Home

Can someone tell me something interesting about Rolls Royce jet engines? (I have an interview coming up..)?

Apr 04, 2007 by Josh | Posted in Financial Services

Mention this (see link below)... why would you even know about it (or remember it was a Rolls-Royce engine) unless you were a genuine Rolls-Royce tecnology fan?

(Unless you had picked it up on Yahoo!Answers, LOL!)

Good luck

How Do They Do It: Jet Engines

how they make rolls royce jet turbine engines *Disclaimer* This is not my video and I own it in no way.

Jet Engine containment test - Rolls Royce Trent 500

Containment test done on the Rolls Royce Trent 500. This test is to ensure than no engine fragments escape from the engine casing following an ...

Jet Engine Backyard - Ep 1 (4:3)

Link to new HQ Widescreen version of this video. www.youtube.com In 1986 two school friends made a simple backyard jet, maybe this was the start ...

Mushroom Exit Button

The Boeing 757

I

Increasing demand on existing Boeing 727 routes, which often eclipsed the capacity of even the stretched, -200 series version, coupled with advanced technology, dictated the need for either a larger variant of this venerable tri-jet or an altogether new design.

The first attempt, adopting the former approach, had featured a fuselage sufficiently stretched to accommodate 189 passengers and three refanned, higher-capacity Pratt and Whitney JT8D-217 engines, each developing 20,000 pounds of thrust.  Designated the 727-300B, it first appeared at the 1975 Paris Air Show in model form.  Despite initial interest from United Airlines, carriers had felt that it needed quieter, still-more advanced powerplants.

A fundamental redesign, retaining the 727’s nose, forward fuselage, and t-tail, and designated “7N7,” featured a further fuselage stretch and a new technology wing, mated, like the much smaller 737, to two pylon-mounted engines, of which the Pratt and Whitney JT10D-4, Rolls Royce RB.211-535, and General Electric CF6-32 had then been considered.  Although it had been intended, like its inceptional counterpart, for one-stop transcontinental sectors, its wing contained sufficient fuel tank volume for eventual, long-range deployment.

Because widebody comfort had been well received by passengers on intercontinental routes, one iteration had briefly explored a wider fuselage cross section for twin-aisle, 180-passenger accommodation.  The concept would have satisfied two needs: 1). It would have offered increased comfort, and therefore been more competitive with the then-pending Airbus Industrie A-300 on relatively short US domestic sectors, and 2). It would have avoided the excessively long fuselage needed to cater to any future capacity increases, obviating the requirement for long undercarriage struts to maintain proper take off rotation angles.

The envisioned width, however, had been too much of a payoff for these advantages, as evidenced by weak airline interest, since the weight and drag associated with a second aisle and only one more seat abreast had been impractical, and its cross-section, although wider than that of the 7N7, had still been too narrow to accept standard LD-3 baggage and cargo containers.

Read more...