| Warthog Territory Forums https://warthogterritory.net/forum/ |
|
| Article on Engine Upgrade https://warthogterritory.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=9149 |
Page 1 of 1 |
| Author: | VanceUPT [ 11 Jun 2005, 19:49 ] |
| Post subject: | |
In the most recent "Combat Aircraft" magazine this paragraph ended a full page highlight of the new "C" upgrade on the Hog. I thought all engine mods were shelved for the time being? Story by Robert F. Dorr "Over the years, proposals have been made to put new engines in the A-10A fleet. A program considered in 1999, based in part on lessons from operations in the Balkans, would have retrofitted a pair of GE CF34-8 turbofans -- an engine based on the A-10A's existing engine and used today on the Bombardier CRJ airliner. The money wasn't forthcoming for that proposal. However, as part of a separate contract with Lockheed Martin (not the PE program) it is scheduled that an effort to increase the power of the Warthog's two 9,065lb thrust GE TF34-GE-100 turbofans will begin in 2006. The program apparently calls for modifications to existing engines, with production slated to begin in fiscal year 2006."<i></i> Edited by - vanceupt on Jun 11 2005 7:08 PM |
|
| Author: | Hawg166 [ 12 Jun 2005, 06:48 ] |
| Post subject: | |
The upgrade kits will costs around $300,000 per engine which is really paltry. By this time tomorrow I shall have gained either a pearage or Westminster Abbey........Nelson |
|
| Author: | jackb [ 12 Jun 2005, 14:15 ] |
| Post subject: | |
$300,000 here, $300,000 there, pretty soon it adds up to some real money. From a maintenance persepective, the engines we currently use are fine. From a performance aspect, well, I couldn't say. They've worked fine for the past 20+ years, is it really necessary? Would it really make that big a idfference? "The government is like a baby's alimentary canal, with a happy appetite at one end and no responsibility at the other." - Ronald Reagan |
|
| Author: | fenderstrat72 [ 12 Jun 2005, 18:35 ] |
| Post subject: | |
<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>The upgrade kits will costs around $300,000 per engine which is really paltry. <hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote> In todays AF 300K is a lot more than you think. ACC has come down and taken money back on several occasions from it's wings. Right now we are down to asking the commander if we can buy award folders for the new promotees next thursday. I am serious. It only comes to about $250.00. We may only be flying 4 days a week instead of 5 in the near future. The global war on terrosism is a very expensive one indeed. So when you say 300K in paltry you are thinking in the terms of pre 9/11 and not the one which we currently live and work. Fender "A woman drove me to drink and I hadn't even the courtesy to thank her". W.C. Fields |
|
| Author: | M21 Sniper [ 13 Jun 2005, 01:58 ] |
| Post subject: | |
For the cost of 600k per jet, in USUAL US defense dollars, that really isn't a lot of money, but as fender pointed out, these are unusual times we're living in. A lot of the pilots that post here have said they'd love to have more powerful engines on many occasions. Anyone have any idea what this proposal would boost the thrust output to? <b>There are two kinds of soldiers. Snipers...and targets.</b> <img src="http://www.creedmoorsports.com/images/SA9121-M21.JPG" border=0> |
|
| Author: | Old Chief [ 13 Jun 2005, 04:59 ] |
| Post subject: | |
<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote> Anyone have any idea what this proposal would boost the thrust output to? <hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote> I believe, under the latest proposal, the Sea Level thrust on a standard day will remain pretty much static. The thrust increase comes in at higher altitudes and it's not really an increase, just an engine that's able to deliver rated thrust across a wider range of temps and altitudes. I think it was JackB who said the original engines have worked fine for 20 plus years, and that's true. But, the original mission for a lighter A-10 was in the mud, not at FL altitudes. I have to agree with Hawg166. 300K per engine is cheap. When you look at what it costs when you induct an engine into the shop (used to be around a 100K depending on what time changes were needed on that particular engine), getting new hot section parts for that amount of money is a bargain. I don't know what the new prices are for something like an HPT, when I retired we were spending sixty thousand for one..note the price for ONE part..and that wasn't a new one, you were gettting something that was used and could have as little as 400 hours left before it had to be changed. For the crew dawgs here, ever wonder why the engine shop does so many water washes when the simple solution is to click the fuel control up a couple of notches to fix a low thrust write-up? It's all about dollars and sense. When an engine gets up-trimmed, it shortens the time it stays on the wing. Once an engine gets inducted, there are certain inspections that have to be done..and they're not cheap. The longer the engine stays on the wing, the lower the cost per flying hour. And speaking of, the A-10 has the lowest cost per flying hour of any aircraft in the inventory. A little history on engine upgrades might be in order at this point. The original proposal was for a completely new engine. I believe the CF34-8 was the leading candidate. This would have been a great choice, at least on the surface. The problem was, it, with the new fuel control, weighed around 300 pounds more per engine. Ask your weight and balance folks what another 600 pounds that far aft of CG would do to the W&B envelope..they'll look at you like you've lost your mind. It also has a larger diameter fan which meant a nacelle re-design and thirdly, the price tag was around 5 million per airframe..you can do the math on what it would take to do the fleet. I was at a meeting one day, topic was engines. Col. Donahue (a VERY cool SPO btw) was briefing and when he finished, an OG commander stood up and said "that's totally unacceptable". When the OG Col. finished his diatribe, Col. Donahue said "You find me the money and we'll look at a totally new engine. Right now, I've got the money to do what I've proposed". What struck me was his statement "we'll look at...". I asked him about that after the meeting and he said "I'm trying to make this airframe last. Before we put heavier, more powerful engines on this airframe, we'd have to take a close look at what it would do to the service life". I'm willing to bet that proverbial beer that Stress has some ideas what would happen if you hung another 600 pounds aft of the wing with almost 50% more thrust on the old girl. Finally, this one's for Fender. Things like office supplies, toner cartridges and awards folders are different color money and bear no relationship to fly dollars. The cut-back of flying days may have more to do with your unit's flying hour contract than anything else. Fourth quarter flying time is always a crap shoot. What you don't want to do is fly out your contract by say, the middle of August. Ideally, on September 30, your afternoon block lands just as the unit flying hours are totally expended..don't know too many times that happens but, hey, anything is possible. Okay, I'm done. Old Chief |
|
| Author: | Coach [ 13 Jun 2005, 05:38 ] |
| Post subject: | |
I think the article may have made a small math error...the A-10 engine program is a $1.8B (BILLION) PROGRAM. With 356 aircraft, plus spares, that is slightly more than $300K per engine. Coach |
|
| Author: | Old Chief [ 13 Jun 2005, 09:44 ] |
| Post subject: | |
[quote] I think the article may have made a small math error...the A-10 engine program is a $1.8B (BILLION) PROGRAM. With 356 aircraft, plus spares, that is slightly more than $300K per engine. Coach [/quote If my math is correct, that works out to $450,000 based on 400 engines. Still, that's less than a million per aircraft. Old Chief |
|
| Author: | fenderstrat72 [ 13 Jun 2005, 11:51 ] |
| Post subject: | |
Old Chief, I know the difference between Fly hour money and baseline funds. What I am saying without saying to much is both pots have been raided by ACC. It had nothing to do with the 4th quarter crap shoot you mentioned. That is why I said we are in different times than anyone of us have seen before. Fender "A woman drove me to drink and I hadn't even the courtesy to thank her". W.C. Fields |
|
| Author: | Old Chief [ 13 Jun 2005, 17:16 ] |
| Post subject: | |
Sorry Fender, shoulda known you'd understand the funding issues. The money thing is the kind of stuff that absolutely drove me nuts though I can't ever remember having the MajCom raid the base monies..that's freakin nickles and dimes, kinda like raiding your kids piggy bank to pay the mortgage. Old Chief |
|
| Author: | Hawg166 [ 13 Jun 2005, 19:28 ] |
| Post subject: | |
The performance aspects of the upgraded engnes will do wonders for the jets at altitude and especially down low. I dnt have it here but I have it on my desktop at the base. Its a big piece on the engine upgrades. The greatest part about it is the the change in single engine performance especially on engine out takeoffs or high density altitude takeoffs. I dont fly but I know there were times at Jabar when we wouldnt fly because we couldnt take off if we lost an engine. These will put an end to that problem. By this time tomorrow I shall have gained either a pearage or Westminster Abbey........Nelson |
|
| Author: | Bacon Bits [ 14 Jun 2005, 13:37 ] |
| Post subject: | |
I don't think the engines are too efficient operating in high temperatures, its the same with the Harrier family and their Pegasus engines. |
|
| Author: | Hawg166 [ 14 Jun 2005, 17:59 ] |
| Post subject: | |
I'm really mad because I forgot to send that paer home and I cant access the MXG homepage from my house. <img src=icon_smile_angry.gif border=0 align=middle> By this time tomorrow I shall have gained either a pearage or Westminster Abbey........Nelson |
|
| Author: | D.B. [ 15 Jun 2005, 21:08 ] |
| Post subject: | |
When I worked A-10 program office at ACC in 2000, we worked a study to lease engines from GE. It was still a BIG chunck of money to swallow. The weight gain also included the nacelle upgrade and beefing up the structure to accomodate the higher thrust. Something like 1500#'s total as I recall. BTW I never really understood why GE referred to the -8CA as a CF34. It is an entirely different engine from the -1C engine. Cheers db Being responsible means sometimes pissing people off. Gen Colin Powell ret |
|
| Author: | Coach [ 16 Jun 2005, 18:31 ] |
| Post subject: | |
Also, new engines are not part of the C-model "upgrade". Coach |
|
| Author: | Hawg166 [ 16 Jun 2005, 19:07 ] |
| Post subject: | |
Coach I have the A-10 World Wide Review 2005 on my desktop at the base, but I cant seem to be able to get the link to open from a non Government puter. I dont think its classified but I cant find it anywhere else. I dont know ifin anyone else can find it and get a link. By this time tomorrow I shall have gained either a pearage or Westminster Abbey........Nelson |
|
| Author: | kungfu [ 16 Jun 2005, 20:17 ] |
| Post subject: | |
Hawg166, Most upgrades and proposals within the defense industry are proprietary information that are not meant for general consumption. There is a lot of money to win and lose among competing contractors. Those links are usually restricted to .mil and .gov. Within each airframe's budget constraints, there are a lot of wish lists and gadgets that do not have all the funds allocated. Usually it's only developmental and research money for sustainment. If it's not on a contractor's public website, it's not meant for distribution to the average joe. kungfu |
|
| Author: | Hawg166 [ 16 Jun 2005, 21:41 ] |
| Post subject: | |
Yeah I know as much I just figured because it wasnt even labeled controlled release or anything as such that I may be able to find it. By this time tomorrow I shall have gained either a pearage or Westminster Abbey........Nelson |
|
| Page 1 of 1 | All times are UTC [ DST ] |
| Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ |
|