Sponsor Message:
Military Aviation & Space Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
GEnx/Trent 1700 For C-5?  
User currently offlineN328KF From United States of America, joined May 2004, 6483 posts, RR: 3
Posted (8 years 9 months 2 weeks 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 2763 times:

With the GEnx and Trent 1700 replacing the CF6 and RB211, respectively, on many civil airframes, what are the chances we will see either of these engines being used for re-engining projects in the place of those two engines, as well as the TF39? Candidates include the KC-10, E-4, C-5, etc. (I obviously don't see them touching SAM 28000/29000.)


When they call the roll in the Senate, the Senators do not know whether to answer 'Present' or 'Not guilty.' T.Roosevelt
15 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineTheSonntag From Germany, joined Jun 2005, 3510 posts, RR: 29
Reply 1, posted (8 years 9 months 2 weeks 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 2754 times:

Since B52s still use the TF-33 (JT-3Ds), just like many E3-A Awacs, I really doubt C-5s will be re-engined, as military projects tend to use the "old crap" quite long time (which is great).

But thats just my opinion


User currently offlineSATL382G From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (8 years 9 months 2 weeks 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 2736 times:

Quoting TheSonntag (Reply 1):
I really doubt C-5s will be re-engined,

It's happening as we speak, with CF6 though.


User currently offlineTheSonntag From Germany, joined Jun 2005, 3510 posts, RR: 29
Reply 3, posted (8 years 9 months 2 weeks 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 2717 times:

Quoting SATL382G (Reply 2):

Ok, didn't know that. Whats the original engine? JT9Ds? If so, why are they re-engined? Wasn't the C-5 the first airplane ever to use high-bypass Turbofans?


User currently offlineWhiteHatter From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (8 years 9 months 2 weeks 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 2708 times:

The GENx and Trent 1700 would not be ideal for the existing systems of the C-5. Purely for commonality reasons the CF6 is the ideal powerplant as the TF-33 is a close relative.

The RB211 was originally proposed for the B-52 but nothing came of it, specifically the -535E4 variant from the 757.


User currently offlineSATL382G From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (8 years 9 months 2 weeks 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 2708 times:

Quoting TheSonntag (Reply 3):
Whats the original engine? JT9Ds? If so, why are they re-engined? Wasn't the C-5 the first airplane ever to use high-bypass Turbofans?

The C-5 has been flying all these years with the TF-39, the first high bypass turbofan. The C-5 is the only airframe to use the TF-39. The TF-39 found more success as a marine powerplant (LM2500) than it ever did as an aircraft engine.

They are being reengined because the TF-39, being on one airframe only, was never seriously developed. The CF6, which sprang out of the TF-39 program, was and is in service on a number of commercial airframes. The benefit of the reengining to the C-5 is more power, better fuel economy, and ease of maintenance.


User currently offlineWhiteHatter From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (8 years 9 months 2 weeks 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 2700 times:

Quoting SATL382G (Reply 5):
They are being reengined because the TF-39, being on one airframe only, was never seriously developed. The CF6, which sprang out of the TF-39 program, was and is in service on a number of commercial airframes. The benefit of the reengining to the C-5 is more power, better fuel economy, and ease of maintenance.

There's also the worldwide availability of a parts bin for the CF6. Being able to source a part quickly in peacetime operations cuts costs down.

There are plenty of civilian operations with CF6 overhaul capabilities worldwide.


User currently offlineGDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 13165 posts, RR: 78
Reply 7, posted (8 years 9 months 2 weeks 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 2696 times:

I've always been surprised they did not do a CF-6 fit when the C-5B was in production in the 1980's, retro-fitting C-5A's when they were re-winged too.

I guess they needed more airlift quickly, both new production and getting the original C-5A's fixed however.


User currently offlineDfwRevolution From United States of America, joined Jan 2010, 960 posts, RR: 51
Reply 8, posted (8 years 9 months 2 weeks 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 2667 times:

Quoting WhiteHatter (Reply 4):
The RB211 was originally proposed for the B-52 but nothing came of it, specifically the -535E4 variant from the 757.

I believe Boeing also pitched a modernization program with CFM56 re-engine, as well.


User currently offlineSATL382G From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 9, posted (8 years 9 months 2 weeks 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 2633 times:

Quoting WhiteHatter (Reply 4):
Purely for commonality reasons the CF6 is the ideal powerplant as the TF-33 is a close relative.

TF-33 is a P&W powerplant and unrelated to the GE CF-6.


User currently offlineAeroWeanie From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 1607 posts, RR: 52
Reply 10, posted (8 years 9 months 2 weeks 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 2630 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting SATL382G (Reply 2):
It's happening as we speak, with CF6 though.

With the 20-year old CF6-80C2 to be exact...


User currently offlineRayChuang From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 7986 posts, RR: 5
Reply 11, posted (8 years 9 months 2 weeks 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 2586 times:

If I remember correctly, the engines the C-5's will get are the same engines used on the E-4B and VC-25A: the GE F103 turbofan, essentially a military version of the CF6-80 turbofan used on 767's, 747's and A330's.

User currently offlineGDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 13165 posts, RR: 78
Reply 12, posted (8 years 9 months 2 weeks 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 2557 times:

I understood that the TF-39 was a GE product.

User currently offlineF14D4ever From United States of America, joined May 2005, 319 posts, RR: 4
Reply 13, posted (8 years 9 months 2 weeks 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 2532 times:

Quoting RayChuang (Reply 11):
If I remember correctly, the engines the C-5's will get are the same engines used on the E-4B and VC-25A: the GE F103 turbofan, essentially a military version of the CF6-80 turbofan used on 767's, 747's and A330's.

You did well from memory.

FWIW, there are turbomachinery differences between the F103 variants found on the E-4B and VC-25A. The E-4B and the KC-10 have military versions of the CF6-50, which utilizes a 3-stage booster. The VC-25A has an F103-102 which is a CF6-80C2B1, running a 4-stage booster. So while they are all called F103 by the USAF, they're NOT all CF6-80's.

To further discriminate, the C-5M will get a variant with the civilian nomenclature CF6-80C2L1F, which has the Full Authority Digital Electronic Control (FADEC).



"He is risen, as He said."
User currently offlineTheSonntag From Germany, joined Jun 2005, 3510 posts, RR: 29
Reply 14, posted (8 years 9 months 2 weeks 2 days ago) and read 2506 times:

Are there really differences between military and civilian engines? Obviously there are, but why? To make C-5s more FOD resistant, or are there other reasons?

Is the TF-33 of the Awacs identical with the JT-3D, or are there differences, as well?


User currently offlineF14D4ever From United States of America, joined May 2005, 319 posts, RR: 4
Reply 15, posted (8 years 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 2491 times:

Quoting TheSonntag (Reply 14):
Are there really differences between military and civilian engines? Obviously there are, but why? To make C-5s more FOD resistant, or are there other reasons?

In the case of the CF6 / F103 I believe it's entirely a matter of nomenclature.



"He is risen, as He said."
Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic GEnx/Trent 1700 For C-5?
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...
The EH-101 Repacement For Marine One - When? posted Sun Oct 29 2006 18:53:05 by Gh123
Looking For The Red Flag Accident Video posted Fri Oct 20 2006 21:35:14 by RichardPrice
Usmc Looks To Revive OV-10s For Use In Iraq posted Sat Oct 14 2006 17:16:32 by Papoose
4 C-17As For Nato? posted Fri Oct 13 2006 21:22:59 by KC135TopBoom
New U.S. Air Force Bombers Planned For 2018, 2035 posted Fri Oct 13 2006 06:48:45 by AerospaceFan
Congress Agrees To 10 More C-17's For Usaf posted Tue Oct 10 2006 08:23:45 by B747
Replacement For The Superhornet posted Fri Sep 29 2006 17:50:02 by 747400sp
Winglets For The E-6 Mercury posted Sat Sep 16 2006 20:57:56 by 747400sp
Deep Respect For Our Airmen. posted Thu Sep 14 2006 13:11:35 by KevinL1011
For Heli-Fans: Great Bo 105 Video posted Sun Sep 10 2006 15:58:37 by Columba

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format