The engine is certified right up to 84 so the 72 version should have been "a walk in the park" The thrust comes from the fuel and that depends on the central processor.
"Either it is a proven design, or it is not, and if not, it has no place bolted to a wing, only to a stand."
This 900 engine was designed to be experimental in service: whole raft of documentation tells us just that. Of course it had no place on a civil aircraft. No probs in military applics: see here
http://www.robots.ox.ac.uk/~davidc/p...eaerospace.pdf
Hell of a lot of work to do by RR and Airbus. Flight Aware has not published any flight times on the QFA12 service, probably cause they are only using minimum throttle and carry less payload. Not all the flights are A388s either, my guess is they send the B74s when they need to carry a real load. No wonder the Qantas B74s are munching engines, the are working hard!
From post#317:
"The focus of ACARE was to set a strategic research agenda aimed at meeting the environmental challenges set out in the European Aeronautics Vision for 2020. As a result, Rolls Royce (RR) and other companies in the aeronautical industry were faced with challenges including reducing fuel consumption and CO2 emissions by 50%, reducing external noise by 50%, reducing NOX emissions by 80% and reducing the environmental impact of manufacture, maintenance and disposal of aircraft-related products. At the forefront of responding to ACAREs pan-European research challenge is the ability of companies such as RR to investigate, through high-performance computing (HPC)-based simulations, innovative methods of design and operability of aircraft products."
A roundup flyer sheet:
Systems Analysis, Modelling and Prediction Group
Thats the design goal. Therein lies the clue to the T900 and its woes.
TURBINE D Yes I see the part. That looks like it was in a plastic state when it parted. Yes a fire.
When I was trawling through the internet I came across a very few references fom the USA to "modelling", I mean design modelling as applied to aerosapce engine.
The few that I did find were mainly published by NASA.
They were VERY conservative and made it clear that "a model" was just that "a model".
Would I be correct in thinking that the USA prefers the known to the unkown when it comes to aerospace turbofans?