-
Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?
Go here:
Edit Account Details and Profile
cool pic
- Thread starter zab1001
- Start date
- Status
TANGO 1 said:
How about my comment? I'm still waiting. Once again, if the high-bypass turbofan was so FOD happy, why doesn't the airlines have problems with. Seeing as how they run thousands of operations a day, you would think you might hear something. But guess what, no.
Have you ever seen the test footage out GE's plant? That's when they shoot a bunch of crap through it and besides for some flames, it keeps operating without a problem?
DairyCreamer
Registered User
Put it this way, according to the Boeing MMA site, they state that the CFM56-7 turbofan has over 30,000,000 flight hours with a 0.002 PERCENT in-flight shutdown rate.
*quick engineering math skillz*
This equates to only 1.2 minutes of shutdown time per 1000 hours in the air, and only 600 hours out of 30,000,000 flown. 30,000,000 hours is almost 3425 YEARS 600 hours is merely 25 days...
You can't say the CFM56-7 is anything other than reliable.
Now, that being said, people need to be careful about saying turbofans are the be-all-end-all of efficiency. In certain flight profiles, turboprops can be more efficient. Turbofan powered craft are almost always going to be faster, but sometimes the speed is unnecessary. You dont see the regional airlines ALL snatching up CRJs do you? No. The Dash and the B1900 are still popular as ever. Anyway, I won't go off on that tangent.
I will echo the comments about the fod and water being shot at these engines. The testing is nothing short of brutal, and they just keep on turning. Modern engineering is the greatest thing since, umm... not modern engineering :icon_smil
~Nate
*quick engineering math skillz*
This equates to only 1.2 minutes of shutdown time per 1000 hours in the air, and only 600 hours out of 30,000,000 flown. 30,000,000 hours is almost 3425 YEARS 600 hours is merely 25 days...
You can't say the CFM56-7 is anything other than reliable.
Now, that being said, people need to be careful about saying turbofans are the be-all-end-all of efficiency. In certain flight profiles, turboprops can be more efficient. Turbofan powered craft are almost always going to be faster, but sometimes the speed is unnecessary. You dont see the regional airlines ALL snatching up CRJs do you? No. The Dash and the B1900 are still popular as ever. Anyway, I won't go off on that tangent.
I will echo the comments about the fod and water being shot at these engines. The testing is nothing short of brutal, and they just keep on turning. Modern engineering is the greatest thing since, umm... not modern engineering :icon_smil
~Nate
DairyCreamer
Registered User
Why else would the beast be dropping a torpedo? 
~Nate
~Nate
NeoCortex said:
Actually Tango 1, those of us attached to the flying units of Navy Oklahoma do work on the 737, as well as the TACAMO itself which essentially has 737 engines. I can tell you, many a live animal has played chicken with our CFMs and the end result of each encounter has been dinner and a working engine.
TANGO 1 said:
Prowler...Prowler...What are you talking about? This thread is about the P-3C ORION replacement...the Boeing 737 MMA. Prowler=EA6B. 2 totally separate aircraft...
Maritime aircraft don;t usually need to operate out of unprepared fields, and on the rare occasion they do, it isn't a problem. I've seen comercial turbofan aircraft operating on some sketchy fields, and it was never considered an issue.
Good call ZAb.
My mind was somwhere else and i was talking about another thing. Really what i was talking about is that, i hope they would not encounter problems since they ones they are using right now are turbo-prop. Say for example in situations where there is really no time to build something great and missions have to continue. I mean is this going to reduce their capabilities? that was what i was talking about.
My mind was somwhere else and i was talking about another thing. Really what i was talking about is that, i hope they would not encounter problems since they ones they are using right now are turbo-prop. Say for example in situations where there is really no time to build something great and missions have to continue. I mean is this going to reduce their capabilities? that was what i was talking about.
TANGO 1 said:
I still don't understand your point. The USN and USAF have been using these engines (t-fans) and this platform (737) for years. Maritime aircraft rarely, if ever go into unprepared fields, and even then, "unprepared" is a relative term. What 'problems' will develop airframe and engine-wise that haven't been encountered already?
TANGO 1 said:
Well...
my father is an A&P Certified Mechanic and an FAA-licensed inspector who has worked for a major airline since before the creation of the 737. He's currently licensed/qual'd on the DC-9, MD-80s, and 737 series.... care to restate your question so someone who knows a ****load more about them can smack you down?
edit...
Or I can just throw this stat out on the MMA's engines:
"The CFM56-7 is one of the world’s most reliable engines. More than 3,000 units have been delivered to date. This fleet of engines has logged more than 30 million flight hours while maintaining an industry-leading .002 in-flight shut down rate per 1,000 flight hours. This rate translates to one event every 500,000 flight hours."
"what would you mean by this engines and this platforms for years".
Common now, how can you compare the use of C-130's by the Marines in Afganistan. Now from talking to a crew-chief who was with a C-130 unti out there, he said the rough and dusty fields were taking a toll on their aircraft's. Now i will think that a P3-Orion will be able to land on fields C-130 can. But then i will not be comfortable to say that it would be the same as landing a HIGH BY-PASS turbo fan engine. For real, you ever being around this things when they kick them to about 80% power. It sucks and blows everything around. Their bigger Fan frame means they definitely suck in more air and also out a descent amount.
Now i don't know how missions on a P3 goes, as far as places they go and things like that and that is why i am asking. Do this P3 guys think it would be a problem.
Common now, how can you compare the use of C-130's by the Marines in Afganistan. Now from talking to a crew-chief who was with a C-130 unti out there, he said the rough and dusty fields were taking a toll on their aircraft's. Now i will think that a P3-Orion will be able to land on fields C-130 can. But then i will not be comfortable to say that it would be the same as landing a HIGH BY-PASS turbo fan engine. For real, you ever being around this things when they kick them to about 80% power. It sucks and blows everything around. Their bigger Fan frame means they definitely suck in more air and also out a descent amount.
Now i don't know how missions on a P3 goes, as far as places they go and things like that and that is why i am asking. Do this P3 guys think it would be a problem.
TANGO 1 said:
Start reading profiles.
I AM a P-3 Aircraft Commander. You do not understand the operations of these aircraft. The purpose of a P-3 is not to land on a dirt strip and unload troops/gear. The worst place I've had to land still had a hard, albeit sh!itty and in disrepair, runway. The same place where turbofans were operating on a daily basis.
you guys notice in the first pic the weapons bay if forward, if you look on Boeing's webpage and see a pic it is aft.... any word on the real placement?
TANGO 1 said:
you have got to be kidding me...deep breath...
no. turbofans will not affect mission capability. missions that are primarily ASW but also include ASUW, ISR, and Spec ops.
I am now going to put on my khakis, go back to class, and 'pretend' to be a Naval Aviator....
- Status