Why does Rolls Royce manufacture the engines for Airbus and Boeing?
Adding to the excellent answers by Nelson, Dan, and Martin, here is a counter-question: how was Rolls-Royce shut out from the hottest engine competition in this decade - the race to power the Boeing 737 MAX and the A320neo?Both are single aisle aircraft. This size of aircraft is the most bought in the last 5 years. Sales are even now soaring. Airplane manufacturers think this is the best thing that happened since sliced bread!The competition on the A320neo is between the Pratt & Whitney PW1000G family of geared fans, and the CFM Leap engine. CFM is a joint venture of GE and French company SNECMA. (In France, if any company name starts with "SN", you can be sure it is "Société Nationale "!)The Boeing 737 MAX is offering only the CFM International LEAP-1B engine.The point is, why is Rolls-Royce out of this lucrative and long term market? Because they specialized!
Could the A380 be engined with the Trent 1000 or the GEnx? They produce around the same level of thrust and weigh less.
Yes, of course. And no doubt Airbus have made that calculation more than once. If they have decided not to, it will be because the significant cost of re-engining would not be repaid be the limited gains in fuel efficiency, spread over a small - and not growing - number of airframes.There were vastly more persuasive cases to be made for re-engining the USAAF’s fleet of B52 s, and of KC-135 Stratotankers. By 1990, the fuel economy, reliability and service improvements would have been spectacular. But neither occurred.My guess is that the B777 will be last metal airframe found worth re-engining.
Which one is safer: an Airbus A330-200 or Boeing 777-200?
Interesting, cause these two are not quite comparable in terms of seat capacity. Actually the Airbus A330–300 (~250 seats) happens to be a better competitor to the 777–200 (~400 seats).Well, we can listen to some statistics on this issue. Before you’re getting too confused I will just compare the main models (all A330’s vs. all B777’s). All data is based on recorded cases most veriefied via international accident investigating authorities like NTSB, BEA, AAIB, etc...We analyzed over the course of the last 3 decades - which includes the lifetimes of both programmes - all major accidents and serious incidents that occured worldwide.Here’s what we have found (as of Early Sep 2016):Airbus A330: 201 cases, 10 hull loss accidents, 80 serious incidents and 111 other significant incidents, total fatalities: 340__________________Boeing 777: 168 cases, 7 hull loss accidents, 66 serious incidents and 96 other significant incidents, total fatalities: 540S: Jacdec-Database ServicesThough the Boeing 777 has got fewer hull losses accidents (meaning the aircraft was destroyed or damaged beyond repair) its fatality number is significantly (+59 %) higher than the causalties of the Airbus A330. Apart from a fatal test accident of one of the A330 prototypes in 1994, both aircraft got three fatal accidents during their operational life.__________________Main causal factor analysis yields the following:Airbus A330 (111 cases where a final cause has been established)Crew / human factors: 52 cases (46,8 %)Maintenance / technical: 26 cases (23,4 %)Weather factors: 24 cases (21,6 %)Boeing 777 (86 cases where a final cause has been established)Crew / human factors: 49 cases (57,0 %)Maintenance / technical: 21 cases (24,4 %)Weather factors: 13 cases (15,1 %)Just one more thing left to say -> Production numbers.Airbus A330 = 1290 (Sep 2016 incl. military variants) / Boeing 777 = 1450 (Sep 2016, incl. military variants)So which one is safer ?Depends on what parameters you like to internalize. Despite four high death toll-accidents (2 of each model), both aircraft have proven over the years that they are absolute modern, reliable and safe aircraft designs.
How many horsepower is a Boeing 747 Jet?
If you’re talking about the 747- 8, Introduced in 2008 - The latest of the 747 LineYou’re talking about the General Electric’s GEnx Engines, No the 1b used on the 787, but the 2b.Each engine produces 66500 pounds of thrust on take offIt is not really possible to directly compare thrust to horsepower. The thrust numbers quoted by engine manufacturers are usually for static thrust at takeoff. Horsepower is defined as the ability to do 33,000 foot-pounds of work in one minute. The problem is thrust is a static number, if the engine is bolted into a test stand and is roaring away making 115,000 lbs of thrust (I believe this is what the newest 777 engines are rated at), no movement is occurring and the engine is creating zero horsepower.Since horsepower is a measure of the ability to do work (work = force x distance) then some movement must occur.If you want a quick answer:One HP = 33,000 foot-lbs in one minute, so...33,000 foot-lbs / 5280 (how many feet in a statute mile) = 6.256.25 x 60 (60 minutes = 1 hr) = 375So, the short answer is that at 375 mph, 1 lb of thrust = 1 hpTherefor 66500 Pounds of thrust for 4 engines generates:266000 Horse power traveling at around half of the cruise speed, using takeoff thrust data.