Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
757 Rolls Royce VS Pratt & Whitney  
User currently offlineTristan7977 From United States of America, joined Feb 2013, 131 posts, RR: 0
Posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 19933 times:

I've noticed there are very few 757's that have the Pratt & Whitney engine option. What were the airlines that had P&W powered 757's? I'm new to Airliners.net so pardon me if this is a commonly answered question.


Flying is my life. It's as if it were in my blood.
81 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineCF-CPI From Canada, joined Nov 2000, 1111 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 19930 times:

Big ones are Delta and United(pre-merger).

User currently offlineskymiler From United States of America, joined Aug 2007, 537 posts, RR: 1
Reply 2, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 19930 times:

All of DL's have P&W -- and it is one of the largest fleets! They took the former TWA 752's from AA as they were oddballs in AA's RR powered fleet, and are not afraid to add PW powered 752's on an opportunistic basis


I love to fly, and it shows!
User currently offlineEireRock From Ireland, joined Nov 2007, 301 posts, RR: 4
Reply 3, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 19895 times:

Air Italy also operated a few PW2000 powered 757's

User currently offlineTristan7977 From United States of America, joined Feb 2013, 131 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 19854 times:

Delta of course, United pre-merger of course, and Air Force One 757 I think.

I never knew Air Italy had PW 757's. Any others? Or is that it.



Flying is my life. It's as if it were in my blood.
User currently offlineTristan7977 From United States of America, joined Feb 2013, 131 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 19818 times:

FedEx has a few PW 757's I believe, but it was mostly RR.


Flying is my life. It's as if it were in my blood.
User currently offlinehotplane From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 19773 times:

Ethiopian, UPS, Uzbekistan.

User currently offlineViscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 25855 posts, RR: 22
Reply 7, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 19693 times:

Quoting Tristan7977 (Thread starter):
I've noticed there are very few 757's that have the Pratt & Whitney engine option. What were the airlines that had P&W powered 757's?

From Boeing orders/deliveries data, original 757 customers with P&W engines (number of aircraft in parentheses):

Condor (17 752s; their 13 753s are R-R)
Delta (116)
Ethiopian (5)
Far Eastern Air Transport (Taiwan) (7)
ILFC (Leasing company) (38; also 44 R-R)
Northwest (72)
Shanghai Airlines (13)
TWA (14)
United (98)
UPS (first 35; last 40 are R-R)
USAF (4)
Uzbekistan Airlines (3)

That's 40% of all 757s built. I don't consider that "very few".

[Edited 2013-02-10 14:26:21]

User currently offlineakelley728 From United States of America, joined Dec 1999, 2194 posts, RR: 5
Reply 8, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 19608 times:

Quoting Tristan7977 (Thread starter):
I've noticed there are very few 757's that have the Pratt & Whitney engine option

432 out of 1089 757s produced (40%) had the PW2000 series engine.

Quoting Tristan7977 (Thread starter):
What were the airlines that had P&W powered 757's?

These were the airlines that ordered P&W 757s:

AWAS  (Ireland) 20
Delta Air Lines  (USA) 116
Ethiopian Airlines  (Ethiopia) 5
Far Eastern Air Transport  (Taiwan) 7
ILFC  (USA) 38
Mid East Jet  (Saudi Arabia) 1
Northwest Airlines  (USA) 72
Royal Air Maroc  (Morocco) 2
Shanghai Airlines  (China) 13
Singapore Airlines  (Singapore) 4
TWA  (USA) 14
United Air Lines  (USA) 133
US Air Force  (USA) 4
Uzbekistan Airways  (Uzbekistan) 3


User currently offlinePM From Germany, joined Feb 2005, 6961 posts, RR: 63
Reply 9, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 19555 times:

This comes up every year or two. I always enjoy it when it does.   

1049 produced

617 (59%) with RR

432 (41%) with PW


56 original customers

4 (AWAS, ILFC, Condor, UPS) bought both PW and RR

40 chose RR (77%)

12 chose PW (23%)


User currently offlineJohnClipper From Hong Kong, joined Aug 2005, 855 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 19467 times:

how much of a difference in the engine performance?

User currently offlinehotplane From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 11, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 19402 times:

Early Eastern frames had their original RRs replaced with the later version.

User currently offlineshuttle9juliet From UK - Scotland, joined Jul 2010, 192 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 19376 times:

Quoting hotplane (Reply 11):

BA bought all if not most of Easterns RB211 535c s


User currently offlinejfk777 From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 8456 posts, RR: 7
Reply 13, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 19333 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

NW was a Pratt 757 operator too. United, Delta and Northwest Orient were the 3 big P and W airlines.

User currently offlineplatinumfoota From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 556 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 19279 times:

What about preformance numbers?? Also I have noticed that the RR engines are much louder that the P&W, they sound like old vacuums (figures) ... well at least on the ramp.


Never forget United 93
User currently offlineCF-CPI From Canada, joined Nov 2000, 1111 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 19257 times:

Quoting JohnClipper (Reply 10):
how much of a difference in the engine performance?

AA went with RR since they guaranteed enough t/o thrust to go MEX-ORD nonstop with a full load. At the time (80s), the P&W 2037 was having higher than advertised fuel burn as well, but I understand the maintenance costs for the Pratts are a bit lower. Of course, all of this was at one time, and things might have changed. It would be great to hear from someone who has flown both and worked on both.


User currently offlinebeachbum1970 From United States of America, joined Dec 2011, 61 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 19191 times:

Quoting platinumfoota (Reply 14):
Also I have noticed that the RR engines are much louder that the P&W, they sound like old vacuums (figures) ... well at least on the ramp.

I noticed this too. You really notice it working on the ramp. The P&W engines are much quieter. I've never flown on a RR 757 before. Can anyone verify if the RR's are also noisier in the cabin?


User currently offlineDL_Mech From United States of America, joined Feb 2000, 1979 posts, RR: 9
Reply 17, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 19048 times:

Quoting akelley728 (Reply 8):
United Air Lines (USA) 133

That number includes both PW and RR frames.



This plane is built to withstand anything... except a bad pilot.
User currently offlinerwy04lga From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 3176 posts, RR: 8
Reply 18, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 18998 times:

Welcome to Airliners.net


Just accept that some days, you're the pigeon, and other days the statue
User currently offlineMCOflyer From United States of America, joined Jun 2006, 8690 posts, RR: 16
Reply 19, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 18985 times:

Quoting beachbum1970 (Reply 16):

Somewhat louder by a few decibles. I noticed that the t/o was quieter than the RR. Because of the demand of the 757, it is common to find mixed engine fleets. ET flies three RR examples in addition to their PW birds. FX and UPS both fly PW and RR examples.

KH



Never be afraid to stand up for who you are.
User currently offlinerwy04lga From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 3176 posts, RR: 8
Reply 20, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 18942 times:

Quoting platinumfoota (Reply 14):
What about preformance numbers?? Also I have noticed that the RR engines are much louder that the P&W, they sound like old vacuums (figures) ... well at least on the ramp.

They always think the new guy doesn't know anything. As a new hire with less than a month at Delta, I was deep inside the bin of a MadDog when I heard a plane taking off. I yelled to my coworker at the belt loader 'American 757' and pointed in its direction. I gained quite a bit of 'ramp credibility' from that.



Just accept that some days, you're the pigeon, and other days the statue
User currently offlineraddek From United States of America, joined Feb 2013, 140 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 18713 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

I personally loved the sound that the Pratt's have on the 757. I could always tell it was the plane I was going to work just by the sound it made taxi'ing down the ramp  

User currently offlineTristan7977 From United States of America, joined Feb 2013, 131 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 18471 times:

I'm suprised how many P&W 757's there are, but there's still mostly RR's. Great to get a lot of answers from you guys! I'll be asking more sooner or later.


Flying is my life. It's as if it were in my blood.
User currently offlinesparky35805 From United States of America, joined Dec 2007, 288 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 18348 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

It is not well known,but GE engines were originally offered on 757s.Americans original 757 order was to have been GE powered.A few others were a;so interested.When American cancelled their original order and trimed their original 767-200 order in the early 80s,Ge stopped development of the engine.
Sparky


User currently offlinemah584jr From United States of America, joined Mar 2006, 513 posts, RR: 0
Reply 24, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 18010 times:

Quoting beachbum1970 (Reply 16):
I noticed this too. You really notice it working on the ramp. The P&W engines are much quieter. I've never flown on a RR 757 before. Can anyone verify if the RR's are also noisier in the cabin?

It's interesting you ask! I've actually made a video comparing the two and I agree that the RR's are much louder. Feel free to check it out!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vVD2NQbthgE


User currently offlineSDF880 From United States of America, joined Apr 2007, 130 posts, RR: 0
Reply 25, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 19041 times:

We have both types here and pretty equally matched. The only thing that stands out to me a bit is the Pratt burns less fuel. Hour leg maybe 300 to 500 pounds less for the Pratt. A M.84 flight to the west coast SDF to west coast may be a difference of 3000 to 4000 pounds fuel burn difference. A few differences noted in MEL items as well but nothing major.

SDF880


User currently onlineseabosdca From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 5762 posts, RR: 6
Reply 26, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 19120 times:

The performance differences can be summed up as follows:

P&W: better fuel burn, better total maintenance costs, quieter
RR: marginally better T/O thrust and climb, better dispatch reliability


User currently offlineLH707330 From United States of America, joined Jun 2012, 826 posts, RR: 0
Reply 27, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 18997 times:

Quoting seabosdca (Reply 28):
The performance differences can be summed up as follows:

P&W: better fuel burn, better total maintenance costs, quieter
RR: marginally better T/O thrust and climb, better dispatch reliability

Early on the RR also had a huge MTBO advantage, the Pratts were really new at the time and needed more attention until they matured.


User currently onlinegoosebayguy From United Kingdom, joined Sep 2009, 411 posts, RR: 0
Reply 28, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 17751 times:

One of the main reasons RR did so well on the 757 was an overall weight saving of 3 tons compared against the PW. Quite a substantial difference.

User currently offlineYukon880 From United States of America, joined Sep 2011, 137 posts, RR: 2
Reply 29, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 17166 times:

Would a state of the art engine today, comparable in thrust to a 757's PW2000 or RB211, weigh significantly more or less?


Pratt & Whitney, In thrust we trust!
User currently offlineRussianJet From Belgium, joined Jul 2007, 7714 posts, RR: 21
Reply 30, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 16531 times:

Quoting mah584jr (Reply 26):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vVD2NQbthgE

Interesting. Not a huge difference from inside the cabin it would seem, at least on takeoff. The RR were slightly noisier, but not a great deal more.



✈ Every strike of the hammer is a blow against the enemy. ✈
User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12173 posts, RR: 51
Reply 31, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 16175 times:

Quoting sparky35805 (Reply 25):
It is not well known,but GE engines were originally offered on 757s.Americans original 757 order was to have been GE powered.A few others were a;so interested.When American cancelled their original order and trimed their original 767-200 order in the early 80s,Ge stopped development of the engine. Sparky

Correct, had GE develope an engine for the B-757 it would have been called the CF-6-32. It would have been developed from the CF-6-50 with a smaller fan section and de-rated thrust to about 38,000 lbs.


User currently offlineUnited_fan From United States of America, joined Nov 2000, 7522 posts, RR: 7
Reply 32, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 15888 times:

Quoting akelley728 (Reply 8):
These were the airlines that ordered P&W 757s:

AWAS (Ireland) 20
Delta Air Lines (USA) 116
Ethiopian Airlines (Ethiopia) 5
Far Eastern Air Transport (Taiwan) 7
ILFC (USA) 38
Mid East Jet (Saudi Arabia) 1
Northwest Airlines (USA) 72
Royal Air Maroc (Morocco) 2
Shanghai Airlines (China) 13
Singapore Airlines (Singapore) 4
TWA (USA) 14
United Air Lines (USA) 133
US Air Force (USA) 4
Uzbekistan Airways (Uzbekistan) 3

There is just one RR 757 in the Air Force fleet  
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Scott Kerhaert




'Empathy was yesterday...Today, you're wasting my Mother-F'ing time' - Heat.
User currently offlinemah584jr From United States of America, joined Mar 2006, 513 posts, RR: 0
Reply 33, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 15745 times:

Quoting RussianJet (Reply 33):
Interesting. Not a huge difference from inside the cabin it would seem, at least on takeoff. The RR were slightly noisier, but not a great deal more.

The biggest thing I've noticed is that the PW's sound seems to die off a little more quickly as one gains in altitude. Both engines are great in my opinion.


User currently offlineRussianJet From Belgium, joined Jul 2007, 7714 posts, RR: 21
Reply 34, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 15647 times:

Quoting mah584jr (Reply 36):
The biggest thing I've noticed is that the PW's sound seems to die off a little more quickly as one gains in altitude. Both engines are great in my opinion.

But then again there are potentially variables at play that we don't get to see from our seat, such as at which point the thrust is reduced and by how much etc.



✈ Every strike of the hammer is a blow against the enemy. ✈
User currently offlineSmittyone From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 35, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 15540 times:

Quoting Tristan7977 (Thread starter):
I've noticed there are very few 757's that have the Pratt & Whitney engine option.

Forty percent of 757s sold came with P&W powerplants...large fleets to relatively few customers.


User currently offlinegarpd From UK - Scotland, joined Aug 2005, 2696 posts, RR: 4
Reply 36, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 15395 times:

A friend of mine who deals in aircraft maintenance, sales, leases etc groans each time he's given PW powered 757s to deal with. He says that on paper it should be a better plane than the RR, but in reality the RR is by far the best in terms of payload, range, maintenance and resale value. He says the PWs on the 757 are no better than the hair dryers on the A340-300. (His words exactly! lol) It takes him forever to find new homes for PW 757s, but RR 757s barely get entered into his books they're gone that fast.

The only reason PW powered 757s have 40% of the market (In terms of total numbers built) is because two large airlines bought large fleets of them.
Without those, the split is more 80/20 for RR.

Personally, I like the look and sound of the RB211 more. That awesome buzzsaw sound on takeoff really sings to me.

[Edited 2013-02-11 05:10:03]

[Edited 2013-02-11 05:14:59]


arpdesign.wordpress.com
User currently offlinepacksonflight From Iceland, joined Jan 2010, 387 posts, RR: 0
Reply 37, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 15153 times:

Quoting garpd (Reply 39):
but in reality the RR is by far the best in terms of payload, range, maintenance and resale value

I know that they used to be bastards operationally, but hasnt that changed to the better over time?

Is this really true regarding the range. I always thought that the PW powered 757 had the edge regarding the range, possibly up to 330 nm.

Can somebody in the know please chip in?


User currently offlineFerroviarius From Norway, joined Mar 2007, 244 posts, RR: 0
Reply 38, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 14927 times:

Good afternoon,

were the Finnair 757s not P&Ws, too?

Best,
Ferroviarius


User currently offlineAY-MD11 From Finland, joined Feb 2001, 472 posts, RR: 2
Reply 39, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 14943 times:

Finnair has P&W engines on the 757. Anyone else noticed that the IAE is lot quieter than CFM on the A32Xs?

User currently offlineTrnsWrld From United States of America, joined May 1999, 954 posts, RR: 0
Reply 40, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 14803 times:

The OP kind of made me laugh a little saying that he noticed there are "very few" PW powered 757's, When in reality a couple of the worlds largest airlines and operators of the type are PW powered lol.

One question, I noticed in the numbers above it says TWA had 14 757's. Is that accurate?? I could have sworn they had almost 30 of them. I believe the highest tail number was N727TW and went all the way down to 706TW then 704X etc etc.


User currently offlineVV701 From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2005, 7685 posts, RR: 17
Reply 41, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 14623 times:

Quoting TrnsWrld (Reply 43):
One question, I noticed in the numbers above it says TWA had 14 757's. Is that accurate??

No.

Quoting TrnsWrld (Reply 43):
I could have sworn they had almost 30 of them

Yes. As you say N701TW to N703TW, N704X, N705TW to N713TW, N714P and N715TW to N727TW. So 27 in all.


User currently offlinelightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 13437 posts, RR: 100
Reply 42, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 14467 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

A little history.

Remember RR had *two* engine on the 757-200 where they bought all the early examples.
The 757 was launched with the RB211-535C
Pratt launched the PW2037 with a promised 8% lower fuel burn
RR developed the RB211-535E4 using a *new core.* Yes. A new engine with lower fuel burn (about 5% better).
Pratt missed promised fuel burn by 4% to 5%.
Pratt missed maintenance cycles by half! (3,750 takeoffs between overhauls, vs. 7,500 promised)
RR met their promised fuel burn target and kept improving the E4 (new engine, the one we know)
Pratt improved their fuel burn to meet promise, but so did RR (small advantage Pratt)
The E4 turned out to have a 15,000 cycle life! (RR made an error, they would have had better fuel burn designing right for the intended cycle life) which made Pratt's 3,750 cle life engines look bad.)
Pratt finally put out a PIP that improved the PW2000 cycle life over 7,500 cycles. (IIRC, about 2003. Way too late to matter.)

RR has always had the triple spools advantage in climb fuel burn. So for relatively short missions (e.g, most AA domestic feeding the hubs), there is no fuel burn advantage for Pratt.

Quoting JohnClipper (Reply 10):

how much of a difference in the engine performance?

Short haul maintenance advantage RR.
Overhaul cost advantage to Pratt.
Short haul fuel burn advantage RR about 1.5%
About the same fuel burn advantage for Pratt long haul (> 2,000nm).

Quoting CF-CPI (Reply 15):
At the time (80s), the P&W 2037 was having higher than advertised fuel burn as well

Quite a bit. That killed the business case as well as the short overhaul interval.

Quoting CF-CPI (Reply 15):
I understand the maintenance costs for the Pratts are a bit lower.

Overhaul costs are lower. It depends on the airline mission. For missions under 2 hours, the advantage goes to RR.

Quoting garpd (Reply 39):
It takes him forever to find new homes for PW 757s,

Considering how few airlines fly the type, I'm not surprised. But it is mission dependent on costs. Hence why FedEx is willing to buy both.

Quoting packsonflight (Reply 40):
Is this really true regarding the range. I always thought that the PW powered 757 had the edge regarding the range, possibly up to 330 nm.

Read the above. On long missions Pratt has the advantage in maintenance costs and fuel burn. It is all based on mission length.


Lightsaber



Societies that achieve a critical mass of ideas achieve self sustaining growth; others stagnate.
User currently offlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 12851 posts, RR: 25
Reply 43, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 13917 times:

Quoting akelley728 (Reply 8):
432 out of 1089 757s produced (40%) had the PW2000 series engine.

Right, but P&W also sells four of them for every C-17 built, and that fleet is at 250 airframes, thus 1000+ engines right there, and more on order. Between that and the commercial sales, I think Pratt did OK with the product.

Ref: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_C-17_Globemaster_III

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 45):
On long missions Pratt has the advantage in maintenance costs and fuel burn. It is all based on mission length.

Works out well for the USAF missions.



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offlineBlueShamu330s From UK - England, joined Sep 2001, 3040 posts, RR: 23
Reply 44, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 13390 times:

And let's not forget, the RB211-535E4 became a world record holder on an Icelandair B757:

Quote:
RESTON, Va., May 13 /PRNewswire/ -- A Rolls-Royce aero engine has set a new world record by completing 31,000 hours on the wing of a Boeing 757 which has been in service for seven years. The RB211-535E4 on an Icelandair Boeing 757 twinjet has broken the record previously hold by a CFM56-3 by over 600 hours and is still flying. The engine is still in service operating on scheduled flights from its Iceland base to the east coast of North America, and several European destinations. David Wicks, Executive Vice President - Customer Business for Rolls-Royce plc said: "The RB211-535E4 is a tremendously reliable engine and this world record is a testament to our partnership with Icelandair, its engineers and pilots." Sigurdur Helgason, President and Chief Executive Officer, Icelandair said: "Operating from our island base, the reliability of our engines is of particular importance. We are proud and delighted to hold this record which further demonstrates that the RB211-535E4 was the right choice for our company." Renowned for its reliability and long life, the 535E4 currently averages more than 15,000 hours on wing before a first maintenance shop visit. The RB211-535 family, ranging between 37,4001b and 43,100lb thrust, has accumulated more than 18 million flying hours at the highest reliability levels in its thrust range. In June 1997, Icelandair increased its order of Boeing 757 airliners and became the first scheduled airline to order the latest 757-300. Today the carrier operates a fleet of five Boeing 757-200s with another due for delivery in 1999. Two Boeing 757-300s will be delivered in 2001 and 2002 and the airline holds a further eight options on the B757-200 with conversion rights to the stretched -300. In a relationship stretching over 40 years, Icelandair's first Rolls-Royce powered aircraft was the Viscount in 1957, followed by the CL44 and Fokker F27 in the 1960s, with the Boeing 757 coming into service in 1990.
PR Newswire
http://www.prnewswire.com/news-relea...e-beats-world-record-77887202.html

Rgds



So I drive a 4x4. So what?! Tax the a$$ off me for it...oh, you already have... :-(
User currently offlineakelley728 From United States of America, joined Dec 1999, 2194 posts, RR: 5
Reply 45, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 13074 times:

Quoting DL_Mech (Reply 17):
That number includes both PW and RR frames.

Oops, I merged the United and UPS lines on my spreadsheet. Thanks for pointing that out!

AWAS (Ireland) 20
Delta Air Lines (USA) 116
Ethiopian Airlines (Ethiopia) 5
Far Eastern Air Transport (Taiwan) 7
ILFC (USA) 38
Mid East Jet (Saudi Arabia) 1
Northwest Airlines (USA) 72
Royal Air Maroc (Morocco) 2
Shanghai Airlines (China) 13
Singapore Airlines (Singapore) 4
TWA (USA) 14
United Air Lines (USA) 98
UPS (USA) 35
US Air Force (USA) 4
Uzbekistan Airways (Uzbekistan) 3

[Edited 2013-02-11 08:37:53]

User currently offlineKELPkid From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 6428 posts, RR: 3
Reply 46, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 13068 times:

Quoting BlueShamu330s (Reply 44):
And let's not forget, the RB211-535E4 became a world record holder on an Icelandair B757:

That's possible becuse, IIRC, the 535E4 is very underrated on a 752...the engine is capable of making a lot more thrust than it does on Iclandair's 757s.



Celebrating the birth of KELPkidJR on August 5, 2009 :-)
User currently offlineakelley728 From United States of America, joined Dec 1999, 2194 posts, RR: 5
Reply 47, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 12997 times:

Quoting TrnsWrld (Reply 43):
One question, I noticed in the numbers above it says TWA had 14 757's. Is that accurate??

Yes it is. These were the ones that were ordered by TWA. The rest were leased and came via ILFC.

Quoting VV701 (Reply 44):
As you say N701TW to N703TW, N704X, N705TW to N713TW, N714P and N715TW to N727TW. So 27 in all.


TWA birds: N705TW, N708TW, N711ZX, N714P, N715TW, N716TW, N717TW, N718TW, N719TW, N724TW, N720TW, N725TW, N726TW, N727TW

Note a number of these frames that were ordered by TWA wound up at Pegasus (now AWAS) who leased them back to TWA.

ILFC birds: N703TW, N712TW, N707TW, N701TW, N702TW, N704X, N706TW, N709TW, N710TW, N713TW, N723TW, N722TW, N721TW

[Edited 2013-02-11 08:45:39]

User currently offlineXEspecialist From United States of America, joined Feb 2013, 33 posts, RR: 0
Reply 48, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 12614 times:

Quoting shuttle9juliet (Reply 12):
BA bought all if not most of Easterns RB211 535c

Not entirely. I had the priviledge to fly on N907AW (aka Phoenix Suns aka Barney) back in early 1998 BWI-PHX F class and experienced a flashback when I used the forward lav. It still had the EA wall treatment showing all the destinations in various fonts. Ironically USAir bought several aircraft from the EA fire sale and now the sister ships once separated were reunited (if only for a few years.

Interesting point to note:

Northwest divested itself of the RR powered Republic airframes totaling 6 at the time of purchase.



Ready. Set. Jet. XEspecialist
User currently onlineUA735WL From United States of America, joined Apr 2012, 154 posts, RR: 0
Reply 49, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 12475 times:

Quoting XEspecialist (Reply 48):

Didn't all those ex-Republic birds go to HP? (at a steep discount?)

[Edited 2013-02-11 09:23:35]


"One test is worth a thousand expert opinions" -Tex Johnston
User currently offlineFlyHossD From United States of America, joined Nov 2009, 946 posts, RR: 2
Reply 50, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 12260 times:

I didn't fly both, so no comparisons here, but my time with RB211s was enjoyable - it's a fine engine and very reliable. The only negative (if you can even call it that) was how long it took to start compared to other turbines. It takes a while to get all three spools turning.

That became even more apparent once I had started more 767 flying (with GE CF6s); those engines start quickly.



My statements do not represent my former employer or my current employer and are my opinions only.
User currently offlineVV701 From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2005, 7685 posts, RR: 17
Reply 51, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 12232 times:

Quoting shuttle9juliet (Reply 12):
BA bought all if not most of Easterns RB211 535c s
Quoting XEspecialist (Reply 48):
Not entirely. I had the priviledge to fly on N907AW (aka Phoenix Suns aka Barney) back in early 1998 BWI-PHX F class and experienced a flashback when I used the forward lav.

I think you may have misread what shuttle9juliet said.

BA did indeed buy some of EA's RB211 535 C engines when EA re-engined their fleet of 752s with the E4 version of the RB211 535. However BA never operated a single ex-EA 752 aircraft. Most (all?) of these engines were fitted into new frames at BFI as RR had stopped prodction of the C. However BA's plan to standardise on the C model was eclipsed by their need for new aircraft. The first 752 delivered to BA with the E4 engine was their twenty-sixth, G-BPEA.


User currently offline135mech From United States of America, joined Oct 2006, 412 posts, RR: 4
Reply 52, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 4 days ago) and read 11441 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Revelation (Reply 43):
Quoting lightsaber (Reply 45):
On long missions Pratt has the advantage in maintenance costs and fuel burn. It is all based on mission length.

Works out well for the USAF missions.



And that works out excellently for the C-32A (757) fleet (with the exception of the one RR bird). The USAF needed that fleet commonality (with the C-17;s) for the C-32A's to be that much more efficient (maintenance wise). They were given added fuel tanks in the early 2000's to extend it's range to 12+ hrs, so that would add to the long range benefit mentioned earlier of the PW's.

135Mech


User currently offlinegarpd From UK - Scotland, joined Aug 2005, 2696 posts, RR: 4
Reply 53, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 4 days ago) and read 11363 times:

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 42):
Considering how few airlines fly the type, I'm not surprised. But it is mission dependent on costs. Hence why FedEx is willing to buy both.

Sorry, wrong tense used. I meant it used to take him ages. We're talking about 10 years ago, give or take (memory item, so I'm unsure). But the RR ones did shift a lot quicker than the PWs



arpdesign.wordpress.com
User currently offlineXEspecialist From United States of America, joined Feb 2013, 33 posts, RR: 0
Reply 54, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 10580 times:

Quoting VV701 (Reply 51):

Thanks for the clarification! The actual scenario you describe is definitely stranger than fiction. Definitely different times with different priorities. With fuel where it is now, operators jump on PIPs and new variants as quickly as they can.

I appreciate your history lesson. Now I need to go home and see which version is outlined in my EA Ground Service and MX manual.



Ready. Set. Jet. XEspecialist
User currently offlineaviatorcraig From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2010, 245 posts, RR: 0
Reply 55, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 10230 times:

I don't care which engine it has, when the overpowered stick insect finally leaves our skies I will miss it (it is already an endangered species in Europe), but, just in case this thread goes the way of most 757 threads, no, I don't want to see the production line re-opened!   


707 727 Caravelle Comet Concorde Dash-7 DC-9 DC-10 One-Eleven Trident Tristar Tu-134 VC-10 Viscount plus boring stuff!
User currently offlinesweair From Sweden, joined Nov 2011, 1831 posts, RR: 0
Reply 56, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 10150 times:

Yeah it has that fantastic horse kick at take off   One of a kind, most NBs now are real runway hogs.

Environmental and economy decides. I still love large engines, my latest car has over 300hp, a diesel engine. Hey I am checking out before anything bad happens  


User currently offlineViscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 25855 posts, RR: 22
Reply 57, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 10026 times:

Quoting Tristan7977 (Thread starter):
I've noticed there are very few 757's that have the Pratt & Whitney engine option.
Quoting VV701 (Reply 51):
Most (all?) of these engines were fitted into new frames at BFI as RR had stopped prodction of the C.

If they were new frames, how did they get from RNT to BFI? The 757, like all Boeing narrowbodies (except the first 271 or so 737s) have been built at Renton, not BFI.

[Edited 2013-02-11 14:00:45]

[Edited 2013-02-11 14:02:20]

User currently offlineSmittyone From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 58, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 9677 times:

Quoting garpd (Reply 36):
The only reason PW powered 757s have 40% of the market (In terms of total numbers built) is because two large airlines bought large fleets of them.
Without those, the split is more 80/20 for RR.

If my aunt had balls she'd be my uncle.

Either way it is not an accurate statement that "there are very few 757's that have the Pratt & Whitney engine option."

Which was my only point. RR obviously appealed to the vast majority of operators.


User currently offlineCF-CPI From Canada, joined Nov 2000, 1111 posts, RR: 0
Reply 59, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 9469 times:

Quoting UA735WL (Reply 49):
Didn't all those ex-Republic birds go to HP? (at a steep discount?)

Yes they all went, and not very long after NW acquired them. They were at NW long enough to get painted in full NW colors (some of them, if not all), and if I'm not forgetting something, this was the only time RR engines were hung on a NW airframe.


User currently offlineB757forever From United States of America, joined May 2010, 425 posts, RR: 3
Reply 60, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 9397 times:

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 42):
Read the above. On long missions Pratt has the advantage in maintenance costs and fuel burn. It is all based on mission length.

It looks like the data from Aviation Partners agrees with your assessment on fuel burn on longer missions...
http://www.aviationpartnersboeing.com/products_757_200.php


User currently offlineshuttle9juliet From UK - Scotland, joined Jul 2010, 192 posts, RR: 0
Reply 61, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 9292 times:

Quoting VV701 (Reply 51):

Sorry I should have made that a bit more clearer but thanks for clearing that up.
When flying on say G-BMRF in the morning with the 535 c up to MAN and say in the afternoon you got on G-BPED or the likes it was like night and day. The E4 was and is a powerful bugger but the C seemingly operated more efficient at cruise. That was my opinion..


User currently offlineflyabr From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 672 posts, RR: 0
Reply 62, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 9286 times:

Only ever been on a RB211 powered 757 once...from PHX to LAS on America West. I was sitting in the back behind the engines, and OMG was it loud! My traveling companion even commented with a "Good Lord"! I've been in the back of a number of PW powered Delta and NW 757s and never experienced the DBs I did on that American West flight! Of course I'm talking about the noise on takeoff.  

[Edited 2013-02-11 16:06:20]

User currently offlineTristan7977 From United States of America, joined Feb 2013, 131 posts, RR: 0
Reply 63, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 9121 times:

Yes the "very few" part you can laugh at, I'm saying most airlines ran the RR powered 757, very few P&W. It seems most P&W 757's are retired while most RR 757's are still in service.


Flying is my life. It's as if it were in my blood.
User currently offlineTristan7977 From United States of America, joined Feb 2013, 131 posts, RR: 0
Reply 64, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 9118 times:

@Flyabr

It's so noisy at takeoff of the back of a 757 equipped w/ the RR engines. Yet it's so much nicer in the front, sounds nice too. I've been on many 757's. (PW & RR Powered) The P&W is definitley quieter.



Flying is my life. It's as if it were in my blood.
User currently onlineUnited1 From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 6096 posts, RR: 9
Reply 65, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 9092 times:

Quoting Tristan7977 (Reply 63):
It seems most P&W 757's are retired while most RR 757's are still in service.

Not at all....UA, UPS and DL alone operate ~300 PW powered 757s still.



Semper Fi - PowerPoint makes us stupid.
User currently offlineMax Q From United States of America, joined May 2001, 4748 posts, RR: 18
Reply 66, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 9071 times:

I'm more than a little biased but I have nothing but the greatest respect for that beautiful RB211 on our 757's.



Smooth, powerful, reliable and you can't beat that fantastic start up noise ,especially when it's cold !



The best contribution to safety is a competent Pilot.
User currently offlineVV701 From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2005, 7685 posts, RR: 17
Reply 67, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 8627 times:

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 57):
If they were new frames, how did they get from RNT to BFI?

Of course they flew powered by the second-hand 211-535-C engines fitted by Boeing at RNT. My other undeliberate mistake was saying that the first twenty-six BA 752s had the C version engine when actually it was the first THIRTY-six.

Thanks. Without your correction I would not have noticed that either.


User currently offlineSpacepope From Vatican City, joined Dec 1999, 2969 posts, RR: 1
Reply 68, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 8533 times:

Quoting 135mech (Reply 52):
And that works out excellently for the C-32A (757) fleet (with the exception of the one RR bird).

There are actually 2 C-32Bs, c/n 25493 & 25494



The last of the famous international playboys
User currently offlineSmittyone From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 69, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 8547 times:

Quoting Tristan7977 (Reply 64):
The P&W is definitley quieter.


Sorry I can't hear you over the sound of this  www.youtube.com/watch?v=FtsCZHjn3XM


User currently offlinemjoelnir From Iceland, joined Feb 2013, 1478 posts, RR: 3
Reply 70, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 8431 times:

As I understand my contact flying B 757 the RR has all the advantages today if you have the newest version of it, whatever the differences have been in the past.

More reliable, less noise cruising and similar fuel burn after the improvements in the late 1990s.


User currently offlinemcg From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 825 posts, RR: 0
Reply 71, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 8370 times:

Quoting United_fan (Reply 32):
There is just one RR 757 in the Air Force fleet  

Where did this airplane come from and how did it end up at the Air Force?


User currently offlineVV701 From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2005, 7685 posts, RR: 17
Reply 72, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 8296 times:

Quoting mcg (Reply 71):
Where did this airplane come from and how did it end up at the Air Force?

It was bought from Boeing by Ansett Worldwide Aviation Services and initially leased by AVIANCA. After return to AWAS it was sold to first Ansett Worldwide Aviation USA and then to Raytheon E-Systems who immediately sold it on to the USAF.


User currently offline135mech From United States of America, joined Oct 2006, 412 posts, RR: 4
Reply 73, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 3 days ago) and read 8169 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Spacepope (Reply 68):
Quoting 135mech (Reply 52):
And that works out excellently for the C-32A (757) fleet (with the exception of the one RR bird).

There are actually 2 C-32Bs, c/n 25493 & 25494



Thanks for the update, I don't have a current contact up there anymore and did not know they added the second.

135mech


User currently offlineSpacepope From Vatican City, joined Dec 1999, 2969 posts, RR: 1
Reply 74, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 8062 times:

Quoting VV701 (Reply 72):
It was bought from Boeing by Ansett Worldwide Aviation Services and initially leased by AVIANCA. After return to AWAS it was sold to first Ansett Worldwide Aviation USA and then to Raytheon E-Systems who immediately sold it on to the USAF.

25494 spent time with ATA before going to the USAF.

CNs are the only way to really keep track of these two birds, they each have been through about 3 different USAF serials each. It's almost like they don't want them to be easy to keep track of...



The last of the famous international playboys
User currently offlinemcg From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 825 posts, RR: 0
Reply 75, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 8018 times:

Quoting VV701 (Reply 72):
It was bought from Boeing by Ansett Worldwide Aviation Services and initially leased by AVIANCA. After return to AWAS it was sold to first Ansett Worldwide Aviation USA and then to Raytheon E-Systems who immediately sold it on to the USAF.

thanks for the info.

Quoting Spacepope (Reply 74):
It's almost like they don't want them to be easy to keep track of...

Would I be correct in assuming this airplanes mission is VIP transport?


User currently offlineAA777 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 2544 posts, RR: 28
Reply 76, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 7529 times:

Quoting Tristan7977 (Reply 64):
It's so noisy at takeoff of the back of a 757 equipped w/ the RR engines. Yet it's so much nicer in the front, sounds nice too. I've been on many 757's. (PW & RR Powered) The P&W is definitley quieter.

I wouldn't say its much quieter in the front of a 757 with RR engines... the difference is that it has the very nice buzz saw sound  

Overall the PW engines are definitely quieter, no matter where you're sitting on the plane. I truly noticed the difference a lot when I was flying 757s everywhere from BOS last year, either on United to DEN/LAS/IAD, or AA to MIA/LAX.

I'm just happy to fly on a 757 at all. Truly one of the best birds in the sky.

AA777


User currently offlineflyabr From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 672 posts, RR: 0
Reply 77, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 7136 times:

To me, the PW2000 engines also sound like a buzzsaw if you are sitting in front of them. maybe not as loud as the RB211, but still a buzzsaw sound nonetheless.

User currently offlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 12851 posts, RR: 25
Reply 78, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 6871 times:

Quoting AA777 (Reply 76):
I'm just happy to fly on a 757 at all. Truly one of the best birds in the sky.

Just did a flight on US (err AA!  ) from A319 to B757 and have to say the seats on the A319 were more comfy.

Presumably this was one of the birds that went Republic -> NW -> HP / US and could use a refresh, badly.

Sadly there are a number of tatty 757s out there giving the plane a bad name.



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offlinemalaysia From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 3371 posts, RR: 0
Reply 79, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 6738 times:

I have flown on many RB211 and PW 757s in my life   I like the RB211 start up sound but the PW are cool and nice.

but when I am on RB211 757s and I have a window seat by the engine, I always pretend I am still on an L-1011 but yes the wing is not same shape, but its pretty much only way to see a single engine RB211 on the wing and imitate the Tristar much closer than anything and even with winglets to make it a Tristar-NG  



There Are Those Who Believe That There May Yet Be Other Airlines Who Even Now Fight To Survive Beyond The Heavens
User currently offlineViscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 25855 posts, RR: 22
Reply 80, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 6536 times:

Quoting Max Q (Reply 66):
I'm more than a little biased but I have nothing but the greatest respect for that beautiful RB211 on our 757's.

Smooth, powerful, reliable and you can't beat that fantastic start up noise ,especially when it's cold !

As a sidenote, an Icelandair 752 had one of its R-R engines fail en route from SEA to KEF last weekend, resulting in a diversion to Edmonton (YEG) and passengers having to spend the night. Following from Transport Canada occurrence summary. What is a "strut valve"?

An Icelandair Boeing 757-200 (operating as ICE680) on an IFR flight from Seattle (KSEA) to Keflavik (BIKF) declared an emergency with right engine failure. Aircraft elected to divert to Edmonton (CYEG). ARFF responded. Aircraft landed safely at 0149Z. No impact on operations.
UPDATE TSB A13W0016: The Icelandair Boeing 757-200, operating as ICE680, was enroute from Seattle to Keflavik, Iceland when the right engine (Rolls-Royce RB211-534E4, serial number 30753) failed 146 NM NE of Edmonton. After declaring an emergency, the crew diverted to Edmonton where they landed without incident. Maintenance determined that a strut valve had failed.


http://de.flightaware.com/live/fligh...0/history/20130209/2330Z/KSEA/BIKF
http://www.kirotv.com/news/news/seat...diverts-canada-due-electric/nWLLs/


User currently offlineFlyHossD From United States of America, joined Nov 2009, 946 posts, RR: 2
Reply 81, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 6315 times:

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 80):
What is a "strut valve"?

I suspect that's the fuel shut-off valve. If it failed closed, it would certainly stop fuel flow to the engine, thus the engine failure.



My statements do not represent my former employer or my current employer and are my opinions only.
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...
Rolls Royce VS Pratt And Whitney VS General Elec posted Mon Nov 12 2001 20:52:55 by N2805WWest
BA 777 Rolls Royce Vs GE90 posted Fri Jun 16 2006 06:44:21 by DFW13L
Rolls Royce/GE/Pratt posted Tue Aug 22 2000 16:28:04 by Aviation Fan
Pratt & Whitney File Lawsuit Against Rolls Royce. posted Sun Nov 7 2010 02:44:34 by readytotaxi
Rolls Royce, Pratt&Whitney, Or GE? posted Wed Sep 13 2000 23:21:36 by SEVEN_FIFTY7
GE/PW Vs Rolls Royce - Aircraft Engines posted Wed Apr 7 2004 18:28:53 by DIJKKIJK
Rolls Royce, Pratt Or GE posted Wed Dec 17 2003 05:36:44 by 3lions
Rolls Royce,Pratt Or Ge? posted Tue Aug 22 2000 12:42:03 by Aviation Fan
Rolls-Royce's Trent 700 Hit 1000th Milestone posted Mon Nov 14 2011 08:23:45 by flythere
Pratt & Whitney Buys Out Rolls-Royce Venture posted Wed Oct 12 2011 15:10:33 by mffoda
BA 777 Rolls Royce Vs GE90 posted Fri Jun 16 2006 06:44:21 by DFW13L
Rolls Royce/GE/Pratt posted Tue Aug 22 2000 16:28:04 by Aviation Fan
Pratt & Whitney File Lawsuit Against Rolls Royce. posted Sun Nov 7 2010 02:44:34 by readytotaxi
Rolls Royce, Pratt&Whitney, Or GE? posted Wed Sep 13 2000 23:21:36 by SEVEN_FIFTY7
Delta Vs Pratt And Whitney posted Sat Sep 7 2013 11:33:23 by eal46859
GE/PW Vs Rolls Royce - Aircraft Engines posted Wed Apr 7 2004 18:28:53 by DIJKKIJK
Rolls Royce, Pratt Or GE posted Wed Dec 17 2003 05:36:44 by 3lions
Rolls Royce,Pratt Or Ge? posted Tue Aug 22 2000 12:42:03 by Aviation Fan