User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 12/24/2017 7:48:50 PM EDT
[#1]
The gggrandchildern of the first guys to fly it will be flying
Awesome |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/24/2017 7:50:18 PM EDT
[#2]
Such a waste of money, put that pig out to pasture.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/24/2017 7:50:24 PM EDT
[#3]
Savin our tax dollars
MAGA |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/24/2017 7:51:35 PM EDT
[#4]
Would they be able to use a current commercial engine or would it require a dedicated mil application engine?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/24/2017 7:52:20 PM EDT
[#5]
Man...can't we find some way to replace the old B-52s with something more modern but not 'holy Mother of God' expensive?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/24/2017 7:53:32 PM EDT
[#6]
This is getting ridiculous. The cost of keeping 76 airplanes flying has to have a breath taking high per airplane number.
The services had better speed up their Big Plans for airplane mods and life extension, when the Dims take over all that will get crushed and the money moved to social programs. B-52H production was 102 airplanes. The last airplanes were built in 1962. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/24/2017 7:54:15 PM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Would they be able to use a current commercial engine or would it require a dedicated mil application engine? |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/24/2017 7:55:26 PM EDT
[#8]
Whoa. Am I reading that correctly? Are they talking about getting almost 70 years service out of 1960s technology jet engines?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/24/2017 7:55:40 PM EDT
[#9]
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: 12/24/2017 7:55:41 PM EDT
[#10]
Wouldn't one of the little engines out of some type of business jet fit in the existing pod design pretty easy? There was an article about this last year that said the mx and fuel costs would pay off an engine change in 10 years.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/24/2017 7:57:26 PM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Whoa. Am I reading that correctly? Are they talking about getting almost 70 years service out of 1960s technology jet engines? |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/24/2017 7:59:12 PM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Man...can't we find some way to replace the old B-52s with something more modern but not 'holy Mother of God' expensive? |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/24/2017 8:01:01 PM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
No that piece of shit already got “new” engines once. This would be the third engine. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Whoa. Am I reading that correctly? Are they talking about getting almost 70 years service out of 1960s technology jet engines? |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/24/2017 8:01:03 PM EDT
[#14]
I. Like it.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/24/2017 8:03:51 PM EDT
[#15]
Aviation week, AF times, and the rest of the genre's pulp journalism have been promising, claiming, and predicting that the B-52 will be re-engine pretty much every year since I joined in 2001. It's not going ot happen.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/24/2017 8:05:51 PM EDT
[#16]
So what do you figure are the best engine options? The TF-33s have 17K thrust and an engine diameter of 56 inches. The outboard engines, at least,
can't be much bigger than that unless the location of the engines is changed. Which I doubt would be even an option to consider. Uh, hang a pair of GE90s on the inboard pylon location and call it a day? 
Really, what are the best available engine options? |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/24/2017 8:09:07 PM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So what do you figure are the best engine options? The TF-33s have 17K thrust and an engine diameter of 56 inches. The outboard engines, at least, can't be much bigger than that unless the location of the engines is changed. Which I doubt would be even an option to consider. Uh, hang a pair of GE90s on the inboard pylon location and call it a day?
Really, what are the best available engine options? |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/24/2017 8:09:47 PM EDT
[#18]
Plus there are plenty of C-141 carcasses that donated their motors to keep the B-52 flying.
Motor being "Not Sustainable" means that at best some LtCol at WPAFB in the fighter-bomber SPO is spinning his wheels by having people chase this pipe dream again so he/she/it can get some bullet point for their OPR. At its worse means Globo-Boeing is greasing congressmen to make that red tape pliable. However, as always with these articles, they'll be talk, discussion, but no program of record, so nothing gets done. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/24/2017 8:17:36 PM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
From what I remember reading from a previous thread on this. You can’t reduce the number of engines. Each enginenpowers something diffent (hydro, charging, etc.). You would loose the redundancy that has made them last so long. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
So what do you figure are the best engine options? The TF-33s have 17K thrust and an engine diameter of 56 inches. The outboard engines, at least, can't be much bigger than that unless the location of the engines is changed. Which I doubt would be even an option to consider. Uh, hang a pair of GE90s on the inboard pylon location and call it a day?
Really, what are the best available engine options? |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/24/2017 8:27:36 PM EDT
[#20]
You're not getting four engines unless you get a different rudder (not going to happen) or some crazy flight control logic (not going to happen.)
Most biz jet engines are too small. If it happens it will be 8 of the baby GE's that they have on the a10, e175, e195 etc..... I think Boeing has been working on this recently with cf34s. I don't know how far it went.... If it does happen I assure you it will be GE unless they find a way to get eight JT8s and limit the drag of the inlets. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/24/2017 8:29:53 PM EDT
[#21]
If you go with four engines it will be a major over haul on the wings. You may as well build a new plane
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/24/2017 8:30:04 PM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Such a waste of money, put that pig out to pasture. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/24/2017 8:47:30 PM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Got a bigger bomb truck? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Such a waste of money, put that pig out to pasture. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/24/2017 8:48:31 PM EDT
[#24]
Putting 8 biz jet engines like BR725's in the nacelles means you don't have to go thru all the aero and recert stuff and importantly, no new struts and interfaces. Lots and lots less money. All you really have to do is the electronic and plumbing integration.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/24/2017 8:50:09 PM EDT
[#25]
Good.
Maybe they'll last another 60-70 years. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/24/2017 8:55:06 PM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted: No that piece of shit already got “new” engines once. This would be the third engine. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/24/2017 8:55:11 PM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Wouldn't one of the little engines out of some type of business jet fit in the existing pod design pretty easy? There was an article about this last year that said the mx and fuel costs would pay off an engine change in 10 years. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/24/2017 8:56:44 PM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted: That’s a stupid and shitty reason not to go with 4 vs 8 engines. Accessory drive gearboxes can run two generators, two hydraulic pumps, etc. They do it every day on many aircraft. Stress guys say otherwise. APUs can be used for extra power All the wiring will have to be junked, so it can be routed as needed. B-52 is still dropping lots of ordnance; they’re wiping out the drug operations that ISIS uses for money. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/24/2017 8:58:25 PM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Putting 8 biz jet engines like BR725's in the nacelles means you don't have to go thru all the aero and recert stuff and importantly, no new struts and interfaces. Lots and lots less money. All you really have to do is the electronic and plumbing integration. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/24/2017 9:00:44 PM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Incorrect. The H's are flying with the same type engine Boeing hung on them in 1962. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted: No that piece of shit already got “new” engines once. This would be the third engine. I did the math and was like, holy shit. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/24/2017 9:01:32 PM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Boeing has a nifty infomercial on re-engineing the B52 I watched them all; pretty thorough. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/24/2017 9:02:24 PM EDT
[#32]
amazing
My dad worked on the project that converted the entire fleet to water injection engines |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/24/2017 9:02:45 PM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Putting 8 biz jet engines like BR725's in the nacelles means you don't have to go thru all the aero and recert stuff and importantly, no new struts and interfaces. Lots and lots less money. All you really have to do is the electronic and plumbing integration. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/24/2017 9:10:40 PM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Incorrect. The H's are flying with the same type engine Boeing hung on them in 1962. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted: No that piece of shit already got “new” engines once. This would be the third engine. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/24/2017 9:12:10 PM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
This is getting ridiculous. The cost of keeping 76 airplanes flying has to have a breath taking high per airplane number. The services had better speed up their Big Plans for airplane mods and life extension, when the Dims take over all that will get crushed and the money moved to social programs. B-52H production was 102 airplanes. The last airplanes were built in 1962. Maybe new engines are all we can trust 'em with at the moment. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/24/2017 9:14:53 PM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Man...can't we find some way to replace the old B-52s with something more modern but not 'holy Mother of God' expensive? |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/24/2017 9:16:08 PM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted: No that piece of shit already got "new" engines once. This would be the third engine. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/24/2017 9:21:54 PM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
B-52 and Piece of shit shouldn't be in the same sentence! Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted: No that piece of shit already got "new" engines once. This would be the third engine. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/24/2017 9:26:31 PM EDT
[#39]
Stop saying bizjet engines. Only the largest of bizjet engines produces the same thrust.....
Edit: I forgot this is GD, you guys all fly around in BBJs, 1000s, g600s, global express. Maybe the poorest of you guys flies around in a citation 10. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/24/2017 9:35:29 PM EDT
[#40]
Could we produce more B1’s ?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/24/2017 9:36:43 PM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted: They'll use some off the shelf bizjet/regional jet engine. Stupid low hanging outer nacelles won't allow use of four actual modern engines instead of eight ridiculously small ones. Maybe they should just tow the B-52's with 747's. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/24/2017 9:37:39 PM EDT
[#42]
Those planes will still be flying when my grandchildren are senior citizens
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/24/2017 9:40:36 PM EDT
[#43]
I thought the B-21 was effectively the replacement for the B-52?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/24/2017 9:42:49 PM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You're not getting four engines unless you get a different rudder (not going to happen) or some crazy flight control logic (not going to happen.) Most biz jet engines are too small. If it happens it will be 8 of the baby GE's that they have on the a10, e175, e195 etc..... I think Boeing has been working on this recently with cf34s. I don't know how far it went.... If it does happen I assure you it will be GE unless they find a way to get eight JT8s and limit the drag of the inlets. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/24/2017 9:45:08 PM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
What assurances have we that it won't end up in a giant boondoggle like the last few AF development programs? Maybe new engines are all we can trust 'em with at the moment. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
This is getting ridiculous. The cost of keeping 76 airplanes flying has to have a breath taking high per airplane number. The services had better speed up their Big Plans for airplane mods and life extension, when the Dims take over all that will get crushed and the money moved to social programs. B-52H production was 102 airplanes. The last airplanes were built in 1962. Maybe new engines are all we can trust 'em with at the moment. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/24/2017 9:45:14 PM EDT
[#46]
seriously this far in and no dale brown comments
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/24/2017 9:47:03 PM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Those planes will still be flying when my grandchildren are senior citizens |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/24/2017 9:47:07 PM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I thought the B-21 was effectively the replacement for the B-52? |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/24/2017 9:57:31 PM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Boeing has a nifty infomercial on re-engineing the B52 Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Wouldn't one of the little engines out of some type of business jet fit in the existing pod design pretty easy? There was an article about this last year that said the mx and fuel costs would pay off an engine change in 10 years.  Boeing B-52 Re-engine: The Right Choice for the Air Force |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/24/2017 10:55:45 PM EDT
[#50]
Bud Holland approves
|
|
|
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.
