Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
767 With RR Engines - Why The Lack Of Orders?  
User currently online1337Delta764 From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 6386 posts, RR: 2
Posted (7 years 6 months 3 weeks 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 7350 times:

Why didn't RR engines sell very well with the 767? I believe that the only operators with RR engines on the 767 are BA and Qantas. I would think that maybe if the 767 were offered with RR engines earlier, it might have sold better. AA, a strong RR customer, ordered their 767s before RR engines were offered, and if the RB211 for the 767 were offered earlier, AA would have chosen RR engines for their 767s. Does anyone know the real reason why RR engines didn't sell very well on the 767 though?


The Pink Delta 767-400ER - The most beautiful aircraft in the sky
21 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineRJ111 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (7 years 6 months 3 weeks 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 7284 times:

Poor fuel burn, low thrust (PW4060 63K, GE CF6-80 62K, RB211 59K) late to market. China Eastern Yunnan Airlines also selected them, however i believe this was because they transfered RB211 selected 757 orders to 767s and wanted to avoid RR cancellation fees.... or something along those lines. These are now with MU. QF's were ex-BA, they ordered PW and GE on the -200 and -300 respectively, so they actually operated all 3!

If you search Tech/Ops there are some great posts by Lightsaber, PM et all on the subject.


User currently offlineAirbusA6 From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2005, 2004 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (7 years 6 months 3 weeks 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 7199 times:

RR were in a definite third place on the 747 too, and you suspect that many of the orders had a political bent too...it's hardly surprising that they powered so few 767s, especially as the 524-H was pushing the RB211-524 to it's limit.

It was touch and go whether RR could stay in the big fan race, but they developed the RB211-700 which became the various Trents, a far more competitive beast. Indeed, on the A330 and the 772ER, it became the market leader, a remarkable turnaround.



it's the bus to stansted (now renamed national express a4 to ruin my username)
User currently offlineTangowhisky From United States of America, joined Jun 2006, 903 posts, RR: 7
Reply 3, posted (7 years 6 months 3 weeks 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 7097 times:

Yes it is quite interesting that RR did so well on the 757 with an excellent engines, but so poorly on the 767 - especially, when both aircraft models were developed in the same time. But certainly good for RR to slowly turn things around over the last 15 years.


Only the paranoid survive
User currently offlineCf6ppe From United States of America, joined Mar 2006, 339 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (7 years 6 months 3 weeks 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 6832 times:

When an air carrier has the choice of engine selection for to be acquired new equipment, technical merits as well as maintenance (including repair/overhaul) costs are evaluated. These and other operational costs are extrapolated out for ten years or more and generally these costs are found to be somewhat similar. Then the financial folks get involved for who (i.e., GE, PW or R-R) has the best financial program, including start costs, repair/overhaul costs, warranty, and maybe give backs and guarantees. For instance, in the give back arena, one engine manufacturer agreed to overhaul another manufacturers B747 powerplants in order to get the new engine order. An example of guarantees could be fuel consumption of a competing brands similar engine model (two B757 operators) or guarantee powerplant time on wing and/or premature removal rates.

The above paragraph is a simplified version of some of the things that go on when an engine type is selected; it can be a fairly complicated process.

Certainly engine selection is more complicated that flipping a coin.  Smile


User currently offlineAA777223 From United States of America, joined Feb 2006, 1219 posts, RR: 7
Reply 5, posted (7 years 6 months 3 weeks 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 6788 times:

It should also be noted that the Trents were only offered on the 763ER. I realize this, of course, represents, by far, the greatest number of 767 deliveries. This is, however, significant as they may have found themselves more at home on the wings of a 762. After all, the 762 and the 753 are very similar in size and somewhat it weight.


Sic 'em bears
User currently offlineN1120A From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 26196 posts, RR: 76
Reply 6, posted (7 years 6 months 3 weeks 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 6768 times:

Quoting Tangowhisky (Reply 3):
Yes it is quite interesting that RR did so well on the 757 with an excellent engines, but so poorly on the 767

The RB211 was built originally for the L1011, which meant it was suited to the lower thrust needs of the 757 better than it was to upscaling for the 767.

Quoting AA777223 (Reply 5):
It should also be noted that the Trents were only offered on the 763ER

No Trent was ever built for the 767. The engine was the RB211



Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
User currently offlineAA777223 From United States of America, joined Feb 2006, 1219 posts, RR: 7
Reply 7, posted (7 years 6 months 3 weeks 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 6617 times:

You're right... Thats what I meant. Ooops!


Sic 'em bears
User currently offlineJetMech From Australia, joined Mar 2006, 2634 posts, RR: 53
Reply 8, posted (7 years 6 months 3 weeks 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 6409 times:

Quoting RJ111 (Reply 1):
Poor fuel burn, low thrust (PW4060 63K, GE CF6-80 62K, RB211 59K) late to market

Yes, yes, yes.... but absolutely nothing looks better under the wings of a 763 than a chunky pair of RR's  bigthumbsup . Bit of a struggle to change the pre-coolers, but that's another story.


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Weimeng
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Frank Schaefer




JetMech split the back of his pants. He can feel the wind in his hair.
User currently offlineRJ111 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 9, posted (7 years 6 months 3 weeks 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 6280 times:

Quoting JetMech (Reply 8):
Yes, yes, yes.... but absolutely nothing looks better under the wings of a 763 than a chunky pair of RR's.story

Not just the looks, the noise is also unbeatable.

  

http://www.flightlevel350.com/Aircra...h_Airways_Aviation_Video-3600.html
http://www.flightlevel350.com/Aircra...h_Airways_Aviation_Video-2640.html

[Edited 2006-09-26 12:31:20]

User currently offlineGeo772 From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2004, 519 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (7 years 6 months 3 weeks 3 days ago) and read 6227 times:

Quoting N1120A (Reply 6):
No Trent was ever built for the 767. The engine was the RB211

The Trent engine series is derived from the RB211. And is called the RB211 Trent by some organisations (UK CAA for one).

Newer RB211-524H engines gained a 'Trent' core which improves fuel burn and allows for higher thrust ratings. As a result the H rating of the engine is actually a derate from the maximum available. These engines are RB211-524H-T.
A further derate is used on the 747 to 'G' standard which allows for much longer periods of time on wing due to the lower stress on the engine.



Flown on A300B4/600,A319/20/21,A332/3,A343,B727,B732/3/4/5/6/7/8,B741/2/4,B752/3,B762/3,B772/3,DC10,L1011-200,VC10,MD80,
User currently offlineAirbusA6 From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2005, 2004 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (7 years 6 months 3 weeks 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 6110 times:

Very few RB211s were built to the -T standard, and none of BA's have been upgraded I think, so they have the original 524-H engine


it's the bus to stansted (now renamed national express a4 to ruin my username)
User currently offlineA342 From Germany, joined Jul 2005, 4675 posts, RR: 3
Reply 12, posted (7 years 6 months 3 weeks 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 6091 times:

Quoting N1120A (Reply 6):
The RB211 was built originally for the L1011, which meant it was suited to the lower thrust needs of the 757 better than it was to upscaling for the 767.

The engine for the 767/744 was not upscaled from the Tristar/747Classic model, it just was improved, the higher thrust being on of the results.

The engine for the 757 however is a downscale in size.



Exceptions confirm the rule.
User currently offlineBaroque From Australia, joined Apr 2006, 15380 posts, RR: 59
Reply 13, posted (7 years 6 months 3 weeks 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 5983 times:

My question is slightly different. Why do I never find myself in an ex BA 767 when flying Qantas. Always GEs. On which routes does QF use the rollers?

User currently offlineJetMech From Australia, joined Mar 2006, 2634 posts, RR: 53
Reply 14, posted (7 years 6 months 3 weeks 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 5785 times:

Quoting RJ111 (Reply 1):
Poor fuel burn, low thrust (PW4060 63K, GE CF6-80 62K, RB211 59K) late to market

Were the Rollers really that low in power RJ111? RR states that the 524H used on the B763 has a nominal thrust level of 60,600lbs.

http://www.rolls-royce.com/civil_aer...ts/airlines/rb211524/technical.jsp

IIRC, this is exactly the same nominal thrust as the CF6-80C2B6 used on most of QANTAS's GE powered B763's. I do seem to remember that some of the later GE powered QANTAS B763's had CF6-80C2B1F1's   fitted, which may have had 62,000lbs of thrust  . Nice flight-level 350 links BTW   .

[Edited 2006-09-27 10:02:02]


JetMech split the back of his pants. He can feel the wind in his hair.
User currently offlineGeo772 From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2004, 519 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (7 years 6 months 3 weeks 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 5724 times:

Quoting AirbusA6 (Reply 11):
Very few RB211s were built to the -T standard, and none of BA's have been upgraded I think, so they have the original 524-H engine

I'm not sure of the exact numbers but quite a lot of the RB211-524s that BA have do actually have the trent core.
All the engines on the 744 fleet are G rated, whereas all the engines on the 763 fleet are H rated.



Flown on A300B4/600,A319/20/21,A332/3,A343,B727,B732/3/4/5/6/7/8,B741/2/4,B752/3,B762/3,B772/3,DC10,L1011-200,VC10,MD80,
User currently offlinePM From India, joined Feb 2005, 6840 posts, RR: 64
Reply 16, posted (7 years 6 months 3 weeks 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 5714 times:

Quoting Geo772 (Reply 15):
All the engines on the 744 fleet are G rated, whereas all the engines on the 763 fleet are H rated.

Sitting in the cockpit of a BA 744 somewhere over Brazil in 1995 (ah, the good old days when you could go forward to wake up the Captain), I was told that the engine were interchangeable. One fleet (I assume the 747-400) "broke them in" for the other.


User currently offlineRJ111 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 17, posted (7 years 6 months 3 weeks 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 5702 times:

Quoting JetMech (Reply 14):
Were the Rollers really that low in power RJ111? RR states that the 524H used on the B763 has a nominal thrust level of 60,600lbs.

Hmm, You're right, Boeing say 59,500lbs. Still, i belive the RB211 burns something in the region of 3% more than the other 2, at least that's true when they're all on the 744. According to that same site the RB211 763ER has only a 5810nm range whereas the maximum is 6,100nms which supports that.

Perhaps if RR got onto the 767 from the beginning and got into service earlier we may have seen it get a few more orders from airlines operating a small 757 and 767 fleets, after all it is the only engine avilable on both. For example US air who have 23 757s with RB211s, and 6 GE powered 762ERs. In this situation the cost savings through one common engine may have overcame the higher fuel burn. But in a lot of airlines, like AA which was mentioned earlier, the large 757 (120 odd) and 767 fleet (80 odd) would have justified two seperate better performing engines.

I dunno how reliable the RB211 is on the 767. I know it was an absolute all enduring colossus on the 757, but this was mainly due to it being so overpowered and thus rarely stressed. Any ideas?


User currently offlineJetMech From Australia, joined Mar 2006, 2634 posts, RR: 53
Reply 18, posted (7 years 6 months 3 weeks 2 days ago) and read 5663 times:

Quoting PM (Reply 16):
Still, i belive the RB211 burns something in the region of 3% more than the other 2, at least that's true when they're all on the 744. According to that same site the RB211 763ER has only a 5810nm range whereas the maximum is 6,100nms which supports that.

Only 3%? RJ111? Thats actually a relief, as I always knew that the RB series of RR's had higher fuel consumption than the GE's and P&W's, and from some peoples posts on A'net, I imagined it was much higher than 3%. Hasn't this trend been eliminated or reversed with the Trent series of RR's?

Anyway, despite the slightly higher fuel consumption of the RR compared with say a GE, I do seem to remember that the RR was a more robust engine. From my personal experience, the limits for damage on such things as fan blades was more generous on the RR than the GE. I also remember some engine line mechanics telling me that a lot more components on a GE needed to be replaced at overhaul time.

Quoting PM (Reply 16):
I dunno how reliable the RB211 is on the 767. I know it was an absolute all enduring colossus on the 757, but this was mainly due to it being so overpowered and thus rarely stressed. Any ideas?

I dunno either, but I don't remember doing an inordinate number of RR engine changes compared with the GE or P&W. The RR was a little bit quicker to change as the thrust reverser came away with the engine. On the GE and P&W, you had to muck around and fit supports to the fan cowls, thrust reversers and core cowls as they stayed with the strut. With the RR, all you had to do was remove the fan cowls, which took about 10 minutes once you had the stands ready.



JetMech split the back of his pants. He can feel the wind in his hair.
User currently offlineTepidHalibut From Iceland, joined Dec 2004, 209 posts, RR: 6
Reply 19, posted (7 years 6 months 3 weeks 2 days ago) and read 5643 times:

Quoting RJ111 (Reply 17):
Hmm, You're right, Boeing say 59,500lbs

If we're going to get technical, the RB211-524H/H-T ETCDS says 59,450lb Net Thrust (60,600lb Bare Engine Thrust.) The 524G/G-T has equivalent numbers of 56,870 lb / 58,000 lb. The difference between the Net abd Bare numbers depends on what assumptions you include in the calculations. (The pass-off test will be done with an airmeter, which is less lossy than the real intake. You may get one thrust with a static engine, but with forward speed, the inlet total pressure will rise, as should thrust. etc) Boeing can have different assumptions from engine manufacturers, so quoting thrusts can be very tricky.

Quoting RJ111 (Reply 17):
Perhaps if RR got onto the 767...

I believe that the RB211-524G/H was never intended for the B767, but British Airways wanted a common engine for their B744s and B763's, so RR said yes. The "engines" are common between the two, tho' there are some differences in TRU cascades etc. However, the engine isn't suitable for the B757 : it's too heavy and too powerful. There, the best choice is the RB211-535, and there's practically 0% parts commonality with the RB211-524

Quoting RJ111 (Reply 17):
I dunno how reliable the RB211 is on the 767.

Obviously, RR PR Office can quote numbers, but on IFSDs, I believe they're pretty well identical at the moment.


User currently offlineRJ111 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 20, posted (7 years 6 months 3 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 5620 times:

Quoting TepidHalibut (Reply 19):
There, the best choice is the RB211-535, and there's practically 0% parts commonality with the RB211-524

Ohh really! Well forget what i said about commonality then. I wouldn't suggest putting a -524 on the 757. That thing would actually be a firework.

Quoting TepidHalibut (Reply 19):
Obviously, RR PR Office can quote numbers, but on IFSDs, I believe they're pretty well identical at the moment.

...to the PW 4060 and CF6-80 is that?

Ok, cheers for the info,
Rj111


User currently offlineA342 From Germany, joined Jul 2005, 4675 posts, RR: 3
Reply 21, posted (7 years 6 months 3 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 5499 times:

Quoting TepidHalibut (Reply 19):
There, the best choice is the RB211-535, and there's practically 0% parts commonality with the RB211-524

But the mechanics can easily switch to either engine with only minimal training, right ?



Exceptions confirm the rule.
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...
Wings - Why The Lack Of Paint? posted Mon Oct 15 2001 15:25:05 by VS744
Why Did MD Choose The RR Engines For The MD-90? posted Tue Jul 5 2005 17:14:18 by Brucek
Boeing 767-What Airlines Operate With RR Engines? posted Tue May 25 2004 20:38:02 by Btblue
RR Engines On The 767... posted Sat Dec 1 2001 17:31:55 by Scaredflyer21
WHY The Change Of CO 1636/1637 To Barbados posted Thu Jun 16 2005 20:55:05 by Aerofan
Why The Absence Of BA At EMA? posted Fri Apr 1 2005 10:03:03 by DFWLandingPath
Why The Demise Of The Long-haul Tri-jets? posted Sat May 8 2004 18:38:34 by Saab2000
The Lack Of Product Differentiation In The US posted Sat Aug 16 2003 18:19:04 by Jcs17
Why The Retirement Of L1011's And DC-10's? posted Fri Aug 3 2001 10:43:44 by Kcle
727 With RR Engines? posted Wed Jan 24 2001 23:39:05 by Gearup