Talk:Rolls-Royce Trent

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] 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

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)