MDCjets From United States of America, joined Apr 2001, 175 posts, RR: 1
Reply 2, posted (14 years 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 3934 times:
Economic problems came from the financial situation at the RR company not the RB-211 itself. I beleive they were very reliable. Many aircraft today are powered by them today (757,767,747) but somehow dont have that unique sound that the L-1011 had. I sure wish I could still see DL L-1011s at LAX, but that era is over
RayChuang From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 8346 posts, RR: 4
Reply 3, posted (14 years 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 3877 times:
The reason why the RB.211 sounded so unique on the L1011 was because #2 engine was mounted with a unique S-duct inlet. As a result, you had that very distinct moo when the plane powers up to full power for takeoff, something you don't hear on the DC-10.
CF-CPI From Canada, joined Nov 2000, 1398 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (14 years 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 3861 times:
Over time, the RB211 became a respected powerplant but in the early 70s it was a major headache, with frequent shutdowns and a couple of catastrophic failures with Eastern (one was while spooling up at the gate). Often the engines could not be started. Over time this was rectified. By the time Delta got them in late '73, Eastern had ironed out all the bugs for them .
The L10 was offered with only the RB211. Lockheed considered offering the CF-6 as well but it would have required too much modification to the tail, so the idea was dropped. Daniel Haughton, then pres of Lockheed, stated that not offering an alternative engine on the L10 was his biggest mistake. (Second biggest mistake was bribing All Nippon).
Gr8SlvrFlt From United States of America, joined Jan 2002, 1640 posts, RR: 10
Reply 5, posted (14 years 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 3857 times:
The RB211 was a good deal shorter than the CF6 so a major redesign of the S-duct would have been required; along with a loss of seating capacity. As mentioned above, Lockheed's reliance on the RB211 as sole engine for the TriStar was disastrous for the company. For a most excellent book on the design of the L-1011 and the battle between it and the DC-10, check out The Sporty Game, by John Newhouse. A great read.
I work for Southwest, but the views expressed are my own and do not necessarily represent those of Southwest.
Ilyushin96M From United States of America, joined Sep 1999, 2609 posts, RR: 11
Reply 6, posted (14 years 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 3826 times:
Various sources I have heard or read have stated that the RB-211 powering the L1011 was a great engine, very tough, and could take quite a bit of foreign object damage and keep on flying, compared to the CF-6, which was easily damaged. I believe the RB-211s required quite alot of maintenance, however, to keep them running smoothly. Somewhat of a contradiction for these rather complex powerplants.
GREAT video and sound, btw...it reminded me how long it's been since I flew in an L1011. Guess my chances to do so now are virtually gone.
Airman99o From Canada, joined Aug 1999, 981 posts, RR: 1
Reply 15, posted (14 years 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 3609 times:
Here in Toronto when Air Transat starts up their L 10's what a sound. In the Crew Room over looking the B and C Gates the entire place starts to vibrate and all you can hear is this funny humming sound. Looking up to see this beast starting and spewing out smoke like there is no tommorow. Kinda took me for supurise when I first saw this happen. I love watching them take off. They all have a long take off roll just like the video here for the topic.