The B-52 engine fiasco

The only other option I can think of was the one I mentioned a couple of weeks back in the other thread. Substitute a single 32-34000lbs CFM-56 for each pair of TF-33's. I'm betting that there would be a reduction in nacelle wetted area and therefore drag as a bonus. The only issues are that you would probably need a new pylon and I dont think the 34000lbs model is currently in production. Maybe a similarly sized LEAP could fit the bill as well? Regardless the CF-34 would make a substantial contribution to reliability and consequent fuel burn drop. And that affects everything from operating costs, maintenance man hours to tanker tasking.

a reply to: thebozeian

They looked at the CFM56, the CF6, and the RB211, and going to a single engine in place of the pods, would require a fairly substantial redesign of the nacelle area and wing around it, to strengthen it.

Weight and drag around the bigger nacelles will take a toll on the elderly spars..

a reply to: Blackfinger

They found that they'd start to see cracking in the wings, and center wing box pretty quickly from going to a four engine approach. So they'd have to redesign a lot of the wing, which would make it really expensive, as opposed to expensive.

a reply to: Zaphod58

Wonder if they could just draft on 747 wings

a reply to: Blackfinger

They'd have to hang them upside down. Heh. It would look pretty funny with wings canted upward from the top of the fuselage. Would look pretty cool with engines on top though, ala the YC-14.