travelavnut From Netherlands, joined May 2010, 1506 posts, RR: 7 Posted (1 year 6 months 1 week ago) and read 24778 times:
Besides being an aviation geek I am also a full-time space nerd
Just now I was reading an article on SpaceflightNow concerning an upcoming launch of Orbital Sciences's Pegasus rocket that is launched from a modified L-1011. One tidbit in this article got my attention:
Link: http://www.spaceflightnow.com/pegasus/nustar/takeoff/ "Stargazer" is flying this mission with three new, fuel-efficient engines on the Lockheed TriStar aircraft originally built in the 1960s and purchased from Air Canada for conversion into the Pegasus launcher.
So, what, are these just "new"/mint RB211's? Or are these really new engines eg. a diffrerent type?! I can not believe the latter as this would mean certification, right?
vegas005 From Switzerland, joined Mar 2005, 303 posts, RR: 0 Reply 2, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week ago) and read 24697 times:
The article was referring to the rockets engines, not the planes.
The rocket specializes in carrying satellites and experiments that weigh up to 1,000 pounds into low-Earth orbit. With the body of an oversize model rocket and tail of an airplane, the Pegasus has three solid-fuel rocket motors and a rather unique and economical way of lifting off.
travelavnut From Netherlands, joined May 2010, 1506 posts, RR: 7 Reply 3, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week ago) and read 24594 times:
Quoting BrouAviation (Reply 1): I think the aircraft will be registered as experimental anyway, so putting some new engines on it isn't going to make any difference..
That would make sense I guess. My next question would be; what type of engines? Newer version of the RB211?
Quoting vegas005 (Reply 2): The article was referring to the rockets engines, not the planes.
Read the text I posted again;
"Stargazer" is flying this mission with three new, fuel-efficient engines on the Lockheed TriStar aircraft originally built in the 1960s and purchased from Air Canada for conversion into the Pegasus launcher.
Stargazer is the Tristar, this text is not about the Pegasus rocket.
akelley728 From United States of America, joined Dec 1999, 2139 posts, RR: 6 Reply 8, posted (1 year 6 months 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 23283 times:
Quoting dash500 (Reply 6): "Stargazer" was recently upgraded to a -200 standard, which means it now has RB211-524B engines instead of RB211-22B.
Early model L1011s (-1s and -100s primarily) had RB211-22B engines. Lockheed then produced the -200 model that used the upgraded RB211-524B engines. Lockheed also put out an upgrade kit that allowed early -1s and -100s to be upgraded to the same RB211-524B engins. The -1s and -100s that were upgraded were redisgnated as the -250 model.
RR stopped supporting the RB211-22B a number of years ago. So any remaining -1s/-100s have been either retired or upgraded to the -250 standard, such as Orbital's bird.
Tristarsteve From Sweden, joined Nov 2005, 3855 posts, RR: 34 Reply 11, posted (1 year 6 months 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 20395 times:
Quoting sweair (Reply 10): Was this engine a close relative to the 757 engine?
Well except for the name, no.
The RB211-535 on the B757 had a similar core to the -524, but everything else was different!
It always amazed me that two similar engines could have some many differences.
The RB211-524 was very similar to the -22B. It had an uprated core with an extra stage, and had about 10 pc better fuel consumption and worked much better, but on the outside it was nearly identical. All the components looked exactly the same, but had different pt nbrs. You could fit a -22B Fuel control to a -524, but it didn't work!! (been there).
To change a -22B to a -524 on the Tristar was simple. About two days work changing air system components like sensors and control valves, then an engine change and new engine instruments.
sweair From Sweden, joined Nov 2011, 1758 posts, RR: 0 Reply 13, posted (1 year 6 months 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 20134 times:
I never got to fly on the L1011, I did many trips on the DC10s that SAS had, the LA route was a nice route. I actually did most flying in the 80s and 90s, have stayed close to home in the last 10 years. In those days air travel was different. It was more expensive and not as common as today.
dash500 From Portugal, joined May 2005, 84 posts, RR: 0 Reply 18, posted (1 year 6 months 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 4303 times:
Quoting TrnsWrld (Reply 15): hahaha, im pretty sure no one will ever refer to a rocket engine as "fuel efficient". Its the L1011 they are talking about
Yes, they are talking about the L10's engines. However it was not fuel efficiency that made Orbital change its engines. The true reason was given by me earlier on this thread. For an airplane that flies so rarely, fuel efficiency is certainly not a problem.
As a curiosity, Stargazer's previous RB211-22B engines were already "overclocked" engines tuned to give a 10% increase in power for its special missions.
akelley728 From United States of America, joined Dec 1999, 2139 posts, RR: 6 Reply 19, posted (1 year 6 months 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 3972 times:
Quoting travelavnut (Thread starter): "Stargazer" is flying this mission with three new, fuel-efficient engines on the Lockheed TriStar aircraft originally built in the 1960s and purchased from Air Canada for conversion into the Pegasus launcher.
So, what, are these just "new"/mint RB211's?
I wonder that myself - did RR indeed build new RB211-524Bs? I am sure there are plenty of spare RB211-524Bs around the world from all of the L1011-250s and L1011-500s that have retired over the past ten years.
Navion From United States of America, joined May 1999, 1002 posts, RR: 1 Reply 22, posted (1 year 6 months 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 3228 times:
For what its worth, near the end of the L1011 production run Lockheed had studied updating the L1011 series and it included using the then "new" GE CF6-80 series engines. I remember reading about this (with artists renderings) in Aviation Week & Space Technology. Who knows what might have been?