The 777X: Trent 1000s or Not??

Video of the 777X with the Rolls Royce Trent 1000s:

However, the photo on boeing.com doesn’t have them?
http://www.boeing.com/commercial/777x/

And on the thumbnail of the YouTube video, that doesn’t have the Trent 1000s either??

There must be something I’m not knowing… xD Are there different variants to the 777X? Will the 777X have the Trent 1000s? Somebody, please tell me.

3 Likes

Rolls can’t produce the power of GE hence why there’s only one engine that powers the 777-300ER. GE has a proven record of reliability at high power ratios… I expect Boeing as mentioned in the video to stick to GE and GE only for their new flag ship.

Best,

HD

Aren’t they using GEnx?

1 Like

I have to disagree with you @Heavydriver rolls Royce are very good building engine And they are most trusted and more power full

4 Likes

There are 2 variants 777x-8 777x-9

It’s not always about how much thrust an engine can produce. If you have a 71m wingspan it’s obious you don’t need 115k lbs of thrust. That’s why they get away with 105k lbs thrust for the GE9X. And with a thrust/ weigth ratio of more than 0.3 the GE90 is a bit of an overkill for the B777. 0.28-0.3 is a common ratio among engines. And as always SFC before thrust.

Rolls Royce are not more powerful. The GE90s on the 77W output 115,000lbs or thrust which is the highest rating of any engine to date.

1 Like

That a lot but… More power needs more fuel

That sir is in incorrect statement!

Alex,

You lose one engine on a 800,000 lb airplane in Denver in the middle of summer with temps in the 90s and trying to avoid a mountain and you actually make it with the power ratio you quote and I’ll believe you. 777s are heavy performers but there’s a reason they give them so much power. Lift, drag, high altitude aerodynamics of the fan blades, the list goes on in what goes into designing an engine.

You can Always reduce power with a De-Rate, you can’t make up power you don’t have.

Best,

HD

RR engine flaw caused the first 777 haul loss in short final into Heathrow… Give me a Pratt or a GE any day over a RR. There are more GE engines flying around the world than RR. Even the military trust GE with their tank killer A-10 warhog!

All of the big three had, and still have the ability to build engines that are reliable and produced that level of thrust.

GE was chosen in a large part because they offered Boeing a deal they could not refuse. In short they said: Give us engine exclusivity and we’ll give you a large payment to go towards developing the airframe. Who would refuse that.

Only having one engine type keeps development costs down as no need to design multiple pylons, nacelles, fuelling and cooling systems.
Also it allowed GE to optimise the GE90 and spend more on it, as they knew Rolls Royce and P&W would not be taking away market share.

Rolls Royce did a very similar thing with the A350.

1 Like

Jus want to point out @Heavydriver that which company provides the engines for the biggest passenger plane ever built… Rolls Royce…

This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.

3 Likes

I am afraid to say that you incorrect sir. It’s actually the tent-900 that provide the power for the A380 :)

This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.

Psssst… it uses both. Handbags down gentleman… and relax

I’ll be graduating High School in 2020!

#USA

1 Like

Yeah it’s both:) may I also point that the topic you have jus now… Who ever made that topic has got the information from Wikipedia and Wikipedia and can wrong… PS I fighting or anything… I am jus debating… :)

http://www.rolls-royce.com/customers/civil-aerospace/products/civil-large-engines/trent-900.aspx#overview