AJ From Australia, joined Nov 1999, 2376 posts, RR: 27 Reply 1, posted (11 years 7 months 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 2405 times:
The fundamental difference between the Roller and the GE is the triple spool design used by Rolls over the twin spool of the GE. The RR therefore displays N1, N2 and N3.
The first stage fan of the RB211-524G onwards is also very different, with wide chord stand alone blades. The GE has many more blades and a support ring half way along the blades.
The only other major difference (besides cowl appearance) is in the fire extinguishing system. The Rolls have two bottles per engine, the GE has two per wing.
Just a brief outline for you!
Timborara From United Kingdom, joined Sep 2001, 31 posts, RR: 0 Reply 4, posted (11 years 7 months 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 2349 times:
The RR is more efficient; rather than the other way around.
The triple spool system means that the compressor (7000rpm), turbine (10,000rpm) and front induction fan (3000rpm) can run closer to their optimal efficiency speeds making them in general more efficient overall.
GDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 12706 posts, RR: 80 Reply 7, posted (11 years 7 months 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 2339 times:
The RB211 had a tricky start, but became a fine engine. But the delay in making a more powerful version, to compete with the CF6-50, hit the Tristar. Many previous non-Douglas airlines took DC-10's, so many also took CF-6 powered 747's when they became available.
An R/R powered DC-10 was offered to BA in the mid-1970s, but they stuck with the L1011.
But it's not all been good for GE, in the early days of the 757 programme GE offered a CF-6 version, rather like the RB211-535 developed from the older RB211's.
Only Air Florida ordered a few, then cancelled, GE cancelled development before the 757 flew, so the R/R engine cleaned up, apart from a few big US majors taking PW2037s.
Today, despite today's job cuts, R/R are second to GE in market share.
The Trent has a great portfolio of customers, and R/R has the best all-round range of aircraft flying their engines for over 30 years.
GE's advantage today is that it is part of a bigger industrial group, and do good deals with leasing companies. R/R cars were sold off in 1971.
Rmm From Australia, joined Feb 2001, 518 posts, RR: 1 Reply 9, posted (11 years 7 months 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 2307 times:
I'll think you'll find the later CF6's have a better fuel burn than the
equivalent RR model. Have a look at the RR web site. The info for
all large engine types only specifies "competitive" fuel burn not the
Rmm From Australia, joined Feb 2001, 518 posts, RR: 1 Reply 13, posted (11 years 6 months 4 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 2188 times:
I like to here from any Qantas people as to how the Roller is
going on the Ex BA 767's on the MEL-SYD-MEL run. What are they
like compared to the CF6's? I know the Ansett CF6's didn't
really like this 1 hour leg. We used to get about 2000 to 3000
hours out of them before an overhaul was required.
TEDSKI From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 14, posted (11 years 6 months 4 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 2192 times:
It was last year where there were a series of uncontained engine failures involving the spools on the GE CF6. One involved a US Airways 767-200ER on the ground during an engine test run when the engine came apart severely damaging the aircraft.