User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 12/26/2017 11:34:06 PM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
What about a rotary rack or a magazine that drops from a tiny bay. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted: Impossible without drawing a new fuselage from scratch unless the bomb bays are tiny. The quick and dirty way is to think outside the box and copy the Heinkel method with vertical tubes poking through the lower moldline. Drop SDB's and other tiny precision bombs. Small impact on the fuselage structural integrity. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/26/2017 11:37:58 PM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
What about a rotary rack or a magazine that drops from a tiny bay. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted: Impossible without drawing a new fuselage from scratch unless the bomb bays are tiny. The quick and dirty way is to think outside the box and copy the Heinkel method with vertical tubes poking through the lower moldline. Drop SDB's and other tiny precision bombs. Small impact on the fuselage structural integrity. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/26/2017 11:44:12 PM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Military planes used to be obsolete by the time they actually were in full production, this thing is heading to be in service for most of a century. Not sure if I'm impressed or appalled. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/27/2017 12:01:05 AM EDT
[#4]
I'm impressed the airframes are still flight worthy to put the new engines into. That's a big bird with a lot of stresses over decades of incredibly loaded takeoffs and landings.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/27/2017 12:14:14 AM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I'm impressed the airframes are still flight worthy to put the new engines into. That's a big bird with a lot of stresses over decades of incredibly loaded takeoffs and landings. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/27/2017 12:29:54 AM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Not really, the planes that did all the work in ‘nam are all beer cans now. The Hs were sitting around on alert doing very little most of their lives. That’s why 15 year old C-17s have more hours than 60 year old BUFFs. Sometimes the years do matter though, especially when it comes to corrosion. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I'm impressed the airframes are still flight worthy to put the new engines into. That's a big bird with a lot of stresses over decades of incredibly loaded takeoffs and landings. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/27/2017 12:31:41 AM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
15 year old C-17s have more hours than 60 year old BUFFs. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/27/2017 12:59:21 AM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Is that version still in production? Does not matter, other versions will work. I used the -2A as an example due to it's very low failure rate and high longevity. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/27/2017 1:11:41 AM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It costs less to keep flying than the B-1 or B-2. With new more fuel efficient engines that cost will go lower. The engines on it now have been out of production for decades. Parts have become difficult to find and are expensive. It wouldn't surprise me if some parts had to be custom made. I also read that those engines are supposed to be overhauled every 1500 hours. I would think that a modern engine could surpass this mark. Here's a test of a TF33 with a redesigned inlet case and turbine exhaust case . http://www.af.mil/News/Article-Display/Article/1020305/newly-redesigned-tf33-engine-tested-at-arnold-afb/ 
And no, the two extra nozzles are not part of the mod, they are ducting the low-bypass fan air from the engine. If only there were some TF33 engines just sitting around from a ex .mil transport that could be used for spare parts... 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/27/2017 2:43:39 AM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Thank you for the correction on O/H hours. I read the 1500 hour figure somewhere that I can't remember right now. Here it is. http://www.airpowerstrategy.com/2016/11/22/old-dog-new-engines/ |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/27/2017 2:56:36 AM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted: You would be stuck with that rotary rack inside the fuselage and loading the ordnance would take a lot longer. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/27/2017 3:19:52 AM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The USAF has been working on designing new parts and components for the TF33. Here's a test of a TF33 with a redesigned inlet case and turbine exhaust case . http://www.af.mil/News/Article-Display/Article/1020305/newly-redesigned-tf33-engine-tested-at-arnold-afb/ https://media.defense.gov/2016/Dec/05/2001674765/-1/-1/0/161111-F-RS654-007.JPG And no, the two extra nozzles are not part of the mod, they are ducting the low-bypass fan air from the engine. If only there were some TF33 engines just sitting around from a ex .mil transport that could be used for spare parts... https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8e/USAF_Lockheed_C-141C_Starlifter_65-0248.jpg |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/27/2017 3:24:52 AM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I didnt know that - sincere thanks for correcting me! Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I'm impressed the airframes are still flight worthy to put the new engines into. That's a big bird with a lot of stresses over decades of incredibly loaded takeoffs and landings. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/27/2017 3:30:41 AM EDT
[#14]
Hell, I wish we still had a few of the old G models around with their smokey ass J57 engines. Nothing would trigger the tree huggers more than a full squadron of those doing a MITO on water injection. The tears that would flow could cause a rain forest to sprout in Ethiopia.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/27/2017 3:43:37 AM EDT
[#15]
Forgot to mention the TV show also said that many of the B52s in AZ were cut in 2 pieces by a huge guillotine-like knife dropped from a crane-type device for the SALT2 agreement. They were left in the open so that the Soviet satellites can take photos of the destroyed planes.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/27/2017 9:27:06 AM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
No. Does not matter, other versions will work. I used the -2A as an example due to it's very low failure rate and high longevity. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Is that version still in production? Does not matter, other versions will work. I used the -2A as an example due to it's very low failure rate and high longevity. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/27/2017 9:36:02 AM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Could we produce more B1’s ? |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/27/2017 10:19:59 AM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
IIRC we destroyed the tooling. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Could we produce more B1’s ? |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/27/2017 1:40:23 PM EDT
[#19]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/27/2017 4:30:34 PM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryFirst, we don't have the cruise missiles to shoot in that numbers. Second, that plane gets thrown about every time someone talks about bombers. We see all these cool drawings but nothing realistic like how they planned to get the rotary launchers into the plane in the first place. If they're not removable, are you going to load gobs of missiles one at a time through the exit bay? It would take forever to load this thing. Weapons release would be terrible on this. Keeping CG of dumping 2000 lbs at a time from that far aft would suck. Bombers usually have the bomb bay at the COG so that release just results in a controlled rise with neither the tail or nose pitching up. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/27/2017 4:34:57 PM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
First, we don't have the cruise missiles to shoot in that numbers. Second, that plane gets thrown about every time someone talks about bombers. We see all these cool drawings but nothing realistic like how they planned to get the rotary launchers into the plane in the first place. If they're not removable, are you going to load gobs of missiles one at a time through the exit bay? It would take forever to load this thing. Weapons release would be terrible on this. Keeping CG of dumping 2000 lbs at a time from that far aft would suck. Bombers usually have the bomb bay at the COG so that release just results in a controlled rise with neither the tail or nose pitching up. Quote HistoryQuoted:
First, we don't have the cruise missiles to shoot in that numbers. Second, that plane gets thrown about every time someone talks about bombers. We see all these cool drawings but nothing realistic like how they planned to get the rotary launchers into the plane in the first place. If they're not removable, are you going to load gobs of missiles one at a time through the exit bay? It would take forever to load this thing. Weapons release would be terrible on this. Keeping CG of dumping 2000 lbs at a time from that far aft would suck. Bombers usually have the bomb bay at the COG so that release just results in a controlled rise with neither the tail or nose pitching up. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/27/2017 4:55:19 PM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted: If only there were some TF33 engines just sitting around from a ex .mil transport that could be used for spare parts... https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8e/USAF_Lockheed_C-141C_Starlifter_65-0248.jpg The TF-33's on the 135E fleet were x-airline engines taken off surplus 707's and most had Huge core hours to start with. Keeping 4 of them working was a huge maintenance $$$$$ and on top of that the quality of the engines coming from depot was awful and sometimes they didn't make 20 hrs before crapping out. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/28/2017 11:46:43 AM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I THINK there are many ancient B52s in a bone-yard in AZ. I think the show mentioned D & G models comes to my mind. I think many have been cannibalized for parts.  scrapping a b-52 (excerpt) |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/28/2017 11:48:10 AM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
How much modification would it take to get them working on a B-52? Google it yourself. Read the responses in this thread. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/28/2017 11:51:06 AM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The problem is those TF-33's off the re-engined KC-135E / EC-RC's and retired C-141's are also old and tired. The TF-33's on the 135E fleet were x-airline engines taken off surplus 707's and most had Huge core hours to start with. Keeping 4 of them working was a huge maintenance $$$$$ and on top of that the quality of the engines coming from depot was awful and sometimes they didn't make 20 hrs before crapping out. Holy shit they had some serious cracks and welds on the first stage static vane sections. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/28/2017 2:42:48 PM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Why are you asking me these stupid questions? Google it yourself. Read the responses in this thread. I figure a redesign of the nacelles and am sure that there are other things that would need to be considered. Why are you being a jerk to a guy that only wants to know a little about this? Why not pass on some of your knowledge instead of trying to belittle others? |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/28/2017 2:51:54 PM EDT
[#27]
Another Combat Aviation thread, and another standard "there is no good option, the only thing we can do is rape the taxpayer" standard line of responses from the zoomies.
And yet they wonder why everyone hates on the Air Force, and their corrupt politicians backed by the aviation industry. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/28/2017 3:03:08 PM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Because I am genuinely curious and have no avaition background. I figure a redesign of the nacelles and am sure that there are other things that would need to be considered. Why are you being a jerk to a guy that only wants to know a little about this? Why not pass on some of your knowledge instead of trying to belittle others? I am not AeroE, he's the guy to ask. I would have no idea about the engineering required other than what I can find on Google or from the responses in this and other threads. I apologize for coming off as a jerk. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/28/2017 3:09:00 PM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Another Combat Aviation thread, and another standard "there is no good option, the only thing we can do is rape the taxpayer" standard line of responses from the zoomies. And yet they wonder why everyone hates on the Air Force, and their corrupt politicians backed by the aviation industry. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/28/2017 3:10:35 PM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Not even close. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/28/2017 3:11:19 PM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Your questions are following a familiar pattern when someone is trolling me. I am not AeroE, he's the guy to ask. I would have no idea about the engineering required other than what I can find on Google or from the responses in this and other threads. I apologize for coming off as a jerk. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Because I am genuinely curious and have no avaition background. I figure a redesign of the nacelles and am sure that there are other things that would need to be considered. Why are you being a jerk to a guy that only wants to know a little about this? Why not pass on some of your knowledge instead of trying to belittle others? I am not AeroE, he's the guy to ask. I would have no idea about the engineering required other than what I can find on Google or from the responses in this and other threads. I apologize for coming off as a jerk. I usually am a very obvious troll when I am actually trying to do so. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/28/2017 3:12:44 PM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
good to know, but why then keep all the obsolete shit in the airframe? seems like all the wiring and plumbing is just dead weight... Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted: Not even close. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/28/2017 3:13:19 PM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
good to know, but why then keep all the obsolete shit in the airframe? seems like all the wiring and plumbing is just dead weight... Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted: Not even close. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/28/2017 3:13:59 PM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You would be stuck with that rotary rack inside the fuselage and loading the ordnance would take a lot longer. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted: Impossible without drawing a new fuselage from scratch unless the bomb bays are tiny. The quick and dirty way is to think outside the box and copy the Heinkel method with vertical tubes poking through the lower moldline. Drop SDB's and other tiny precision bombs. Small impact on the fuselage structural integrity. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/28/2017 3:14:00 PM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Ask the poor bastards that maintain them what a jewel they are. It was a great plane in its youth, but there are many good reasons [redwe don’t fly 707s [/red]in passenger service anymore. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/28/2017 3:15:28 PM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
 Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Isn't the Army looking at keeping Vietnam Era Hueys flying for 100 years?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/28/2017 3:16:19 PM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I see 707s, well KC135s, often enough where I live. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted: Ask the poor bastards that maintain them what a jewel they are. It was a great plane in its youth, but there are many good reasons [redwe don’t fly 707s [/red]in passenger service anymore.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/28/2017 3:19:58 PM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted: And why can't they put it out to bid, with specs, to 2 or 3 engine manufacturers? I want xxx engines based on a current design to fit into y. I'm not talking about giving them away, or designing engines from scratch. We got to the moon from scratch in 10 years with slide rules and spacecraft with less computing power than an apple watch ,but nobody can figure out how to build 700-800 engines to fit in an existing airframe and make a profit? |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/28/2017 3:25:39 PM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted: You would be stuck with that rotary rack inside the fuselage and loading the ordnance would take a lot longer. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/28/2017 4:11:17 PM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Another Combat Aviation thread, and another standard "there is no good option, the only thing we can do is rape the taxpayer" standard line of responses from the zoomies. And yet they wonder why everyone hates on the Air Force, and their corrupt politicians backed by the aviation industry. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/28/2017 4:23:44 PM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted: How about a module that lowers with replaceable rotary racks? Load them like a speed loader on a revolver..................when one is empty, have a loaded one ready to load onto the plane 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/28/2017 7:59:10 PM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted: What about a rotary rack or a magazine that drops from a tiny bay. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/28/2017 8:05:27 PM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Because I am genuinely curious and have no avaition background. I figure a redesign of the nacelles and am sure that there are other things that would need to be considered. Why are you being a jerk to a guy that only wants to know a little about this? Why not pass on some of your knowledge instead of trying to belittle others? Aero and load changes affect the whole airplane and have to be approached pretty carefully. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/29/2017 11:30:26 PM EDT
[#44]
Couldn't they re-wing the bitch as part of the upgrade package, or would that be almost as much work as designing an all-new aircraft?
With modern day CAD, FEA, and CAM, you'd think it's be possible to do an economical re-wing program. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/29/2017 11:39:05 PM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Couldn't they re-wing the bitch as part of the upgrade package, or would that be almost as much work as designing an all-new aircraft? With modern day CAD, FEA, and CAM, you'd think it's be possible to do an economical re-wing program. 
Wait, you’re serious? http://www.airforce-technology.com/news/newsboeing-delivers-first-re-winged-a-10-thunderbolt-ii-aircraft/ $2B for the A-10 re-wing. It would be at least ten times that cost on the BUFF. Might as well build a new bomber. Call it the B-21 raider. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/29/2017 11:52:18 PM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Wait, you’re serious? http://www.airforce-technology.com/news/newsboeing-delivers-first-re-winged-a-10-thunderbolt-ii-aircraft/ $2B for the A-10 re-wing. It would be at least ten times that cost on the BUFF. Might as well build a new bomber. Call it the B-21 raider. I mean, really? |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/30/2017 12:04:21 AM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
$8.3 *MILLION* USD per wing for a fucking A-10? I mean, really? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Wait, you’re serious? http://www.airforce-technology.com/news/newsboeing-delivers-first-re-winged-a-10-thunderbolt-ii-aircraft/ $2B for the A-10 re-wing. It would be at least ten times that cost on the BUFF. Might as well build a new bomber. Call it the B-21 raider. I mean, really? |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/30/2017 12:05:49 AM EDT
[#48]
Perhaps I missed it...
Vmc and TOLD, how does it work? This place is stupid when it comes to aircraft. "Why cant then just..." Jesus. This isnt adding a headache rack to an 82 chevy and nobody makes off the shelf parts that are bolt on. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/30/2017 12:29:59 AM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I see real 707s flying overhead most days, but they aren't doing passenger work any more. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/30/2017 12:31:23 AM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
707s you say. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I see real 707s flying overhead most days, but they aren't doing passenger work any more.
|
|
|
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
