Learpilot From United States of America, joined May 2001, 814 posts, RR: 1 Posted (9 years 6 months 1 week 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 9352 times:
Just wondering how long do the engines in fighters like the F-14, F-15, F-16, etc. run before they're removed from the airplane? Are they replaced with brand new engines, or overhauled ones?
Heed our warnings or your future will be underpant free!
Jwenting From Netherlands, joined Apr 2001, 10213 posts, RR: 21 Reply 1, posted (9 years 6 months 1 week 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 9241 times:
Several thousand hours on the modern aircraft between overhauls.
MiG-29 by comparison has the engines replaced with new ones after 500 hours, they degrade too much for overhaul to be economical.
LMP737 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 2, posted (9 years 6 months 1 week 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 9211 times:
On the F-14A the TF-30 was removed for overhaul around every 700 hours. If I remember correctly the GE F110 was removed approximately every 1000 hours on the F-14B/D.
JeffM From United States of America, joined May 2005, 3266 posts, RR: 53 Reply 3, posted (9 years 6 months 1 week 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 9154 times:
I think we used to change our tf-30's every 750 hours max. Obviously they can be pulled earlier, but you need a damn good reason to run them over.
LMP737 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 4, posted (9 years 6 months 1 week 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 9139 times:
To answer the second part of your question the removed engine would typically be replaced by an overhauled one. Especially in the case of the F-14A since the TF-30 has been out of production for about fifteen years. Now it's possible for a newer type aircraft such as the F/A-18E/F to get an engine "out of the case" as a replacement.
JeffM From United States of America, joined May 2005, 3266 posts, RR: 53 Reply 5, posted (9 years 6 months 1 week 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 9135 times:
Did I remember correctly? 750 hrs? Damn, it's been a while.
"Chief" - haven't been called that in a while. ~thanks~
Sovietjet From Bulgaria, joined Mar 2003, 2339 posts, RR: 14 Reply 7, posted (9 years 6 months 1 week 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 9110 times:
I would have to disagree with the 500 hour life of a Mig-29 engine. Imagine why anyone would buy that plane if that was true. Also my grandparents have worked on Mig-29s for years in the repair plant and they have never replaced engines during overhaul just because they reached the 500 hour mark.
JeffM From United States of America, joined May 2005, 3266 posts, RR: 53 Reply 8, posted (9 years 6 months 1 week 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 9088 times:
Ivan,
there is no shame in an engine removal due to high time. That is what it is for. Remove it, inspect it, repair it, BEFORE it fails. Get it?
L-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 29350 posts, RR: 62 Reply 9, posted (9 years 6 months 1 week 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 9084 times:
I'll go home and look, but that 500 hours does seem a bit low, but not by much.
Germany had to derate their engines to get I believe a 2000 hour TBO out of them.
India had major problems with their 29's Fodding out. Turns out that when those taxi doors where raised that the mud that had stuck to them broke off and when right into the engines.
Also correct me if I am wrong but the accessories on the MIg-29 engines are mouned on the top, so in order to access them you have to drop the whole engine. Which if you are in a supply system that is build around quick changing engines isn't a problem but to repair a bad generator in a western style repair system it adds a lot of work.
OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
DeltaGuy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 10, posted (9 years 6 months 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 8974 times:
With engines becoming more and more reliable, it's less overhaul and down time. And as mentioned, it's easier to grab a brand new engine from the crate, put it in, and deal with the old one later.
On the A-4's, you had to remove the ENTIRE empenage area...vert and horiz stab, plus many feet of the fuselage, just to get to the engine. On the Hornet, I believe it's just dropdown onto the cart..nice huh?
JeffM From United States of America, joined May 2005, 3266 posts, RR: 53 Reply 11, posted (9 years 6 months 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 8959 times:
Chris,
Your right about the A-4's, but it did not take that long to remove the tail. Just put the stand under it, undo some cannon plugs, disconnect a few cables, and quck disconnects and your there. Nice once it's off. And yes, the 18's motor just drops down. Most do.
DeltaGuy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 12, posted (9 years 6 months 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 8956 times:
Jeff,
Gotta love the new engine swaps...I remember seeing the A-4's in Kingsville, and then the Hornets in Cecil...amazing how technology affects most everything in the jets. But sometimes, if it ain't broke, don't fix it! Bring back the A-7E's if you ask me
Thanks for the kind words...won't let you down Chief! Will hopefully be using the power of two nice GE-F414's (not dropped down on the cart lol) here in a few years. Will take care of your troops like yall take care of our brownshoe crowd!
Trex8 From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 3970 posts, RR: 14 Reply 15, posted (9 years 5 months 3 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 8795 times:
there is an increasing trend to using aircraft cycles rather than hours for engine life, the newer IPE engines for the F16s (the 29K lb thrust ones) are among the first to enter widespread service with 2000TACs. The first all new military engine to be designed for such high TACs is the ITEC F125 on the Taiwanese IDF.
USAFHummer From United States of America, joined May 2000, 10685 posts, RR: 54 Reply 16, posted (9 years 5 months 2 weeks 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 8757 times:
Either way you put it, its quite an improvement over the jets on the Me-262, which needed to be replaced every 5-10 hours at first...shows how far technology has gone...
Greg
Chief A.net college football stadium self-pic guru
IndianFlyboy From India, joined Sep 2003, 294 posts, RR: 7 Reply 17, posted (9 years 5 months 2 weeks 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 8733 times:
Sovietjet ,
The Initial RD 33 without turbine modifications had a ridiculously low engine life of 350-400 hours before overhaul. In most of the engines which came with the initial batch of fulcrums for the Indian air force , the engine TBO was kept at 200 hrs to reduce a whole bunch of accidents.Most of the contry's operating the MiG 29 (Atleast India and Germany) made modifications to the turbine section to increase this. Currently the overhaul times for the engine is about 650-700 hours , rarely reaches 700 hours though. The problem with the RD 33 was that while it gave enormous power it always used to overheat. That caused turbine failures. The engines manufactured by HAL under license all have the improved turbine section incorporated in them.
Jwenting ,
While I agree about the engine overhaul times, I do not agree about the replacement part , all engines are overhauled and not replaced. The engine for any aircraft is replaced only after end of service life, which is roughly 8 years.
L 188,
You are right about Germany derating the engines to get a 2000 Hr TBO , the thing is they operate in 2 modes, peacetime its the derated engine and combat its the non derated engine. While the derated engine gives a higher TBO it removes the punch that the MiG 29 can provide during combat. I am not too sure about the number of initial failures , but it was quite a lot about 70% engines purchased with the initial order failed , various causes FOD being one of them . The collectors which are supposed to stop FO ingestion never worked properly.There were a lot of other problems with the initial engines as well. The fleet was grounded for a while as well because of lack of spares
Gocaps16 From Japan, joined Jan 2000, 4298 posts, RR: 23 Reply 18, posted (9 years 5 months 1 week 5 days ago) and read 8670 times:
"If I remember correctly the GE F110 was removed approximately every 1000 hours on the F-14B/D."
I do not know how the VF squadrons do it but or us "I" level guys, its usually every 3,000 TAC hours that will come to us for HI TIME usually for the LPT and HPT for the F110GE. This is when the High and Low Pressure Turbines needs to be replaced. But most of the time we will get motors from the squadron for a FODDED fan and other such that needs to be repaired. From then the squadron will transfer to us and we will do an acceptance, make sure everything is good to go and we will do the overhuals.
Other then that, couple months ago, we built up the very FIRST GE F110 engine in our fleet. I believe the SERNO# of the engine was 588101. Apparently, all the old parts were installed with brand new parts and it went thru a major corrosion cleaning and then we shipped it to a Museam I believe in near Tinker AFB. Several of the older F110s were shipped to museams instead of throwing them away but I've personally worked on some of the still older engines in the 60/70s that we use today that are still "RFI."
IndianFlyboy From India, joined Sep 2003, 294 posts, RR: 7 Reply 20, posted (9 years 5 months 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 8732 times:
L-188 ,no answer for your question yet , so here goes .
Am really not too sure, but IMHO the turbine section was modified for all RD 33's this was to prevent overheating and increase the TBO. By derating the engine , my guess would be that the thrust settings were altered alongside the turbine section alteration , so as not to give out the maximum possible. This would be easy to alter in times of combat and not require a bunch of people opening up the engine.
What the lower thrust settings would imply is that the pilot does not have the same punch required in combat , but the aircraft would still be able to belt outa decent performance.
Sponsor Message: 
From United States of America, joined May 2001, 814 posts, 
From Netherlands, joined Apr 2001, 10213 posts, 
From Bulgaria, joined Mar 2003, 2339 posts, 
Will take care of your troops like yall take care of our brownshoe crowd! 
From India, joined Sep 2003, 294 posts, 
From Japan, joined Jan 2000, 4298 posts, 
Sponsor Message: 
Printer friendly format
