Author Topic: it would be nice if B-52 fleets have this... (Read 749 times)

1K3 · « **on:** December 13, 2005, 11:52:26 PM »

New engine

Pratt Whitney PW4000-112

Engine Characteristics

Fan tip diameter: 112 in
Length, flange to flange: 191.7 in
Takeoff thrust: 74,000 - 98,000 lb
Flat rated temperature: 86° F
Bypass ratio: 5.8 to 6.4
Overall pressure ratio: 34.2 - 42.8
Fan pressure ratio: 1.70 - 1.80

btw this engine will power boing 777s and airbus 300s

1K3 · « **Reply #1 on:** December 14, 2005, 01:59:45 AM »

btw the current b-52 engine only makes 19,000 lbs max thrust per engine.

Wolfala · « **Reply #2 on:** December 14, 2005, 02:09:05 AM »

Was a proposal to re-engine the fleet about 20 years ago with high bypass turbofans like the KC fleet. Was rejected b/c we had so many surplus TF-33's - logic being use what you have till you can't use it anymore. Then they'll re-engine them.

FUNKED1 · « **Reply #3 on:** December 14, 2005, 02:27:51 AM »

1k3 it would kinda break the airplane.

rabbidrabbit · « **Reply #4 on:** December 14, 2005, 10:28:53 AM »

I would think the fuel bill alone would pay for the new engines. It's like having an old fridge. Sure you already paid for it but the difference in the electric bill would pretty much pay for the new one in a few years so why not upgrade and enjoy something better.

mauser · « **Reply #5 on:** December 14, 2005, 11:16:07 AM »

The fan tip diammeter is already about 9 ft. As I recall, the engines on the 777 are pretty big in diammeter. Not so with the B-52 - wouldn't there be ground clearance issues with the current gear setup and the way the wings droop? Not to mention what funked said.. Another engine design when the TF-33's run out?

LePaul · « **Reply #6 on:** December 14, 2005, 11:20:49 AM »

Wolf

Most of the KC-135 fleet was re-engined with higher thrust engines. But structural damage was noticed upon followup checks, so the engines were de-tuned for lower thrust. (As told by a crew chief )

I'm curious what a higher thrust engine would do to a B-52. Just cause its more powerful doesnt mean its the best for the airframe

Gunslingr might have some good input on this.

Furball · « **Reply #7 on:** December 14, 2005, 12:57:30 PM »

How does that compare to the Rolls Royce Trent series of engines?

Gunslinger · « **Reply #8 on:** December 14, 2005, 01:56:41 PM »

The 52's wing's droop as it is. One thing about the 52 that's nice is it's got 8 engines. That's important for those long 35 hour round trips into combat zones. One engine fails you just throttle it back and notch the other 7 up a bit.

I beleive they did re-engine the plane in the 70's to a more smokeless engine but could be wrong or I could be confusing it with F4s. Either way the most valuable thing about the 52 is the Air Frame. When you have structural problems they are the worse because it usually involves getting something from the bone yard. The fleet of 96 airplanes we have now is expected to last another 40+ years. I imagine that by then they will re-engine the bird but until then.....it aint broke, don't fix it.

Seagoon · « **Reply #9 on:** December 14, 2005, 02:08:48 PM »

Better yet, why don't we introduce an economical new subsonic heavy bomber that costs about as much as a 777 instead of designing and building ultra-high-tech bombers that cost a billion a pop?

The majority of our future engagements require a stable platform that can deliver heavy loads of ordinance over very long distances in conditions where the US already has complete air superiority. We need a bomber that can economically deliver several JDAMs to Tora Bora, not penetrate Superpower air defense grids. To put it in AH2 Speak, We have the JU88 and what we really need is the B-24, but all we are getting are heavily perked AR234s.

Wolfala · « **Reply #10 on:** December 14, 2005, 02:20:03 PM »

But the 234 is an effective interdictor and it constantly pisses people off that they cannot intercept it

Esp when running flat out at 440 on the deck with bombs in tow. What I loved the other day was running as a FAC at tank town after having blown my bombs on 2 tigers. A p-38 dives in from 9K, saddles up at 800 back. I don't have tracers on and he just disappeared in the smoke. Its got a few nice surprises like that.

superpug1 · « **Reply #11 on:** December 14, 2005, 04:45:41 PM »

Over the summer i went to Barksdale AFB for AFJROTC SLS. We got to hang with some guyd from the 20th bombsquadron. They said that when modernization comes the 52 will be almost new, they will have to reinforce the wings for the newer engines. then there was something about them having air to ground missiles that fire on missile sites when they get a lock on the bomber. sort of an offensive defense missile. man, with those engines that plane would own. haha, you could carpet bomb with MOABs:aok

rpm · « **Reply #12 on:** December 14, 2005, 04:53:19 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Seagoon
Better yet, why don't we introduce an economical new subsonic heavy bomber that costs about as much as a 777 instead of designing and building ultra-high-tech bombers that cost a billion a pop?

Because Boeing can't make billions that way.

rabbidrabbit · « **Reply #13 on:** December 14, 2005, 04:53:29 PM »

what the US really needs is unmanned drones with the capity to target one guy at a time... Think of all the time predators find a target but can't hit it or needs to waste a hellfire on it. Something like a laser guided 40mm grenade would do the trick...

Debonair · « **Reply #14 on:** December 14, 2005, 05:59:50 PM »

Although nobody loves "the dreaded seven engine approach", if you have an engine fail, to have seven remaining is better than just one