RR bid for B-52 re-engining
Rebel PPRuNer
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Toronto, Canada (formerly EICK)
Age: 51
Posts: 2,834
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RR bid for B-52 re-engining
http://www.unison.ie/irish_independe...&issue_id=9663
Rolls Royce in bid for B-52 engine contract
ENGINE-MAKER Rolls-Royce is understood to be in the running for a share of a €2.6bn deal to replace the engines on the USA's B-52 bombers.
The group is reported to be in talks with American defence group Boeing.
Boeing has been asked by the US Air Force to look into the options for replacing the fleet's engines.
The bombers, which played a major role in the recent war in Iraq, have been in service for more than 40 years, with engines that were originally designed in the 1950s.
A similar study to replace the engines was carried out in 1996, but was passed over in favour of other upgrades.
Rolls confirmed that it had been contacted by Boeing, which built the B-52s, and had supplied two options for replacing the engines with either eight smaller engines or four larger ones.
However, US-rivals Pratt & Whitney, which originally designed the engines, and General Electric are also understood to be involved in discussions with Boeing over the contract.
No official figure has been put on the value of the contract, but it has been estimated that it could be worth as much as three billion US dollars (€2.66bn) once spares and after-sales maintenance for the aircraft have been taken into account.
If Rolls is successful, it is not known where the engines would be manufactured, but it is likely to be in either the group's Derby plant or its site in Indianapolis in the US.
Last month Rolls unveiled an 11pc rise in underlying profits to €163m, following an aggressive campaign to cut costs, including reducing its workforce by 1,100 to 36,200.
It also said its order book stood at a record €24.9bn, with growth in its after-sales market, which includes servicing and parts, offsetting a 14pc fall in engine deliveries.
Rolls Royce in bid for B-52 engine contract
ENGINE-MAKER Rolls-Royce is understood to be in the running for a share of a €2.6bn deal to replace the engines on the USA's B-52 bombers.
The group is reported to be in talks with American defence group Boeing.
Boeing has been asked by the US Air Force to look into the options for replacing the fleet's engines.
The bombers, which played a major role in the recent war in Iraq, have been in service for more than 40 years, with engines that were originally designed in the 1950s.
A similar study to replace the engines was carried out in 1996, but was passed over in favour of other upgrades.
Rolls confirmed that it had been contacted by Boeing, which built the B-52s, and had supplied two options for replacing the engines with either eight smaller engines or four larger ones.
However, US-rivals Pratt & Whitney, which originally designed the engines, and General Electric are also understood to be involved in discussions with Boeing over the contract.
No official figure has been put on the value of the contract, but it has been estimated that it could be worth as much as three billion US dollars (€2.66bn) once spares and after-sales maintenance for the aircraft have been taken into account.
If Rolls is successful, it is not known where the engines would be manufactured, but it is likely to be in either the group's Derby plant or its site in Indianapolis in the US.
Last month Rolls unveiled an 11pc rise in underlying profits to €163m, following an aggressive campaign to cut costs, including reducing its workforce by 1,100 to 36,200.
It also said its order book stood at a record €24.9bn, with growth in its after-sales market, which includes servicing and parts, offsetting a 14pc fall in engine deliveries.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Glorious Devon
Posts: 721
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Rolls's engine options were stated in today's Times to be 4 x RB211 or 8 x BR700.
The original Buffs (and the one I flew) had J57s I believe. The H models were fited with turbofans in the late 60s I think.
The original Buffs (and the one I flew) had J57s I believe. The H models were fited with turbofans in the late 60s I think.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Glorious Devon
Posts: 721
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I suppose the system architecture will have some bearing on the choice of four or eight engines. The Buff showed great resilience to battle damage over 'Nam, probably due to the wide distribution of electrics and hydraulics around the airframe. The fuel system, I believe, bore a striking family resemblance to that of the B17! Anyway, the old brute deserves a shot of aeronautical Viagra.
Engine diameter will also be a factor.
Perhaps the pylon can be shortened as long as the nacelle/wing aerodynamics are controlled.
The outer nacelles can get close to the ground. Maybe they'll mount a landing gear outrigger on the outer nacelle
Perhaps the pylon can be shortened as long as the nacelle/wing aerodynamics are controlled.
The outer nacelles can get close to the ground. Maybe they'll mount a landing gear outrigger on the outer nacelle
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 449
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Although 4 would be more fuel efficient than 8 engines (and at $17.50/gallon for AAR fuel someone's counting!) they're concerned that engine failure on a 4 engine aircraft could have quite severe flight handling consequences, so they'd possibly need computer controlled rudder and throttles, thus increasing the cost! 8 little ones may turn out better than 4 big ones doctor!
That concern regarding engine failure is very valid in the B52. As it has four sets of gear with the c of g somewhere in the middle, a bit like a car, it can't rotate as a normal multi engine aircraft would. It bores off down the runway and gets airborne when it has enough speed - at VLOF technically. As per perf A, VR can not be less than 1.1 x VLOF, the B52 has a few VMCA considerations compared with an aircraft with conventional gear.
Under these circumstances, losing half your thrust on a pylon rather than all of it has to be a hell of a lot better.
Under these circumstances, losing half your thrust on a pylon rather than all of it has to be a hell of a lot better.
