Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
767 Question : Why RR Engines Were So Unpopular?  
User currently offlineAleksandar From Serbia, joined Jul 2000, 3241 posts, RR: 31
Posted (12 years 6 months 1 week 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 3765 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?

8 replies: All unread, jump to last
User currently offlineShenzhen From United States of America, joined Jun 2003, 1722 posts, RR: 1
Reply 1, posted (12 years 6 months 1 week 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 3651 times:

I believe you could say they lacked performance, were heavy, and reduced the value of the airframe in the re-sell market.

User currently offlineLutfi From China, joined Sep 2000, 823 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (12 years 6 months 1 week 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 3575 times:

Performamce not an issue, weight is.

User currently offlineJhooper From United States of America, joined Dec 2001, 6210 posts, RR: 11
Reply 3, posted (12 years 6 months 1 week 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 3547 times:

are you sure it wasn't an economic issue? The RR RB211 engine almost messed up the L-1011 program.

Last year 1,944 New Yorkers saw something and said something.
User currently offlineCancidas From Poland, joined Jul 2003, 4112 posts, RR: 10
Reply 4, posted (12 years 6 months 1 week 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 3449 times:

The RR RB211 engine almost messed up the L-1011 program.


"...cannot the kingdom of salvation take me home."
User currently offlineAaron747 From Japan, joined Aug 2003, 9280 posts, RR: 26
Reply 5, posted (12 years 6 months 1 week 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 3383 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
User currently offlineHa763 From United States of America, joined Jan 2003, 3739 posts, RR: 5
Reply 6, posted (12 years 6 months 1 week 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 3365 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

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.

User currently offlineRick767 From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2000, 2662 posts, RR: 50
Reply 7, posted (12 years 6 months 1 week 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 3274 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...
User currently offlineBiggles313 From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2000, 47 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (12 years 6 months 1 week 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 3155 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.

Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
767 With RR Engines - Why The Lack Of Orders? posted Mon Sep 25 2006 00:06:13 by 1337Delta764
Why Was The 747-300 So Unpopular posted Thu Feb 9 2006 07:28:35 by Flywithjohn
TK Fleet Question: Why Both Types Of Engines? posted Tue Sep 27 2005 15:09:23 by Aleksandar
Why Did MD Choose The RR Engines For The MD-90? posted Tue Jul 5 2005 17:14:18 by Brucek
Why Super-sonic Passenger Jets Are So Unpopular posted Tue Dec 21 2004 22:41:05 by Thrust
Cargolux: Why Both GE And RR Engines? posted Sun Jun 6 2004 03:01:24 by PanAm330
Boeing 767-What Airlines Operate With RR Engines? posted Tue May 25 2004 20:38:02 by Btblue
F100s,MD80s, 727s: Why So Unpopular With Airlines? posted Sat Apr 10 2004 10:26:41 by Aguilo
Why Were So Few A340-200s Built posted Thu Mar 4 2004 19:10:52 by AF022
RR Engines On The 767... posted Sat Dec 1 2001 17:31:55 by Scaredflyer21