Not just aircraft-- a lot of naval vessels-- ships, subs, etc.

But, the AV8B comes to mind. RR Pegasus engine.

:)

I'm pretty sure that the AV-8B is powered by a RR engine, but that is the only USN/USMC tactical aircraft that I can think of. I think the newest model of the KC-130s for the USMC also use RR engines. It seems that GE is the preferred engine manufacturer overall, but that is just an observation. I certainly don't know the type of every engine in use.

USMCFLYR

So in the long run, it will cost Boeing more in cost overruns and fixes than it would have spent had it just kept the manufacturing process in house with its unionized workers.

I love the irony.

If the L1011 was the Tri-tanic? Does that mean the B787 will be the Bi-tanic?

That's correct. The RR lift module is the only one of it's kind in the world so all Harriers in service are RR powered.


JJ

I think Boeing will pull through. I don't think Boeing, Airbus, GE, or RR are in for an easy ride especially when it comes to next gen aircraft.


It's difficult to name any iconic engineering firm that hasn't had major issues at some point.



JJ

AE3007- GMA (General Motors Allison) went ahead alone to produce a turbofan initially known as the GMA 3007. With the formation of Allison Engines this became the AE 3007.The first AE 3007 went on test in July 1991. Additional development during 1992 included full altitude calibration, acoustic tests, initial endurance testing, and initiation of flight testing on a Cessna Citation VII prototype flying test bed, which first flew on 21 August 1992. The first (AE 3007A) version was certificated in 1995, and when Allison Engines was bought by Rolls-Royce later in that year the AE 3007 programme was continued.

Source: Rolls-Royce AE 3007 (United States) - Jane's Aero-Engines

My point was that some may want to call the V2500 engines on the 90 as RR, but it's no more RR than PW. I wouldn't call the V2500 a real RR engine anymore than I would call the 3007 a real RR designed engine. I threw the AE3007 in just as a reminder to some that the name on the side is not always the designer.

I say that going back to my point earlier which was, according to some engine folks, RR's compressor sections of their engines are designed in such a way as to not be as reliable. The engine failure on the 380 was not a surprise. That's the problem.

1 word, Charleston. They came to that ploy late, had they done that earlier it may have achieved their desired pressure on IAM751 but instead they've ruined their supply chain and manufacturing quality. Boeing is inept right now. I think Delta referred to them as a ship without a rudder a few months ago. That's buried in the L&G thread somewhere.

As I recall, the US Harrier purchase was an industrial offset to the British purchase of the US Trident missile system. I note that the Harrier replacement is to be powered by a Pratt and Whitney engine (F-135).

Back to the 787, makes you wonder if they should've just tried some of their 787 systems out on the 748 first or even an upgraded 763. If it worked run with a 787 later.

If they wanted to be revolutionary they could've turned that RC flying wing into something real using conventional systems but allowing the wing to win the efficiency instead of pushing unconventional technologies, supply chain processes and manufacturing to their limits and putting it all into a conventional design made out of plastic. Unconventional stuff in a conventional looking design or vice versa?

http://mili.co.kr/aircraft/us/X-Plan...img/x48b_1.jpg

how about something tacky, like Sparky?

http://www.briancuban.com/wp-content...tric-chair.jpg

:D Someone I'm sure is not going to find that funny.