Aleksandar From Serbia, joined Jul 2000, 3229 posts, RR: 35 Posted (9 years 6 months 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 2059 times:
I was just wondering recently : Why RR engines were not that popular among 767 costumers. There were only two airlines ever to order 767-300 with that type of engine: British Airways and China Yunnan?
Is something wrong with their performance or what was the problem?
Aaron747 From Japan, joined Aug 2003, 7619 posts, RR: 28 Reply 5, posted (9 years 6 months 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 1677 times:
Development delays. The RB211 was a proven powerplant on the 747 prior to the 767 program and was the launch engine on the 757. Though it's worth noting, the same variant that found initial popularity on the 747-400 but later fell out of favor to GE due to long-range performance, the -H, was also that used on the 763.
If you need someone to blame / throw a rock in the air / you'll hit someone guilty
Ha763 From United States of America, joined Jan 2003, 3492 posts, RR: 6 Reply 6, posted (9 years 6 months 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 1659 times:
A short explanation:
The development of the RB211 fell behind schedule due to technical difficulties. This and other economic problems caused RR to collapse financially. It took a bailout by the British government to get the RB211 program back on track. With the RB211 being the sole engine supplier for the L-1011, it really hurt the program and carriers switched their orders to the DC-10 also causing the L-1011 to be a money loser for Lockheed and their final push out of the commerical airliner business.
Rick767 From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2000, 2662 posts, RR: 52 Reply 7, posted (9 years 6 months 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 1568 times:
In short the RRs result in a couple of hundred kilos extra weight on the 763, but performance is no issue and fuel burn is comparable with the PW / GE models.
BA benefit from common streamlined maintenance and the ability to swap 763 engines with their 744 ones (also the RB.211-524H).
I used to love the smell of Jet-A in the morning...
Biggles313 From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2000, 47 posts, RR: 0 Reply 8, posted (9 years 6 months 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 1449 times:
You can definitely say that the original RB.211 was late and heavy and that this "almost destroyed" the TriStar programme. RR was much smaller than either of its US rivals and had no military contract on which to develop high-bypass engines, didn't understand the big US market and took too many risks. Performance-wise, all the early big engines were dreadful...
You simply can't compare any of them to the later derivatives, particularly the -524.
BA wanted fleet commonality between the 74 and 76... The engine has done well in the 747, for which it was designed. However, BA found itself operating its 767's on very short routes, such as London-Paris. The engines were optimised for long-haul use, and of course were less suitable.
Sponsor Message: 
From Serbia, joined Jul 2000, 3229 posts, 
From United States of America, joined Jun 2003, 1701 posts, 
From China, joined Sep 2000, 696 posts, 
From Poland, joined Jul 2003, 4112 posts, 
From Japan, joined Aug 2003, 7619 posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2000, 2662 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
