A what if - no or reduced development problems with the RB211


ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
4 June 2006
Reaction score
If RR had had reduced or even no development problems with the RB211 and hadn't gone bankrupt, would that have had a knock on effect anywhere else?

In 'The Development of Jet Turbine aero engines', Bill Gunston suggests that if Hooker had been called back a year earlier then 'the crisis would have been averted', does that sound right?

Edit: A quick flick through the BAC3-11 section of 'Stuck on the Drawing Board' suggests that money that could have been used for the BAC3-11 was used to bail out RR.
Would the RB211 have attracted the Lockheed interest if the design planned to use titanium blades from the start rather than Hyfil?
It would certainly have an effect, but its impossible to know what at this distance from the events. Perhaps going bust and getting Sir Stanley back was just what RR needed, and by avoiding that they would just have declined further...
Bypass ratio

From Bill Gunston's 'The development of jet and turbine aero engines'...

In Rolls Royce case while Griffiths rightly kept thinking of BPR around 20, a study was made to find optimum BPR for an engine in an external pod and, because of incorrect assumptions of nacelle drag, came up with the answer that it should not exceed 1.0.'

Anyone know when this study was done?
*whistles* Incorrect assumptions and/or incorrect data reduction can kill you (for incorrect data reduction, consider the original F-111 design which, because of that, had just about every design feature possible for increasing aftbody drag - as proven by later comprehensive wind tunnel studies).

Personally, I think RR should've have been persuaded Sir Stanley to stay around as part of the price of buying Bristol-Siddeley to keep them out of the JT9D consortium. If you want a real what-if, what if Hives and Stanley Hooker hadn't had a blow-up and Hooker had stayed with RR?

Similar threads

Top Bottom