B-52 Re-engining?

Is the program to re-engine B-52 aircraft running?
Thx,
VL

Yes. It's called the F-35

"MLenoch" wrote
Is the program to re-engine B-52 aircraft running?
Thx,
VL

"MLenoch" wrote in message

Is the program to re-engine B-52 aircraft running?

Not AFAIK. They tried to get it in under some sort of fuel economy program
that would have made it easier to lease the engines, but I don't think
anyone bought it.

--�
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)

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?
Thx,
VL

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
Twentynine Palms CA USA

"Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend.
Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read."
- Groucho Marx

"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.

--
Jim Atkins


Should there not be a lot of TF-33 engines in the stockpile from retired
C-141B aircraft?

Tex Houston

Tex suggested: Should there not be a lot of TF-33 engines in
the stockpile from retired C-141B aircraft?
Robbing engines from other birds is not a solution. High-time motors are
still required to be reworked with new internal components at specific
intervals.

As the demand goes down, the service is forced to contract out for small
quantities of replacement parts at "sky high" prices.

There is also the economy issue: the old motors also burn a lot of fuel and
there will be a definite savings "per flight hour" that helps to offset the
cost of new motors.


(¯`·._.· £ãrrÿ ·._.·´¯)








"Tex Houston" wrote in message
...

"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.

--
Jim Atkins


Should there not be a lot of TF-33 engines in the stockpile from retired
C-141B aircraft?

Tex Houston

"Larry" wrote in message
...
Tex suggested: Should there not be a lot of TF-33 engines in
the stockpile from retired C-141B aircraft?
Robbing engines from other birds is not a solution. High-time motors are
still required to be reworked with new internal components at specific
intervals.

As the demand goes down, the service is forced to contract out for small
quantities of replacement parts at "sky high" prices.

There is also the economy issue: the old motors also burn a lot of fuel
and
there will be a definite savings "per flight hour" that helps to offset
the
cost of new motors.


I know about engines being reworked. You talk as if the C-141B engines were
not changed regularly. In the case of "pay me not or pay me later the
services will almost always elect to "pay me later. Robbing would not be
the work I would use. It would only be appropriate if the C-141 airframes
were still being used. Salvaged seems to describe the situation best.

Tex

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.

"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.

"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.