Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
QF744ER
Topic Author
Posts: 472
Joined: Mon Jun 21, 2004 7:59 am

BA B744 RB211 engines

Wed Dec 30, 2020 3:40 pm

I’ve just watched the recent Sam Chui vlog about the retro BA 744’s being preserved and what I found most interesting is that BA removed all the RB211-524 engines with seeming ‘green time’ remaining. The BOAC one has had 3 ‘good’ engines swapped out with life expired units. The Landor one has had her 4 engines swapped out also.

Apart from a handful of RR powered cargo B744’s flying with the likes of Silkway, Cargolux and Longtail Aviation, these engines are pretty much worthless, I could understand if they were GE or even P&W engines.

What does BA do with these engines that have been removed?

I will add though, surely BA could’ve swapped the cowlings back around after removing the ‘green’ engines as the BOAC and Landor ones look shoddy now with their mismatched engine cowlings.
 
unimproved
Posts: 260
Joined: Sun Jun 22, 2014 7:14 pm

Re: BA B744 RB211 engines

Wed Dec 30, 2020 3:58 pm

Remaining life is money, even if it isn't worth much in the first place. Engine swapping on a 747 is a one day job anyway.

Might be converted to other RB211 variants too.
 
User avatar
747classic
Posts: 3844
Joined: Sat Aug 15, 2009 9:13 am

Re: BA B744 RB211 engines

Wed Dec 30, 2020 5:34 pm

It depends what type of RR engines are installed.
AFAIK BA operated a mix of RR RB211-524/H-T engines (upgraded with a Trent core) and the "normal" RB-211-524H

The last 9 aircraft were factory delivered with these new engines and several more RB-211-524H's were upgraded by installation of an upgrade kit.
Interestingly, those unique RB.211s, with the Trent core, turned up randomly on various British Airways 747s. With the sophisticated FADEC engine management software, they produce identical thrust to the rest of the engine pool; however they are notable in flight because they burn slightly less fuel and run with slightly lower exhaust gas temperatures (EGTs), which is usually the only way the operating crew will notice they have one of those engines along for the ride.

Low time RR RB211-524G/H-T have the highest risidual value and are presently used at RR powered 747-400F aircraft.
High time "Normal" RB-211-524G/T engines (just before overhaul) have a very low risidual value and may be used for the above mentioned "display" aircraft .
Operating a twin over the ocean, you're always one engine failure from a total emergency.
 
LH707330
Posts: 2460
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2012 11:27 pm

Re: BA B744 RB211 engines

Fri Jan 01, 2021 1:47 am

747classic wrote:
It depends what type of RR engines are installed.
AFAIK BA operated a mix of RR RB211-524/H-T engines (upgraded with a Trent core) and the "normal" RB-211-524H

The last 9 aircraft were factory delivered with these new engines and several more RB-211-524H's were upgraded by installation of an upgrade kit.
Interestingly, those unique RB.211s, with the Trent core, turned up randomly on various British Airways 747s. With the sophisticated FADEC engine management software, they produce identical thrust to the rest of the engine pool; however they are notable in flight because they burn slightly less fuel and run with slightly lower exhaust gas temperatures (EGTs), which is usually the only way the operating crew will notice they have one of those engines along for the ride.

Low time RR RB211-524G/H-T have the highest risidual value and are presently used at RR powered 747-400F aircraft.
High time "Normal" RB-211-524G/T engines (just before overhaul) have a very low risidual value and may be used for the above mentioned "display" aircraft .

Any idea how the T versions compare on fuel burn with the GE and PW engines? I heard the initial 524G was a bit worse, curious if they closed the gap.
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 16080
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

Re: BA B744 RB211 engines

Fri Jan 01, 2021 6:58 am

747classic wrote:
It depends what type of RR engines are installed.
AFAIK BA operated a mix of RR RB211-524/H-T engines (upgraded with a Trent core) and the "normal" RB-211-524H


I think the Trent core is the same as the A330, the engine itself is interchangeable with RR powered 767s. Both QF and BA used to swap the engines between the 744/767.
“Don't be a show-off. Never be too proud to turn back. There are old pilots and bold pilots, but no old, bold pilots.” E. Hamilton Lee, 1949
 
User avatar
747classic
Posts: 3844
Joined: Sat Aug 15, 2009 9:13 am

Re: BA B744 RB211 engines

Fri Jan 01, 2021 12:17 pm

LH707330 wrote:
Any idea how the T versions compare on fuel burn with the GE and PW engines? I heard the initial 524G was a bit worse, curious if they closed the gap.


GE and PW are in still marginal in the lead, but the gap was nearly closed with the 2% SFC improvement of the -T version.

See : https://www.rolls-royce.com/products-an ... n-overview

Compare the payload/range diagrams : https://www.boeing.com/resources/boeing ... 7-400f.pdf

747-400F, Option 2

GE CF6-80C2-B5F = 4455 Nm range at max payload
PW4062 = 4450 Nm range at max payload
RR RB211-524H-T = 4365 Nm range at max payload.
Operating a twin over the ocean, you're always one engine failure from a total emergency.
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 16080
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

Re: BA B744 RB211 engines

Fri Jan 01, 2021 1:25 pm

747classic wrote:

Compare the payload/range diagrams : https://www.boeing.com/resources/boeing ... 7-400f.pdf

747-400F, Option 2

GE CF6-80C2-B5F = 4455 Nm range at max payload
PW4062 = 4450 Nm range at max payload
RR RB211-524H-T = 4365 Nm range at max payload.


The difference in range can be explained by a difference in weight of the engines as well.
“Don't be a show-off. Never be too proud to turn back. There are old pilots and bold pilots, but no old, bold pilots.” E. Hamilton Lee, 1949
 
User avatar
747classic
Posts: 3844
Joined: Sat Aug 15, 2009 9:13 am

Re: BA B744 RB211 engines

Fri Jan 01, 2021 2:38 pm

zeke wrote:
747classic wrote:

Compare the payload/range diagrams : https://www.boeing.com/resources/boeing ... 7-400f.pdf

747-400F, Option 2

GE CF6-80C2-B5F = 4455 Nm range at max payload
PW4062 = 4450 Nm range at max payload
RR RB211-524H-T = 4365 Nm range at max payload.


The difference in range can be explained by a difference in weight of the engines as well.


The range difference is calculated at MZFW (equal for all engine versions), so the max payloads differ for each engine type installed..
The difference in engine weight is reflected in the OEW and consequently the max payload :

For the 744F/ CF6-80C2-B5F, max payload = 112,990 kgs (249,100 lbs) with 4455Nm range
For the 744F / PW4062, max payload = 112,310 kgs (247,600 lbs) with 4450 Nm range
For the 744F / RB211-524H-T, max payload = 112,170 kgs (247,300 lbs) with 4365 Nm range

Conclusion : the RR powered 744F has the highest OEW (lowest max payload) and has still the worst TSFC.

Perhaps the performance retention of the RR engine could be better, as stated in the RR brochure.
Operating a twin over the ocean, you're always one engine failure from a total emergency.
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 16080
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

Re: BA B744 RB211 engines

Fri Jan 01, 2021 3:16 pm

747classic wrote:

Conclusion : the RR powered 744F has the highest OEW (lowest max payload) and has still the worst TSFC.

Perhaps the performance retention of the RR engine could be better, as stated in the RR brochure.


Your observations don’t make sense

GE OEW 163700 Range 3190 nm
PW OEW 164380 Range 3170 nm
RR OEW 164520 Range 3110 nm

With only 80 nm difference in range, and 820 kg in empty weight, I don’t see your conclusion of a clear winner in TFFC. The range listed above is MZFW payload with MTOW range. The MTOW is exactly the same between models, that means the fuel uplifted is exactly the same, it’s MTOW-MZFW, 190,000 lb.

An 80 nm difference could easily be drag related.
“Don't be a show-off. Never be too proud to turn back. There are old pilots and bold pilots, but no old, bold pilots.” E. Hamilton Lee, 1949
 
User avatar
747classic
Posts: 3844
Joined: Sat Aug 15, 2009 9:13 am

Re: BA B744 RB211 engines

Fri Jan 01, 2021 4:39 pm

zeke wrote:
747classic wrote:

Conclusion : the RR powered 744F has the highest OEW (lowest max payload) and has still the worst TSFC.

Perhaps the performance retention of the RR engine could be better, as stated in the RR brochure.


Your observations don’t make sense

GE OEW 163700 Range 3190 nm
PW OEW 164380 Range 3170 nm
RR OEW 164520 Range 3110 nm

With only 80 nm difference in range, and 820 kg in empty weight, I don’t see your conclusion of a clear winner in TFFC. The range listed above is MZFW payload with MTOW range. The MTOW is exactly the same between models, that means the fuel uplifted is exactly the same, it’s MTOW-MZFW, 190,000 lb.

An 80 nm difference could easily be drag related.


Thx for the compliments about my observations. Drag may be a factor, but is caused by the total engine installation (engine cowling, pylon design)
The differences are small, but despite all the efforts for upgrading the RB211-524G/H with the Trent core, the "new" engine is still positioned no 3 in the ranking, officially supplied by Boeing.
Operating a twin over the ocean, you're always one engine failure from a total emergency.
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 16080
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

Re: BA B744 RB211 engines

Sat Jan 02, 2021 10:45 am

747classic wrote:
Drag may be a factor, but is caused by the total engine installation (engine cowling, pylon design


The main contributor to drag in cruise is surface area. The total surface area of the engines would be the major difference in drag, each of the engines has different surface area due to the diameter difference and length of the engines. The interference drag from the pylons would be close to identical.
“Don't be a show-off. Never be too proud to turn back. There are old pilots and bold pilots, but no old, bold pilots.” E. Hamilton Lee, 1949
 
LH707330
Posts: 2460
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2012 11:27 pm

Re: BA B744 RB211 engines

Sat Jan 02, 2021 8:01 pm

747classic wrote:
LH707330 wrote:
Any idea how the T versions compare on fuel burn with the GE and PW engines? I heard the initial 524G was a bit worse, curious if they closed the gap.


GE and PW are in still marginal in the lead, but the gap was nearly closed with the 2% SFC improvement of the -T version.

See : https://www.rolls-royce.com/products-an ... n-overview

Compare the payload/range diagrams : https://www.boeing.com/resources/boeing ... 7-400f.pdf

747-400F, Option 2

GE CF6-80C2-B5F = 4455 Nm range at max payload
PW4062 = 4450 Nm range at max payload
RR RB211-524H-T = 4365 Nm range at max payload.

Thanks, makes sense. Makes it clear why GE was the winner on that generation.

zeke wrote:
747classic wrote:
Drag may be a factor, but is caused by the total engine installation (engine cowling, pylon design


The main contributor to drag in cruise is surface area. The total surface area of the engines would be the major difference in drag, each of the engines has different surface area due to the diameter difference and length of the engines. The interference drag from the pylons would be close to identical.


The RR's got the smallest diameter, though the long duct might increase total nacelle area a bit versus the short-duct PW and GE. A 2% SFC gap gets you 89 nm out of 4455, so puts the RR about in that ballpark.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: boeing767322er, ryanna924 and 13 guests

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos