Originally Posted by
philbky
The answer seems lost, the question is would the cost be recoupable in decreased redundant weight
But the point is that it's not redundant weight if its removal puts the C of G outside limits and requires its replacement with a corresponding amount of ballast.
therefore reduced fuel burn, reduction in maintenance and scrap value?
The first two would more easily be achieved by leaving the engine installed and just not using it. As for scrap value, the engine was mostly made of plastic, so scrap value would be negligible, almost certainly less than the cost of removing them.
Perhaps on the airframes initially dedicated to the shuttles but on later engine decommissioning?
In the days when I used to jumpseat on the EDI shuttle, it was not unknown to see "Lirttle Willie", as the boost engine was affectionately(?) nicknamed, being used on takeoff from LHR. So it was by no means restricted to hot/high/heavy takeoffs.