mayohoo
Posts: 39
Joined: Thu Apr 19, 2012 5:15 pm

787 And A350 Engines And Electrical Systems

Tue Nov 06, 2012 8:22 pm

I noticed this article /n the Boeing Aero magazine. How will the a350 differ in both engine design (RR of ocurse) and electrical architecture?

http://www.boeing.com/commercial/aeromagazine/articles/2012_q3/2/
 
tdscanuck
Posts: 8572
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 7:25 am

RE: 787 And A350 Engines And Electrical Systems

Wed Nov 07, 2012 2:25 am

Quoting Mayohoo (Thread starter):
How will the a350 differ in both engine design (RR of ocurse) and electrical architecture?

The engine architecture will be very similar; the only major difference is that the A350 will have a full bleed system on the engine.

The electrical system, on the other hand, will be quite different. Airbus elected to stick with a pneumatic system on the A350, which relieves the electrical system of considerable load requirements and takes a bunch of motors, power controllers, and power handling out of the system. In return, they have to keep the pneumatic ducts, valves, and overheat/leak detection systems. This also bleeds over to the APU; the A350 APU will need both generators and a load compressor (the 787 APU only has generators).

Tom.
 
Ruscoe
Posts: 1587
Joined: Sun Aug 22, 1999 5:41 pm

RE: 787 And A350 Engines And Electrical Systems

Sat Nov 10, 2012 7:57 am

I didn't see weight mentioned.

Do we know weight of 787 v 767 engines, with and without nacelles?

Also do we know how 787 engine weights compare with 350 engine weights?

Thanks if anyone knows these figures.

Ruscoe
 
Ruscoe
Posts: 1587
Joined: Sun Aug 22, 1999 5:41 pm

RE: 787 And A350 Engines And Electrical Systems

Sat Nov 10, 2012 11:48 am

I can partly answer my own question now

Dry weight Trent 1000 12,700 lbs

Dry weight Gen-x 12,800 lbs

Dry weight CF6 9000 lbs

No idea re nacelle weights

Ruscoe
 
tdscanuck
Posts: 8572
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 7:25 am

RE: 787 And A350 Engines And Electrical Systems

Sat Nov 10, 2012 1:53 pm

Quoting Ruscoe (Reply 2):
Do we know weight of 787 v 767 engines, with and without nacelles?

787 is much heavier, with or without nacelles, because it's a considerably larger engine and a much larger fan (the fan and case are a disproportional amount of the overall weight).

Quoting Ruscoe (Reply 2):
Also do we know how 787 engine weights compare with 350 engine weights?

A350 is heavier, for the same reasons that the 787 is heavier than the 767. If they go to composite fan case they will recover some, but not all, of that weight.

Tom.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: CplKlinger, Horstroad, thepinkmachine and 19 guests

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos