Airliners.net

Hi all,

I'm looking for the BR710 engine fuel mass flow rate and the cost of the engine.

Any of the experts have any idea? Thanks in advance!

Hi!

BR710 on Global 6000 airframe has a takeoff thrust FF between 5500 and 6000 PPH (per engine, of course) and in the range of 1500-2000 PPH per engine in normal cruise.

No idea about the cost of the engine.

Hope it helps!

I always wondered why this series of engine never found its way onto commercial aircraft (save the 717). Seems like a perfect powerplant for RJs and maybe even smaller narrowbodies. Ineffective sales strrategy on RR’s part? Seemed like a fine product.

https://www.myaeroengine.com/OnWingCare ... 2-5746.pdf says:

Inlet mass flow: 432 lb/s

Price was already mentioned in post:
viewtopic.php?t=742957#p10695963

Since the data is about 10 years old, I think the price would be up by some 20-30%, still considering the discounts on large orders, or none, I'd say 2.5mln bucks is as good estimation as you can probably get.

Cheers,
Adam

It's really a high altitude, high Mach engine originally designed for business jets, not airliners.

GF

Why is the BR7xx so good at hot turns, ~17 cycles a day? Is it more than low pressure ratio, lower bypass, compared to CFM56, Trent, V2500, etc.?

An HA pilot I know recently corrected me (the topic was BR 715s on B712 frames), saying HA's 712s have BR 725 engines.
https://www.rolls-royce.com/products-an ... 725.aspx#/

I thought the BR 725's EIS was on the G650 in 2012, after the B717 production ended (last delivery in 2006 to AirTran).

WPvsMW wrote:

Why is the BR7xx so good at hot turns, ~17 cycles a day? Is it more than low pressure ratio, lower bypass, compared to CFM56, Trent, V2500, etc.?

An HA pilot I know recently corrected me (the topic was BR 715s on B712 frames), saying HA's 712s have BR 725 engines.
https://www.rolls-royce.com/products-an ... 725.aspx#/

I thought the BR 725's EIS was on the G650 in 2012, after the B717 production ended (last delivery in 2006 to AirTran).

717s definitely don't have the 725, only BR 715s.

Thanks... as I thought. Now I know why the FO had a puzzled look as he overhead our conversation.

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

It's really a high altitude, high Mach engine originally designed for business jets, not airliners.

GF

That, it certainly is, especially on Bizjets. Given that the BR715 is not on a high-altitude, high-mach airframe in the 717: I wonder how it got there, replacing the 2500 on the MD-90? Certainly it must have had some sort of merit for airliners. At least for that one.

One could posit that the BR7xxx series of engines (designed for bizjets -- a limited market) could find a wider market in the commercial space. But then again, since that only succeeded with 717, I'm sure there's a whole host of reasons that RR isn't pitching their BR7xx's to the new RJ's.

Also: When and why did the 710 go from "BMW/Rolls Royce" to just RR? How involved was BMW in the first place?

Rolls-Royce bought out BMW's involvement in the BMW Rolls-Royce AeroEngines joint-venture in 2000, renaming the company Rolls-Royce Deutschland. I can speak for how much BMW originally contributed though.

It is also interesting to note that a derivative of the BR700 had been selected for use by BAe on the Nimrod MRA4 before that project fell apart.

It got on the MD-95 because it had the right thrust rating for the size plane it was. The V2500 was too much.

Probably too heavy for re-engining RJs. What that question really, "why didn't BBD build their version of the 717?" Well, sales of sub-130 seat airliners is the answer--not so many.

GF

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

It got on the MD-95 because it had the right thrust rating for the size plane it was. The V2500 was too much.

Probably too heavy for re-engining RJs. What that question really, "why didn't BBD build their version of the 717?" Well, sales of sub-130 seat airliners is the answer--not so many.

GF

The 717 is an awesome aircraft for its purpose. Why didn't Boeing continue building the 717? We know the answer. They killed it off because they didn't want it to compete with their 736 (which was an unsuccessful aircraft). I always felt like Boeing should have continued the 717 line. But what do I know?

So, the BR7xxx was just to heavy for RJ's? Apparently, MD believed it was the perfect engine for the MD95 / B717.

Big difference between the RJs and a DC-9 fuselage for balance purposes. Speaking with BBD engineers, re-enginning the CRJ is hard because the CF-34 is a low compression, lightweight engine while more efficient engines with higher pressure ratios weigh too much for the structure and balance. Remember, they are already pushing the 86,000 pound scope limits. None of the 100-135 seat planes have sold well--B717, Fokker 100, B737-500 and -600 and the CS-100 sales total barely exceed 1,000 frames. They're too expensive, by unit, for majors and too big for regionals to operate under the scope limits.

GF