Tupolev154B2 From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 1332 posts, RR: 2 Posted (12 years 9 months 3 weeks 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 1520 times:
Why did Pratt and Whitney fail to pick up much market share for the 757 while Rolls-Royce for the 767? Did the politics of buying American engines result in the highest market of PW-powered 757's being in the U.S.?
King767 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 1, posted (12 years 9 months 3 weeks 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 1424 times:
Politics had nothing to do with anyting here. Actually, the US 757 engine market is really split up with CO, AA (2end largest 75 operator), and US using the RB211. Others including National, North American, Eastern, which is not with us anymore, and ATA. Actually, the P+W2000 had developmental problems, thats why we see 757 operator like Condor, UPS, and ATA switching to RB211 powered 757s. P+W users include UA, DL (Largest 757 operator) and UPS (Now ordering RBs). There are actually few operators of P+W 757s in the US, you just see the 2000 popular in the US because these carriers happen to operate large numbers of them.
As for the RB on the 767, RR entered the game late, finally hanging RBs under 763 wings with, who else, BA. The only other original RB 763 operator is China Yunnan Airlines, which operates 3 examples. Currently, because of BAs efforts to lessen its fleet, over the fact of declining passanger numbers, BA is leasing RB211 powered 763s to QF (Quite strange seeing QF uses GEs on its 763s). Now, the main reason why the Rb211 is so unpopular with 767 operators, is the fact that the engine is substancially heavyer than its competitors, and because of this, cracks were found on the pylons on BA 763s. Modifications have been made to fix this.
Hope it helps.
Tupolev154B2 From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 1332 posts, RR: 2 Reply 2, posted (12 years 9 months 3 weeks 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 1393 times:
Thanks. What other PW-powered 757 operators are there around the world besides Ethiopian and Aeromexico? How many years did UPS and ATA have experience with PW's before they ordered RR's? From the archives here I never noticed any PW ATA 757's. Is the RB211-524 engine on the 767 the same exact engine as the one on the 747-400 or is it a smaller derivative? I know that these are a lot of questions, but I hope someone can help. Thanks.
King767 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 3, posted (12 years 9 months 3 weeks 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 1384 times:
Other P+W 757 Operators: NW, TWA, LAPA, Finnair, Shanghai Airlines, FAT (Far Eastern Air Transport (Taiwan), RAM. Did I forget any? UPS received thier first 757PF in 1987, and sometime in the mid 1990s, they switched all further orders to the RB211. The P+W 757PF will stay in the fleet though. ATA leased thier first 757s in the early 1990s, and these were all returned sometime after 1995 for RB 757s.
The 744 can use RB.211-524Gs(58,000lb), -524Hs(also 58,000lb), or -524G/HTs(59-60,000lb) which use the Trent core. The 763 uses the RB.211-524Gs (60,000lb).
Woodsboy From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 1023 posts, RR: 3 Reply 4, posted (12 years 9 months 3 weeks 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 1381 times:
The 747-400 and 767 have the same GE CF6, PW 4000 series and RB211 engines, roughly the same power rating although there are so many variations that you cant say "exactly the same". I do know that the GE CF6 50 series are the same on the 767, 747-400 and MD11.
Wjcandee From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 4787 posts, RR: 17 Reply 5, posted (12 years 9 months 3 weeks 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 1385 times:
According to Bill Harms's Commercial Jet Aircraft Census, the complete list is Shanghai Airlines, FAT, Royal Air Maroc, Condor (about 1/2, the older ones), Ethiopian, US Air Force VC32As (VIP planes), Delta, NW, United, UPS (part), Finnair, Dutchbird, Aeromexico and Mexicana.
As to the ATA planes, ATA initially leased several 757s with Pratt engines, which they unloaded. I think that this happened when they pulled back on scheduled service during a recession, but I could be wrong about that. In any event, Delta picked up several, and still flies 750AT, 751AT, 752AT and 757AT, still with the ATA tail numbers. The other ATA birds (764AT, 755AT and 756AT are all flown by Mexicana, with new tail numbers).
Bill Harms' site is at: http://www.bird.ch/bharms/asr_sh00.htm
It's a fun place to look around, and is updated monthly.
RayChuang From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 7863 posts, RR: 5 Reply 8, posted (12 years 9 months 3 weeks 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 1365 times:
Actually, GE almost had a 757 engine: they had proposed the CF6-32 rated at 38,000 lb. thrust. Unfortunately, no airlines wanted the engine, so the project was dropped.
The CF6-80 series is actually pretty popular, found on quite a lot of widebody jets built since the early 1980's.
You know, I'm surprised that GE didn't do a derated version of the GE90 engine rated at 73K-74K thrust. That could have been a candidate engine for the proposed 747-500/600 series and also now the A380.
Gt1 From United States of America, joined Feb 2001, 133 posts, RR: 0 Reply 9, posted (12 years 9 months 3 weeks 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 1345 times:
If I recall my facts correctly, the PW2000 had better fuel efficiency than the RB211-535C, so that influenced many US operators. However, with the introduction of the -535E4, RR regained an edge in thrust and fuel efficiency. Most importantly, RR probably has a significant advantage in reliability, as evidenced by the fact that some carriers have switched to the RB211, (as mentioned above) while others wish they had the RR instead of the PW.
As for the 767 and the RB211-524, (which other than thrust rating and "engine build up" should be identical to the 747-400 installation) I believe RR just wasn't as aggressive then, as they are today, about getting an engine on every airplane, so they waited for someone to ask for it (BA). As for pylon cracks with the RB211, that is a problem on the 767 regardless of engine type.
King767 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 10, posted (12 years 9 months 3 weeks 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 1337 times:
First time I have heard of engine cracks on pilons other than RB.211 powered 76s. All I know that the RB had the biggest problem. But again, as I said, these problems have been fixed with proper modifications.
EnginesRUs From United States of America, joined Aug 2000, 82 posts, RR: 0 Reply 19, posted (12 years 9 months 3 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 1265 times:
Gt1 - RR does not have either a thrust or fuel efficiency advantage on the 757 (in fact, the reverse is true). It did have a significant reliability advantage in past years but that advantage has gone away with time...
FLY DC JETS From United States of America, joined Feb 2000, 199 posts, RR: 0 Reply 21, posted (12 years 9 months 3 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 1254 times:
PW has SLOWLY (too slowly-that's why they have no customers) added retrofits to the PW2000 to enhance it's durability. Many of the retrofits were applied from their work to adapt the engine for the Air Force. The PW2000 is still more efficient than the RR by about 1-3%. PW made big garantees with this engine back in the late 70s/ early '80s. At the time they garanteed 7% better fuel performance. However, when it was all said and done, they did not achieve as great an advantage as they had hoped. The problem with the engine was durability/reliability. An airline does not want an engine that is going to require heavy amounts of maintenance.
PW was extremely slow to fix the problems with this engine, however current data shows that the two engines are now roughly equal in reliability.
The success of the RB211-535 was and still is a critical step for RR. It represented the first time an RR engine was able to have success over an American counterpart.
AA infact placed a large order for PW2000s somewhere around 1980 without yet ordering the 757s. However, the order was later cancelled and when AA finally became so equipped with 757s, they were RR powered.