F-16.net

That_Engine_Guy wrote:

The 3 ANG units staying with PW Vipers will all have PW-229s. (Tulsa Blk42/Toledo Blk42/McEntire Blk52)

Add one more: CA ANG Vipers are getting B32's with -220E's

F-16.net Sponsor

This message from our sponsor will disappear if you log on as a member.

Elite Joined: Aug 02, 2006 Posts: 942 Status: Offline

@ That_Engine_Guy

(1) Regarding the rules about certification being tied to a specific block and engine type, well, CHANGE THE RULES.

(2) The engine swap model assumes that each unit will have more engines that aircrafts. So even with waiting for engines to arrive there should be quite a number of ready to fly power plants ready to swap.

(3) Neither 1 or 2 really matters IF major repairs are not done on location anyway, and the engines are 100% interchangeable.

Elite Joined: Dec 14, 2005 Posts: 687 Status: Offline

dwightlooi wrote:

(1) Regarding the rules about certification being tied to a specific block and engine type, well, CHANGE THE RULES.

Easier said than done with USAF. Things are getting worse not better when these "rules" are considered. The regulations governing aircraft maintenance are more restrictive now (after the multi-engine F-16) than they were before.

dwightlooi wrote:

(2) The engine swap model assumes that each unit will have more engines that aircrafts. So even with waiting for engines to arrive there should be quite a number of ready to fly power plants ready to swap.

As I've said, this has been tried before. It was a dismal failure... Mishaps went up and the number of the spare engines plummeted. The "system" could not keep up with demand. The USAF quickly went back to the 3-level maintenance model.

dwightlooi wrote:

(3) Neither 1 or 2 really matters IF major repairs are not done on location anyway, and the engines are 100% interchangeable.

They may be 100% interchangeable, but they would not be identical. This difference alone is the Achilles Heel of multiple engines for a single aircraft. The aircraft won't care which engine is installed, but anyone working on the engine to keep it running properly will.

Again the 2-level maintenance model didn't work before, but it's being tried again with the F100/F110 engines. We should all hope nobody gets killed this time... Crying or Very sad

Lets not forget you'll need 2 multi-billion dollar contracts with BOTH OEMs to handle ALL the maintenance on these engines. Shocked

Shipping a jet engine cross-country costs thousands of dollars, and trans-continental shipment costs even more! When did we start saving money?

Two Cents

After 15+ years of watching the USAF's efforts to "cheapen" their engine maintenance budget "this way and that" - Sorry to say; I don't think they could meet your lofty expectations. Shrug

Elite Joined: Aug 02, 2006 Posts: 942 Status: Offline

Well, it works for the airlines everywhere. Maybe the USAF needs to learn something from the private sector. In fact, they have gone one step further. With the new GEnx engines, you don't even pull and swap entire engines. The fan and the entire casing stays as they are designed to be maintenance free for over a decade. You simply pull the propulsor -- low and high pressure spool with the combustor and everything else as one unit. Put in a spare, ship it to a depot for maintenance. The savings come from the reduced investment in spare powerplants because you only need to buy and won spare propulsors not entire engines.

Elite Joined: Dec 14, 2005 Posts: 687 Status: Offline

dwightlooi wrote:

Maybe the USAF needs to learn something from the private sector. In fact, they have gone one step further. With the new GEnx engines, you don't even pull and swap entire engines. The fan and the entire casing stays as they are designed to be maintenance free for over a decade. You simply pull the propulsor -- low and high pressure spool with the combustor and everything else as one unit. Put in a spare, ship it to a depot for maintenance. The savings come from the reduced investment in spare powerplants because you only need to buy and won spare propulsors not entire engines.

Well GE has learned this from P&W. Rolling Eyes

The USAF and P&W figured this out back in the 70's with the F100's "Modular Design" Aside from a commercial engine being worked "on-wing" a fighter engine is so buried in the aircraft you'd never be able to change a module. (Except for a roll-back to change an augmentor)

With the F100, when a module reaches it's limit or is damaged in some manner, the MODULE can be removed and replaced at the base level. No need to replace the entire engine or purchase a new one. Simply replace the module(s) required and ship them back to the Depot for repair or replacement. F100 engines "as a whole" are rarely shipped to the depot or OEM for repair. This was done to increase availability at the base level and reduce the number of spare engines required to support a given amount of aircraft.

Now the USAF wants to get rid of the F100's "Intermediate Maintenance" and go to flight line and depot/OEM maintenance only. They say this will save money but the Civilian world is starting to use "modular high PBR" engines installed on airliners...

Seems with the "new" F135/F136 models, we're moving away from this? Doh

Seems backwards to me... Where were we saving all the $$$ again? Shrug

Elite Joined: Dec 14, 2005 Posts: 687 Status: Offline

"The fourth and final US Congressional subcommitte has voted to restore funding for the General Electric/Rolls-Royce F136 alternative engine for the JSF" - http://www.f-16.net/news_article2514.html

Where is the number to my Congressman!?! WTF

F-16.net

Forum: F-35 Lightning II

The engine no one wants - Except congress