B-52 Re-engining?

You talk as if the C-141B engines were not changed regularly.
I'm sure they were changed regularly. And that was my point- when "changed",
fresh motors are installed and new parts are required to rework those motors
(at some point). As time goes by, spare parts become VERY expensive.


Robbing would not be the work I would use.
My aviation experience comes from "shooting them off the pointy end" and
"robbing" is just a nickname for cannibalization (which is what you call
pulling from one bird to install in another). Nothing was meant by it- it's
a very common aviation term. Robbing quickly triples the man-hours and is
always my last resort.


Larry
AECS (AW/SW/MTS)
Disabled Combat Veteran
USN Retired

20 years of Navy in my rear view mirror
and getting further away every day ;-)







"Tex Houston" wrote in message
...

"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

"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.

I believe what Vlado is referring to is a recent re-opening of the B-52
reengining project. A recent Jane's Defense Weekly article said that the
earlier decision about reengining back in the '95 timeframe (ergo, the
maintenance cost savings based on the big TF-33 stockpile outweighed fuel
consumption savings) was flawed.

The article contained a *new* photoshopped picture of a 4-engine BUFF.


"Thomas Schoene" wrote in message
nk.net...
"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)

"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)

"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

"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.

"The Raven" wrote in message
...

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 Raven

I'd hardly call the 93 plane B-52 fleet vs 35 F-111s as 'massive'.

Tex Houston

"Tex Houston" wrote in message
...

"The Raven" wrote in message
...

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 Raven

I'd hardly call the 93 plane B-52 fleet vs 35 F-111s as 'massive'.

35x2 engines versus 93x8............plus whatevers in the pipeline.


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