« GM Introduces Saab 9-X E-85 Optimized BioHybrid Concept at Geneva Motor Show | Main | EU Project Designs Low Criteria Pollutants Ship »
Rolls-Royce Wins $2.6B Trent 1000 Order from Virgin Atlantic; The Two Launch Joint Environment Initiative
3 March 2008
 |
| Cutaway of the Trent 1000. Click to enlarge. |
Rolls-Royce won a $2.6 billion order for its Trent 1000 engines and associated services from Virgin Atlantic (VA). The company is also forming an environmental partnership with the airline to cut carbon emissions.
The Trent 1000 is the launch engine for all versions of the Boeing 787 Dreamliner (earlier post), which enters service in 2009. The VA order is for Trent 1000s to power up to 43 Boeing 787s and consists of 15 firm aircraft plus eight options and a further 20 purchase rights. VA will take delivery of its first Trent-powered 787 in 2011.
Producing a range of thrusts from 53,000 - 75,000 lb, a single version of the Trent 1000 will be certified to power all variants of the 787, the 787–8, 787-3 and 787-9.
The Trent-powered Boeing 787-9 Dreamliner will burn 27% less than an A340-300, resulting in an equivalent reduction in carbon emissions per passenger. The environmental initiative between Rolls-Royce and Virgin Atlantic will aim to identify further opportunities to reduce aircraft fuel burn through enhanced engine performance. Actions will be managed within the framework of the TotalCare agreement, under which Rolls-Royce assumes full responsibility for monitoring and maintaining the Trent 1000 fleet.
The Trent 1000 engine is a three-shaft high bypass ratio, axial flow, turbofan with low pressure, intermediate pressure and high pressure compressors driven by separate turbines through coaxial shafts. The LP and IP assemblies rotate independently in an anti-clockwise direction, and the HP assembly rotates clockwise, when viewed from the rear of the engine.
IP power offtake is unique to Rolls Royce’s 3-shaft engines and was developed specifically to optimize the Trent 1000 for the more-electric Boeing 787. The higher level of power (500 kW) is now extracted from the IP shaft, rather than the conventional HP shaft power offtake.
This improves handling and operability of the compressors, and allows the engine to run at higher efficiency lower idle speeds, contributing to lower fuel burn, especially in descent, according to the company.
Virgin Atlantic has a fleet of 38 aircraft—19 A340-600s, powered exclusively by the Trent 500; 6 A340-300s; and 13 B747-400s.
Orders have been placed for around 700 Trent 1000 engines by 23 customers, resulting in a market share of 42% on the Boeing 787.
Last week, Virgin Atlantic, in partnership with Boeing, GE Aviation and Imperium Renewables, a leading biodiesel producer based in Seattle, Washington, successfully flight tested a Boeing 747 equipped with GE engines using a 20% blend of a biojet fuel derived from babassu and coconut oil in one engine. (Earlier post.)
March 3, 2008 in Aviation, Fuel Efficiency | Permalink | Comments (9) | TrackBack (0)
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/22062/26757420
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Rolls-Royce Wins $2.6B Trent 1000 Order from Virgin Atlantic; The Two Launch Joint Environment Initiative:
Comments
This is the reason i feel that taxing aviation fuels wouldn't be a good thing. Aviation companies allready see that fuel is by far their highest cost and are doing everything they can to curb their fuel useage. It's not like normal people where gas makes up very little of their overall expenses for the year, for them on many(MANY MANY) flights it makes the difference between profit or not.
Posted by: Brad Godfrey | Mar 3, 2008 4:08:19 PM
Oh yeah lets tax everything because business is evil!!!!!!
Posted by: jaba | Mar 3, 2008 5:26:16 PM
The Trent 1000 is another derivative of the Trent series, while the competing GEnx is, for all practical purposes (granted it's the logical evolution of the GE90), is truely brand new, and utilizes a lot of new technologies, particularly composite materials.
Posted by: Dan A | Mar 3, 2008 7:13:53 PM
@ Brad Godfrey -
the point of kerosene taxes would be to rein in the growth of air traffic volume, especially for short-haul flights (less than ~300 mi). Capacity utilization on those flights is often poor, resulting in high CO2 emissions per passenger-mile. Other taxes could be cut to keep the total burden on the economy constant.
In many parts of Europe, high-speed rail services represent an ecologically attractive all-electric alternative to flying. However, for a variety of reasons, it is currently often more expensive to take the train. An even greener alternative to flying - at least for business users - is videoconferencing. The technology is still immature and unfamiliar, but the benefits in terms of travel time saved are substantial.
Note that the Trent engines discussed above are for long-haul aircraft that do not compete with trains. It's unlikely that such flights will be subject to CO2-related taxes any time soon, if only because of the thicket of international treaties protecting the industry against fuel taxes. The US in particular is adamantly opposed to any change in the status quo.
Posted by: Rafael Seidl | Mar 4, 2008 12:14:58 AM
Hopefully in the near future P&W will offer a GTF (geared turbofan) engine in this size range.
Posted by: gary | Mar 4, 2008 8:39:38 AM
It should not be a matter of fuel tax.
Polluters should pay for the pollution they create, not more and not less.
An aircraft (or a ground vehicle owner) with cleaner engines should pay less environment damage repair fees than the same unit with higher GHG engines.
Since GHG created is often proportional to the fuel used, a fuel tax may be the easier way to collect environment damage fees. Where it is not so, the owners could file a claim for refunds.
Posted by: Harvey D | Mar 4, 2008 8:55:03 AM
Ok I agree with charging extra taxes for short haul flights, however I live in Canada, the next nearest city is about 300-400 miles away(on my side of the country anyway) and we just don't have the train system that europe has(and if I were to take the train from Regina to Vancouver it would take days instead of a couple hours). So it's very hard at this point for me to justify to myself taking a train.
Posted by: Brad Godfrey | Mar 4, 2008 1:28:32 PM
... the owners could file a claim for refunds.
This isn't limited to payers of fuel tax; payers of any kind of tax can file such claims.
Imagine the joy of the junior clerk who feeds them to the shredder. The claims, I mean, not the payers. Not if they're still good for more, anyway.
Let the baby play with matches in the fuel storage room
Posted by: G.R.L. Cowan, hydrogen-to-boron convert | Mar 5, 2008 10:11:33 AM
Agree totally with Raphael. The developing techniques of 3D virtual videoconferencing are stunning.
As for airplanes, the problem isn't increased fuel efficiency of jets as opposed to cars. Unlike cars, jets have been on an upward spiral of efficiency since the 1960's. The problem is efficiency has been ate up by vast increases in air traffic.
Possibly the best hope of less aviation pollution is electricity in airport operations, & later, some of the proposed methods to power planes electrically, at least for early climbing stages.
Posted by: litesong | Mar 8, 2008 7:42:13 AM
