|
|
| Re: Boeing jet to break distance record (74305) | |||
 |
|||
| Home > OTChat | |||
|
[ Read Responses | Post a New Response | Return to the Index ] |
|
||
|
Re: Boeing jet to break distance record |
|
|
Posted by cortelyounext on Thu Nov 10 17:56:30 2005, in response to Re: Boeing jet to break distance record, posted by RonInBayside on Thu Nov 10 16:43:08 2005. I enjoyed both WillD's and your contributions to this thread. In most cases, the military -135 fleet has been retrofitted with the GE/SNECMA CFMs. Along with avionic upgrade packages (i.e., Pacer CRAG), that reengine was arguably one of the better military contracts in recent memory. In hindsight, the drawback was the CFMs were bought sans thrust reversing. The earlier "block" CFMs were rated at 26,000 lbs static thrust sea level but trimmed back to 22,000 lbs - that initial rating is higher than the original F-15/16 P&W/GE F-100 engines in full afterburner, yet is eerily silent which attests to the fact that 80% of the power, depending on flight regime, comes from the compressed airflow rather than the combusted exhaust. The earliest models of the CFM had a problem with the Power Management Controls kicking in and out during approach thrust settings, so pilots on four engine aircraft sometimes flew with the inboards advanced and the outboards retarded to decrease spool up time; later models the PMCs were adjusted. As to brand, many airlines opted for the Aero V2500s for their Airbus A-320 family, a good engine in its own right, but I think most chose the CFMs, my preference. |
|
|
|