On Mon, 30 Jun 2003 22:19:42 GMT, Guy Alcala
wrote:

JB wrote:

They've been orphans in QF operations for a very long time. Whilst I'm sure
there is a cost, I doubt that it's enough to really be a problem. There is
already plenty of expertise in place with regard to maintenance of these
engines.

I suspect it depends on exactly how the deal is structured. Are they going PFI,
is it going to be fully RAAF, some hybrid? On the orphan issue, does Qantas
want to get rid of them because they're too small, because they _are_ orphans
and not cost-effective, or some other reason? The other issue might be how
widely available parts will be for the JT9 for 20 years or so; after all, the
last new JT9D was produced in 1990. The JT9D seems likely to disappear from
service long before the other engines.

There are no pilot training/currency issues. If that's all the RAAF have,
then they won't have a currency or training problem. In practice, I operate
all three types of engine, and there aren't any practical issues, other than
remembering (or not) a few different limits. Procedurally more or less
identical.

Good to know. What's the thrust on the JT9s, compared to the other engines?
Payload capability operating from Learmonth and Tindal is likely to be a factor.

Guy
JT9D's covered a wide range, but I believe the 767-200's have 7R's,
which in this application are 50,000 pounds thrust each. Runway
requirement/lift capability is rarely much of an issue with the -200.

You can get several variants of the CF6-80 for the 767-200ER, as well
as PW4000's. For thrust pick a number from 50,000 to about 57,000
pounds.

No RR engine was ever certified for the -200