The Trent 800 is a wind or air moving device. The MT30 turns a 40 Mwh generator. Where you are getting confused, I think, is that they share certain concept commonalities. They do not share parts, at all. You may prove me wrong, but I sincerely doubt it.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Electric cars head toward another dead end
- Thread starter RockX
- Start date
The Trent 800 is a wind or air moving device. The MT30 turns a 40 Mwh generator. Where you are getting confused, I think, is that they share certain concept commonalities. They do not share parts, at all. You may prove me wrong, but I sincerely doubt it.
cancel2 2022
Canceled
The Trent 800 is a wind or air moving device. The MT30 turns a 40 Mwh generator. Where you are getting confused, I think, is that they share certain concept commonalities. They do not share parts, at all. You may prove me wrong, but I sincerely doubt it.
I quote.
The MT30 gas turbine is derived from the Rolls-Royce Trent 800 aero engine which powers the Boeing 777 aircraft, with around 80 per cent of the parts being the same.
I quote.
Impossible. Do you have anything beyond that "quote" from you to back that up? Remember, Tom, I've spent a lot of my life around power houses and in the aircraft business. They don't co-relate well. Altogether different animals.
cancel2 2022
Canceled
Impossible. Do you have anything beyond that "quote" from you to back that up? Remember, Tom, I've spent a lot of my life around power houses and in the aircraft business. They don't co-relate well. Altogether different animals.
http://www.rolls-royce.com/news/pres...ft_carrier.jsp
According to the article the unit weighs 120 british tonnes. Are you even beginning to understand the engineering dilemma of the parts question? While the article does state that 80% of the parts are the same I would submit to you and anyone else that is impossible. The sheer bulk of an MT30 would require about 15 Trent 800's to lift it. In short, go look at some of these devises. It's really just that simple.
cancel2 2022
Canceled
According to the article the unit weighs 120 british tonnes. Are you even beginning to understand the engineering dilemma of the parts question? While the article does state that 80% of the parts are the same I would submit to you and anyone else that is impossible. The sheer bulk of an MT30 would require about 15 Trent 800's to lift it. In short, go look at some of these devises. It's really just that simple.
Well you seem to be saying that Rolls Royce is lying, exactly why would they do that? Are you saying that the US Navy and the Royal Navy are gullible fools?
Last edited:
Well you seem to be saying that Rolls Royce is lying which is just crazy.
I am not saying they are lying. I AM saying that someone has made some very serious mistakes in calculations and information and it appears to me that it is you that is somehow considering the US Navy and the Queens Navy as being somehow gullible or even stupid. SHAME ON YOU!!!!!!!!!!!
Last edited:
Well you seem to be saying that Rolls Royce is lying which is just crazy.
dupe
Well you seem to be saying that Rolls Royce is lying, exactly why would they do that? Are you saying that the US Navy and the Royal Navy are gullible fools?
Please consider this, Tom. The MT30 weighs in at 120 british tonnes. The Trent 800 weighs in at approximately 6 british tonnes. The MT30 has solid blades and the Trent has hollow blades. The MT is heavy walled and bolted to a substantial flooring. The Trent hangs off the very fragile wing of an aircraft. The MT is a turbo shaft design where the Trent is a turbo fan design. In other words, one is designed to turn a shaft for heavy load power demands while the other is designed for the comparatively simple movement of air. Fuel nozzles are totally different. Cooling considerations are totally different. Turbine size and weight are totally different. The MT's are being used in ships for only a 2/3's total requirement of expected power demand. That would be TOTALLY UNACCEPTABLE in any aircraft environment. This is not to say they don't share commonalities in concept but it certainly says there is NO WAY IN HELL they share the same parts or even expectations of reliability. Engineering 101 would laugh out loud at even the suggestion of such.