Mismanagement of the initial development and consequent cost issues led to the effective nationalisation of Rolls-Royce Limited, to save the workforce and the engine businesses important to the UK and many other aerospace and aircraft operating companies.

These very large capacity aircraft were needed to address the significant increases in passenger numbers and air traffic which were then being forecast by the industry.

[4] Between 1964 and 1967, Hawker Siddeley's examination of British European Airways (BEA)'s requirements produced the 160-seat HS.132 and the 185-seat HS.134; both offered the prospect of a 25–30% reduction in seat mile costs over aircraft then in service.

[4] According to Cownie, Gunston, Hayward and the UK Department of Trade & Industry (DTI), the roots of the advanced RB.178 go back to 1961 when Rolls-Royce officially initiated work on a high by-pass ratio aero-engine as a replacement for the Conway.

Engines were undergoing a period of rapid advance due to the introduction of the high bypass concept, which provided for greater thrust, improved fuel economy and less noise than the earlier low-bypass designs.

Rolls-Royce had been working on an engine of the required 45,000 lbf (200 kN) thrust class for an abortive attempt to introduce an updated Hawker Siddeley Trident as the RB178.

In this configuration, three groups of turbines spin three separate concentric shafts to power three sections of the compressor area running at different speeds.

In addition to allowing each stage of the compressor to run at its optimal speed, the triple-spool design is more compact and rigid, although more complex to build and maintain.

Rolls-Royce chose the triple-spool system in 1965 as the simplest, lowest cost solution to the problem of obtaining lower fuel consumption and reduced noise levels at a constant power setting.

On 7 March 1968, the Washington correspondent of The Times wrote of an attempt being made by Congress to block Rolls-Royce's bid to supply engines for the projected United States airbus.

On 9 March 1968, The Times reported that President Lyndon Johnson had received written protests from six senators and five representatives, from Ohio and New Mexico – states that would benefit if a US manufacturer was selected.

[7] To this was added one new piece of technology, a fan stage built of a new carbon fibre material called Hyfil developed at the RAE Farnborough.

The weight saving was considerable over a similar fan made of titanium, and gave the RB211 an advantage over its competitors in terms of power-to-weight ratio.

However, Douglas had also requested proposals from Rolls-Royce for an engine to power its DC-10, and in October 1967 the response was a 35,400 lbf (157,000 N) thrust version of the RB211 designated RB211-10.

There followed a period of intense negotiation between airframe manufacturers Lockheed and Douglas, engine suppliers Rolls-Royce, General Electric and Pratt & Whitney, and the major US airlines.

By Autumn 1969 Rolls-Royce was struggling to meet the performance guarantees to which it had committed: the engine had insufficient thrust, was over weight and its fuel consumption was excessive.

[10] "It was all too obvious that the Derby engineers, normally proud and self-confident to the point of arrogance, had slid from bad to worse when their great leader, Lombard, had been so suddenly plucked from them in 1967.

His death had left a vacuum which nobody could fill ... " – Stanley Hooker[9]In September 1970, Rolls-Royce reported to the government that development costs for the RB211 had risen to £170.3 million – nearly double the original estimate.

[14] Hugh Conway (managing director RR Gas Turbines), persuaded Stanley Hooker to come out of retirement and return to Rolls-Royce.

[9][15] As technical director he led a team of other retirees - including Cyril Lovesey and Arthur Rubbra - to fix the remaining problems on the RB211-22.

Flight International stated in 1980: "The importance placed on fuel saving by airlines is emphasised by Qantas' adoption of RB.211-524 power for its new Boeing 747s – the only aircraft on which all big three fans are available.

Qantas found that British Airways' Boeing 747s fitted with RB211s burnt roughly 7% less fuel than its JT9D-equipped fleet, a saving of about $1 million a year per aircraft, at today's prices.

[25] The -524L, begun in 1987 to allow further growth in the A330 and 777 market, was more extensively redesigned, the considerable differences incorporated leading to the engine eventually receiving the name Trent, under which name development has continued.

As the size of the proposed plane grew from 150 passengers towards 200, Rolls-Royce realised that the RB211 could be adapted by reducing the diameter of the fan and removing the first IP compressor stage to produce an engine with the necessary 37,400 lbf (166,000 N) thrust.

Boeing put Rolls-Royce under pressure to supply a more competitive engine for the 757, and using the more advanced -524 core as a basis, the company produced the 40,100 lbf (178,000 N) thrust RB211-535E4 which entered service in October 1984.

[28] It was also the first to use a wide chord fan blade which increases efficiency, reduces noise and gives added protection against foreign object damage.