Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: 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
(http://www.aircraftenginedesign.com/pictures/RB211-524.gif)
btw this engine will power boing 777s and airbus 300s
-
btw the current b-52 engine only makes 19,000 lbs max thrust per engine.
-
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.
-
1k3 it would kinda break the airplane.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
How does that compare to the Rolls Royce Trent series of engines?
-
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. ;)
-
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.
;)
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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...
-
Although nobody loves "the dreaded seven engine approach", if you have an engine fail, to have seven remaining is better than just one
-
Originally posted by rabbidrabbit
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...
Look up NCLOS.
-
Originally posted by Wolfala
Look up NCLOS.
or UCAV.
The B52H will be in service till at least 2040. Currently we are testing it's "Mid-life" upgrade. All new avionics, new guidence, radar, ect. All the stuff being put into it is not new, it's all off the shelf technology so it's just a matter of integrating it together and within the airframe.
as far as new bombers go we won't need one for at least 20 years. I highly doubt it will actually have a person flying it. Who knows maybe by then we'll just use satilites and airborn lasers.
-
B52 is still sound until 2040? Thats 90 years service lol. Man we need serious competetion!:p
-
Originally posted by 1K3
B52 is still sound until 2040? Thats 90 years service lol. Man we need serious competetion!:p
Talk about a return on investment. Hopfully they don't chop up all the ones in the bone yard either. Those are great for referbing and getting spare parts from. All the design and testing is allready done on the airframe and it's solid.
The youngest one made was manufactured in 1964. They're allready 40 years old and still going strong putting bombs on target. Recently they used one to hit a moving ship. Great bomber if you ask me.
-
DC-3's are 60 years old and they'll go till AVGAS is no more. And even then, they'll just get re-engined with Pratt PT6 turboprops. There's enough spares for the old radials for another 50 years, and most of the stuff that isn't around can be refab'd.
-
Howdy RPM,
Originally posted by rpm
Because Boeing can't make billions that way.
Actually they could.
The development of the new bomber would cost at least several hundred million (a billion is more realistic). Each 777-300ER costs about 239.5 million each, so to make a comparable bomber would probable involve at least 100 Million extra in military avionics (and thats being conservative) so we are talking about a 350 million dollar plane.
But considering that each B2 stealth costs $2.2 Billion each we are still talking about a much more cost effective platform.
- SEAGOON
-
why do all that when they can just take some old 777s and refurnish them into bomber versions of the 777
-
Didn't find anything under NCLOS butI don't think the UCAV is intended for single persons as targets. What the US needs is a predator or smaller sized unit that can be deployed on the battalion level thats capable or scouting the battle area and hitting individuals. The US has small scouts and larger limited strike craft like the predator
-
Originally posted by rabbidrabbit
Didn't find anything under NCLOS butI don't think the UCAV is intended for single persons as targets. What the US needs is a predator or smaller sized unit that can be deployed on the battalion level thats capable or scouting the battle area and hitting individuals. The US has small scouts and larger limited strike craft like the predator
They have that now.
-
I screwed up the acronym: NLOS-LS. is a difficult way to write 'missiles in a box'. Non-Line-Of-Sight-Launch-System.
-
Originally posted by 1K3
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
(http://www.aircraftenginedesign.com/pictures/RB211-524.gif)
btw this engine will power boing 777s and airbus 300s
....and to think Beetle is crying due to OVERWHELMING CO2 emissions from these.
Karaya
-
Originally posted by Wolfala
I screwed up the acronym: NLOS-LS. is a difficult way to write 'missiles in a box'. Non-Line-Of-Sight-Launch-System.
Nice toys but not really waht i was saying.. It's a strike missle system. It does not loiter over the target area and pick off point targets of opportunity. Guns, what do we have now that does the trick? The closest thing I know is the predator with Hellfire but thats not very efficient.
-
It's highly efficient. Just not cost effective ;)
-
Thats what I'm saying it's not cost effective for area denial and close support opperations on a larger scale. Whats needed is something along the lines of a powered glider with point target type munitions like a 40mm grenade or 50 cal that can be deployed at the battalion or even company level. I would think a guided munition that can target one person at a time would be great in many of these insurgent battles and for guarding roadways. I don't think the US has this yet. There are mini birds with cameras and the predator with hellfire but nothing bridging the gap that I know of. Is there anything?
-
Originally posted by rabbidrabbit
Thats what I'm saying it's not cost effective for area denial and close support opperations on a larger scale. Whats needed is something along the lines of a powered glider with point target type munitions like a 40mm grenade or 50 cal that can be deployed at the battalion or even company level. I would think a guided munition that can target one person at a time would be great in many of these insurgent battles and for guarding roadways. I don't think the US has this yet. There are mini birds with cameras and the predator with hellfire but nothing bridging the gap that I know of. Is there anything?
Efficiency aside a 52 is excellent at close air support. They stay on station with all sorts of ord. for whatever they may encounter. Somone calls in for help and they can have bombs on target VERY accuratly within no time.
There's nothing other than small spy craft that are done at the batalion level (but those have been VERY effective in Iraq) I know the UCAV is being designed to be autonomous and to identify targets on it's own. I saw a good show on discovery about other UAVs that are being designed to stay on station and be re-reouted at a moments notice to provide combat air support. I truely think that the JSF is the last manned combat aircraft that the US will develop.
-
Originally posted by Golfer
It's highly efficient. Just not cost effective ;)
I wonder what the cost saving of no pilot on board is.
Must be huge