06, Moosfliege, morrisond, Pihero, PZ707, SCQ83, shuttle9juliet, skyhawkmatthew, SomebodyInTLS, SteveXC500, TWA772LR, usflyer msp, xiaotung and 283 guests