Kaddyuk From Wallis and Futuna, joined Nov 2001, 4125 posts, RR: 28 Reply 1, posted (11 years 6 months 2 weeks 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 2053 times:
I must say that being from the UK and being that I fly the 757-200 with RB211 engines I say that I prefer the RB engine over Trent anyday. The RB is more powerful, more fuel efficient and it is built in the UK. this is why it is my choce. the only bad thing about the RB211 is that it is a noisy ba***rd I think it is one of the loudest none afterburning engine made (apart for the engines on a MD80) hope this helps.
CEO BMIVirtual http://bmivirtual VA
AFC_Ajax00 From United States of America, joined Nov 2000, 775 posts, RR: 0 Reply 3, posted (11 years 6 months 2 weeks 2 days ago) and read 2034 times:
Pardon me if im wrong but Kaddyyuk i heard that A, the trent is built in the UK, and that the RB211 is a very quite engine especially on the 752, and the average Trent produces twice as much thrust as a RB211.
Once you have tasted flight, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skyward; for there you long to return
Geotrash From United States of America, joined Jun 2001, 326 posts, RR: 0 Reply 4, posted (11 years 6 months 2 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 2035 times:
There seem to be several iterations of the RB211, ranging from models placed in service on the 747 in the 1970s, and the L-1011s, to the more modern variant now in service on the 757. Surely the 757 flavor has little in common with it's earlier siblings, especially noise levels and efficiency ratings, but can anyone comment on precisely what those differences are? Is it a completely new compressor or fan disk design? Or something else?
Prebennorholm From Denmark, joined Mar 2000, 6019 posts, RR: 55 Reply 5, posted (11 years 6 months 2 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 2036 times:
There are two major subtypes of the RB211 engine.
RB211-524 used on 747 and 767.
RB211-535 used on 757 and Tu-204.
The 535 is the smaller variant with several versions in the 40k lbs class while the 524 is larger with a few versions in the 60k lbs class.
Early versions of the 524 were also used on the L-1011.
Apart from size the 524 and 535 are rather similar in design.
Trent engines are surely developed from the 524 and come in five major size versions with thrust ranging from 50k to almost 100k lbs. They power the same planes plus 777 and 330 plus future planes like 340 (-500 & -600) and 380.
Can somebody explain why the RB211 is the only RR turbojet/turbofan engine which never inherited a real name from a British river?
BTW are all RR jet names as appropriate as the Avon? Some years back I had to pick up a friend at Bristol Airport, and therefore I had to drive some distance along the river Avon. That river is long, narrow and very noisy. I figured that it was no coincidense that the Avon engine got its name from that river.
Regards, Preben Norholm
Always keep your number of landings equal to your number of take-offs, Preben Norholm
AJ From Australia, joined Nov 1999, 2376 posts, RR: 27 Reply 6, posted (11 years 6 months 2 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 2017 times:
A good comparison between RB211 and Trent performance can been gained by looking at the RB211-524G/H conversion to a RB211-524G/HT. This involves fitting a Trent core to the existing engine.
The biggest advantage is the in flight start envelope. The 'T' model can be started higher. When flying an aircraft with a mix of standard and modified engines the 'T' can be picked by having lower EGTs (by about 50 degrees C) and fuel flows (by about 100kg/hr).