Why aren't these tremendous Men and Women listed as some of Britains greatest pioneers of all time? These are people who set the standard for the greatest aeronautical engineering achievements to date!
@Pinnacle Level Design LDC UK maybe not, but the people involved should be listed and honoured by the queen as heroes. They over come huge problems and brought one if the most successful commercial jet engines of all time. It's a work of beauty. I tip my hat to you kind Sir's
All 700+ of them that failed miserably to do what they "promised" to do within the time "promised" to do with it? Oh wait. That DOES make them "great" as far as limeys go. They performed EXACTLY the way "great Britons" do after making "promises" to their "partners".
I remember working on the first set of fan blades for the rb211 at wellhouse Mill in barnoldswick. We worked 7 days a week but we got the job done . Note rb stands for rolls royce barnoldswick a little town on the yorkshire lancashire boarder in the North of England where a lot of development work was done on jet engines
If it wasn’t for the rb211 there would be no Trent 700, Trent 809, Trent 900, or even Trent 1000, Trent 7000, or Trent XWB. They are all variants of the rb211
Amazing to think that Britain’s leadership in turbines dates back to the late 19th century with Parson’s stream turbine. This formed the basis for Whittle to conceive of gas turbines.
When i was a kid, I had a die cast L1011. I fell in love with jets at age 5. Recently I bought a sales pamphlet for the RB211 from it's fledgling days.
You are right - they are the heroes, in much the same way as sound engineers are the unsung, unseen heroes of successful CDs. The word genius is often over-used so if not really one, then Mr Coplin comes close.
For all the challenges without the RB211 the UK would have not been able to compete with PW and GE of America on the international market. The RB211 engine literally saved UK Jet engine production!
I woke up one morning somewhere over the Atlantic ocean. Maybe 8 or 9 years old, wide eyed, in the kitchen of a 747-168 I looked through the windows and fell in love with those old grey monsters as the fans windmilled on. All I heard was Swooshhhhhhhhhh. Later I would learn they were called RB211s
Windows and sleeping kids in the "kitchen" of a 747, huh? Interesting. BTW, turbofans don't make "whoosh" sounds. And your "747-168" was powered by a Pratt & Whitney JT9D-3A. Not an "RB211".
@@deeremeyer1749 The P&W -3A engine was only sold on the first batch of 747 production. The Saudi Airlines order for 8 of the new 747-168B model was first delivered in 1979 with RB211-524B engines. (Any airline that had the P&W -3A engines on delivery had long since upgraded to -7 by 1974, either directly or after an intermix operation until enough field certified upgrade kits were available).
3 года назад
U must've passed out on the floor. The 747 has a galley not a kitchen and there's no seats on it
I remember RR going bankrupt. Nobody could believe it. But in the 1970's Britain was going through so many problems with endless strikes, nationalisation programs and restructuring, that it was all taken, almost, as if inevitable. But, somehow I much prefer the Britain of then as to the Britain of now.
They tested the RB211 on one of our VC10's XR809 - G-AXLR! It was modified to have ONE RB211 on the left and the 2 Conways on the right. It was 'loaned' by the RAF. The RB211 was a success obviously BUT it proved to be more powerful than the 2 Conways! This twisted the airframe and we had to scrap the aircraft. A very sad task takeing her apart at RAF Kemble (as it was then) now its Cotswold airport or somesuch??
Though the delay in getting the RB211's did cost the L-1011 it's commercial success, the engine and the aircraft together created, IMO, the greatest airliner ever built. I had the privilege of flying aboard her 14 times in the late 70's and early 80's, 12 on the classic Delta livery and 2 with my favourite airline, TWA. NO OTHER aircraft sounded like her! THIS is what I mean! ruclips.net/video/TG4_7dvjpQM/видео.html
I thought it was the other a round. Stanley Hooker was brought out of retirement and brought in his old team to head up the project. Stanley Hooker was a brilliant mathematician first and then became an equally brilliant engineer
The RB211 has a longer on-wing life than any other turbofan and other than the tristar, it powers the 747, 757 & 767. I had the privilege of returning from Funchal on a Tui 757 powered by these.
Llegaron a ser los motores aeronáuticos más avanzados y potentes de la época. Con bajo nivel de ruido y una excelente eficiencia en el consumo de combustible comparado con los motores estadounidenses similares. Magníficos. 😃👍🏻
Thank you that's so interesting im a big fan of the boeing 747s specialy the big 747-400 cargo planes and also i watch them fly over my house ive also got an app on my phone to see which ones taking off and . Landing
En mi más humilde opinión, se trató del motor turbopropulsor más avanzado y potente de la época, poco ruidoso pero maravilla de máquina lo fue. Motorizó varios modelos de aviones como el Lockheed L-1011 Tristar, los Boeing 747, 757 y 767. El Rolls Royce RB-211, el motor de las maravillas aeronáuticas del siglo XX. 😃👍🏻
Para mí el motor aeronáutico de la Gran Bretaña Rolls Royce RB-211 es ya una maravilla de la ingeniería. Posee el arranque más poderoso que sus contrapartes estadounidenses de la época. Hizo de los aviones de Lockheed y Boeing máquinas voladoras veloces. Saludos. 😀👍🏻
Complete bullshit as far as getting "more thrust" driving a fan than the "core" would otherwise produce. Regardless of where it's "produced" ALL of the "thrust" still comes from the "core". And with "triple-spool" engines with their useless, power-wasting and fuel-sucking " intermediate" compressor and turbine stages for nothing but the fan, which doesn't allow the fan to help "drive" any accessory loads during "cruise", the net thrust output is reduced even more. The fan also turns "backward" compared to the "LP" compressor and "triple-spool" engines are notorious fuel-hogs, very "underpowered" and "overloaded" and "leaned out" and prone to "compreasor surge" during low-speed, high-load and high "angle-of-attack" operation or in any other situation where intake air is blocked, disrupted or insufficient. Instead of starting with a "clean sheet" approach and "developing" a "high bypass turbofan" from scratch, "Rolls-Royce" took an axial-flow "turbojet" that was in and of itself poorly "developed", more or less doubled the size of the "core" with no clue that would "square" rather than double the amount of fuel and air it would "consume" simply to "double" the power output and then had to add "intermediate" stages and install a "free turbine" and "third shaft" and spin the fan the opposite direction in order to "govern" the engine and counteract the ridiculous, wasted "torque" the engine produces due to all the additional, unnecessary and useless internal "drag" and accessory load. With three "spools" it's impossible for those forces to ever cancel or balance out and the weight, complexity, length and expense of the engine, mounts and accessory systems is ridiculously out of proportion to the "thrust" with a "two-spool" engine of similar "thrust" being far lighter, shorter, smaller in diameter, less expensive, more efficient and quieter and one of similar dimensions, cost and "complexity" far more "powerful" and "feel efficient". Not to mention more durable, reliable, versatile, serviceable, smoother and quieter. There's a reasonably 275 Tri-Stars were built and why R-R "won" a non-existent "competition" to provide engines for them. All of the "orders" were "pre-orders" predicated on the claim and belief that the Tri-Star and it's "high-bypass turbofans" would be quieter, faster, more "fuel efficient" and "profitable" than all then-current Boeing "airliners" - the 727, 737 and 747. As well as "safer" than a DC-10. Instead, the Tri-Star burned more fuel than a non-RB211 747, was all but unbearable as far as noise in the "coach" section of the cockpit if the rear engine was at more than "cruise" power during takeoff and reduced rear engine power just made the other two engine work longer and harder and louder. The "S-pipe" intake of the rear engine exacerbated "breathing problems" and became a funnel for rain, snow, ice, dust and any other debris that the aircraft happened to "encounter" and "compressor surge" events were of such magnitude and violence that airframe and engine damage seemed and eventually became inevitable with resulting required "inspections" being a nightmare and "shit work" nearly always delegated to the most-junior and/or least-liked and least-liked to perform them correctly and safely "mechanics" on the maintenance crews. Compressor surges were most common in the most inclement weather be it the hottest, muggiest days of summer or coldest, wettest days of winter and there were/are no safe methods of getting onto and into the airframe and intake of the aircraft unless it's in the shop for maintenance and short of an obvious catastrophic failure or an engine failing to crank,start and run on the ground, aircraft were highly unlikely to be taken out of service based upon the "report" of an inexperienced and/or unliked "mechanic" even if he did manage to perform a "proper" inspection in the soot-filled, hot as hell or deep-freeze cold, wet and greasy or dry and dusty intake and nobody wanted to become the "go-to guy" for inspecting what were obviously poorly designed, engineered and constructed engines, intakes and airframes produced by "engineers" with little or no practical and factual knowledge of and experience with "fluid dynamics" despite whatever "education" they'd received on "jet intakes" as "engineered" and "developed" in countries then-considered "superior" to the U.S. in "aerospace engineering", such as "Great Britain" and "Russia". Their supposed and largely self-proclaimed" and entirely self-verified "superiority" was taken at face value by college professor "engineers" similarly "brillliant" in their own minds and closed, academic and "intellectual" communities where they were "right" and "wise" primarily because those who knew better and possessed knowledge rather than information and facts rather than theory ever crossed paths, words and intellects with them. And typically after failing too "make it" in the "real world" of "engineering" regardless of their alleged IQ, aptitude, genius, brilliance or other ''qualifications" per professors, parents, classmates, peers etc and even being taught or at least told quite the opposite in the "real world" by "fake" engineers without so much as a "degree" in ANYTHING but somehow having a "made it" working in the field at some manufacturer they were only "interning" for and where like it or not and educated or not, they were definitely "clueless", they probably ran back to the safety and security and comfort of "academia" where each new semester brought to them a new group of young, ignorant "idiots" to dazzle with their brilliance or at least baffle with their bullshit. Those are/were the true believers in things like Mach 2+ English Electric Lightnings with "stacked" rear-mounted, buried in the fuselage engines with 'reheat" breathing equally and well through that ridiculous "nose cone" intake. Or that 20,000 lbs of "static thrust" as "proven" by and from a bare, wide-open unconfined engine on a test stand remains 20,000 lbs of thrust and sufficient to "vertically lift" 20,000 lbs of "VTOL" aircraft once installed in an airframe, providing hydraulic and/or electric and/or pneumatic and/or mechanical power for various "accessory" systems and with "half" of it's "thrust" taken from the "cold" section of a so-called "turbofan" and the other "half" being the exhaust gas "thrust" with all of the above being directed to four rotating "nozzles" via many, many feet of restrictive, twisty, turny "ductwork" and best of all the hottest, least dense and most restricted "thrust" getting the job of "lifting" what is obviously the "heavy" end of the plane and the one common sense and 5 minutes watching a helicopter "transition" to and from "hover" and "forward flight" says and shows is the end you want to be "light". The list of "brilliant" British "engineering achievements" which haven't been laughed into the "memory hole" only because those "wise" and "intellectually curious" enough to read/see/hear about their "nuts and bolts" and recognize propaganda from a mile away simply because according to "historians" and other "experts" pretty much everything they ever "developed" was "perfect" at the ""prototype" stage and therefore required only "further development" once in "production", is essentially "endless". Makes me wonder why R-R didn't build entire airplanes instead of just engines.
The RB211 was a highly successful series of engines, and the direct anticident of the Trent Series. Rolls-Royce remains the only manufacturer that can compete directly with GE. In the very high bypass space. I would suggest that RR engineering and design has been vindicated. I doubt you would agree.
@@lukebrennan5780 The above rant is just that, in the second sentence he confuses thrust with power, not much point reading it after that. Some American company's PR departments were quite good at taking credit for all that came from England. One of the reasons Whittle was sent on his tour of America was that the British had got word that certain American companies were claiming that they had invented radar by themselves, including the magnetron, and the same had started to be circulated about the jet engine. Britain not only sent a Whittle turbine to the US along with all the drawings and documents, they also sent one of the two flight certified de Havilland H1 (later named Goblin) jet engines (the spare to the engine being used in the Vampire prototype) to the USA to power the Lockheed P80 Shooting star prototype. After inspecting the P80, the British engineer who delivered the engine warned Lockheed that the skin of the inlet ducts was too thin to withstand the low pressure (suction, if you must) in the inlet ducts due to the jet's airflow. But the American engineers ignored this warning (after all, he wasn't American, what did he know) , both ducts collapsed and were sucked into the engine during ground testing when at full throttle, the engine did not like this one bit. de Havilland urgently shipped the engine intended for the prototype Vampire to replace the destroyed H1. The British also sent all the drawings and data on the Metropolitan Vickers F2 axial compressor jet engine which was being developed concurrently with, but separate to, the Whittle and Halford (H1) jet engines. This powered the Meteor eight months after its maiden flight. I have provided a simplified timeline below. DG206/G powered by two Halford H1 jet engines (straight through), Meteor's maiden flight on 5 March 1943 DG205/G powered by two Rover W2B/23 jet engines (whittle pattern), first flown 12 June 1943 DG204/G powered by two Metrovick F2 axial jet engines, unlike the other F.9/40s the engines were mounted under the wing (much like the Me262), first flown 13 November 1943 Yes, QANTAS changed over for a number of reasons including more economical operation of the aircraft. Unfortunately, there was a downside - QF32! Parts of R-R had lost the plot and it resulted in "the greatest air disaster that never happened", but, by the Gods, it was close. Those four letters should be emblazoned on the walls of every part of R-R that is concerned with aircraft turbines.
Proud to say my dad was one of the engineers on the RB-211 project
mine was the president of USA jaja
@@pablogonzalez7080 *haha
Why aren't these tremendous Men and Women listed as some of Britains greatest pioneers of all time? These are people who set the standard for the greatest aeronautical engineering achievements to date!
adam willis couldn't agree more!
@Pinnacle Level Design LDC UK maybe not, but the people involved should be listed and honoured by the queen as heroes. They over come huge problems and brought one if the most successful commercial jet engines of all time. It's a work of beauty. I tip my hat to you kind Sir's
There is no room for him the list already full of pedophiles and satanists.
I agree with you in this matter.
All 700+ of them that failed miserably to do what they "promised" to do within the time "promised" to do with it?
Oh wait. That DOES make them "great" as far as limeys go. They performed EXACTLY the way "great Britons" do after making "promises" to their "partners".
Another modestly nervous UK Genius Engineer who should be recognised fully.
I remember working on the first set of fan blades for the rb211 at wellhouse Mill in barnoldswick. We worked 7 days a week but we got the job done . Note rb stands for rolls royce barnoldswick a little town on the yorkshire lancashire boarder in the North of England where a lot of development work was done on jet engines
If it wasn’t for the rb211 there would be no Trent 700, Trent 809, Trent 900, or even Trent 1000, Trent 7000, or Trent XWB. They are all variants of the rb211
Speedbird full blown Brunswick
I agree. 👍🏻
And no L-1011
I am proud to say that my grandfather was on the design team for Rolls Royce and designed many engines from the Olympus, RB211 and the Trent 700.
Great story, nice job Mr. Coplin, appreciate the shout outs to Freddie Morley and the great Sir Stanley Hooker.
I do appreciate his ingenuity and dedication, I had the pleasure of working on later models RB211 524 series.
Very interesting. Engineers are the unsung heroes of our civilization.
all my respect to him
Amazing to think that Britain’s leadership in turbines dates back to the late 19th century with Parson’s stream turbine. This formed the basis for Whittle to conceive of gas turbines.
Poor Tristar. You Brits made a beautiful engine, I’m happy it outlived then L-1011. But I feel bad for that ship, what a marvel.
John Coplin should be inducted into the aviation hall of fame for his tremendous contribution to pioneering British aviation engines technology!!
A marvel of engineering work.Well done uk.
RB211 in the 757 is a rocketship. What a fantastic engine, throughout it's history.
When i was a kid, I had a die cast L1011. I fell in love with jets at age 5. Recently I bought a sales pamphlet for the RB211 from it's fledgling days.
I remember my dad having to go from the RR factory in East Kilbride to Derby to help with the RB211.
You are right - they are the heroes, in much the same way as sound engineers are the unsung, unseen heroes of successful CDs. The word genius is often over-used so if not really one, then Mr Coplin comes close.
For all the challenges without the RB211 the UK would have not been able to compete with PW and GE of America on the international market. The RB211 engine literally saved UK Jet engine production!
I woke up one morning somewhere over the Atlantic ocean. Maybe 8 or 9 years old, wide eyed, in the kitchen of a 747-168 I looked through the windows and fell in love with those old grey monsters as the fans windmilled on. All I heard was Swooshhhhhhhhhh. Later I would learn they were called RB211s
Windows and sleeping kids in the "kitchen" of a 747, huh? Interesting. BTW, turbofans don't make "whoosh" sounds. And your "747-168" was powered by a Pratt & Whitney JT9D-3A. Not an "RB211".
@@deeremeyer1749 The P&W -3A engine was only sold on the first batch of 747 production. The Saudi Airlines order for 8 of the new 747-168B model was first delivered in 1979 with RB211-524B engines. (Any airline that had the P&W -3A engines on delivery had long since upgraded to -7 by 1974, either directly or after an intermix operation until enough field certified upgrade kits were available).
U must've passed out on the floor. The 747 has a galley not a kitchen and there's no seats on it
Respect sir , RB211 a Game changer !
I suggest also reading about Stanley Hooker, here mentioned, a fascinating person.
Yes. I've re-read his book 'Not Much of an Engineer' several times.
What a gentleman, a genius and a genie.
Modern turbofans are nothing less than mechanical witchcraft.
Stanley Hooker - the legend upon whose shoulders today's aero engine engineers stand!
Great Autobiography. The golden age of Aviation.
Rolls Royce would have made an amazing turbine car.
You sir are awesome
I remember RR going bankrupt. Nobody could believe it. But in the 1970's Britain was going through so many problems with endless strikes, nationalisation programs and restructuring, that
it was all taken, almost, as if inevitable. But, somehow I much prefer the Britain of then as to the Britain of now.
RB211 is a legend, still ran on many a/c's :)
They tested the RB211 on one of our VC10's XR809 - G-AXLR! It was modified to have ONE RB211 on the left and the 2 Conways on the right. It was 'loaned' by the RAF. The RB211 was a success obviously BUT it proved to be more powerful than the 2 Conways! This twisted the airframe and we had to scrap the aircraft. A very sad task takeing her apart at RAF Kemble (as it was then) now its Cotswold airport or somesuch??
Though the delay in getting the RB211's did cost the L-1011 it's commercial success, the engine and the aircraft together created, IMO, the greatest airliner ever built. I had the privilege of flying aboard her 14 times in the late 70's and early 80's, 12 on the classic Delta livery and 2 with my favourite airline, TWA. NO OTHER aircraft sounded like her! THIS is what I mean! ruclips.net/video/TG4_7dvjpQM/видео.html
I thought it was the other a round. Stanley Hooker was brought out of retirement and brought in his old team to head up the project. Stanley Hooker was a brilliant mathematician first and then became an equally brilliant engineer
The RB211 has a longer on-wing life than any other turbofan and other than the tristar, it powers the 747, 757 & 767. I had the privilege of returning from Funchal on a Tui 757 powered by these.
cool！Trent family and its father RB211 is successful
A great video
omg a genius..
Llegaron a ser los motores aeronáuticos más avanzados y potentes de la época. Con bajo nivel de ruido y una excelente eficiencia en el consumo de combustible comparado con los motores estadounidenses similares. Magníficos. 😃👍🏻
Amazing Engine 👏 BRAVO 👏
Amazing engine
Thank you that's so interesting im a big fan of the boeing 747s specialy the big 747-400 cargo planes and also i watch them fly over my house ive also got an app on my phone to see which ones taking off and . Landing
En mi más humilde opinión, se trató del motor turbopropulsor más avanzado y potente de la época, poco ruidoso pero maravilla de máquina lo fue. Motorizó varios modelos de aviones como el Lockheed L-1011 Tristar, los Boeing 747, 757 y 767. El Rolls Royce RB-211, el motor de las maravillas aeronáuticas del siglo XX. 😃👍🏻
No te olvides del GE90
@@sergiolaurencio7534 Es actualmente el motor más potente y fabuloso. Imponente.
Para mí el motor aeronáutico de la Gran Bretaña Rolls Royce RB-211 es ya una maravilla de la ingeniería. Posee el arranque más poderoso que sus contrapartes estadounidenses de la época. Hizo de los aviones de Lockheed y Boeing máquinas voladoras veloces. Saludos. 😀👍🏻
Didn't the RB-211-22 have problems with the front case cracking shortly after being put into service?
That and it couldn't pass the bird strike test for the life of it
Hope Boeing launch the FSA 757 replacement powered with a RR engine
Thanks 🙏 in combination with Boeing 747. Best airline of the century!
Receivership not bankruptcy
Good engine strong and durability time
Cool!
Cool! Did Rolls Royce ever get into nuclear powered aircraft engines?
Interesting Stanley hooker worked on Merlin and rb211
Sure you've got enough advertising in there? 😡
Almost every engine has problems in the beginning even if the famous GE-90 for the Boeing 777.
Lockheed did not have "confidence". Lockheed had CONTRACTS to fulfill or people would have been much more than "unemployed".
Complete bullshit as far as getting "more thrust" driving a fan than the "core" would otherwise produce. Regardless of where it's "produced" ALL of the "thrust" still comes from the "core". And with "triple-spool" engines with their useless, power-wasting and fuel-sucking " intermediate" compressor and turbine stages for nothing but the fan, which doesn't allow the fan to help "drive" any accessory loads during "cruise", the net thrust output is reduced even more. The fan also turns "backward" compared to the "LP" compressor and "triple-spool" engines are notorious fuel-hogs, very "underpowered" and "overloaded" and "leaned out" and prone to "compreasor surge" during low-speed, high-load and high "angle-of-attack" operation or in any other situation where intake air is blocked, disrupted or insufficient. Instead of starting with a "clean sheet" approach and "developing" a "high bypass turbofan" from scratch, "Rolls-Royce" took an axial-flow "turbojet" that was in and of itself poorly "developed", more or less doubled the size of the "core" with no clue that would "square" rather than double the amount of fuel and air it would "consume" simply to "double" the power output and then had to add "intermediate" stages and install a "free turbine" and "third shaft" and spin the fan the opposite direction in order to "govern" the engine and counteract the ridiculous, wasted "torque" the engine produces due to all the additional, unnecessary and useless internal "drag" and accessory load. With three "spools" it's impossible for those forces to ever cancel or balance out and the weight, complexity, length and expense of the engine, mounts and accessory systems is ridiculously out of proportion to the "thrust" with a "two-spool" engine of similar "thrust" being far lighter, shorter, smaller in diameter, less expensive, more efficient and quieter and one of similar dimensions, cost and "complexity" far more "powerful" and "feel efficient". Not to mention more durable, reliable, versatile, serviceable, smoother and quieter. There's a reasonably 275 Tri-Stars were built and why R-R "won" a non-existent "competition" to provide engines for them. All of the "orders" were "pre-orders" predicated on the claim and belief that the Tri-Star and it's "high-bypass turbofans" would be quieter, faster, more "fuel efficient" and "profitable" than all then-current Boeing "airliners" - the 727, 737 and 747. As well as "safer" than a DC-10. Instead, the Tri-Star burned more fuel than a non-RB211 747, was all but unbearable as far as noise in the "coach" section of the cockpit if the rear engine was at more than "cruise" power during takeoff and reduced rear engine power just made the other two engine work longer and harder and louder. The "S-pipe" intake of the rear engine exacerbated "breathing problems" and became a funnel for rain, snow, ice, dust and any other debris that the aircraft happened to "encounter" and "compressor surge" events were of such magnitude and violence that airframe and engine damage seemed and eventually became inevitable with resulting required "inspections" being a nightmare and "shit work" nearly always delegated to the most-junior and/or least-liked and least-liked to perform them correctly and safely "mechanics" on the maintenance crews. Compressor surges were most common in the most inclement weather be it the hottest, muggiest days of summer or coldest, wettest days of winter and there were/are no safe methods of getting onto and into the airframe and intake of the aircraft unless it's in the shop for maintenance and short of an obvious catastrophic failure or an engine failing to crank,start and run on the ground, aircraft were highly unlikely to be taken out of service based upon the "report" of an inexperienced and/or unliked "mechanic" even if he did manage to perform a "proper" inspection in the soot-filled, hot as hell or deep-freeze cold, wet and greasy or dry and dusty intake and nobody wanted to become the "go-to guy" for inspecting what were obviously poorly designed, engineered and constructed engines, intakes and airframes produced by "engineers" with little or no practical and factual knowledge of and experience with "fluid dynamics" despite whatever "education" they'd received on "jet intakes" as "engineered" and "developed" in countries then-considered "superior" to the U.S. in "aerospace engineering", such as "Great Britain" and "Russia". Their supposed and largely self-proclaimed" and entirely
self-verified "superiority" was taken at face value by college professor "engineers" similarly "brillliant" in their own minds and closed, academic and "intellectual" communities where they were "right" and "wise" primarily because those who knew better and possessed knowledge rather than information and facts rather than theory ever crossed paths, words and intellects with them. And typically after failing too "make it" in the "real world" of "engineering" regardless of their alleged IQ, aptitude, genius, brilliance or other ''qualifications" per professors, parents, classmates, peers etc and even being taught or at least told quite the opposite in the "real world" by "fake" engineers without so much as a "degree" in ANYTHING but somehow having a "made it" working in the field at some manufacturer they were only "interning" for and where like it or not and educated or not, they were definitely "clueless", they probably ran back to the safety and security and comfort of "academia" where each new semester brought to them a new group of young, ignorant "idiots" to dazzle with their brilliance or at least baffle with their bullshit. Those are/were the true believers in things like Mach 2+ English Electric Lightnings with "stacked" rear-mounted, buried in the fuselage engines with 'reheat" breathing equally and well through that ridiculous "nose cone" intake. Or that 20,000 lbs of "static thrust" as "proven" by and from a bare, wide-open unconfined engine on a test stand remains 20,000 lbs of thrust and sufficient to "vertically lift" 20,000 lbs of "VTOL" aircraft once installed in an airframe, providing hydraulic and/or electric and/or pneumatic and/or mechanical power for various "accessory" systems and with "half" of it's "thrust" taken from the "cold" section of a so-called "turbofan" and the other "half" being the exhaust gas "thrust" with all of the above being directed to four rotating "nozzles" via many, many feet of restrictive, twisty, turny "ductwork" and best of all the hottest, least dense and most restricted "thrust" getting the job of "lifting" what is obviously the "heavy" end of the plane and the one common sense and 5 minutes watching a helicopter "transition" to and from "hover" and "forward flight" says and shows is the end you want to be "light". The list of "brilliant" British "engineering achievements" which haven't been laughed into the "memory hole" only because those "wise" and "intellectually curious" enough to read/see/hear about their "nuts and bolts" and recognize propaganda from a mile away simply because according to "historians" and other "experts" pretty much everything they ever "developed" was "perfect" at the ""prototype" stage and therefore required only "further development" once in "production", is essentially "endless". Makes me wonder why R-R didn't build entire airplanes instead of just engines.
The RB211 was a highly successful series of engines, and the direct anticident of the Trent Series. Rolls-Royce remains the only manufacturer that can compete directly with GE. In the very high bypass space.
I would suggest that RR engineering and design has been vindicated.
I doubt you would agree.
What ranting drivel, what medication are you taking?
angry much?
Amusing. I remember when QANTAS ditched their P&W JT9s for the RB211-524D4.
@@lukebrennan5780 The above rant is just that, in the second sentence he confuses thrust with power, not much point reading it after that.
Some American company's PR departments were quite good at taking credit for all that came from England. One of the reasons Whittle was sent on his tour of America was that the British had got word that certain American companies were claiming that they had invented radar by themselves, including the magnetron, and the same had started to be circulated about the jet engine.
Britain not only sent a Whittle turbine to the US along with all the drawings and documents, they also sent one of the two flight certified de Havilland H1 (later named Goblin) jet engines (the spare to the engine being used in the Vampire prototype) to the USA to power the Lockheed P80 Shooting star prototype.
After inspecting the P80, the British engineer who delivered the engine warned Lockheed that the skin of the inlet ducts was too thin to withstand the low pressure (suction, if you must) in the inlet ducts due to the jet's airflow. But the American engineers ignored this warning (after all, he wasn't American, what did he know) , both ducts collapsed and were sucked into the engine during ground testing when at full throttle, the engine did not like this one bit. de Havilland urgently shipped the engine intended for the prototype Vampire to replace the destroyed H1.
The British also sent all the drawings and data on the Metropolitan Vickers F2 axial compressor jet engine which was being developed concurrently with, but separate to, the Whittle and Halford (H1) jet engines. This powered the Meteor eight months after its maiden flight. I have provided a simplified timeline below.
DG206/G powered by two Halford H1 jet engines (straight through), Meteor's maiden flight on 5 March 1943
DG205/G powered by two Rover W2B/23 jet engines (whittle pattern), first flown 12 June 1943
DG204/G powered by two Metrovick F2 axial jet engines, unlike the other F.9/40s the engines were mounted under the wing (much like the Me262), first flown 13 November 1943
Yes, QANTAS changed over for a number of reasons including more economical operation of the aircraft. Unfortunately, there was a downside - QF32! Parts of R-R had lost the plot and it resulted in "the greatest air disaster that never happened", but, by the Gods, it was close. Those four letters should be emblazoned on the walls of every part of R-R that is concerned with aircraft turbines.