Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Late Model 757 Re-engining Possibilities?  
User currently offlineRikkus67 From Canada, joined Jun 2000, 1674 posts, RR: 1
Posted (4 years 10 months 1 week 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 2637 times:

Hi All,

I just read the thread on CO's fleet additions for 2010/11. It was noted that they will be picking up 3 753's formerly of ATA.

With the continuing debate on the 757, I was wondering if there was any thought of a re-engining program for lower-cycle 757's? This would be not unlike the DC-8-6* series re-engining program with CFM-56's to 70-series status, which (IIRC) had about 150 frames being upgraded.

As there are a number of new engines coming online, would this be a viable option to 757 users, or are we getting too close to the life-cycle limit on these birds?

Just a thought....discuss...


AC.WA.CP.DL.RW.CO.WG.WJ.WN.KI.FL.SK.ACL.UA.US.F9
5 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineSolarFlyer22 From US Minor Outlying Islands, joined Nov 2009, 1113 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (4 years 10 months 1 week 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 2616 times:

I've always questioned why the RR models were not re-engined as the engines on those models were not well liked by a number of customers. There are a lot of cycles left on most of these frames and the 757 is the hardest model to replace because it sits in between categories of smaller (737-8/A320) and larger (787/A330) air planes. I think it would make sense to re-ngine these, add winglets, and give the interior a simple refresh (no IFE) if you were going to continue to fly them for 7+ years. There are certain domestic routes where'd they'd be great. These frames can take a pounding too so I really think if you wanted you could get another 12 years out of them if its well maintained.

User currently offlineRutankrd From United Kingdom, joined Sep 2003, 3028 posts, RR: 8
Reply 2, posted (4 years 10 months 1 week 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 2451 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Solarflyer what RR customers don't /didn't like them?

As for the cost of the new model engines wing fences and testing subsequent certification well you might as well get a completely new aircraft the A321/B738 and 739 serves most of the original B757 niches

Remember the B757 was designed to operate US high density routes and with the help of BA in Europe as a Trident replacement on short haul (They did not want another widebody as they had Tristars)
- NOT Trans-Atlantic secondary routes - these are accidental through both Monarch/Air Europe (UK charter) carriers were early to see that potential with the up rated RR "E" engines.


User currently offlineTdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80
Reply 3, posted (4 years 10 months 1 week 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 2214 times:



Quoting Rikkus67 (Thread starter):
As there are a number of new engines coming online, would this be a viable option to 757 users, or are we getting too close to the life-cycle limit on these birds?

The last 757's were built in ~2005...they should have life-cycles available well into 2025.

That said, it would be challenging for anyone other than the OEM to re-engine the 757, and why would Boeing want to do that? Unless a customer was going to pay for it, but that's a *big* whack of cash.

Tom.


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31259 posts, RR: 85
Reply 4, posted (4 years 10 months 1 week 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 2183 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Any realistic re-engine program for the 757 would hinge on being able to apply an existing engine. The DC-8 Super Seventies used CFM56-2 engines already in production for the various military 707 platforms.

Unfortunately, I can not think of any narrowbody engine family that provides the thrust range the 757 needs. I suppose it might be possible for CFM to really ramp the CFM56 or Aviadvigatel boosting the PS-90, but would either really prove all that much better than the PW2000 or RB211 to the point that most 757 operators would switch?

[Edited 2010-01-21 16:38:01]

User currently offlineAcidradio From United States of America, joined Mar 2001, 1874 posts, RR: 10
Reply 5, posted (4 years 10 months 1 week 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 1972 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
FORUM MODERATOR

I guess the question is - are the current PW2000 and RB211 engine offerings that bad? For what it's worth, they are already pretty good!

I see a lot of references to replacing engines in DC8's from JT3D to CFM56. That was a pretty significant change from low to high bypass, yielding significant improvements in fuel consumption, power and noise on frames which generally had lots of life left in them. The PW2000 and RB211 engines featured on the 757 are already rather advanced. No they aren't bleedless GEnX engines but they definitely hold their own. Does the technology even exist to make an engine to replace the PW2000 or RB211 which would be so much of an improvement that it would be cost effective to do so?



Ich haben zwei Platzspielen und ein Microphone
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
FI:Boeing Hints At GTF 737 Re-engining Study posted Thu Sep 18 2008 16:27:40 by Planemaker
Re-engining The 737 An Option For Boeing posted Fri Sep 5 2008 08:15:02 by OyKIE
Engine Certification/Re-Engining posted Mon Apr 2 2007 19:47:55 by Jholiiday
Re-engining Programs posted Fri Jul 14 2006 21:10:02 by 1337Delta764
American Considering Re-engining Their 300 MD80's posted Thu May 11 2006 14:26:34 by Keesje
Re-engining 707s And Turbojet DC-8s posted Mon Mar 29 2004 20:47:30 by Timz
Re-engining 777s posted Fri Apr 14 2000 19:56:05 by IFLYDELTAJETS
When Late, Do NOT Say You're An Air Marshal posted Wed Mar 4 2009 14:23:02 by 0NEWAIR0
Question Re: 757 End And Continued 767 Production posted Thu Feb 15 2007 06:19:32 by JAAlbert
Random Question Re. 757 Operators posted Wed Nov 2 2005 20:15:43 by Smokescreen