We are proposing the CF-34 (dash 10)... yes, a variation of the S-3 motor! Same engine that is currently on EMB-190. 20,000 hour overhaul. AF will never have to pull an engine off wing for the remainder of its service life!
-
Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?
Go here:
Edit Account Details and Profile
Minot AFB. B52 incident and accident, All aircrew safe.
- Thread starter Malo83
- Start date
This statement is on its face ridiculous.
It’s actually in the proposal language - as an anecdote with data from EMB-190. Its the perfect thrust package and long life combined. Theoretically this engine could go on the wing and stay there for 20 years!
Theoretically, perhaps. In practice, a ridiculous falsehood. Can you cite an example in modern military aviation where the same engine remained installed on an aircraft for 10, 20, or 30 years?
Tough crowd - no affirmatiion when my knowledge bombs are thread subject appropriate?
For fuck's sake. 20,000 hour overhaul != 20,000 hour life on one airframe. I've got over 15 years of professional experience in a variety of fields, both military and civilian. Only about a year of that was as an Aircraft DivO. But even that short time was enough to for me to know that your assertion of 20,000 hours on one wing is weapons-grade GE marketing bullshit. As a winged jet aviator, if a bit out of practice, I'd still like to think that I have a working knowledge of how airplanes and jet engines fit together, and the maintenance cycles thereof. I'm sure Brett would say the same, having even more experience than me.
Engines get swapped. That's part of the game. Just because they don't need I-level-plus MX doesn't mean they won't move around. Engines get FODed when Seaman/A1C Snuffy leaves a wrench in the wrong place. Or that six-Sigma mechanical failure happens to one engine, so you swap it out for another from the hangar queen to make CAOC tasking. Or some asshole with a SA-something-or-other wrecks an engine or two. The jet makes it back, so you do a combat damage repair to swap out other engines to meet CAOC tasking.
Sure, I'll buy that modern engines have an impressive level of reliability. My old man worked for GE Power Systems for 10 years, and he was (and is) an old-school mechanical engineer who knew (and knows) his shit. So I know the company can design a damn turbine that works. But your initial statement was crap. The military doesn't need an engine that can hang on one pylon for 20,000 hours. It needs an engine that can move wherever needed for 20,000 hours and keep on keeping on. Those are two different assertions. Two different requirements. Two different specs. Is the reliability of the engine your company is offering contingent on hanging on one, and only one pylon for 20,000 hours? I have no idea, but it matters. Is the time between I-level MX cut in half if you swap it to another jet? I have no idea, but it matters, because what you just claimed is 20,000 hours on one pylon. And that's not relevant. My point is that words have meanings. And what your engineers can prove that engine can do, to a spec that meets the needs of the warfighter on the ramp downrange, is more germane to the conversation than what your marketing flim-flam artists say it can do.
Step away from the Single Malt. ?
Seriously the sustainability play with the 52 re-engined with a commercial engine variant that is in service with a high cycle airliner and result is a engine staying on wing for years is pretty cool. It’s been validated . Will see what the AF picks - 2019 will see a contract award. The numbers aren’t made up. Rolls, and P&W doing similar proposals
Things like 3D printed engine internals were poo poo’d too but alas reality.
If you are ever in The Queen City, @PEPfromage and I can give you a tour of engine learning center - it’s pretty cool.
Seriously the sustainability play with the 52 re-engined with a commercial engine variant that is in service with a high cycle airliner and result is a engine staying on wing for years is pretty cool. It’s been validated . Will see what the AF picks - 2019 will see a contract award. The numbers aren’t made up. Rolls, and P&W doing similar proposals
Things like 3D printed engine internals were poo poo’d too but alas reality.
If you are ever in The Queen City, @PEPfromage and I can give you a tour of engine learning center - it’s pretty cool.
There are airliner engines getting 40,000-50,000 hours on wing out there. Airman Timmy's tool control (and @nittany03's point about swapping an engine from one station to another or cannibalizing between airframes, which is a valid point) notwithstanding, there's nothing absurd an engine from a re-engined B-52 making it to half that time. Some engines, not all of them, maybe not even most, but some.
Airlines don’t routinely swap engines around and unless there is a failure or time for an overhaul, they don’t come off the wing. I can see an airline aircraft having the same engine on the same wing for 20,000 hours.
Not to say many of the engine components don’t get swapped out because they do. But the engine cores don’t.
But I agree that with a military plane, it’s much more unlikely probably not happening.
Not to say many of the engine components don’t get swapped out because they do. But the engine cores don’t.
But I agree that with a military plane, it’s much more unlikely probably not happening.
I remember reading that they would have to do significant work to go from 8 to 4 engines to include possible redesign of the wing and significant rework of the fuel, hydraulic, and electrical systems resulting in significant flight testing.
I'm not sure why the US military is still flying these dinosaurs....and then strap on new engines on this dying beast to make it last longer? Thats akin to putting an new LS3 motor in a broke ass 1957 Chevy. Sure it sounds cool and hauls ass, but will the rest of the parts keep up with the motor?
We keep flying these dinosaurs because they are the only planes that can do their mission, delivering a very large amount of ordnance anywhere in the world on short notice, from cruise missiles to mines and a whole lot else. The other two bombers in the USAF are either nowhere near as reliable as the B-52 and too difficult to modernize, the B-1, or have much more limited payload flexibility/capability and are much too small in number, the B-2.
Last edited: