B-52 Re-engining?

"Gene Storey" wrote in message
...
Most of the parts are still manufactured at Tinker, down in Oklahoma.
The ALC there is capable of building new engines if they want,
although lots of stuff is contracted out. My trip there a couple years
ago
I got to see the TF-33 outside storage, and they had 5 acres of these
engines in sealed containers stacked two high! TF-33 variants are used
in E-3 and C-141, as well. I think the 141 is the only one that has a
thrust-reverser.

The nice thing about a 33, is when they shut down on take-off, you don't
get a massive yaw. The big fans everyone wants to replace the 33 with
are so dangerous, that the pilot isn't even in the loop. The engine
quits,
and the computer takes over and kicks the rudder and the other engines
are adjusted to keep the ship from rolling into a big hole.

Like a 777?


"Jim Atkins" wrote

If the AF plans to keep the big bad BUFF around much longer, seems like
reengining is a must- where do you get those ancient TF-33 parts? Aside
from
the obvious fuel economy issues, seems like maintenance costs (rational
for
the new tankers) have to be sky-high.

"Jim Atkins" wrote in message
t...
If the AF plans to keep the big bad BUFF around much longer, seems like
reengining is a must- where do you get those ancient TF-33 parts? Aside
from
the obvious fuel economy issues, seems like maintenance costs (rational
for
the new tankers) have to be sky-high.

There's a small hill out in the desert made of TF-33s in storage/transport
cans.

"Jim Atkins" wrote in message
t...
If the AF plans to keep the big bad BUFF around much longer, seems like
reengining is a must- where do you get those ancient TF-33 parts?

There must be plenty of TF-33 parts around. You have almost 100 BUFFs with 8
engines, now consider how many spares need to be in the supply
pipeline...............

Australia is managing with the 35 x F-111's and they make what can't be
obtained.

Aside from
the obvious fuel economy issues, seems like maintenance costs (rational
for
the new tankers) have to be sky-high.

The cost of changing from one engine type to another, including spares
pipeline, spares, overhaul facilities etc etc are enormous for most aircraft
and take a long time to pay back (Caribou turbine conversions excepted).

--
The Raven
http://www.80scartoons.co.uk/batfinkquote.mp3
** President of the ozemail.* and uunet.* NG's
** since August 15th 2000.

"The Raven" wrote:
"Jim Atkins" wrote:

If the AF plans to keep the big bad BUFF around much longer, seems like
reengining is a must- where do you get those ancient TF-33 parts?

There must be plenty of TF-33 parts around. You have almost 100 BUFFs with 8
engines, now consider how many spares need to be in the supply
pipeline...............

Down in Miami, for example, there are countless engine shops and
repair stations specializing in JT-3D/TF-33 maintenance (I labored
in these sweatshops myself as an A&P). Many of the engines weren't
even going back on airplanes and were rebuilt with the fans removed
for industrial use (powerplants for pipelines etc.) JT-3D/TF-33 parts
galore. And should they run out of parts, the most sensible engine
change would be the even more ubiquitous JT-8D engines used on
727, 737, DC-9 and MD-80 A/C.

-Mike Marron

"The Raven" wrote in message


There must be plenty of TF-33 parts around. You have almost 100 BUFFs
with 8 engines, now consider how many spares need to be in the supply
pipeline...............

Australia is managing with the 35 x F-111's and they make what can't
be obtained.

The F-111s use TF30s. Different engine altogether.

The cost of changing from one engine type to another, including spares
pipeline, spares, overhaul facilities etc etc are enormous for most
aircraft and take a long time to pay back (Caribou turbine
conversions excepted).

Last I knew, the idea was to lease the engines and pay by the hour for
actual run time. Overhauls would be on the owner, probably piggy-backed on
their commerical lines. The theory (no comment on practice) is that the Air
Force can thus spread the costs across the remaining 30-year life of the
planes.

--�
Tom Schoene Replace "invalid" with "net" to e-mail
"If brave men and women never died, there would be nothing
special about bravery." -- Andy Rooney (attributed)

"Thomas Schoene" wrote in message
nk.net...
"The Raven" wrote in message


There must be plenty of TF-33 parts around. You have almost 100 BUFFs
with 8 engines, now consider how many spares need to be in the supply
pipeline...............

Australia is managing with the 35 x F-111's and they make what can't
be obtained.

The F-111s use TF30s. Different engine altogether.

Agreed the engines are different but the point was that a small country can
maintain 35 "obsolete" aircraft and produce all the necessessary engine
parts. The US B-52 fleet by comparison is massive so, one would assume that
would be a more economically viable solution.


The cost of changing from one engine type to another, including spares
pipeline, spares, overhaul facilities etc etc are enormous for most
aircraft and take a long time to pay back (Caribou turbine
conversions excepted).

Last I knew, the idea was to lease the engines and pay by the hour for
actual run time. Overhauls would be on the owner, probably piggy-backed
on
their commerical lines.

That's a valid way to do it. Some airforces already use commercial lines for
engine repairs and overhauls.

The theory (no comment on practice) is that the Air
Force can thus spread the costs across the remaining 30-year life of the
planes.

True, but the cost of such changes often represents a huge spike in the
overall life cycle cost with comparitively little time to recover the costs
through lower operating expenses etc.........


--
The Raven
http://www.80scartoons.co.uk/batfinkquote.mp3
** President of the ozemail.* and uunet.* NG's
** since August 15th 2000.

"Matt" wrote in message ...
It's kinda-on, but I believe they're currently arguing about 4 vs 8 engines.
The proposed 4-engine conversion uses the same engine fitted to the 767, so
it looks kind of ... dorky, I guess is the word.

"MLenoch" wrote in message
...
Is the program to re-engine B-52 aircraft running?


I think the proposal was to lease Rolls Royce RB211-535E4s. They're used on the 757.
Only ever seen one pic of the proposal - does look kind of ...odd!

David

I think the proposal was to lease Rolls Royce RB211-535E4s. They're used on
the 757.
Only ever seen one pic of the proposal - does look kind of ...odd!

There's also a second proposal being looked at that would replace 8 with 8.
Sorry, I don't remember what type of engines would replace the TF-33. Latest
word is the 8 engine proposal is a little cheaper and prefered by Boeing. By
replacing 2 engines with 1 (with greater total thrust I might add) presents
some assymetric thrust problems should an engine be lost during a heavy weight
takeoff. Initially the RB-211 proposal included the "auto-rudder" which is
currently installed on 757s. This system automatically displaces the required
rudder amount for an engine loss. The problem in the BUFF, as anyone who's
ever done a 6-engine approach (done with 2 outboard engines on one side in
idle) or a 2-engine loss takeoff in the simulator knows, sometimes full rudder
isn't enough. The BUFF rudder is just too small. To solve the problem,
another automated system was going to be installed to automatically reduce the
thrust on the opposite outboard engine *and* increase thrust on the inboard
engines. By the time the automated systems were factored in, the cost had gone
up by a fair amount. Its still possible we may get 4-for-8, but right now
there's more attention on 8-for-8.


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

On 25 Sep 2003 23:53:55 GMT, (BUFDRVR) wrote:

Its still possible we may get 4-for-8, but right now
there's more attention on 8-for-8.

And I bet you cant wait.... :-).


greg

--
$ReplyAddress =~ s#\@.*$##; # Delete everything after the '@'
Who lives in a pineapple under the sea? Absorbent and yellow and pourous is he!
If nautical nonsense be something you wish! Then drop on the deck and flop like a fish!

And I bet you cant wait.... :-).


It'll be like Christmas in (insert month of first operational re-engined BUFF
arriving here). The proposal will also give us an upgraded avionics, which will
be worth as much to the average crewdog as the engines themselves.


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"