Sponsor Message:
Military Aviation & Space Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Who Selected P&W For Usaf KC-767?  
User currently offlineAirRyan From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 2532 posts, RR: 5
Posted (9 years 1 month 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 3241 times:

It seems sort of odd to me that having two customers already selecting GE CF6's for their KC-767's in Japan and Italy that the USAF would opt for P&W on the KC-767 when in fact they have a number of new and updated aircraft going with GE and the CF6 based engines.

Even now all Boeing has on their website about the 767 is with P&W:

http://www.boeing.com/defense-space/...litary/tanker/767tanker_specs.html

Shouldn't the decision of the engines be left up to the customer and be decided upon say around the awarding of the contract? For that matter, did the USAF even want the P&W over the GE or is this just some sort of Boeing reciprocal concession to P&W?







[Edited 2005-07-28 00:00:30]

15 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineSATL382G From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (9 years 1 month 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 3234 times:

Ya gotta remember that this program was well along when Congress shut it down. In fact the first frame is structurally complete, pickled, and stored at Everett. Boeing had to make a decision on the engines and picked P&W -- remember Boeing was going to own the airframes. I have hard time believing Boeing didn't get a thumbs up from USAF on the engines though....

It does seem odd, especially considering USAF reengined it's E-4s from P&W to GE.

edit: I don't see USAF mentioned in this press release from Boeing
http://www.boeing.com/news/releases/2004/q1/nr_040303s.html

[Edited 2005-07-28 00:08:00]

User currently offlineWhiteHatter From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (9 years 1 month 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 3190 times:

Interesting...the bottom illustration has the RB211 pod!

User currently offlineAirRyan From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 2532 posts, RR: 5
Reply 3, posted (9 years 1 month 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 3180 times:

Quoting SATL382G (Reply 1):
edit: I don't see USAF mentioned in this press release from Boeing
http://www.boeing.com/news/releases/....html

Either I didn't read this before I didn't read it very well!

Quote:
Pratt & Whitney’s PW4062 engine will be the standard production engine offering for all future 767 Tanker Programs, both domestic and international.



Quote:

Pratt & Whitney’s engine, qualified for the 767 commercial series aircraft, was selected based on a best-value evaluation criteria, including engine performance, pricing considerations, management, and quality and schedule history. Pratt & Whitney has also been selected as the 767 Tanker engine provider based on their investment in the core tanker development program.

It would indeed seem odd that Japan and Italy are what you would otherwise call the launch customers for the platform with GE engines and then all of a sudden Boeing comes along right before the decision by the USAF to buy it or not and says P&W are now standard equipment. I can't help but wonder if this was not some sort of payback for say the 777-200LR with the exclusive GE90-115B engine option?

I'm thinking this was sort of a arguably deserved "handout" or way to ensure P&W's prescense in the USAF to compensate for the loss of a lot of P&W engines in USAF inventory.

P&W currently powers C-5A's, B-52's, elder K/R/QC-135, E-8 JSTARS, E-3, C-17, and C-32's.

GE powers B-1 and B-2's, A-10's, C-5B RERP's are going to GE CF6 variants, E-4B and the VC-25's both use GE CF6 variants, KC-10's use GE CF6 variants.

You can see where P&W probably made a "financial" deal with Boeing on the KC-767 so as not to totally loose out on the USAF marketshare.


User currently offlineSocal From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 473 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (9 years 1 month 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 3177 times:

Is the KC767 project a go?


I Love HNL.............
User currently offlinePhilSquares From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (9 years 1 month 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 3145 times:

Quoting AirRyan (Reply 3):
P&W currently powers C-5A's

They are powered by GE. The first generation CF6


User currently offlineSpacepope From Vatican City, joined Dec 1999, 2921 posts, RR: 1
Reply 6, posted (9 years 1 month 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 3111 times:

Sorta. The C-5's engines are somewhat of a development stage of what eventually became the CF-6, but it's nothing like what you'd see powering even the first DC-10s. Soon the C-5 re-engine program will get into full swing, and these will be powered by true CF-6s.

P&W currently powers the C-17 fleet though.



The last of the famous international playboys
User currently offlineDrewfly From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 303 posts, RR: 1
Reply 7, posted (9 years 1 month 2 days ago) and read 3100 times:

Anything helping P&W is good in my books, Connecticut really needs the jobs. With their commercial business tanking, military projects is just about all they have left. That, and P&WC, which is flourishing.

But on to the topic at hand, the PW 4062s give out 63,300lbs of thrust. The closest match from GE, the CF6-80C2B5F, is rated at 62,100lbs. Could this be the reason? With a lot of the 762ERs out there powered by PW 4056s and other engines in the 56,000lb class, there has to be quite a gain in performance, no?



A-10 Thunderbolt II, ugly as hell, efficient as hell, would you like to meet my boomstick?
User currently offlineAirRyan From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 2532 posts, RR: 5
Reply 8, posted (9 years 1 month 2 days ago) and read 3101 times:

Quoting PhilSquares (Reply 5):
They are powered by GE.

You are correct - I got the P&W TF33 from the C-141's confused with the GE TF-39 on the C-5A.


User currently offlineLumberton From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 4708 posts, RR: 20
Reply 9, posted (9 years 1 month 18 hours ago) and read 3014 times:

Quoting Spacepope (Reply 6):
Soon the C-5 re-engine program will get into full swing, and these will be powered by true CF-6s.

Been trying to find out a source for the status of the C-5 re-engining programing. No luck on Google or past threads. Can anyone provide? I can't recollect whether or not this effort has been funded.
Regards.



"When all is said and done, more will be said than done".
User currently offlineAirRyan From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 2532 posts, RR: 5
Reply 10, posted (9 years 1 month 14 hours ago) and read 2993 times:

Try these...

http://www.codeonemagazine.com/archives/2003/articles/jul_03/galaxy/

http://www.deagel.com/pandora/?p=pm00080002

http://www.sae.org/aeromag/techupdate/06-1999/02.htm


User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12135 posts, RR: 51
Reply 11, posted (9 years 4 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 2954 times:

Well, if the KC-767 is selected, there will be a new engine selection, too. I would say the GE CF6-50 or CF-6-80 engines would have an advantage since they are already in the USAF inventory (KC-10A, E-4B, VC-25A, and soon on the C-5M). With a all ready in place maintenance system and parts supply line, it will be cheaper for the USAF.

Then again that does not completely rule out the P&W PW-4062 engine, since it has more thrust, and the KC-767 is a twin. The same will go if the KC-330 is selected.


User currently offlineGigneil From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 16347 posts, RR: 85
Reply 12, posted (9 years 4 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 2928 times:

What?

The CF6-50 isn't going to be an option. I mean, GE doesn't even build it anymore. Even the VC25s don't have the CF6-50, and that was the GE engine variant common for the 747-200.

That aside, I'm sure you read that the PW4062 is what Boeing is now exclusively offering for the airframe in the thread above.

N


User currently offlineMD-90 From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 8507 posts, RR: 12
Reply 13, posted (9 years 4 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 2912 times:

Perhaps Boeing's hoping to gain political support from congresscritters from Connecticut?

User currently offlineAirRyan From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 2532 posts, RR: 5
Reply 14, posted (9 years 4 weeks ago) and read 2890 times:

Anybody notice that on that 2nd pic I posted above that I obtained from the Boeing website that the USAF KC-767 appears to have a Rolls Royce 3 stage engine on it? I think they look good but that'd be a cold day in hell when the USAF selects RR over GE and P&W!

User currently offlineGigneil From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 16347 posts, RR: 85
Reply 15, posted (9 years 3 weeks 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 2886 times:

I think its probably there from when they were trying to win the RAF business.

The RAF certainly would want to hang RB.211s.

N


Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic Who Selected P&W For Usaf KC-767?
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • Military aviation related posts only!
  • Not military related? Use the other forums
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
  • DETAILED RULES
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)


Similar topics:More similar topics...
Buffet Problems For Italian KC-767 posted Mon May 22 2006 09:56:35 by Scbriml
Congress Agrees To 10 More C-17's For Usaf posted Tue Oct 10 2006 08:23:45 by B747
New Stealth Aircraft Under Contract For Usaf posted Sat Jun 24 2006 23:05:17 by RichardPrice
Omega Air Offers To Modify DC10s For Usaf Tanker posted Tue Jun 13 2006 14:45:20 by Lumberton
Fighter For USN Bombers For Usaf posted Tue May 16 2006 23:57:59 by 747400sp
KC-767 posted Sat Apr 8 2006 17:46:40 by AirbusA346
New Bomber Plans For USAF, J-UCAS Cancelled. posted Mon Jan 16 2006 22:39:21 by CX747
KC-767 Vs KC-30? Try KC-787 Vs. KC-50 posted Wed Dec 14 2005 02:38:41 by AirRyan
Best Tanker Option For Usaf? posted Sun Nov 20 2005 15:08:24 by KC135TopBoom
USAF KC-10 Extender @ GRU.....Why? posted Sat Aug 6 2005 16:01:10 by BrunoSBGR

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format