Page 1 of 1

RB211 Vs. Trent

Posted: Tue Nov 13, 2001 1:51 pm
by SSTjumbo
So, what are the differences? This is not in the Civ-av forum because I want a consice answer, not just that one's bigger or one's "awesomer". Is there differences in updates, fuel econ., etc.?

RE: RB211 Vs. Trent

Posted: Tue Nov 13, 2001 9:47 pm
by kaddyuk
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

Click for large version
Click here for full size photo!

Photo © Jason Taperell

RE: RB211 Vs. Trent

Posted: Tue Nov 13, 2001 10:26 pm
by Mr.BA
Trent is not build in UK? Then where?



RE: RB211 Vs. Trent

Posted: Wed Nov 14, 2001 12:23 am
by AFC_Ajax00
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.

RE: RB211 Vs. Trent

Posted: Wed Nov 14, 2001 3:01 am
by geotrash
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?

RE: RB211 Vs. Trent

Posted: Wed Nov 14, 2001 5:12 am
by prebennorholm
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.

I recommend a look at

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

RE: RB211 Vs. Trent

Posted: Wed Nov 14, 2001 6:18 am
by AJ
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).

RE: RB211 Vs. Trent

Posted: Wed Nov 14, 2001 1:45 pm
by SSTjumbo
Thanx all!!!  Smile/happy/getting dizzy

RE: RB211 Vs. Trent

Posted: Thu Nov 15, 2001 12:46 am
by charliecossie

You forgot the -22B (fitted to -1, -50 and -100 Trimotors).
Although the 524 and 535 might appear to be the same engine there are really significant differences.