Key.Aero Network
Register Free

Results 1 to 15 of 15

Thread: What happened to 707RE with JT8D-219?

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Dec 1999
    Location
    San Francisco, USA
    Posts
    632

    What happened to 707RE with JT8D-219?

    Whatever happened to contract bid for the 707 re-engine with JT8D 200 series? The plane flew 5+ years ago and hasn't been heard of since. It seems KC-135 re-engine went with the CFM56 series. What are the advantages of CFM56 versus JT8D-219? Is it because USAF is already familiar with the GE F-110? Whatever happened to all those old 707s with noisy engines?

    __________________________________________________

    Pratt & Whitney JT8D-Powered B707RE Makes Flawless First Flight

    EAST HARTFORD, Conn., AUGUST 21, 2001 -- A Boeing 707-300 aircraft re-engined with four new Pratt & Whitney (P&W) JT8D-219 engines has begun a flight test program to demonstrate the potential of the world’s most popular commercial jet engine to power modernized military 707s, such as NATO AWACS and U.S. Air Force JointSTARS aircraft.

    "The Pratt-powered aircraft is so quiet that you wouldn’t even know that the engines are running," Jim Lunsford, lead pilot, said after completing the initial flights from San Antonio, Texas. "The JT8s perform flawlessly without a hiccup, just as expected. I don’t even have to think about the engines."

    The aircraft, termed "B707RE" - the RE for "re-engined" - was modified by San Antonio’s Seven Q Seven, Inc. (SQS), an aircraft modification and development firm. SQS’s prime stakeholder, Omega Air, is the world’s largest commercial operator of 707 aircraft, all powered with older P&W engines.

    Desmond McEvaddy, co-owner of Omega Air and also the co-pilot on the 707RE’s maiden flight, said that the company could eventually be prevented from flying its 707s in Europe due to noise restrictions that the older engines could not meet. "We had SQS join with Pratt to initiate re-engining our aircraft with a modern commercial engine," he said. "Now we’ve had this flawless flight test success, we’ve proven that the 707 re-engined with the latest JT8D can meet or exceed all noise and emissions restrictions, and we hope that both commercial and military users of 707 aircraft worldwide take notice."

    Jason Chamberlain, Director of Airlift, Surveillance and Tanker Engine Programs for Pratt & Whitney said that using the JT8D-200 series engine offers unique advantages to the Boeing 707 powered by the 1960-era TF33 and JT3D-7 Pratt & Whitney engines.

    "The JT8D fits neatly into any space where an old TF33 (JT3D) resides, so there is virtually no aircraft modification required with re-engining," Chamberlain said. "Additionally, obtaining a commercial certification (an FAA supplemental type certificate) will significantly reduce the development cost for 707 re-engining for military customers."

    P&W’s JT8D turbofan is the most widely used commercial jet engine in operation today, with a worldwide installed base of more than 12,000 engines. The latest version of the engine, the 21,000-pound thrust JT8D-219, provides a significant increase in power and range for the 707 while cutting fuel burn, noise, emissions, operating and maintenance costs. Military-specific improvements include better fuel offload capabilities for tankers, a reduced infrared signature, and longer time-on-station. The -219 engine’s average fuel consumption for most 707 military missions is expected to be at least 10% lower than that of the present engines.

    Joining Pratt & Whitney and SQS in the program are Goodrich Aerospace and the NORDAM Group. Goodrich supplies the engine build unit and the inlet and reverser. These are essentially the same as used on the MD-80 commercial jet. NORDAM is responsible for struts and cowls.

    EADS-Dornier will bid as the prime contractor for the NATO AWACS modernization program and has already selected the JT8D-219 as its power plant. Pratt & Whitney and SQS are also responding to Northrop Grumman’s proposed U.S. Air Force JointSTARS upgrade.


    http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi..._-_ILA2002.jpg
    Last edited by Multirole; 18th February 2007 at 08:33.
    pb::

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    4,893
    I think it lives on with the JSTARS engine upgrade.
    Because sometimes in life we need a bit of fun

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TXNAp3mKepc

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Dec 1999
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    8,076
    The JSTARS fleet is getting new engines? When?

    What about the Sentry and Rivet Joint fleets?
    Fox-4!

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    4,893
    Quote Originally Posted by PhantomII View Post
    The JSTARS fleet is getting new engines? When?

    What about the Sentry and Rivet Joint fleets?
    http://www.tmcnet.com/usubmit/2007/01/29/2288016.htm
    Because sometimes in life we need a bit of fun

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TXNAp3mKepc

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    279
    The RC-135s are already getting CFMs - see the Red Flag gallery on Fencecheck - but the U.S. E-3 re-engining is still some years away due to its funding profile.

    The E-8 has to stick with the JT8D due to radar interaction issues with the larger diameter CFMs, hence the initial review of smaller profile fans (incl. V2500, BR720) before the decision was taken to upgrade the JT8s.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    406
    I wonder what the viability for using these to re-engine the B-52H fleet is?

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Dec 1999
    Location
    San Francisco, USA
    Posts
    632
    Quote Originally Posted by turboshaft View Post
    The RC-135s are already getting CFMs - see the Red Flag gallery on Fencecheck - but the U.S. E-3 re-engining is still some years away due to its funding profile.

    The E-8 has to stick with the JT8D due to radar interaction issues with the larger diameter CFMs, hence the initial review of smaller profile fans (incl. V2500, BR720) before the decision was taken to upgrade the JT8s.
    So why CFM instead of JT8D for KC-135?

    Would the longer engine of the JT8D give problems to the E-3 radar?
    pb::

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    279
    Quote Originally Posted by Multirole
    So why CFM instead of JT8D for KC-135?
    Lower SFC, longer TBOs. Higher IAC than the JT8 upgrade, but the DOCs sense in the long-run, given the prospect of 30-40 years of further operation until KC-X replaced the fleet.

    Quote Originally Posted by Multirole
    Would the longer engine of the JT8D give problems to the E-3 radar?
    No. It was a specific elevation rather than azumith issue.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Dec 1999
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    8,076
    I think the J-STARS radar/engine issue is due to the fact that the radar on the E-8 is below the airframe and looks out to the sides. The radar on the Sentry is way up top well away from the engines.
    Fox-4!

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Dec 1999
    Location
    NSW
    Posts
    2,332
    Quote Originally Posted by Multirole View Post
    So why CFM instead of JT8D for KC-135?

    Would the longer engine of the JT8D give problems to the E-3 radar?
    A high bypass turbofan in the CFM-56 family is better in just about all ways, fuel economy, reliability etc. Isn't JT8D only stage 3 noise compliant? Now they are comming up on stage 4 noise restrictions. I wonder.

    The best upgrade for the E-8 is to remove and replace with the E-10.
    Last edited by ELP; 19th February 2007 at 02:22.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Dec 1999
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    8,076
    What's wrong with the E-8? The airframes really aren't even that old for the most part.......
    Fox-4!

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Dec 1999
    Location
    San Francisco, USA
    Posts
    632
    Quote Originally Posted by turboshaft View Post
    Lower SFC, longer TBOs. Higher IAC than the JT8 upgrade, but the DOCs sense in the long-run, given the prospect of 30-40 years of further operation until KC-X replaced the fleet.
    Ah, thanks for the answer.
    pb::

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Long Island, NY USA
    Posts
    56
    I believe another reason for the choice of the JT8D-219 over the CFM-56 is that less extensive modification is required to fit a JT8D to a formerly TF-33 (JT3D) powered aircraft. Again, it is not quite "plug & play" when it comes to swapping out JT3Ds for JT8Ds, but it is far easier (i.e., less $$$) than what is required for a CFM-56 refit.

    Maybe someone can comment on the structural/plumbing details of the JT8D refit versus the CFM-56.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Dec 1999
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    8,076
    How much thrust does the JT8D make?
    Fox-4!

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Dec 1999
    Location
    NSW
    Posts
    2,332
    Quote Originally Posted by PhantomII View Post
    What's wrong with the E-8? The airframes really aren't even that old for the most part.......
    The way it was procured. The sustainment portion of the program was oversold to the USAF. When Desert Shield kicked off they sent the only test bed to the desert. It did well... as JSTARs does well today. Problem is all the lashed up logistics in the program. These are very old aircraft. They were used ( well used ) airframes bought from the commercial sector....all with a variety of old system sustainment issues. Each airframe has a different history. At least one was at the end of its days moving livestock around the M.E. before it got pulled into the JSTARS program. The E-8 needs to be retired for a more modern logistically sustainable platform that matches our ops tempo which shows no signs of let up in the next 30 years. It is a vital mission and worth the investment. The current engines don't have enough power to really max out the use of the 24 foot sensor package kit on the bottom. JSTARS people have said all along if they could get some more altitude it would be a more effective platform. The current E-8 performance setup just doesn't have the juice. Engine upgrades bring on another can of worms as mentioned above ( different engine profiles getting in the way of the sensor field of view to name one concern )... including they want to make the "Iron Triangle" ( AWACS, JSTARS, RIVET JOINT ) more common to save money on the long haul. They like to base the Iron Triangle together when deployed for a variety of reasons. Having platforms with common maintenance and sustainment instead of 2/3rds of the Iron Triangle being flying museum pieces, would help. E-10 or any modern airliner design with more power can help do this.
    Last edited by ELP; 20th February 2007 at 03:09.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

- Part of the    Network -

KEY AERO AVIATION NEWS

MAGAZINES

AVIATION FORUM

SHOP

 

WEBSITES