PDA

View Full Version : Rr Rb211-535e4 Engines


zorsan
31st Mar 2010, 10:41
Hi to everybody.
Regarding the RR RB211-535E4 Engines mounted on about 60% of the B757,does anybody knows the meaning of "211","535" and of the "E4" version?
I readt that the E4 version was a response from RR to Boeing to a P&W more efficient engine.
But these numbers have to mean something(cubic inches, diameters,something).I found nothing on the web.
Any ideas?Thank you people

PeePeerune
31st Mar 2010, 11:18
'211' -- possibly the engine rating 211kN, not def thou.:ok:

Bullethead
31st Mar 2010, 11:42
G'day Zorsan,

Have you seen this wiki article

Rolls-Royce RB211 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rolls-Royce_RB211)

it appears to explain it fairly well. It looks like the numbers are just RR model and variant numbers.

Regards,
BH.

ZeBedie
31st Mar 2010, 12:20
One of the most annoying things about the internet is that if you ask a question, someone who hasn't got a clue will admit that he hasn't got a clue and then answer the question anyway:ugh:

Old Fella
31st Mar 2010, 12:44
The first of the RR RB211 family of engines was the -22 as fitted to the L1011 Lockheed TriStar. The engine was a development by Rolls of the first, that I know of, to have three spools. (Fan, LP Compressor, HP Compressor) all with their own Turbine sections and all on seperate shafts rotating at different RPMs. RB comes from Rolls Royce Barnoldswick where the engine was designed.

lomapaseo
31st Mar 2010, 14:52
ZeBedie

One of the most annoying things about the internet is that if you ask a question, someone who hasn't got a clue will admit that he hasn't got a clue and then answer the question anyway

Your reading is way too pedantic

My read is that a term of "not sure" doesn't mean one doesn't have a clue, but rather they do have a clue but while willing to share doesn't mean for it to be taken as gospel.

That's why we have discussion forums.

forget
31st Mar 2010, 15:01
I've often wondered why Rolls dropped the use of river names for the RB-211, unless there's a River RB-211 I've missed.

And I can understand why they ignored the River Wear.

Chris Scott
31st Mar 2010, 15:43
forget,

Perhaps names went out of fashion for grands projets in the 'Sixties? Think of the airframes, with the exception of Concord/e. Ironic, though, that their first engine without a name bankrupted the firm.

Also, as you seem to suggest, suitable unused British river names are at a premium. Ouse? Wey? Wye? Thames? Mersey?

Being French, SNECMA has a longer list to choose from.

Storminnorm
31st Mar 2010, 15:56
Or, Indeed, The river Rother?
A lot less bother with a Rother?

flighttest-engineer
31st Mar 2010, 16:29
RB211 is a family name for RR engines:
The RB211-535E4 engine is a derivative of the RB211-22B and RB211-524 engine according to the information in RR maintenance training course notes (1991).
Intersting details can also be found in "The Magic of a Name" (The Rolls-Royce Story)
Part 2 The power behind the Jets
Part 3 A Family of Engines

dubh12000
31st Mar 2010, 18:15
I'll give him 30 minutes.....


The E4 is a fabulous engine. On wing for something like 30kOH with Icelandair.

EGT Redline
31st Mar 2010, 18:46
RB211-535E4-37

RB - General Designation
211 - Specific Engine Type
535E4 - Engine Thrust Variation
37 - B757 Installation

Papa2Charlie
31st Mar 2010, 21:24
Just to confuse the matter even more, the newer Trent's are certified as RB211 derivatives. A Trent 700 on the A330 is certified as a RB211 Trent 772 etc. (http://www.easa.eu.int/ws_prod/c/doc/Design_Appro/Engines/TCDS_E_042_RB211_Trent_700_series.pdf).

The Trent series of engines (T500, 700, 800 & 900) are all built on the foundations of the original RB211-22 with the fan and core scaled appropriately and the incorporation of new technologies over time.

The Trent 1000 (B787) is the first of the Trent series to be certified purely as a Trent 100 and not as a RB211 derivative. The EASA Type Cert can be found here...http://www.easa.eu.int/ws_prod/c/doc/Design_Appro/Engines/TCDS%20Trent%201000%20FINAL.pdf

All the best,

P2C

zorsan
31st Mar 2010, 23:01
Thank You To Everybody.that S Exactly The Point Of Forums.thank You.and Yes,the E4 Is A Wonderful Engine.good Day.

stilton
31st Mar 2010, 23:45
Great Engine, the -E4B version is the best of the lot :ok:

Papa2Charlie
1st Apr 2010, 00:17
Well, the record is over 40,000hours on wing with Icelandair....:ok:

<<http://www.rolls-royce.com/civil/news/2007/icelandair_awards.jsp>>

Mark 1
1st Apr 2010, 01:07
I recollect that one of the main aims of the -535E4 over the -535C was to achieve lower noise with the long cowl design.
Noise certification wasn't the issue so much as local airport rules.
Washington National had introduced night time noise limits and Orange County (SNA) similarly was of interest to potential customers.
For a while RR had cut a march ahead of the competition by being able to beat the curfew limits.
All rather a long time in the past now, so I stand to be corrected.

Storminnorm
1st Apr 2010, 17:17
Didn't the VERY early versions of the Tristar engines have
what they called "Wide Chord" fan blades, or am I thinking
of something else?

Mark 1
1st Apr 2010, 19:12
All the -22 versions had the standard 33-blade fan I believe.
I think the very early versions (Phase00?) had clappered fans to allow different aerodynamics either side of the splitter (i.e core flow and bypass flow). They used to make an awful racket when left windmilling.

Swedish Steve
2nd Apr 2010, 11:26
All the early RB211 had clapper blades. The -22B -524B and D and the 535C all had clapper blades.
The -524G/H and 535E introduced wide chord fan blades.

Papa2Charlie
2nd Apr 2010, 18:07
The -535 uses "on-condition" maintenance principals so you only have to remove it for a life limited part going timex or else if you have a problem (e.g. turbine damage outside limits). However....most operators will have an expected life based on rating, average de-rate, stage length, route network etc.. This is true of all gas turbines though.

On the fan blade issue, the original RB211-22 had wide chord composite fan blades made from a carbon composite called Hyfil. While it survived most tests during development engine running in '69/'70, it wasn't up to a bird strike and this resulted in the switch to a Ti clappered blade. This late design change along with a number of other factors (general RB211 performance, exchange rates etc.) pushed R-R into bankruptcy in 1971. The wide chord blade was next introduced onto the E4, this time it was a Ti blade.

Pugilistic Animus
2nd Apr 2010, 19:30
I thought 411A was in this thread yesterday, if I'm not mistaken:confused:

411A
3rd Apr 2010, 08:44
I thought 411A was in this thread yesterday, if I'm not mistaken

He was, but then decided to amend the post...then the phone rang, and it was 'take care of business' time, elsewhere.

My opinion, Rollers are very robust and fuel efficient engines.
Best in the business.
One does pay a penalty, however...they are heavier.

411A
3rd Apr 2010, 23:13
What.....no reference to Lockheeds' finest......?

No need.
Next to my parked private twin engine airplane in Arizona, is a twin, owned by a retired Boeing design engineer.

He says, and I will quote...
'When we looked at the autopilot/systems integration on the L1011 in early 1973, we at Boeing then realised that we were well behind the design curve'.

Ha!
No surprise.

The Rollers were only a bonus.

The L1011....waaaay ahead of everyone else with aircraft systems automation, and, even more important, aircraft systems REDUNDANCY.:)

For the average line pilot...absolute perfection.:ok:

Papa2Charlie
4th Apr 2010, 01:41
I'm not sure of the weight of the -22B/earl 524's v the competition of the day but an installed Trent 800 (B777) does have a weight advantage over the competition (GE90 / PW4000). I believe it's more than 1000 lbs.

Another example of R-R benefiting from the shorter 3-shaft design. :ok:

411A
4th Apr 2010, 07:42
I'm not sure of the weight of the -22B/earl 524's v the competition of the day

The -524B402 version on the -500 model TriStar, was about 1500 pounds heavier than its GE counterpart, on the DC10, if I recall correctly.
However...the Roller was considerably more fuel efficient (9%, actually) and....quieter.
Have to say, RollsRoyce....mightly fine engines.:)

N1 Vibes
4th Apr 2010, 09:22
Just to clarify something from the original poster, that shows how godo/popular the 535 was/is, the fleet split RR/PW on the B757 was closer to 80/20. Consider the number of US B757 operators and they didn't all choose the home brand - tut, tut!

George 'Buy a Boeing' Bush would be so unhappy...

Regards,

N1 Vibes

Graybeard
4th Apr 2010, 13:43
Yes, the RR on the 757 is hard to beat. Is there a more reliable or lower operating cost engine anywhere?

That said, why are so many 757s being parked, and maybe scrapped?

Airlines can be more rational than militaries when it comes to loyalty. America West 757s came with RR because Indian Airlines had ordered them before going bankrupt.

Boeing and GE financed Continental's bailout from its second bankruptcy in the mid-1990s, with the agreement that CO would always buy Boeings with GE engines. RR was selected for CO 757s by GE, because they were the weaker competitor.

IF the militaries had any common sense, they would buy half-life airliners, including 757s, for tankers. They would save hugely, as the work could be done competitively by MROs all over the world. However, govt leaders everywhere are rewarded for spending money, not saving it.

GB

FNFF
13th Oct 2019, 16:24
Any RB211-535C and E4 experts out there?

The RB211-535C and E4 have had a number of reported contaminated air events due to engine oil contaminating the bleed air supply. RR Service Bulletin RB.211-72-7651 of 1 Feb 1985 and others refer to the issue.

A 1999 article also states:"Oil related problems on the RB211-535E4 have multiple origins. First, high oil consumption can come from extended low power operation. "All the bearing compartments on the RB211 are sealed with air, so operating the engine at low power simply means that the available sealing air is less than it would be at high power or cruise settings. It has been shown that normal oil consumption can double when the engine is run at low power for an extended period of time, such as when taxiing or just sitting at the gate...."

Are there any engineers who could please explain a bit more about the relationship between increased oil leaks and the engine at idle and also the reported pilot reports of contaminated air events occurring in the decent again with the engines at idle?

Many thanks

tdracer
13th Oct 2019, 23:56
Any RB211-535C and E4 experts out there?

The RB211-535C and E4 have had a number of reported contaminated air events due to engine oil contaminating the bleed air supply. RR Service Bulletin RB.211-72-7651 of 1 Feb 1985 and others refer to the issue.

A 1999 article also states:"Oil related problems on the RB211-535E4 have multiple origins. First, high oil consumption can come from extended low power operation. "All the bearing compartments on the RB211 are sealed with air, so operating the engine at low power simply means that the available sealing air is less than it would be at high power or cruise settings. It has been shown that normal oil consumption can double when the engine is run at low power for an extended period of time, such as when taxiing or just sitting at the gate...."

Are there any engineers who could please explain a bit more about the relationship between increased oil leaks and the engine at idle and also the reported pilot reports of contaminated air events occurring in the decent again with the engines at idle?

Many thanks

You really have two questions there - why increased oil consumption at idle, and why Rolls.
First off, one of the big challenges of a 3 spool engine is bearing design and lubrication - it's simply far more difficult than with a more conventional 2 spool engine. Due to those complexities, oil going were it doesn't belong is more likely on a 3 spool, and Rolls has had more than their fair share of oil leak and bearing issues over the years on all of it's 3 spool engines.
Common design practice on large turbine engines is to use relatively simple oil seals on the bearings, and then use differential air pressure to help keep the oil from getting past those seals. They use air bled from various parts of the engine to provide those differential pressures - and at idle those pressure differentials are not large enough for this system to work as well as it does at power. That's also why fume events sometimes occur right after engine start - when the engine is shut down there is zero differential pressure so if an oil seal isn't up to snuff it can let oil into the flow path (it used to be common to see massive clouds of oil smoke out the tailpipe after engine start on the L1011).

N1 Vibes
14th Oct 2019, 08:37
My experience of a number of oil-smell events on 535C's in the 1990's was that there were oil leakages at the front of the HPC rotor (i.e, from the rear of the IGB assembly) this then mixed with airflow that entered the interior of the HPC rotor, then out into the HPC airstream and entered the a/c through the off takes (HP3 and HP6?)

Council Van
14th Oct 2019, 10:20
According to DHL there is no issue with contaminated air from the C engine':=

Boxes don't really care do they.

FNFF
14th Oct 2019, 11:41
According to DHL there is no issue with contaminated air from the C engine':=

Boxes don't really care do they.

Maybe that is because DHL have fitted the Pall Aeropsace 'Cockpit Filter Unit' (CFU) to all their Rolls-Royce powered Boeing 757 aircraft so there should be less contaminated air issues in the cockpit?

Council Van
14th Oct 2019, 13:36
Some years since I left but they were awful.

widgeon
20th Oct 2019, 14:16
http://www.vc10.net/Files/BOAC_EngNews_3403_red.pdf

After watching the beeb doc on Rolls Royce I looked a little further into the Hyfil Blades that were one of the Major causes of the Bankruptcy . I had never realised that they had actually flown these blades on a smaller engine .I still find it hard to believe that such a great engineering company could not have foreseen that the anisotropic properties of unidirectional carbon might have been a problem .

ExRR
30th Oct 2019, 14:21
http://www.vc10.net/Files/BOAC_EngNews_3403_red.pdf

After watching the beeb doc on Rolls Royce I looked a little further into the Hyfil Blades that were one of the Major causes of the Bankruptcy . I had never realised that they had actually flown these blades on a smaller engine .I still find it hard to believe that such a great engineering company could not have foreseen that the anisotropic properties of unidirectional carbon might have been a problem .

The situation as I recall was a lot more complex. RR to that point had been reliant on military investment to fund the civil variations of its engines. That route was no longer available and to survive it had to take the gamble of capturing a good share of the American civil market. The 3 shaft hi-bypass engine with the light Hyfil blades offered a solution. The 3 shaft design only being possible with the computing power of an IBM360. Lockheed had no particularly good pedigree in civil aviation but needed to enter that arena for survival too.

The anisotropic properties of Hyfil meant that it could be layered as appropriate and as I recall there was a belief that issues would be resolved. Anyhow it is unlikely that any project would have got off the ground if the weight saving benefits could not be shown to be there.

Again from memory there was strong sense of belief that it suited a Conservative uk government to allow RR to go bankrupt and then rescue it rather than simply put finance into it because of the situation with the EU/Common Market.

It was all a long time ago, a job I loved but was only in for a short 3 years at the start of my working career before being put on the scrap heap - I still have the "Dear Sir or Madam" redundancy letter somewhere. But had the original decision to go ahead with Hyfil not been taken I doubt that RR would be the important player it now is.

ExRR
30th Oct 2019, 14:25
The first of the RR RB211 family of engines was the -22 as fitted to the L1011 Lockheed TriStar. The engine was a development by Rolls of the first, that I know of, to have three spools. (Fan, LP Compressor, HP Compressor) all with their own Turbine sections and all on seperate shafts rotating at different RPMs. RB comes from Rolls Royce Barnoldswick where the engine was designed.

(Yes I've seen the date). I don't recall Barnoldswick as being a design centre, at least not at the time the RB211 was being designed. It was certainly a development centre and many new ideas were tried out there but the main design and associated facilities for the RB211 were in Derby.

lomapaseo
30th Oct 2019, 14:40
The biggest problem with the entrance of these blades was the resistance to FOD, The other big engine manufacturers were also keen to develop composite blades and needed to address the serviceability of these after they entered service. The FAA at that point had already noted the sensitivity of the early GE gun drilled fan blades and was shall we say gun shy of the ruggedness of the now developing composite blade following the RR lead, I seem to recall a funded developments through the Dayton Ohio folks in the 60's. The idea was concentrating around a protective covering at the leading edge to resist erosive properties of fine sand as well as a sacrificial resistance to larger particles such as small stones, hail etc.. and of course stay around long enough to get home after eating birds up to 1.5 lbs.

I believe that history suggests it took another 20 years of industry wide development before these problems were addressed.

widgeon
30th Oct 2019, 17:13
Somewhat on the same topic , my first aviation job after leaving college around 1976 was at Westlands in the Composite Development . We built a tail boom for the Westland Scout from HIgh Modulus unidirectional carbon fibre ( Ciba Geigy product ) . I witnessed the final destructive test , I do not recall if it exceeded design limit but I will never forget the loud crack when it failed and the numerous pieces of carbon fibre that flew all through the hangar. Thankfully the woven fibres now available have much better properties.

lomapaseo
30th Oct 2019, 19:00
I once made up a scale 1/2 size engine fan disk out of a styrofoam block and lashed it to the side of the bathyscaphe Trieste diving to a 10000 ft depth to see how uniform it would miniaturize. It turned out a horrible mess,.I was trying to demonstrate the HIP process of forging with a show and tell model.

msbbarratt
31st Oct 2019, 15:13
The -524B402 version on the -500 model TriStar, was about 1500 pounds heavier than its GE counterpart, on the DC10, if I recall correctly.
However...the Roller was considerably more fuel efficient (9%, actually) and....quieter.
Have to say, RollsRoyce....mightly fine engines.:)

I guess the RB211 was the last hurrah of the generation of engineeres who'd cut their teeth in and immediately after World War 2, during that fantastic period of development in jet engines. Thank goodness it survived the bankruptcy! Pretty good thing to have as the last chapter of one's CV.

rog747
31st Oct 2019, 15:53
The rumbling noise of an RB211 on a Tristar is something else, working at LHR in the 70's when the first BA one's appeared was incredible -
and the spool up of of an E4 on a 757 is the sweetest music

https://youtu.be/UgSjSU5H-k0?t=123

https://youtu.be/DIDS1OEuA2s

https://youtu.be/LMyKIWdgAF0

Anilv
1st Nov 2019, 02:05
My particular memory of the RB211s is that the smell of fuel was always prevalent on start-up, more so than other types of engine.It was as if the pilots had left the choke on too long!.

Anilv

Jhieminga
1st Nov 2019, 12:17
I still find it hard to believe that such a great engineering company could not have foreseen that the anisotropic properties of unidirectional carbon might have been a problem .
They may not have foreseen it, but there was some pretty conclusive evidence that the blades were not yet up to scratch emerging from the service trials on the VC10 engines. See here for an account of how they fared in heavy rainfall: https://www.vc10.net/History/nigeria_airways_and_the_vc10.html
(originally published in 'Silent, Swift, Superb', Henderson, 1998).