History Channel Mail Call Minot AFB and B-52 - Page 2

General » General Discussion

Site Notices

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - History Channel Mail Call Minot AFB and B-52 (Page 2 of 2)

Posted: 12/15/2005 9:16:34 PM EDT

[#1]

Quoted:
What does BUFF stand for? The uncensored version.

Big Ugly Fat Fucker

Posted: 12/15/2005 9:54:46 PM EDT

[#2]

Quoted:
Quoted:
What does BUFF stand for? The uncensored version.

Big Ugly F at lying Fucker

I fixed it for you

Posted: 12/15/2005 10:00:21 PM EDT

[#3]

Quoted:
I grew up 90 miles northeast of Minot. B-52's remind me of home.

I was raised in the oppisite direction, 70 miles NW of Minot

The Old Saying is:

Why Not Minot????
Freezin's the Reason

Posted: 12/16/2005 12:03:51 AM EDT

[#4]

Quoted:
What does BUFF stand for? The uncensored version.[/qu

B-Big U-Ugly F-Flying F-F*#ker

Posted: 12/16/2005 2:20:26 AM EDT

[#5]

The way things are going, some day it'll be :

Big Ugly Frenchman Fucker

As France is overrun by saracens....FINALLY....it will become a target at some point.

Look it up. The Crusades aren't over yet.

CJ

Posted: 12/16/2005 6:46:18 PM EDT

[#6]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Nope. We took huge formations over Baghdad. Sometimes 24 bombers at a time (6 from each deployment location). I went there twice and once to Tikrit which was a pretty nasty place too.

Woah, wait, during Gulf War 1, Desert Storm, 1991, you flew B-52's directly over downtown Baghdad and hit targets?

Note: I am not accusing you of not telling the truth, it's just that everything I have read has always said that Baghdad was considered too hot to have conventional bombers over it. Mind if I email you? I'm getting my MA in history (might go on for my PhD in military history) and I'm always looking for paper topics to publish.

If you can confirm all this, and hopefully point towards other sources it would be cool. Especially since my copy of the Air Power Survey says "With the combination of stealth and accuracy possessed by the F-117 and cruise missiles, these two platforms carried out all attacks against downtown Baghdad" [Cohen, Eliot (director) Gulf War Air Power Survey, (United States Air Force, GPO, Washington, DC: 1993), p 225]

So yeah, if you want to help out, I'm willing to write a paper on this.

You gotta wonder why the airpower survey says that. Mmmm, perhaps you don't get to buy any new stealthy airplanes if flying barndoors just knocked the shit out of a pretty well defended enemy capitol for days on end with almost no battle damage. Just a guess.

Feel free to email me. I do love to talk about the days when I still got to strap on this bitch and ruin someones economy.

Posted: 12/16/2005 7:24:16 PM EDT

[#7]

Quoted:
We seriously need to get rid of the Buff, it's an antique, state of the art, for 1960...

Reopen the B-2 line, re-engine the B-1s with the new Pratt 40klbs thrust models, and hury your ass up on orbital strike.

We need to re-engine the b-52.

low bypass turbofan love.

Posted: 12/16/2005 7:28:17 PM EDT

[#8]

Quoted:
You gotta wonder why the airpower survey says that. Mmmm, perhaps you don't get to buy any new stealthy airplanes if flying barndoors just knocked the shit out of a pretty well defended enemy capitol for days on end with almost no battle damage. Just a guess.

Feel free to email me. I do love to talk about the days when I still got to strap on this bitch and ruin someones economy.

Will do. It's gonna be a bit though. I'm working at my internship over break and it's wiping me out.

Posted: 12/17/2005 6:34:45 AM EDT

[#9]

Quoted:
Quoted:
We seriously need to get rid of the Buff, it's an antique, state of the art, for 1960...

Reopen the B-2 line, re-engine the B-1s with the new Pratt 40klbs thrust models, and hury your ass up on orbital strike.

We need to re-engine the b-52. low bypass turbofan love.

The Air Force does a study about every two years to check out the economics and it never comes out as worth the money. We got as far as strapping a syrofoam model of one of the proposed engines on the test bird at Edwards and taxing around in the late 90s but nothing came of it. The added range and less required tanker support alone makes it worth it in my mind. So when I am the Chief of Staff....

Posted: 12/17/2005 6:57:51 AM EDT

[#10]

They've been SORT OF re-engined once already, with JT-3Ds. (AKA TF-33) Previously, they used J-57s.

The JT-36/TF-33 is a turbofan version of the J-57. The turbofan assembly was provided as
an upgrade kit, allowing a J-57 to be rebuilt as a TF-33. I think that most of the TF-33s in
service are upgraded J-57s.

How can you argue with economics? If swapping engines is going to cost more money in the long
run and the existing engines aren't a problem, why bother to swap?

If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

I guess we could slap on four GE90-115Bs, if we really wanted to. But we'd have to put the B-52 on stilts to keep the engines out of the ground. However, you'd end up with 511,600 pounds of total thrust at triple redline. (Max fan RPM, max core RPM, max exhaust temp) on a plane with a max
takeoff weight of about 488,000 pounds.

I would view that thrust/weight ratio as "favorable" even for a fighter.

We could put any engines on it, but there's no point as the economics don't work out in the long term. Engines are EXPENSIVE compared to fuel costs.

CJ

Posted: 12/17/2005 8:21:08 AM EDT

[#11]

Quoted:
They've been SORT OF re-engined once already, with JT-3Ds. (AKA TF-33) Previously, they used J-57s.

The JT-36/TF-33 is a turbofan version of the J-57. The turbofan assembly was provided as
an upgrade kit, allowing a J-57 to be rebuilt as a TF-33. I think that most of the TF-33s in
service are upgraded J-57s.

How can you argue with economics? If swapping engines is going to cost more money in the long
run and the existing engines aren't a problem, why bother to swap?

If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

I guess we could slap on four GE90-115Bs, if we really wanted to. But we'd have to put the B-52 on stilts to keep the engines out of the ground. However, you'd end up with 511,600 pounds of total thrust at triple redline. (Max fan RPM, max core RPM, max exhaust temp) on a plane with a max
takeoff weight of about 488,000 pounds.

I would view that thrust/weight ratio as "favorable" even for a fighter.

We could put any engines on it, but there's no point as the economics don't work out in the long term. Engines are EXPENSIVE compared to fuel costs.

CJ

That sounds like fun but what would we do with all that thrust? Other than takeoff of course we are pretty over powered. When I first started flying most of our air to air work was still against F-4s. If you tustled with them at the end of the flight when you were pretty light and they were heavy and dragging gas bags you could out climb them. Not like that is a good tactic because we can't out climb a missile but it was fun.

Posted: 12/17/2005 11:27:43 AM EDT

[#12]

What were you flying?

CJ

Posted: 12/17/2005 2:37:00 PM EDT

[#13]

Quoted:
What were you flying?

CJ

In BUFFs

Posted: 12/17/2005 5:49:47 PM EDT

[#14]

That's a bit scary...a lightly loaded B-52 can outclimb an F-4 if it's carrying drop tanks?

Wow. That's really quite cool.

My father's flown the KC-135s that have refueled many B-52s, around the Vietnam war era. No war
stories to tell there, though. Refuelings were generally rather uneventful.

CJ

Posted: 12/17/2005 6:13:15 PM EDT

[#15]

Quoted:
That's a bit scary...a lightly loaded B-52 can outclimb an F-4 if it's carrying drop tanks?

Wow. That's really quite cool.

My father's flown the KC-135s that have refueled many B-52s, around the Vietnam war era. No war
stories to tell there, though. Refuelings were generally rather uneventful.

CJ

I flew in A-3's, with the tanker version we could walk away (notice I didn't say run) from F-4's at mil power (as long as they stayed off the burner and had drop tanks).
We did that with a Marine F-4 out of El Toro, he challenged us to a drag race.
We left him till he hit the burners.
Cheater.

Posted: 12/17/2005 6:23:15 PM EDT

[#16]

Quoted:
They've been SORT OF re-engined once already, with JT-3Ds. (AKA TF-33) Previously, they
I guess we could slap on four GE90-115Bs, if we really wanted to. But we'd have to put the B-52 on stilts to keep the engines out of the ground. However, you'd end up with 511,600 pounds of total thrust at triple redline. (Max fan RPM, max core RPM, max exhaust temp) on a plane with a max takeoff weight of about 488,000 pounds.

Why GE90-115Bs?
The CFM56 in a 737 type nacell would work just fine.

Plenty of room.
4 CFM56-5Cs would give better fuel economy, better range, less weight and maintenance issues and give the same thrust as 8 TF-33s do.
Plus they could be outfitted with thrust reversers.

Posted: 12/17/2005 6:34:57 PM EDT

[#17]

I was just using an outside example as I was referring to "what ifs". Might as well dream big if
you're going to dream. And the GE90-115B is the current world record holder for a single engine with the most thrust.

I've always thought that Boeing should take one airliner, over-engine it, reinforce the structure beyond
belief, make it fully aerobatic, and fly it at airshows for PR. Major airshows, anyway.

I think that the sight of a 777 doing snap rolls, hammerhead stalls, immelmans, split S's, loops,
vertical climbs, and other stupid stuff like that, over the crowds at Farnborough, Oshkosh, and Paris
air shows, would totally knock Airbus Industries' dick in the dirt.

There's some precedent for that. The prototype 707 (the Dash 80) was rolled twice over an airshow
in Seattle. Boeing got a LOT of orders for the new plane!

Airbus's most memorable airshow demo to date killed three people, but don't worry, they were only
journalists.

Boeing could OWN Airbus with a fully aerobatic 777 demo. Or better still...a 747!

CJ

Posted: 12/17/2005 6:49:52 PM EDT

[#18]

Quoted:

Plenty of room.
4 CFM56-5Cs would give better fuel economy, better range, less weight and maintenance issues and give the same thrust as 8 TF-33s do.
Plus they could be outfitted with thrust reversers.

They do have all those TF-33 parts laying about, IIRC.

Posted: 12/17/2005 7:03:10 PM EDT

[#19]

Quoted:
Quoted:

Plenty of room.
4 CFM56-5Cs would give better fuel economy, better range, less weight and maintenance issues and give the same thrust as 8 TF-33s do.
Plus they could be outfitted with thrust reversers.

They do have all those TF-33 parts laying about, IIRC.

No they don't.
That's one of the problems with the TF-33 engine.
Just outside of Tinker there is a junk yard (not DRMO) where they guy who owns it has made a wall with TF-33 engine cans that have non-servicable engines in it.
Last time I saw it the wall was two cans deep and four cans high and probably 200 feet long.
The DRMO scrap metal section had a shitload of TF-33 fans, blades and engine cases in it.

If I remember correctly the engine supply will be used up before the airframe life is used up.

Posted: 12/17/2005 10:57:24 PM EDT

[#20]

Quoted:
Quoted:
They've been SORT OF re-engined once already, with JT-3Ds. (AKA TF-33) Previously, they
I guess we could slap on four GE90-115Bs, if we really wanted to. But we'd have to put the B-52 on stilts to keep the engines out of the ground. However, you'd end up with 511,600 pounds of total thrust at triple redline. (Max fan RPM, max core RPM, max exhaust temp) on a plane with a max takeoff weight of about 488,000 pounds.

Why GE90-115Bs?
The CFM56 in a 737 type nacell would work just fine.

www.airpictorial.com/media/cfmD20cd.jpg

www.viperalley.com/gallery/data/500/medium/322004-09-20_160.JPG

Plenty of room.
4 CFM56-5Cs would give better fuel economy, better range, less weight and maintenance issues and give the same thrust as 8 TF-33s do.
Plus they could be outfitted with thrust reversers.

Thrust reversers? Hell, the AF pays to have those taken off airplanes. I think only the special mission planes like Air Force One has those still installed. Too much shit to break I think.

Posted: 12/18/2005 2:45:22 AM EDT

[#21]

Quoted:
Thrust reversers? Hell, the AF pays to have those taken off airplanes. I think only the special mission planes like Air Force One has those still installed. Too much shit to break I think.

Navy E-6B has thrust reversers on its CFM56 and the failure rate for them is very very small, and when they do fail they are not a mission failure cause.

Posted: 12/18/2005 2:01:49 PM EDT

[#22]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Thrust reversers? Hell, the AF pays to have those taken off airplanes. I think only the special mission planes like Air Force One has those still installed. Too much shit to break I think.

Navy E-6B has thrust reversers on its CFM56 and the failure rate for them is very very small, and when they do fail they are not a mission failure cause.

I was trying for the life of me to figure out how they stuffed two CFM56s into an EA-6. LOL. What a dork.

Posted: 12/18/2005 2:22:10 PM EDT

[#23]

Quoted:
Stationed at Minot AFB, watched that while i was still at work. Pretty good episode. I kinda wish they had some footage from the middle of winter when it gets pretty nasty out. Good nonetheless!

From 92 to 98 I was stationed at Minot & ended up humping alert BUFF'S fully loaded with the big boomers.

Those aircraft are still the best thing going if ya want to destroy a country

Posted: 12/19/2005 10:48:37 AM EDT

[#24]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Thrust reversers? Hell, the AF pays to have those taken off airplanes. I think only the special mission planes like Air Force One has those still installed. Too much shit to break I think.

Navy E-6B has thrust reversers on its CFM56 and the failure rate for them is very very small, and when they do fail they are not a mission failure cause.

From what I've been lead to believe the reason the AF took off the TRs for the 135s is for the supply side. The reasoning was that if you have TRs you have to spare left and right engines, instead of one spare engine for all four places.

And by not haveing reversers we now nave to deal with changing out brakes at an ungodly rate and not being able to fly into some fields that E models can.

ETA: And what I wouldn't give for CFM-56-3s instead of -2s. Just imagine having the gear box where you don't have to lay on your back to work on stuff.

Posted: 12/19/2005 11:02:59 AM EDT

[#25]

Bombardier said
"I was trying for the life of me to figure out how they stuffed two CFM56s into an EA-6. LOL. What a dork."

Hate to break it to you buddy, but there is a difference between a E-6 Mercury and EA-6B Prowler. People with a clue got the distinction. Dork check in Aisle 12!

Also, reengining the -52s got to the advanced planning stages in early 1990s, AFAIK, but at the time the astronomically lease rates for CFM engines (when we had a healthy aviation industry) made it cost prohibitive. Not reengining the -52s was a mistake then, and with lease rates down and the ability to lock-in decent long term rates probabable, a mistake now.

Posted: 12/19/2005 5:31:45 PM EDT

[#26]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quoted:
I spent 3 years at the Not, June 83-86 as an LE. Loved that Base, and LOVE THE BUFF!!!!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

posted by misslecop
85-89 here. 92nd MSS, 91st SPG Worked Mobile Fire Teams for a bit, and then spent the rest of my time there in the armory.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I may have seen you around. I was in the 5th OMS from 87-90 before being transferred to Carswell. There were some cold time on the flightline. Gotta love that BUFF.

Posted: 12/20/2005 12:56:27 PM EDT

[#27]

Quoted:
Bombardier said
"I was trying for the life of me to figure out how they stuffed two CFM56s into an EA-6. LOL. What a dork."

Hate to break it to you buddy, but there is a difference between a E-6 Mercury and EA-6B Prowler. People with a clue got the distinction. Dork check in Aisle 12!

Also, reengining the -52s got to the advanced planning stages in early 1990s, AFAIK, but at the time the astronomically lease rates for CFM engines (when we had a healthy aviation industry) made it cost prohibitive. Not reengining the -52s was a mistake then, and with lease rates down and the ability to lock-in decent long term rates probabable, a mistake now.

Gee, really? Thanks for the spank. I did manage to figure that out on my own before that post. I was calling myself a dork.

The distinctions are less than you think though. Both are just targets in the big scheme of things and both are probably dirty and nasty since they are navy planes.

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - History Channel Mail Call Minot AFB and B-52 (Page 2 of 2)

General » General Discussion

Warning

Confirm Action

About AR15.COM

Stay Connected

Newsletter

Contact Us