Navman101 wrote:Sorry if this has already been discusses, but if so I couldn’t find it.
Does anyone know the rationale for the USAF choosing the PW4000 to power the KC-46 over the General Electric CF6-80. The USAF already operated the CF6 on many airframes such as VC-25, KC-10, and C-5M, so there would be at least some parts commonality. Was this a purely political decision to help keep Pratt and Whitney afloat? I suppose the Rolls Royce Power plant wasn’t even considered due to foreign sourcing.
Also what are peoples thoughts on which engine is actually better?
Per this (and other articles I could find on the subject), it was Boeing, not the USAF who made the call.
The Boeing Company has reached an agreement with Pratt & Whitney, a division of United Technologies Corporation, for the price and terms under which it will supply engines for the KC-767 Advanced Tanker. As a result, Pratt & Whitney becomes eligible to supply its PW4062 engines if Boeing is awarded the U.S. Air Force KC-X contract later this year.
"With more than 80 years of experience meeting the U.S. Air Force's engine needs, it makes sense to use Pratt & Whitney as an engine provider for the next generation tanker," said Ron Marcotte, vice president and general manager of Boeing Global Mobility Systems. "This high-performance, extremely reliable engine will allow future tanker aircrews to operate out of short-runway airfields and provide them maximum fuel offload performance."
Boeing's agreement with Pratt & Whitney followed a best-value competition that focused on engine technical requirements like enhanced thrust and fuel efficiency, as well as logistics support, acquisition and total ownership cost, management and past performance factors.
https://www.reliableplant.com/Read/5226 ... 767-tanker
This article hints it came down to $:
Although GE was originally considered to be a candidate for the KC-767 with the CF6-80C2 engine, or potentially even a variant of its GEnx, Boeing announced on 12 March that it has reached an agreement on the KC-X engine proposal with P&W and its PW4062.
P&W and Boeing had also teamed on an initial KC-767 lease proposal for the USAF in March 2004, but this agreement lapsed with the termination of the controversial plan. The two launch customers for Boeing's KC-767 tanker, Italy and Japan, meanwhile, selected the CF6-80C2 for their eight aircraft.
Although terms of the new Boeing/P&W deal have not been revealed, it is believed the engine maker offered attractive pricing based on the relatively low number of average flight hours expected to be accumulated by the average KC-X versus its nearest commercial equivalent.
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... ds-212666/