Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, hOMSaR

 
User avatar
PM
Topic Author
Posts: 5238
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 5:05 pm

25 Years of the RR Trent

Mon Mar 09, 2020 8:17 am

RR have made a short but rather enjoyable video to mark the event.

A nice reminder that it hasn't all been T1000 woes.

https://players.brightcove.net/24682380 ... 0080786001
 
User avatar
LAX772LR
Posts: 13029
Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2014 11:06 pm

Re: 25 Years of the RR Trent

Mon Mar 09, 2020 8:31 am

PM wrote:
A nice reminder

They could use one, about now. :(

I truly wonder if this is the "in" that PW has been waiting for, so far as getting back onto a widebody goes.
I myself, suspect a more prosaic motive... ~Thranduil
 
kurtverbose
Posts: 579
Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2014 9:33 pm

Re: 25 Years of the RR Trent

Mon Mar 09, 2020 9:13 am

What's interesting considering they're a family of engines is the huge variance in quality and market success.

T700 - great quality, big success
T800 - great quality, not great in the market
T500 - poor quality, poor in the market
T900 - ok quality, ok in the market
T1000 very suspect quality, mediocre so far in the market
TXWB - great quality, great in the market

Just shows, you need a great product and it needs to be installed on a great platform.
 
User avatar
PM
Topic Author
Posts: 5238
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 5:05 pm

Re: 25 Years of the RR Trent

Mon Mar 09, 2020 9:16 am

LAX772LR wrote:

I truly wonder if this is the "in" that PW has been waiting for, so far as getting back onto a widebody goes.

What? Because RR have issues with one of their programmes? And with PW's track record, would anyone trust them more than RR?

https://www.rolls-royce.com/media/press ... sults.aspx

In 2019, RR delivered 510 widebody engines (T700, T900, T1000, T7000, TXWB). That's more than GE (on the A330, 747, 767, 777, 787) and PW (on the 767-2C) combined.

They achieved a 64% share of orders in the widebody market.

I don't get how their (admittedly serious) issues on the T1000 somehow spell a death spiral for RR.
 
User avatar
PM
Topic Author
Posts: 5238
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 5:05 pm

Re: 25 Years of the RR Trent

Mon Mar 09, 2020 9:22 am

kurtverbose wrote:
What's interesting considering they're a family of engines is the huge variance in quality and market success.

T800 - great quality, not great in the market


You are aware that on the first generation of 777 (prior to GE exclusivity), RR (with the T800) gained the largest share of the market?

777-200 -300 - 200ER:

RR 40%
PW 30%
GE 30%

"Not great in the market"? What does that say about the (original) GE90 or the PW4000?
 
Scotron12
Posts: 453
Joined: Fri Mar 01, 2019 2:13 pm

Re: 25 Years of the RR Trent

Mon Mar 09, 2020 9:38 am

PM wrote:
LAX772LR wrote:

I truly wonder if this is the "in" that PW has been waiting for, so far as getting back onto a widebody goes.

What? Because RR have issues with one of their programmes? And with PW's track record, would anyone trust them more than RR?

https://www.rolls-royce.com/media/press ... sults.aspx

In 2019, RR delivered 510 widebody engines (T700, T900, T1000, T7000, TXWB). That's more than GE (on the A330, 747, 767, 777, 787) and PW (on the 767-2C) combined.

They achieved a 64% share of orders in the widebody market.

I don't get how their (admittedly serious) issues on the T1000 somehow spell a death spiral for RR.


It's not a death spriral, but an £2.4Billion headache the RR didn't need. In addition to the reputational damage and lost sales, most notably ANZ and NH.

RR says final fix due 2021...but financial hit thru 2023. Most of it already accounted for.

Even the Wuhan virus is not really a help. It's getting replacement engines and having enough MRO facilities to do the remedial work.
 
jfk777
Posts: 7291
Joined: Tue Aug 22, 2006 7:23 am

Re: 25 Years of the RR Trent

Mon Mar 09, 2020 11:01 am

PM wrote:
kurtverbose wrote:
What's interesting considering they're a family of engines is the huge variance in quality and market success.

T800 - great quality, not great in the market


You are aware that on the first generation of 777 (prior to GE exclusivity), RR (with the T800) gained the largest share of the market?

777-200 -300 - 200ER:

RR 40%
PW 30%
GE 30%

"Not great in the market"? What does that say about the (original) GE90 or the PW4000?


Rolls had some huge clients for their 777-200 engine: AA, Cathay Pacific, Singapore Airlines, Air New Zealand and the second BA order of 772's.
 
kurtverbose
Posts: 579
Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2014 9:33 pm

Re: 25 Years of the RR Trent

Mon Mar 09, 2020 11:01 am

PM wrote:
You are aware that on the first generation of 777 (prior to GE exclusivity), RR (with the T800) gained the largest share of the market?

777-200 -300 - 200ER:

RR 40%
PW 30%
GE 30%

"Not great in the market"? What does that say about the (original) GE90 or the PW4000?


Yes, I am aware of that. It's a judgement call to say how successful it was in the market. I know it beat the other two, but it didn't stay on the platform like GE did.
 
T4thH
Posts: 879
Joined: Thu Jun 06, 2019 11:17 pm

Re: 25 Years of the RR Trent

Mon Mar 09, 2020 11:55 am

kurtverbose wrote:
What's interesting considering they're a family of engines is the huge variance in quality and market success.

T700 - great quality, big success
T800 - great quality, not great in the market
T500 - poor quality, poor in the market
T900 - ok quality, ok in the market
T1000 very suspect quality, mediocre so far in the market
TXWB - great quality, great in the market

Just shows, you need a great product and it needs to be installed on a great platform.

With the Trent 1000, it is not so easy. It is a family of three different engines.
- Trent 1000
- Trent 7000
- Trent 1000 TEN

Regarding the Trent 1000, we all are well aware of the bad quality. Also the production numbers are still low for the Trent 7000 and Trent 1000 TEN, but these two engines seems not to have the Trent 1000 issues, they seem to perform pretty well. The Trent 7000 is an upgraded version of the Trent 1000 ( so it is still a Trent 1000) and has many parts common but the Trent 1000 TEN is already a new engine
 
User avatar
Francoflier
Posts: 5178
Joined: Wed Oct 31, 2001 12:27 pm

Re: 25 Years of the RR Trent

Mon Mar 09, 2020 12:03 pm

LAX772LR wrote:
PM wrote:
A nice reminder

They could use one, about now. :(

I truly wonder if this is the "in" that PW has been waiting for, so far as getting back onto a widebody goes.


I think PW is wrangling its own demons at the moment...
I'll do my own airline. With Blackjack. And hookers. In fact, forget the airline.
 
StTim
Posts: 3650
Joined: Thu Aug 08, 2013 7:39 am

Re: 25 Years of the RR Trent

Mon Mar 09, 2020 12:03 pm

kurtverbose wrote:
PM wrote:
You are aware that on the first generation of 777 (prior to GE exclusivity), RR (with the T800) gained the largest share of the market?

777-200 -300 - 200ER:

RR 40%
PW 30%
GE 30%

"Not great in the market"? What does that say about the (original) GE90 or the PW4000?


Yes, I am aware of that. It's a judgement call to say how successful it was in the market. I know it beat the other two, but it didn't stay on the platform like GE did.


GE effectively paid for exclusivity on the later 777 versions. That was financial not market.
 
Dalmd88
Posts: 3072
Joined: Fri Jul 28, 2000 3:19 am

Re: 25 Years of the RR Trent

Mon Mar 09, 2020 2:06 pm

T4thH wrote:
kurtverbose wrote:
What's interesting considering they're a family of engines is the huge variance in quality and market success.

T700 - great quality, big success
T800 - great quality, not great in the market
T500 - poor quality, poor in the market
T900 - ok quality, ok in the market
T1000 very suspect quality, mediocre so far in the market
TXWB - great quality, great in the market

Just shows, you need a great product and it needs to be installed on a great platform.

With the Trent 1000, it is not so easy. It is a family of three different engines.
- Trent 1000
- Trent 7000
- Trent 1000 TEN

Regarding the Trent 1000, we all are well aware of the bad quality. Also the production numbers are still low for the Trent 7000 and Trent 1000 TEN, but these two engines seems not to have the Trent 1000 issues, they seem to perform pretty well. The Trent 7000 is an upgraded version of the Trent 1000 ( so it is still a Trent 1000) and has many parts common but the Trent 1000 TEN is already a new engine

Sorry to burst your bubble, the early build 7000 and the TEN have the same issues as the 1000. Shop visits are just beginning to ramp up.

Hopefully there are enough spare engines in the system so we will not see the mass groundings we saw with the 1000 program,
 
User avatar
Antaras
Posts: 528
Joined: Thu Aug 15, 2019 6:18 am

Re: 25 Years of the RR Trent

Mon Mar 09, 2020 3:06 pm

Now what RR needs to do is fixing the troublesome Trent 1000, as well as its brothers T7000 and the TEN.

Then, I can't wait the introduction of the Ultrafan (on the nextgen A350, I guess). There may be another Trent version for the A330's descedant (some clean-sheet aircraft to replace the current A330ceo/neo, hope that it will come in the next few decades)
Edit signature
This is a block of text that can be added to posts you make. There is a 255 character limit.
 
NZ321
Posts: 1204
Joined: Fri Jul 31, 2015 8:00 pm

Re: 25 Years of the RR Trent

Mon Mar 09, 2020 5:20 pm

Antaras wrote:
Now what RR needs to do is fixing the troublesome Trent 1000, as well as its brothers T7000 and the TEN.

Then, I can't wait the introduction of the Ultrafan (on the nextgen A350, I guess). There may be another Trent version for the A330's descedant (some clean-sheet aircraft to replace the current A330ceo/neo, hope that it will come in the next few decades)


And that will have its teething issues too, no doubt :)
Plane mad!
 
kurtverbose
Posts: 579
Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2014 9:33 pm

Re: 25 Years of the RR Trent

Mon Mar 09, 2020 5:52 pm

StTim wrote:
GE effectively paid for exclusivity on the later 777 versions. That was financial not market.


And it meant RR was off the platform. However way you look at it the T800 just wasn't as good a return for RR as the T700 was. RR bet on the A340 and the T500 and both the aircraft and the engine were lemons, which was a shame.

Hey, I'm not knocking RR, I'm an RR fan. It's amazing how the Trent strategy transformed the company from nearly being out of the civilian airliner business to being the biggest supplier in the widebody segment.

As for the T1000, look across the industry to see how much technical risk is out there. What has been really impressive is how RR has dealt with it. It's just a shame that the T1000 issues mean RR isn't having a stellar time right now, because they should be raking in the money.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 23446
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: 25 Years of the RR Trent

Mon Mar 09, 2020 5:55 pm

PM wrote:
RR have made a short but rather enjoyable video to mark the event.

A nice reminder that it hasn't all been T1000 woes.

https://players.brightcove.net/24682380 ... 0080786001

Pretty video, but not very intellectually stimulating. X times to the Sun and back is about as much content as they dared risk to offer.

What made Trent different than its predecessors?

Despite the RB211 success, the large civil turbofan market was dominated by General Electric and Pratt & Whitney, and Rolls-Royce share was only 8% when it was privatised in April 1987.[1] In June, Rolls-Royce was studying whether to launch a RB211-700, a 65,000 lbf (290 kN) development for the Airbus A330 twin-jet, the long-range Boeing 767 and the MD-11, derived from the 747-400's -524D4D, with growth potential to 70,000 lbf (310 kN).[2] By June 1988, Rolls-Royce was investing over $540 million to develop the uprated RB-211-524L with a new 95 in (240 cm) fan up from 86 in (220 cm) for the -524G/H and a fourth LP turbine stage up from three, targeting 65,000 to 70,000 lbf (290 to 310 kN).[3]

At the September 1988 Farnborough Airshow, the 65,000–72,000 lbf (290–320 kN) -524L development was confirmed, estimated at £300 million, to power the MD-11 and A330 as a full-scale model was unveiled by Frank Whittle.[4] In June 1989, the RB211-524L Trent was confirmed for the A330, rated at 74,000 lbf (330 kN).[5] Rated at 65,000 lbf (290 kN) for the MD-11, the Trent made it first run on 27 August 1990 in Derby.[6] By September 1992, the 94.6 in (240 cm) Trent 600 for the MD-11 was abandoned and prototypes were rebuilt as Trent 700 engines for the A330 with a 97.4 in (247 cm) fan.[7]

Ref: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rolls-Royce_Trent

It seems it was just a marketing name for a development of the RB211, with a bigger fan and a fourth LP turbine stage.

In essence we're celebrating 25 years of a new marketing strategy?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/River_Trent says:

The name "Trent" is possibly from a Romano-British word meaning "strongly flooding".

Hmmm... :scratchchin:
Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world
The heart has its beaches, its homeland and thoughts of its own
Wake now, discover that you are the song that the morning brings
The heart has its seasons, its evenings and songs of its own
 
StTim
Posts: 3650
Joined: Thu Aug 08, 2013 7:39 am

Re: 25 Years of the RR Trent

Mon Mar 09, 2020 6:15 pm

More like it was chosen to continue RR's naming process of UK rivers. Spey, Tay, Dart etc.
 
User avatar
ElroyJetson
Posts: 811
Joined: Fri May 26, 2017 5:04 am

Re: 25 Years of the RR Trent

Mon Mar 09, 2020 6:43 pm

The later versions of the RB211-535 were pretty damn good as well. Just saying......
707 717 727 72S 737 733 737-700 747 757 753 767-300 764 A319 A320 DC-9-10 DC-9-30 DC-9-50, MD-82 MD-88 MD-90 DC-10-10 DC-10-40 F-100
 
rbavfan
Posts: 3534
Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2015 5:53 am

Re: 25 Years of the RR Trent

Mon Mar 09, 2020 6:49 pm

kurtverbose wrote:
What's interesting considering they're a family of engines is the huge variance in quality and market success.

T700 - great quality, big success
T800 - great quality, not great in the market
T500 - poor quality, poor in the market
T900 - ok quality, ok in the market
T1000 very suspect quality, mediocre so far in the market
TXWB - great quality, great in the market

Just shows, you need a great product and it needs to be installed on a great platform.


The T500 was not of poor quality. It was just a limited market on a 4 engine plane vs the 777 and sales were low. The engine itself performed to spec.
The T1000 was popular until recent events hit it hard. It was never mediocre in the market.
 
rbavfan
Posts: 3534
Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2015 5:53 am

Re: 25 Years of the RR Trent

Mon Mar 09, 2020 7:11 pm

jfk777 wrote:
PM wrote:
kurtverbose wrote:
What's interesting considering they're a family of engines is the huge variance in quality and market success.

T800 - great quality, not great in the market


You are aware that on the first generation of 777 (prior to GE exclusivity), RR (with the T800) gained the largest share of the market?

777-200 -300 - 200ER:

RR 40%
PW 30%
GE 30%

"Not great in the market"? What does that say about the (original) GE90 or the PW4000?


Rolls had some huge clients for their 777-200 engine: AA, Cathay Pacific, Singapore Airlines, Air New Zealand and the second BA order of 772's.


Note also the BA 777 order with GE engines was to get out of a 747 order and they were frames that were already in manufacture spec'd for GE engines.
 
User avatar
PW100
Posts: 4097
Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2002 9:17 pm

Re: 25 Years of the RR Trent

Mon Mar 09, 2020 10:27 pm

Revelation wrote:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/River_Trent says:

The name "Trent" is possibly from a Romano-British word meaning "strongly flooding".

Hmmm... :scratchchin:


StTim wrote:
More like it was chosen to continue RR's naming process of UK rivers. Spey, Tay, Dart etc.


Where did the river(s) get their name from . . . :scratchchin:
Immigration officer: "What's the purpose of your visit to the USA?" Spotter: "Shooting airliners with my Canon!"
 
Arion640
Posts: 3011
Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2017 5:15 pm

Re: 25 Years of the RR Trent

Mon Mar 09, 2020 11:46 pm

rbavfan wrote:
jfk777 wrote:
PM wrote:
You are aware that on the first generation of 777 (prior to GE exclusivity), RR (with the T800) gained the largest share of the market?

777-200 -300 - 200ER:

RR 40%
PW 30%
GE 30%

"Not great in the market"? What does that say about the (original) GE90 or the PW4000?


Rolls had some huge clients for their 777-200 engine: AA, Cathay Pacific, Singapore Airlines, Air New Zealand and the second BA order of 772's.


Note also the BA 777 order with GE engines was to get out of a 747 order and they were frames that were already in manufacture spec'd for GE engines.


Yes, i think BA had something like 70+ 747-400’s on order originally.
1973-2020
 
strfyr51
Posts: 4702
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2012 5:04 pm

Re: 25 Years of the RR Trent

Mon Mar 09, 2020 11:57 pm

LAX772LR wrote:
PM wrote:
A nice reminder

They could use one, about now. :(

I truly wonder if this is the "in" that PW has been waiting for, so far as getting back onto a widebody goes.

Pratt is still producing the PW4000 series and it's on the K C-46 They can still produce the -4000 all the way up to the 4090 range and they may even be able to use the core with a GTF application.
 
eamondzhang
Posts: 1624
Joined: Thu Sep 23, 2010 8:23 am

Re: 25 Years of the RR Trent

Tue Mar 10, 2020 1:48 am

kurtverbose wrote:
PM wrote:
You are aware that on the first generation of 777 (prior to GE exclusivity), RR (with the T800) gained the largest share of the market?

777-200 -300 - 200ER:

RR 40%
PW 30%
GE 30%

"Not great in the market"? What does that say about the (original) GE90 or the PW4000?


Yes, I am aware of that. It's a judgement call to say how successful it was in the market. I know it beat the other two, but it didn't stay on the platform like GE did.

It did not stand purely because of commercial agreement between Boeing and GE, nothing to do with RR or airlines' choices.

Thus you cannot deny the successful of RR in the original 777 series.

Michael
 
User avatar
PM
Topic Author
Posts: 5238
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 5:05 pm

Re: 25 Years of the RR Trent

Tue Mar 10, 2020 8:00 am

ElroyJetson wrote:
The later versions of the RB211-535 were pretty damn good as well. Just saying......

A 60% market share on the 757 and the choice of 77% of the customers.

Just saying... ;)
 
User avatar
LAX772LR
Posts: 13029
Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2014 11:06 pm

Re: 25 Years of the RR Trent

Tue Mar 10, 2020 8:11 am

PM wrote:
LAX772LR wrote:
I truly wonder if this is the "in" that PW has been waiting for, so far as getting back onto a widebody goes.

What? Because RR have issues with one of their programmes?

May be one program, but it's taking yearrrrss to resolve, and doing no favors for RR's rep in the process.

Contrast that to PW, who had undeniable widebody screwups with the PW4173, PW4092, and PW4098... but the first two were pre-production and not brought to market, and the latter was on a single carrier, bought back, and replaced.

Whose to say which is less palatable, for a future bid? All I'm saying, is that it might just be the in that they need, to have OEMs/airlines take a fresh look.




StTim wrote:
GE effectively paid for exclusivity on the later 777 versions. That was financial not market.

Sorta. PW offered similar cost-sharing and investment in exchange for exclusivity, but didn't have what Boeing felt was a sufficiently-scaled core structure to build an engine in the time frame that they wanted. PW4098 foibles didn't help.

RR was the only bidder open to the idea of competition.




rbavfan wrote:
Note also the BA 777 order with GE engines was to get out of a 747 order

...an A.net tale that, two decades later, still refuses to die; despite even having a member (GDB) involved in the selection process, who explained otherwise.
I myself, suspect a more prosaic motive... ~Thranduil
 
kurtverbose
Posts: 579
Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2014 9:33 pm

Re: 25 Years of the RR Trent

Tue Mar 10, 2020 8:17 am

rbavfan wrote:
The T500 was not of poor quality. It was just a limited market on a 4 engine plane vs the 777 and sales were low. The engine itself performed to spec.


This from lowbank who works at RR: -

lowbank wrote:
I am also interested in the real use of a a340 as I worked on lots of T500 parts. Shame a late design change screwed it's fuel economy.


More details in this thread.

rbavfan wrote:
The T1000 was popular until recent events hit it hard. It was never mediocre in the market.


What's its market share? Never mind the various update packages it's had and then a complete revamp with the TEN to try and stay competitive with the GE engine.
 
User avatar
PM
Topic Author
Posts: 5238
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 5:05 pm

Re: 25 Years of the RR Trent

Tue Mar 10, 2020 8:29 am

kurtverbose wrote:

rbavfan wrote:
The T1000 was popular until recent events hit it hard. It was never mediocre in the market.


What's its market share?

37% over the first 1,000 frames built.
 
User avatar
PM
Topic Author
Posts: 5238
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 5:05 pm

Re: 25 Years of the RR Trent

Tue Mar 10, 2020 9:36 am

LAX772LR wrote:
PM wrote:
LAX772LR wrote:
I truly wonder if this is the "in" that PW has been waiting for, so far as getting back onto a widebody goes.

What? Because RR have issues with one of their programmes?

May be one program, but it's taking yearrrrss to resolve, and doing no favors for RR's rep in the process.

Contrast that to PW, who had undeniable widebody screwups with the PW4173, PW4092, and PW4098... but the first two were pre-production and not brought to market, and the latter was on a single carrier, bought back, and replaced.


... which, of course, did no harm at all to PW's reputation. :roll:

LAX772LR wrote:
PM wrote:
LAX772LR wrote:
I truly wonder if this is the "in" that PW has been waiting for, so far as getting back onto a widebody goes.


Whose to say which is less palatable, for a future bid? All I'm saying, is that it might just be the in that they need, to have OEMs/airlines take a fresh look.


Which would require ... what?

PW need to pull out of the hat an engine they don't have and Boeing and/or Airbus would need to believe that offered a less risky alternative than staying with RR.

OK. If you say so...
 
User avatar
Antaras
Posts: 528
Joined: Thu Aug 15, 2019 6:18 am

Re: 25 Years of the RR Trent

Tue Mar 10, 2020 1:25 pm

PM wrote:
kurtverbose wrote:

rbavfan wrote:
The T1000 was popular until recent events hit it hard. It was never mediocre in the market.


What's its market share?

37% over the first 1,000 frames built.


Bonus: with a few customers jumped to the other choice (including 788 launch-customer ANA and 789 launch-customer ANZ).

I won't surprise if RR still keeps under 40% until 787 line 2000 is rolled out.
Edit signature
This is a block of text that can be added to posts you make. There is a 255 character limit.
 
AirbusA6
Posts: 1644
Joined: Tue Apr 26, 2005 5:53 am

Re: 25 Years of the RR Trent

Tue Mar 10, 2020 4:05 pm

I imagine the Ultrafan will move on to another name, another river presumably, to show it's a completely different generation of engine

And after the superb T700 and T800, the current problems have slightly tarnished the Trent name too...
it's the bus to stansted (now renamed National Express a6 to ruin my username)
 
User avatar
JerseyFlyer
Posts: 1486
Joined: Fri May 25, 2007 7:24 pm

Re: 25 Years of the RR Trent

Tue Mar 10, 2020 5:04 pm

rbavfan wrote:

Note also the BA 777 order with GE engines was to get out of a 747 order and they were frames that were already in manufacture spec'd for GE engines.


My recollection is that the GE 777s ordered by BA were rumoured to be tied to GE buying BA's engine maintenance shop in Cardiff. Their later order for RR 777s replaced orders on Boeing's books for RR 747s.

Air Europe ordered RR MD 11s in the late 1980s but the deal fell through:

viewtopic.php?t=256837#p2701625
 
User avatar
LAX772LR
Posts: 13029
Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2014 11:06 pm

Re: 25 Years of the RR Trent

Wed Mar 11, 2020 3:15 am

PM wrote:
LAX772LR wrote:
PM wrote:
What? Because RR have issues with one of their programmes?

May be one program, but it's taking yearrrrss to resolve, and doing no favors for RR's rep in the process.

Contrast that to PW, who had undeniable widebody screwups with the PW4173, PW4092, and PW4098... but the first two were pre-production and not brought to market, and the latter was on a single carrier, bought back, and replaced.


... which, of course, did no harm at all to PW's reputation. :roll:

No one's claiming that it didn't.

The point, if you'll step outside of RR-defense mode for five seconds and take a dang breath, is that neither one is of sterling repute at the moment; so it wouldn't be surprising if in the future that a bid from Pratt (for any given widebody program) wouldn't be from so much of an outsider's standpoint as in the preceding decade.
I myself, suspect a more prosaic motive... ~Thranduil
 
User avatar
flee
Posts: 1257
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2009 8:14 am

Re: 25 Years of the RR Trent

Wed Mar 11, 2020 3:55 am

AirbusA6 wrote:
And after the superb T700 and T800, the current problems have slightly tarnished the Trent name too...

The Trent XWB seems to be doing fine and the Trent 7000 is looking promising....
 
User avatar
PM
Topic Author
Posts: 5238
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 5:05 pm

Re: 25 Years of the RR Trent

Wed Mar 11, 2020 8:41 am

LAX772LR wrote:

The point, if you'll step outside of RR-defense mode for five seconds and take a dang breath, is that neither one is of sterling repute at the moment; so it wouldn't be surprising if in the future that a bid from Pratt (for any given widebody program) wouldn't be from so much of an outsider's standpoint as in the preceding decade.

Dang breath (whatever that is) duly taken.

Ah, who knows? My impression is that all three (RR, PW, GE) are right up against the limits of what is currently possible. We just need the GE9 to stumble now and Airbus/Boeing won't know where to look.

I suppose I'm just saying that Trent 1000 woes don't significantly change things all that much. Airbus/Boeing are likely to look at any credible proposal for a new platform or a neo option on a current one. Didn't Boeing initially talk to all three engine manufacturers about the MoM/NMA? The Trent 1000 may knock a few chips off RR's reputation but I doubt if it's a game changer.

PW's wait to get back on a civil widebody will, I suspect, be a long one.
 
UA444
Posts: 2911
Joined: Sun Mar 09, 2014 7:03 am

Re: 25 Years of the RR Trent

Sun May 17, 2020 9:17 pm

PW could always get onto a NG 787 or A350. The GTF has had some early foibles but that is what new tech does. It’s absolutely met fuel efficiency promises and it’s scaleable. Being the only game for the 220 and E2 is going to pay dividends later.

Plus, it’s not like Boeing is in any position to pass judgment on any engine maker for hiccups. I suspect PW is closer to getting on a new widebody than we think.
 
Sokes
Posts: 1091
Joined: Sat Mar 09, 2019 4:48 pm

Re: 25 Years of the RR Trent

Tue May 19, 2020 6:26 pm

PM wrote:
Ah, who knows? My impression is that all three (RR, PW, GE) are right up against the limits of what is currently possible. We just need the GE9 to stumble now and Airbus/Boeing won't know where to look.

I wonder why Trent 1000 has trouble and Trent XWB doesn't. At any rate we learn by our mistakes. And while it's a headache now, the lessons learned are another step in making better engines.
Why can't the world be a little bit more autistic?
 
trex8
Posts: 5515
Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2002 9:04 am

Re: 25 Years of the RR Trent

Wed May 20, 2020 2:56 am

Sokes wrote:
PM wrote:
Ah, who knows? My impression is that all three (RR, PW, GE) are right up against the limits of what is currently possible. We just need the GE9 to stumble now and Airbus/Boeing won't know where to look.

I wonder why Trent 1000 has trouble and Trent XWB doesn't. At any rate we learn by our mistakes. And while it's a headache now, the lessons learned are another step in making better engines.

In some other thread or other someone made the comparison that the T1000 installation in the 787 is the equivalent of running a F1 sports car engine while running the XWB is more like running a V8 .
XWB is a decade of new technology beyond the 1000, the 1000 TEN is a 1000 with some XWB tech. The 7000 a 1000TEN architecture with bleed air.
 
Sokes
Posts: 1091
Joined: Sat Mar 09, 2019 4:48 pm

Re: 25 Years of the RR Trent

Fri May 22, 2020 9:06 am

T4thH wrote:
The Trent 7000 is an upgraded version of the Trent 1000 ( so it is still a Trent 1000) and has many parts common but the Trent 1000 TEN is already a new engine


trex8 wrote:
XWB is a decade of new technology beyond the 1000, the 1000 TEN is a 1000 with some XWB tech. The 7000 a 1000TEN architecture with bleed air.

About Trent 1000 TEN:
"It features a scaled version of the Airbus A350's Trent XWB-84 compressor,[10] and Advance3 core technology.[14] Fuel burn is reduced through its improved intermediate pressure compressor where the rear stages spin at higher speeds. Three blisk stages were introduced in the new compressor and 75% of its parts are new or changed from the 1000.[15]"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rolls-Roy ... t_1000_TEN

About blisks:
"Blisk production in Oberursel started in 1997, and it has grown continually ever since. Today the factory manufactures blisks for the TP400, BR725, Trent XWB, Trent 1000 TEN, Trent 7000 and Pearl 15 engine types."
https://www.rolls-royce.com/media/press ... ursel.aspx

Trent 1000 TEN and Trent 7000 have blisks, but Trent 1000 doesn't. I therefore conclude Trent 1000 TEN and Trent 7000 are the similar engines.


Nice page which explains the Trent 1000 troubles: https://www.rolls-royce.com/trent-1000-durability.aspx
Why can't the world be a little bit more autistic?
 
User avatar
flee
Posts: 1257
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2009 8:14 am

Re: 25 Years of the RR Trent

Fri May 22, 2020 9:30 am

Sokes wrote:
Trent 1000 TEN and Trent 7000 have blisks, but Trent 1000 doesn't. I therefore conclude Trent 1000 TEN and Trent 7000 are the similar engines.

Right at the very beginning, RR has announced that the Trent 7000 will be based on the Trent 1000 TEN.

The new Trent 7000 engine brings together:

Experience from the Trent 700 - the engine of choice for the current A330
Architecture from the Trent 1000-TEN - the latest version of the Trent 1000 engine
Latest technology from the Trent XWB - the world's most efficient large civil engine

https://www.rolls-royce.com/media/press ... 30neo.aspx

When development delays on the Trent 1000 TEN occurred, the Trent 7000 was similarly delayed.
 
T4thH
Posts: 879
Joined: Thu Jun 06, 2019 11:17 pm

Re: 25 Years of the RR Trent

Fri May 22, 2020 7:42 pm

flee wrote:
Sokes wrote:
Trent 1000 TEN and Trent 7000 have blisks, but Trent 1000 doesn't. I therefore conclude Trent 1000 TEN and Trent 7000 are the similar engines.

Right at the very beginning, RR has announced that the Trent 7000 will be based on the Trent 1000 TEN.

The new Trent 7000 engine brings together:

Experience from the Trent 700 - the engine of choice for the current A330
Architecture from the Trent 1000-TEN - the latest version of the Trent 1000 engine
Latest technology from the Trent XWB - the world's most efficient large civil engine

https://www.rolls-royce.com/media/press ... 30neo.aspx

When development delays on the Trent 1000 TEN occurred, the Trent 7000 was similarly delayed.


Oh ha...How to explain it on the most easiest way....https://www.easa.europa.eu/sites/default/files/dfu/TCDS%20E%20036%20issue%2015.pdf
The Trent 7000 has been certified by EASA as Trent 1000 variant.
The Trent 1000 Ten is not certified an Trent XWB variant. These are two completely different engines,and they have no to negligible common parts to the Trent 1000 and its variant, the Trent 7000.

The Trent 7000 is a Trent 1000 with bleed air and where several parts have been upgraded/new developed with technology, also used in the XWB or the TEN; so technology, this means, other up to date materials or coating technology e.g. And again; technology of the XWB and the TEN, not parts of the TEN or the XWB.

The Trent 1000 and the Trent 7000 have an identical architecture, same size of the fan, same components, same overall pressure ratio, same core e.g.

Result: A Trent 7000 is just an upgraded variant of the Trent 1000.
 
Sokes
Posts: 1091
Joined: Sat Mar 09, 2019 4:48 pm

Re: 25 Years of the RR Trent

Sat May 23, 2020 4:58 am

T4thH wrote:

The second last page of your link shows for 11.7.16:
"Introduction of models : Trent 1000-AE3, Trent
1000-CE3, Trent 1000-D3, Trent 1000-G3, Trent
1000-H3, Trent 1000- J3, Trent 1000-K3, Trent
1000-L3, Trent 1000-M3, Trent 1000-N3, Trent
1000-P3, Trent 1000- Q3, Trent 1000-R3"

On the same day EASA published this news:
https://www.easa.europa.eu/newsroom-and ... ten-engine

I doubt it's coincidence. I believe all engines are certified as variants. Do you have a link to a separate Trent 1000 TEN certificate?
Why can't the world be a little bit more autistic?
 
User avatar
Antaras
Posts: 528
Joined: Thu Aug 15, 2019 6:18 am

Re: 25 Years of the RR Trent

Sat May 23, 2020 1:21 pm

The Trent 1000 vs Trent 7000 are basically an iPhone with iOS 12 vs iOS 13.
Almost the same core, and the same issues.
Edit signature
This is a block of text that can be added to posts you make. There is a 255 character limit.

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