Talk:Rolls-Royce Trent/Archive 1

Sales table
This badly needs a table of sales by numbers sold of each variant and maybe subvariant papermaker (talk) 06:26, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Intro
The introduction has been edited for a reason, please do not undo it! (someone is) -- w2ch00 18:00, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I think you'll find that you accidently edited the introduction yourself! (see its history page) -- MightyWarrior 20:15, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * ha! sorry i'm new! --w2ch00

Not entirely sure how this works, but could maybe a disambiguation link be placed at the top referring to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rolls-Royce_Trent_%28turboprop%29 as I was looking for this and got very confused when finding references solely to modern turbofans.


 * Done, there was a hatnote in that article but not in this one, well spotted. There is a useful navigation box at the bottom of each Rolls-Royce engine article as well. Cheers Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by)    18:31, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Neutral Point of View
There are a number of statements in this article which appear to deviate from the npov rule. eg:

(in introduction): "'The Trent is the leading engine for the new generation of widebodied aircraft (with a 45% market share)'" This is lifted straight out of the RR web site; it needs more impartial justification than that!

(under Present Designation): "'The Trent's advanced layout provides lighter weight and better performance compared to ... other comparable competing engines.'" To say that Trent is better than the RB211 is one thing, but to assert superiority over competing products breaches npov unless the claim can be substantiated.

(under History): "'Trent's market share has wildly exceeded early Rolls-Royce market projections and has currently garnered more sales than its competitors (GE and Pratt & Whitney) combined, capturing more than 50% of the market for 2004.'" Wildly?? Why pick out sales in one year - 2004? This sentence sounds like a sales pitch for RR!

(under Triple Spool vs Twin Spool): "'Although inherently more complex than a typical twin-spool design, the superiority of this design shows at higher thrust ratings by the total improvement achieved.'" Superiority is subjective - I suggest advantage would be more appropriate. What is this "total improvement"?

"'Excellent development progress from the original RB211-22B to the current Trent engines has turned Rolls-Royce's higher thrust turbofans into performance leaders in their respective thrust rating classes, which translates into a market leadership figure of excess of 50% of all total widebody orders in 2004.'" Sounds like the sales pitch again, and we have a repeat of the 2004 claim.

Does anyone object if I edit these bits to remove the bias? --JCG33 19:18, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Since no objections, I've done it. --JCG33 18:06, 25 February 2007 (UTC)#

I think we could discuss, albeit briefly, the relative merits and disadvantages of a triple spool layout. For example, triple spool engines are more complex and therefore more awkward to maintain, however 3-shaft engines are shorter than equivalent 2 shafts, therefore they are more rigid and less prone to "shaft-whipping", which means shafts in a triple-spool last longer. etc etc etc. 88.107.202.225 01:45, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
 * There's already something in the Design section - feel free to edit! Alternatively, a more detailed discussion of issues not specific to the R-R Trent would sit better in the Turbofan article. --JCG33 20:04, 4 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Rolls-Royce claim a reduced degradation in performance over time compared with a comparable two-spool engine, i.e., a three-spool engine that has had extensive use will retain more of its original performance than a two-spool engine would. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.172.235 (talk) 19:15, 13 November 2018 (UTC)


 * WP:Wikipedia is not a forum, please back up your viewpoints with reliable sources.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 07:20, 14 November 2018 (UTC)


 * OK, here you are then: "In-service degradation is negligible because the RB211 is a short, rigid 3-shaft engine" and  " ... minimal fuel consumption deterioration in service ..." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.55.42 (talk) 10:02, 15 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Those are advertisements. WP:secondary source are preferred.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 08:30, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

History section
This section is now huge and has no subheadings. If I want to find out about the Trent 1000 I need to find the paragraph in History and then go to the Trent 1000 section to finish off. I think variant info needs to be grouped together in one section like it used to be, with only a very brief explanation of any changes to the Trent design for the variant included in History. Piquante 18:17, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Agreed - I've added subheadings to see if that improves things. You're right of course that by putting the history of each variant under History you then have to go elsewhere to see its technical details. On the other hand, if we just put the brief general stuff under History (essentially what I've now sub-headed Background), there will be alot of history that isn't under the History heading - which might also be confusing! Any views? --JCG33 18:06, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I've added the unabbreviated forms of HP,IP and LP to the history section. Please please please remember, whoever wrote or copied this part: when you can't avoid the use of abbreviations, make sure the reader gets a chance to find out what they STAND FOR!!! - by writing out the full variant and adding the abbreviation in parentheses the first time they appear. Cheers, David --129.247.247.238 13:01, 13 April 2007 (UTC)


 * There's a documentary about the Trent 1000 on YouTube entitled How to Build A Jumbo Jet Engine if anyone's interested;  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.4.57.101 (talk) 20:59, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Trent 800
The statement indicating that no airline is operating the engine with greater than 93,500 lbs thrust is incorrect. At least one airline operates the engine with a 95,000 lb thrust rating. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.174.22.27 (talk) 18:58, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Agree - Trent 895 has 95,000 lb thrust according to RR web site. Have therefore deleted.--JCG33 (talk) 20:36, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Reference 19
This has 'engiens'. Can this be corrected? 86.178.16.44 (talk) 23:54, 15 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Done, you could have fixed it yourself by editing it, no worries. It is actually not a reference but currently appears as an unreferenced statement or point of view from an editor, I have added a tag to it as it needs to be attributed to a source (or removed). Cheers. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by)    08:53, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Trent series specification table
Could someone please add the convert templates for SI units? I simply don't know where to find them (can anyone find any templates in Wikipedia?) or how to use them. Le Grand Bleu (talk) 04:46, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Rolls-Royce Trent. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20160106123150/http://www.rolls-royce.com/media/showPR.jsp?PR_ID=40508 to http://www.rolls-royce.com/media/showPR.jsp?PR_ID=40508

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at Sourcecheck).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 10:11, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Rolls-Royce Trent. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070902013214/http://www.atwonline.com/magazine/article.html?articleID=1086 to http://www.atwonline.com/magazine/article.html?articleID=1086
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgAD.nsf/0/28a1f5ba17de1ccc862576f500578b42/%24FILE/2010-07-01.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 12:17, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Rolls-Royce Trent. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121109180440/http://www.rolls-royce.com/energy/energy_products/gas_turbines/trent_60/ to http://www.rolls-royce.com/energy/energy_products/gas_turbines/trent_60/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 17:27, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Reversion of amended info re corrosion of fan blades
I reverted this undoing of my post about this subject. The replaced text is shorter, less informative, less detailed and more poorly sourced. Please discuss here if you have an issue with this. TonyClarke (talk) 22:58, 19 October 2019 (UTC)


 * The appropriate place for this info is in the Trent 1000 article where there is already a pretty large section on the subject, not here.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 00:00, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Incidents
There have been more incidents than the 2008 incident. Look at the Wikipedia Trent 1000 page re the Rome incident this year, and a search for Trent 1000 incidents brings up many more. E.g. Newzealand 2017. Leaving these out compromises our NPOV policy, and potentially misleads readers. TonyClarke (talk) 09:53, 29 October 2019 (UTC)


 * The Trent 1000 has its own article, likely that the other incidents are not noteworthy. MilborneOne (talk) 11:13, 29 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Not noteworthy? Have you checked the flight magazines and news articles? the Trent 1000 debacle has almost brought the organisation to its knees. It certainly has figured in the industry and general press, and so must by any definition be noteworthy. Scattering engine debris over Rome not noteworthy??Why are editors so resistant to any negative info on this subject?

TonyClarke (talk) 20:01, 29 October 2019 (UTC)