|
um excuse me posted:You know that discussion that comes up about how we should re-engine the B-52? Turns out survivability has nothing to to with it. Nor does cost. If Pratt inclined to re-engine the B-52, the military opens up the contract to other companies to bid on. Need that contract exclusivity. Not sure what you mean by this. Pratt inst who decides if the B-52 gets re-engine and they aren't the ones that pick which engine it would use. Are you saying that Pratt used backdoor influence to try and stop re-engine so they don't lose their support contract on the TF33s?
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2017 19:31
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 21:47 |
|
|
I'm saying they're in an exclusive provider contract with that engine for that plane. Pratt has the sole right to terminate the contract with (presumed) no penalty. I don't claim to know the details of it though. um excuse me fucked around with this message at 20:02 on Jul 28, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2017 19:45
|
|
|
The only involvement Pratt would have in a decision to re-engine or not would be giving the Air Force and the integrator quotes and information about what engines Pratt could sell them. The choice of engine and engine manufacturer is up to the Air Force and the integrator.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2017 20:13
|
|
|
um excuse me posted:I'm saying they're in an exclusive provider contract with that engine for that plane. Pratt has the sole right to terminate the contract with (presumed) no penalty. There's nothing contractual stopping the Air Force from deciding to drop the TF33 entirely and install something new. They would probably be required by statute to consider other contractors, but there's nothing Pratt can do to prevent them from making that decision. Well, not through contract or legal dispute; they can of course do the usual palm greasing, lobbying, and stink raising every contractor does when they see a cash cow in danger of going poof. It is true that this is why Pratt itself doesn't voluntarily propose a new engine, since they'd risk GE or someone waltzing in and taking the contract out from under them. e: Pratt could make a power play by threatening to cancel all TF33 Comrade Gorbash fucked around with this message at 20:31 on Jul 28, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2017 20:23
|
|
|
Comrade Gorbash posted:
Wait, are you under the impression that Pratt is still producing TF33s?
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2017 20:29
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:Wait, are you under the impression that Pratt is still producing TF33s? Sorry, I meant to say support and was doing too many things at once.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2017 20:30
|
|
|
Comrade Gorbash posted:That's true but you're mistaking the effect. It means the Air Force can't contract GE or Rolls Royce to produce TF33s. This used to be a thing militaries would do - they'd accept one firm's design and then contract multiple firms to produce it. That's the behavior the exclusivity clause is meant to prevent. The government views things designed on their dime as things they can have built by whoever they choose. The primes have just gotten very good at inserting IP not developed with govt money into everything. I've had to reverse engineer portions of designs that the original contract specifically called out that the final product had to be 'open' in that the govt could shop around for the manufacturer. Doesn't matter, those contracts are so complicated that there is always a loophole for IP insertion. Maybe it's not in the critical portion of the design but lol good luck figuring out what the test vectors mean without the propriety test equipment and its software.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2017 00:19
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/martyabbott936/status/890966200758546432
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2017 02:51
|
|
|
Comrade Gorbash posted:Sorry, I meant to say support and was doing too many things at once. Doesn't matter. Most of the TF33s in inventory are exceeding their wear limits, Pratt and Whittney is not making parts anymore and eventually they won't be able to get the TF33s in spec anymore, so someone is going to replace them unless Pratt suddenly restarts the TF33 production line, and they wont. JSTARS uses the TF33s as well, and almost none of the engines are actually able to pass their depot wear limits, so much that most of them are wavered in order to keep the inventory going.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2017 03:02
|
|
|
I was able to find a few sources online sharing this information, so I can confirm that Pratt and Whitney will, in fact, restart production of TF33 parts. I didn't see a timeline of when certain parts are going to enter service so I can't talk about that. But I do know that the manufacturing tooling process is very much under way.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2017 03:18
|
|
|
um excuse me posted:I was able to find a few sources online sharing this information, so I can confirm that Pratt and Whitney will, in fact, restart production of TF33 parts. I didn't see a timeline of when certain parts are going to enter service so I can't talk about that. But I do know that the manufacturing tooling process is very much under way. You could at least source that.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2017 03:34
|
|
|
So we may see BUFFS with four modern turbofans eventually? Remember, the last B-52 made rolled off the line in October of '63 -- the current inventory is 55 years old, though they've gone through some major overhauls -- and they're planned to be in service until the mid-2040s. um excuse me posted:I was able to find a few sources online sharing this information, so I can confirm that Pratt and Whitney will, in fact, restart production of TF33 parts. I didn't see a timeline of when certain parts are going to enter service so I can't talk about that. But I do know that the manufacturing tooling process is very much under way. Or not. And yeah, there's enough money in it that PW will restart the line, and it'd cost approximately eleventy billion dollars to buy/mount new engines for 'em (it comes up every ten years or so).
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2017 03:35
|
|
Bad Angus! Bad!
|
The best part is the most recent article I can find on them restarting the line is P&W emphasizing they have ZERO CAD drawings of the TF33, its all paper drafts, so they'd have to digitize it all.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2017 03:37
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:The best part is the most recent article I can find on them restarting the line is P&W emphasizing they have ZERO CAD drawings of the TF33, its all paper drafts, so they'd have to digitize it all. That's what interns are for.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2017 04:00
|
|
|
The article you found is the one I was looking at. https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/pw-still-pushing-upgrade-of-b-52s-original-tf33-en-424327/ The overhaul includes new components including the ones that failed back in January on that B-52. Plinkey posted:That's what interns are for. *Touches nose* Interns are actually critical to Pratt's current hiring strategy as they still want to hire about 7000 people, most of which are engineers. The company more or less built a feeder program to streamline the process. My humble department of maybe 400 offered over 30 internships this summer. um excuse me fucked around with this message at 04:12 on Jul 29, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2017 04:06
|
|
|
um excuse me posted:The article you found is the one I was looking at. Meh. They are PITCHING it. When the time comes, they'll have to bid just like everyone else.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2017 04:18
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:The best part is the most recent article I can find on them restarting the line is P&W emphasizing they have ZERO CAD drawings of the TF33, its all paper drafts, so they'd have to digitize it all. This is more or less true of the whole B-52 minus stuff that been reworked in the last 10 years. The digitizing process isn't great so you have to more or less just trace the old drawings.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2017 04:32
|
|
|
More like a hail from a CIWS
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2017 04:49
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Meh. They are PITCHING it. When the time comes, they'll have to bid just like everyone else. But sticking one engine where two used to be is probably a step too far even for them, and then they really would have to let everyone take a swing at it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2017 06:17
|
|
|
I've read it before but hearing the story is great: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lg73GKm7GgI
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2017 07:35
|
|
|
I do appreciate how every time I hear it told the speed seems to creep up another 100 knots from the original account in the book. Wouldn't be a proper pilot story otherwise. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2017 08:23
|
|
|
Enourmo posted:I do appreciate how every time I hear it told the speed seems to creep up another 100 knots from the original account in the book. Wouldn't be a proper pilot story otherwise. Legends do not equal facts. I think they are 'pushing the envelope' with the numbers :P
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2017 10:26
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/Jamie_Woodward_/status/891208351425679360 Dang. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2017 10:38
|
|
|
R-Type posted:More like a hail from a CIWS Captain. We are being hailed by the Navy vessel.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2017 11:49
|
|
|
Rotacixe posted:Captain. We are being hailed by the Navy vessel. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2017 15:59
|
|
|
turns out quality assurance actually matters on airplanes and as someone who's going through the pain related to digitizing paper drawings for parts, whoever is working on anything related to restarting the TF33 line is in for a world of hurt. It's not as as simple as scanning in a bunch of paper, each part is gonna have to be modeled and verified to the geometry of the master drawing because I sincerely doubt P&W has the inspection equipment they used in the 60s and 70s (or whatever the latest revision of their drawings are, it could be 50/60s poo poo for all I know) laying around to check the parts. Everything is going to be annotated in a way that isn't familiar to a lot of people working on the parts because the standards and conventions of GD&T have changed quite a bit since then.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2017 20:21
|
|
|
The new bits of TF33 will be about to spec to the original as the Super Hornet is to the Hornet. Updated alloys, manufacturing techniques, production, inspections, etc.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2017 21:59
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PgdEI3-GaAg Bomber day. Two B-29s airborne at the same time in a looong time. Also bonus B-25, B-17, B-2, B-52, B-1 action
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2017 17:13
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:Bomber day. Two B-29s airborne at the same time in a looong time. Also bonus B-25, B-17, B-2, B-52, B-1 action Great video, thanks for posting.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2017 18:41
|
|
|
I may have a little excited about this. Never thought I'd get a chance to fly on one!  Pretty sad I know.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2017 19:34
|
|
|
Finger Prince posted:I may have a little excited about this. Never thought I'd get a chance to fly on one! This is the thread where we're all sad like that 
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2017 21:18
|
|
|
Finger Prince posted:I may have a little excited about this. Never thought I'd get a chance to fly on one! Any time you're on a 4 engine plane is a special time. Even if they're itty-bitty.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2017 05:20
|
|
|
http://westseattleblog.com/2017/07/plane-reported-to-have-crashed-into-water-off-beach-drive/
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2017 23:42
|
|
|
Go home, plane, you're drunk.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2017 23:44
|
|
|
BIG HEADLINE posted:Go home, plane, you're dunk.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2017 05:39
|
|
|
New Major Kong article - on Mirages! https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2017/7/30/1682844/-Mirage
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2017 05:53
|
|
|
Goddamn, Doc's immaculate.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2017 06:31
|
|
|
Party Plane Jones posted:Reminds me a lot of the BD-10 Bede is nothing if he's not in over his head. Hah. I still want to see a homebuilt that breaks mach...
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2017 06:46
|
|
|
Nerobro posted:Bede is nothing if he's not in over his head. Hah. I still want to see a homebuilt that breaks mach... Does Darryl Greenamyer's F-104 count? heh
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2017 06:48
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 21:47 |
|
|
Not in my mind, no. :-)
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2017 07:09
|
|