Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
wjcandee
Topic Author
Posts: 10943
Joined: Mon Jun 05, 2000 12:50 am

Effect on 717 of B-52 Upgrades

Mon Sep 27, 2021 5:24 pm

One of the reasons that certain aircraft in the DL fleet (e.g. MD90) were parked related to engines.

Now that the BR725 (called the F-130 for military applications) is the winner for the B-52 engine replacement, with an order for 600+ engines that will be on-wing through 2050, I wonder if that affects the viability of the 717 longer-term.

https://interestingengineering.com/roll ... er-engines

OTOH, there are business versions of the engine out there still being delivered, so perhaps the issue is attentuated. Just curious.
 
User avatar
Polot
Posts: 12382
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2011 3:01 pm

Re: Effect on 717 of B-52 Upgrades

Mon Sep 27, 2021 5:26 pm

It depends on how different the engine overhaul is. Remember the MD-90 shared the same basic V2500 as found on thousands of A320s, but it is different enough that ultimately by the end only one shop was qualified to work on it.
 
bomber996
Posts: 538
Joined: Mon Aug 29, 2005 10:21 am

Re: Effect on 717 of B-52 Upgrades

Mon Sep 27, 2021 5:43 pm

I haven't been able to find this anywhere. Is the re-engined b-52 going to have 4 or 8 engines?

Peace :box:
 
miegapele
Posts: 107
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 12:24 pm

Re: Effect on 717 of B-52 Upgrades

Mon Sep 27, 2021 5:48 pm

It's military. That means Boeing military part will get very expensive maintenance contract. Doubt they would want to do anything with commercial engines. So I don't think this changes anything regarding 717
 
wjcandee
Topic Author
Posts: 10943
Joined: Mon Jun 05, 2000 12:50 am

Re: Effect on 717 of B-52 Upgrades

Mon Sep 27, 2021 6:02 pm

bomber996 wrote:
I haven't been able to find this anywhere. Is the re-engined b-52 going to have 4 or 8 engines?

Peace :box:


Well, there are 75 B-52Hs currently-flying according to the article I cited, and they're getting 608 engines. 75 times 8 is 600, so that suggests that the answer is 8.

Each engine currently on the B-52H provides about 17,000 pounds of thrust, and that's the range they're seeking in each of the winning engines, which also suggests 8 engines per aircraft.

Also, a marketing piece shows a new engine in a simliar nacelle.

So it seems like the answer is 8.

Here's an older article with more detail on the replacement program, prior to the RR selection: https://interestingengineering.com/us-a ... until-2050

Interesting that Pratt didn't get the nod on this one...
Last edited by wjcandee on Mon Sep 27, 2021 6:08 pm, edited 5 times in total.
 
VMCA787
Posts: 262
Joined: Fri Sep 04, 2020 9:31 pm

Re: Effect on 717 of B-52 Upgrades

Mon Sep 27, 2021 6:03 pm

bomber996 wrote:
I haven't been able to find this anywhere. Is the re-engined b-52 going to have 4 or 8 engines?


The engines will be replaced one for one. A new nacelle and pylon will also be included. Various other systems will have to be upgraded too. Plus there will be some other systems upgraded during the process to ensure the airframe can last through the 2050s.
 
wjcandee
Topic Author
Posts: 10943
Joined: Mon Jun 05, 2000 12:50 am

Re: Effect on 717 of B-52 Upgrades

Mon Sep 27, 2021 6:12 pm

Polot wrote:
It depends on how different the engine overhaul is. Remember the MD-90 shared the same basic V2500 as found on thousands of A320s, but it is different enough that ultimately by the end only one shop was qualified to work on it.


That's very-true and part of why I was curious. The reason that only Christchurch Engine Center at the end was willing to work on the D5 variant apparently had something to do with DL driving the price down such that the other potential vendors dropped their support for the type, whereupon the sole remaining vendor suddenly had monopoly pricing power; had DL taken the work in-house, the outcome might have been different. Apparently, the D1 variant was actually significantly-different because things had to be arranged differently to mount it on the side of the a/c rather than under the wing. That's what I recall anyway.

What I was thinking about was time-limited parts, as well. If it's needed on the B-52, then parts will continue to be manufactured, although at what price may be an issue.
Last edited by wjcandee on Mon Sep 27, 2021 6:17 pm, edited 2 times in total.
 
B6JFKH81
Posts: 2312
Joined: Thu Mar 16, 2006 6:35 am

Re: Effect on 717 of B-52 Upgrades

Mon Sep 27, 2021 6:12 pm

Polot wrote:
It depends on how different the engine overhaul is. Remember the MD-90 shared the same basic V2500 as found on thousands of A320s, but it is different enough that ultimately by the end only one shop was qualified to work on it.


Yup. Our (B6) V2500s used to go to MTU Hannover, now I believe they have to go all the way to MTU Christchurch. It blows my mind that an engine has to go to the other side of the world for overhaul.
 
phatfarmlines
Posts: 2031
Joined: Thu Sep 27, 2001 12:06 pm

Re: Effect on 717 of B-52 Upgrades

Mon Sep 27, 2021 6:15 pm

Polot wrote:
It depends on how different the engine overhaul is. Remember the MD-90 shared the same basic V2500 as found on thousands of A320s, but it is different enough that ultimately by the end only one shop was qualified to work on it.


I agree. Same engine but different piping systems to connect to the engine, amongst other things. It was significant enough that a shop had to be specified for it.

It won't change the fate of the 717.
 
TUGMASTER
Posts: 1485
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 2004 8:56 pm

Re: Effect on 717 of B-52 Upgrades

Mon Sep 27, 2021 6:18 pm

Over in the B52 re-engine thread, there’s talk of the engines staying in the wing for the remaining life of the airframe… that’s how reliable they are nowadays.
 
wjcandee
Topic Author
Posts: 10943
Joined: Mon Jun 05, 2000 12:50 am

Re: Effect on 717 of B-52 Upgrades

Mon Sep 27, 2021 6:21 pm

TUGMASTER wrote:
Over in the B52 re-engine thread, there’s talk of the engines staying in the wing for the remaining life of the airframe… that’s how reliable they are nowadays.


And an indication of how few hours/cycles military aircraft actually fly. I was touring a C-5 years ago, and one of the crew was talking about its hours and cycles. Infinitesimal, given its calendar age.

But you are correct. I was intrigued to see in the article that they mentioned a 30-year-plus on-wing life.

JUST A NOTE: So we don't get locked, there is a big and fascinating discussion on the military board about all this, and we should probably keep our discussion, as it is so far, primarily on the effect this may have on the 717, which I'm getting from folks is probably not much. Here's the military thread on the engines: viewtopic.php?f=10&t=1395589
 
Okcflyer
Posts: 876
Joined: Sat May 23, 2015 11:10 pm

Re: Effect on 717 of B-52 Upgrades

Mon Sep 27, 2021 6:55 pm

717 is dead. It was an interesting attempt at prolonging the life of the DC9 series by offering essentially a "neo" model of the original DC9's (which were retiring en masses).

In my opinion, the MD team missed the mark greatly. They assumed that with more efficient engines and easier to maintain systems would sell as the replacement for the aging series. They based their business plan on their prior experience (strong selling DC9, MD80) rather than recognizing the market fundamentals were rapidly changing. Airlines had been in financial trouble for a long time and it was only a matter of time before consolidation began. This would lead to needing larger, more efficient (per seat) aircraft to fly the higher-density routes since there would less competition. LLCs were on the horizon and this would drive a large focus on seat economics. The 737NG, together with the A320, kicked the MD90's ass because they hadn't monderized it's aero performance (wing) or weight optimized (drag). The MD95 was an attempt to move away from that "sweet spot" of the market and not directly compete since their product was not on par. Yet, they seemingly didn't learn the lesson or tried to go too cheap again. They left the still-old wing mostly alone, slapped same-generation engines on it, and spent an odd amount of effort modernizing the electrical and cockpit to attempt to compete. TThe end result is an airplane that essentially burns as much fuel as 737-700 with a 25% lower capacity, right into the period of great concern over labor costs/productivity. This left itself very vulnerable to competition from RJs (which took over a lot of it's intended flying), and to newer enterants into the space (E190/E195 which sold better). Considering all of this, it's no surprised it died once before Delta swooped in and gave it CPR to live for a few more years.

If you need cheap frames for very short thin routes, it's a decent choice. Heavy maintenance cost are a bigger issue than fuel burn for this type of flying and it does well there. But that is such a small niche, it's not sustainable. Sorry Hawaii....

For literally every other network, used A319/737/E190/E195 is better and sold significantly better.

Much like Boeing appears to be learning with the 779, just because the first model(s) sold well, doesn't mean a replacement will do well. MD tried twice, and sold out before even seeing the 2nd finish dev (MD95) through....
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Moderator
Posts: 23077
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

Re: Effect on 717 of B-52 Upgrades

Mon Sep 27, 2021 9:43 pm

This is the Civil aviation thread impact of the re-engine. Please take military discussion to:
viewtopic.php?f=10&t=1395589
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Moderator
Posts: 23077
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

Re: Effect on 717 of B-52 Upgrades

Mon Sep 27, 2021 9:47 pm

phatfarmlines wrote:
Polot wrote:
It depends on how different the engine overhaul is. Remember the MD-90 shared the same basic V2500 as found on thousands of A320s, but it is different enough that ultimately by the end only one shop was qualified to work on it.


I agree. Same engine but different piping systems to connect to the engine, amongst other things. It was significant enough that a shop had to be specified for it.

It won't change the fate of the 717.

The business jet engines were enough to supply common parts.

To others:
The new F130 military engine is a BR725 (Gulfstream G650), not a BR715 (717 engine).

https://www.rolls-royce.com/media/press ... polis.aspx

The difference is fan diameter, low turbine, and many accessories. Since the low spool is different, this does not help the 717 other than improving economies of scale of the high spool.

This does help G650 support long term.

Lightsaber
 
MIflyer12
Posts: 10169
Joined: Mon Feb 18, 2013 11:58 pm

Re: Effect on 717 of B-52 Upgrades

Mon Sep 27, 2021 10:48 pm

Okcflyer wrote:
Airlines had been in financial trouble for a long time and it was only a matter of time before consolidation began. This would lead to needing larger, more efficient (per seat) aircraft to fly the higher-density routes since there would less competition. LLCs were on the horizon and this would drive a large focus on seat economics.


You're trying to rewrite history. The timeline doesn't work.

717 production ended 5/2006, after being announced January 2005, before any of NW/DL/Aloha/Frontier had declared Chapter 11, let alone Mexicana or AA.

There had been no meaningful U.S. industry consolidation by that point. (TWA assets to AA? So what.) DL+NW, UA+CO, and AA+US were all years after the announcement.

The LCC/ULCC trend was nothing compared to what it is today. Spirit had 51 frames at the end of 2006, mostly 319s or MD-8X. Frontier had 56 frames in mid-2007, including 318s. Frontier still had 33" seat pitch in coach! (So much for your argument on density.) Southwest had 438 aircraft in 12/2006, compared to over 730 today.

Polot wrote:
It depends on how different the engine overhaul is. Remember the MD-90 shared the same basic V2500 as found on thousands of A320s, but it is different enough that ultimately by the end only one shop was qualified to work on it.


If it's very common the military volume builds economies of scale, but the U.S. Air Force doesn't care. It's going too buy what it wants at whatever price.
 
wjcandee
Topic Author
Posts: 10943
Joined: Mon Jun 05, 2000 12:50 am

Re: Effect on 717 of B-52 Upgrades

Mon Sep 27, 2021 11:27 pm

lightsaber wrote:
This is the Civil aviation thread impact of the re-engine. Please take military discussion to:
viewtopic.php?f=10&t=1395589


Thanks. I gave the link to the military thread above, but having a clear direction from a moderator will give it some oomph.
 
Weatherwatcher1
Posts: 967
Joined: Sun Mar 03, 2019 5:14 pm

Re: Effect on 717 of B-52 Upgrades

Tue Sep 28, 2021 1:12 am

The engine isn’t the issue with 717. The number of BR715s installed on business jets with owners who aren’t particularly thrifty when it comes to maintenance costs will keep the overhaul market strong for decades.

The problem with the 717 is the aging avionics. With such a small fleet, few companies are willing to support systems components when they go obsolete.
 
User avatar
FLALEFTY
Posts: 1125
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2006 11:33 am

Re: Effect on 717 of B-52 Upgrades

Tue Sep 28, 2021 2:00 am

Weatherwatcher1 wrote:
The engine isn’t the issue with 717. The number of BR715s installed on business jets with owners who aren’t particularly thrifty when it comes to maintenance costs will keep the overhaul market strong for decades.

The problem with the 717 is the aging avionics. With such a small fleet, few companies are willing to support systems components when they go obsolete.


Agreed. Also, there are the parts and pieces from the DC9/MD80 supply chains that were used to build the B717 that are probably getting harder to source and more expensive to obtain. While DL is still flying around 50 B717's, I expect the fleet to start getting thinned out and retired as they come up for heavy checks and engine overhauls. I also imagine the retirement rate of B717's is being somewhat controlled by the ramp-up rate of the A220 fleet.
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Moderator
Posts: 23077
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

Re: Effect on 717 of B-52 Upgrades

Tue Sep 28, 2021 11:58 am

FLALEFTY wrote:
Weatherwatcher1 wrote:
The engine isn’t the issue with 717. The number of BR715s installed on business jets with owners who aren’t particularly thrifty when it comes to maintenance costs will keep the overhaul market strong for decades.

The problem with the 717 is the aging avionics. With such a small fleet, few companies are willing to support systems components when they go obsolete.


Agreed. Also, there are the parts and pieces from the DC9/MD80 supply chains that were used to build the B717 that are probably getting harder to source and more expensive to obtain. While DL is still flying around 50 B717's, I expect the fleet to start getting thinned out and retired as they come up for heavy checks and engine overhauls. I also imagine the retirement rate of B717's is being somewhat controlled by the ramp-up rate of the A220 fleet.

I would expect the BR715 part availability to be getting more "chunky" as the fleet diminishes. The problem of a shrinking small fleet is some poor vendor will not receive orders for spares, or not enough orders to run a batch of parts. It even gets to the point it isn't profitable to rebuild parts for airlines (normally the #1 profit center of vendors). At that point, the vendors stop supporting the product line.

Unfortunately for the MD-80 related parts market, when DL decided to retire the type, it made the market very dependent upon DL ordering spares for the 717 to sustain the vendors.
Currently Delta operates 53 717s per Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delta_Air ... rent_fleet

DL peaked at 91 in service:
https://airwaysmag.com/airlines/delta-t ... 717-fleet/

DL retired the MD-80s very quickly:
viewtopic.php?t=1431273

I suspect the reason Delta pre-announced they would cut their fleet to a mere 30 to 45 717s is to ensure enough green time to get to the retirement date without further engine overhauls or heavy maintenance on the airframes (obviously, a few C-checks must happen on the way). Some of this will be done via "stop clock" storage (put a dozen aircraft in the desert and that have say a year until the heavy maintenance and only pull them out as other aircraft hit the cycle/calendar need date for expensive maintenance.

My error, the B-52 will provide negligible parts support for the 717 as the intent is to apparently never overhaul the engines:
https://www.sharesmagazine.co.uk/news/m ... nt-Program

Once installed, the F130 can stay on wing for the entire planned B-52 lifetime.


So these engines only help by improving the part production economics of scale during initial production. That doesn't help if insufficient BR715s (717 engines) are going through overhaul. Qantas as Hawaiian simply do not operate enough 717s to keep the engine overhaul shops profitable. My opinion is DL announcing they would retire the 717s has undercut the economics of supporting the plane too much.

A great plane, in its final years of service. Time for another thread on what HA will replace the type with. ;) :duck: :flamed:

Lightsaber

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos