The truly amazing thing that you don't hear in this interview is that the B-52 is still the best heavy bomber the US has after 65+ years of continuous service, and the plan to keep using it for at least a century of service. That is one heck of a testament to battlefield platform.
The B-52; is a flying example of what was right with America 65 years ago. It's a testament to engineering genius, and hard work. The fact; that the "modern" defense industry cannot seem replace it. Is a demonstration of everything wrong with the defense industry today. It's not just about what's tough, reliable, rugged, or stealthy. It's that today's "contractors" treat each successive program; as a bonanza. Instead of a means to provide the best possible solution for the mission, for the best possible price. After all; the price of each platform; is not just measured in dollars, ruggedness, or reliability. Ultimately that price, is measured in American lives.
I was a jet mechanic in the Navy and worked on Pratt&Whitney TF30P-408s. It was a great engine. But that was nearly 50 years ago. They have come along ways in design and efficiency. I hope P&W gets the contract too.
Gotta love this old bird - The old man flew a "G" model in the early 60's and my son flew the "H" in the 90's - somewhere I have a couple of pictures of the kid sitting in the same plane (57-6490) as the old man 30 years later. As for the engine issues, it ain't just a matter of slapping a new engine with equal or greater thrust under the wing and calling it good. The KC-135 was a good example of that. As stated in the beginning of the interview, the plane needs eight engines.The B-52 was designed with eight engines and its internal systems, electrical, hydraulic and bleed air are dependent on those eight engines. Reducing the engines to four would require some systems to be doubled on one engine or more. The bleed air revisions alone would require a massive rework of the wings. Then there is the issue of the vertical tail assembly - not just the rudder but the tail itself. The original design used an extremely tall tail fin to accommodate the lower air density encountered in high level bombing. It needed a bigger tail to resist side-slip and provide control in the event of an engine loss in the thinner air. With the "G" model the tail was reduced by eight feet in height to reduce the flutter encountered with the low level missions (anti-ship warfare and mine laying) that were anticipated for the plane. Those missions never really materialized and when the plane returned to its high level missions, there were all sorts of yaw control problems. Yaw dampers were added to provide stability especially in high level refueling. The vertical tail is the one real 'weak' point of the plane. If a B-52 powered by four engines lost one of them at high altitude, the potential loss of control would be claustrophobic. Remember, this is a real airplane with control cables, no instantaneous computer driver fly-by-wire to save your bacon. There are also rudder issues that would need to be addressed. Simply put, the plane was designed with eight engines and if it is re-engined, it will need to be done with eight engines.
@@williamsimmons152 Thank you. The B-52 has always been close to my heart and am glad to see that it will probably outlive me. The first flight of YB-52 was six months after I was born - in all honesty, it has aged much better that me.
It is a long way from when P&W told the USAF to go pound sand and refused to offer anything but a mildly upgraded TF33. A real threat of a serious open competition for the replacement engine seems to have motivated them to do better in creating a proposal that attempts to addresses all of the USAF's concerns for B52H engine long term logistics life cycle costs.
They've been talking about replacing the engines of the B52 since the late 80's, and they are still talking. Years of research to replace the engines. Yet in 1942 a Rolls Royce pilot flew the P51A, and said this aircraft would be great with the Merlin engine. One year later, the classic P51 Mustang, with the Rolls Royce Merlin engine was flying.
@@hotrodray6802 Yep. the P51A and the dive bomber (A36 I think) used the Allison. Great engine low down at ground level. It was only in 1945 that Allison developed a two stage, two speed supercharger for the Allison that matched the Merlin. FYI the P38 lightning had turbo superchargers, so kept the Allison for its full production run, as the turbo's enabled the engines to perform at altitude.
Yes but fewer engines would equate to lower maintenance and lower cost plus the new engines are more powerful which means you could carry even more ordinance.
@@lorenzomaximo1818 The B-52H carries 307,600 pounds of fuel and is refueled in the as much as it needs, the P&W 4000 series are already used in airliners and have an excellent reliability factor and are 1/3 more efficient than the current P&W TF-33 plus having 8 engines means they could shutdown 2 and still make back to abase capable of handling a B-52 and it's outrigger landing gear. So it's really oa question of being able to work on the aircraft and not spoiling the look of classic aircraft, especially since we are both the same age, but the Big Ugly Fat Fucker has aged better than I have.
@@Chuck59ish Charles I hear what you're saying and I understand but it all comes down to the money and maintenance factor. I haven't age well either LOL. But I never considered B-52 as a big fat ugly fucker. I think it's a good looking aircraft it looks very threatening with that giant wingspan. And remember it's a war machine it's not a beauty queen.
@@lorenzomaximo1818 BUFF is what the fighter jocks called them in Vietnam, it's the best Shock and Awe weapon in the world, when they drop their load it's like an earthquake, and if you're unfortunate enough to be under it, you be buried and probably not alive.
@@Chuck59ish Yes I'm familiar with the history of the Buff name. I was involved in operation linebacker and linebacker 2 during 1972. We bombed the snot out of North Vietnam. Using many many B-52s along with A7s F-4 Phantoms F-111 and assortment of other aircraft. One of our A7 corsairs number 513 got underneath the B-52 unleashing its bomb load and one of the bombs went through the tail I have a picture of it. That A7 Corsair was Bingoed to Danang for repairs. Yes that's for sure you do not want to be underneath the B-52 when it's pissing bombs. It's reported that the B-52 will be around until the late 2040s or 2050s I'll be long gone by then I hope it continues on great aircraft.
The B-52 ... the greatest aircraft ever built ... 5400 pounds less ... those wings will like that.This world will not be here in 2040 as we know it ... but nice to know these engines are that good.
@@artoo45 Thanks for that info. The engines designated as P&W300 are used on the Dassault Falcon 7X and 8X. They develop a maximum takeoff thrust of 5,220 pound feet with a thrust to weight ratio of 5.26 at takeoff. Pratt & Whitney also supplies the engines for the current B52 designated as J57 or JT3C. This engine develops 11,700 pound feet of thrust. My question remains.
Well the engines on this acft was designed and MANUFACTURED in the late 50’s 60’s. Those prats lasted 50 something years so I’m betting they know what there doing on this engine.
All 3 manufacturers are proposing engines that are typically used on biz jets or regional jetliners: the TF34, GE Passport, P&W 800, BR700/F130. Previous proposals looked to replace 8 with 4. This time it's replace 8 with 8 and the size and thrust range of these engines are suitable for this application.
Another good reason to keep 8 engines is not scientific, economic or technical. B-52s are one of the coolest looking planes ever made. They have an iconic profile and aspect to them. Plus all of the other good reasons.
Dumb question...how many serviceable air frames are there? Remember stories of spares taken from static display models for use during mid east service.
Enough to keep the plane in service another 25 years. The main constraining factor is the wing. They figure the upper surface is good up to 31,000-32,000 flight hours which is not bad. That's about 1.5 times what a commercial arliner although those can get extended to 40,000 hrs. There were 102 H-models produced; they have around 76 in service now with around 17 spare's. They have recycled planes back into service after being parked in the desert for 20+ years. The static display planes you speak of are decommissioned F-18's -- mainly A and C-models. They haven't made one of those since 2003 (the current production F-18 are the E and F and they're really a completely different plane; they keep calling them F-18 for political reasons) so it's harder to come by spares for those planes and what they removed doesn't affect the safety or stability of a retired airframe. You would presume the situation is better for the Marine Corps (which this issue mainly affected) since the US Navy retired the F18A-D from frontline duty in 2018; they won't be serving on carriers anymore which frees more airframes (and their spares) up for the Marine Corps.
I hope they win, but, it always comes down to the right type of grease in our "Honorable Politician's" palms. Like how the YF23 beat the YF22, but the F22 still won. The 2 YF 23's were destroyed.
No they were not, they stayed at Edwards air force base for like a decade before finally the team that built them came and restored them before putting them in museums.
When they considered 4x big turbofans before the single biggest engineering cost would have been the design and development of new pylons and nacelles.
Too expensive and aerodynamically UNWISE to halve the number of engines. The B-52 was designed for 8 engines. You'd have to rebuild more of the plane than is practical to install 4 engines and that would arguably destroy any savings you'd gain in fuel efficiency. Any engine selected has to fit within the existing nacelle/strut supports without major re-engineering. To date, the B-52 upgrades since the 1970s have cost several times more than what the planes were originally bought for in the 1950s and early 1960s! That's part of why it's critical to keep the cost down AND do the re-engining right. They MIGHT have screwed this up had they tried this 20 years but they probably understand the plane better now. (You'd think they would after nearly 70 years of service!!!) The other issue is thrust imbalance. It wasn't designed around 4 engines, period. If you lose thrust from one engine of 4, it creates more adverse yaw issues for this bomber than it would a 747 for example. The 747 was designed around 4 engines but it was designed about 20 years AFTER the B-52 when they understood some aerodynamic factors better and engines were more reliable than when the B-52 project started. They (Boeing and USAF) actually screwed themselves in the last 2 models of the B-52 (G and H) when they redesigned the tail for low-level operations but you have to understand about aerodynamics and flight control. That tail is another factor for why 4 engine use is NOT advisable for this airframe. It really doesn't have enough rudder and with 4 engines (instead of 8) that control would be more marginal than it is now! 8 is optimal for the plane and not a pound more in thrust, either, because that airframe was not designed for afterburners or 30,000lb thrust engines! You don't reinvent the wheel for cars and you DON'T re-engine planes without understanding the overall design and what kind of thrust it was designed for.
It failed the critical engine out during takeoff testing simulation. A failure of the number 1 or 4 engine created a yawning vector that exceeded the rudder authority of the B52H. By the time the rudder was delivering the maximum counter to the failed engine's drag the aircraft had been dragged off the runway and had crashed. From what I understand it was a very violent event as far as aircraft failing that test. Other aircraft had failed similar tests, but the B52H's performance was one of the worst ever seen in such a test.
I Hope NO Foreign engine manufacturer IE Rolls Royce ETC wasted any money on this project because the US was/is NEVER going to give it to a NON US Manufacturer!
Apparently the Pentagon has privately stated that the RR engine ticks more boxes and the USAF have an engine facility that is qualified on that RR unit as there are many of them in the AF inventory already. I still don't expect RR to win though.
Didn't Rolls-Royce get the nod? Looks like your statement that the US Air Force would only choose US designed engines was incorrect. The RR engines will be assembled in Indiana, that makes it more attractive.
lasso atrain I can't help but wonder how Pratt and Whitney feel about the 5.5 trillion dollar stimulus package our goverment had issued themselves before they even decided what they needed or where it would go. Just like another budget or free shopping spree. 5.5 trillion would had bought 37,631 F22's or it could of bought 432 nuclear aircraft carriers. What goes thru the corporate mind when it hear's their goverment life line just had a coronary?
Junk engines, less thrust than a tf33 just lighter and less fuel burn because of less thrust! Put some bigger motors on there so they can haul more! Come on GE!
The B52 aircraft has routinely been launched with maximum weapons load and reduced fuel load. They get topped off from the tankers that launch with them. The wing can only handle so much takeoff thrust. Pilots have indicated that they are fine with getting the same 17,100 pounds of thrust that the first B52H's had. With significantly decreased fuel usage, 33% approximately, the initial fuel load can be lowered from what is now. The ultimate goal is reduced overall tanker usage in order to have more tankers available for other missions.
@@davidhoffman1278 Close but no cigar. The wing can handle every bit of the thrust of the engines. It does it every time it flies. Every pound you take off with requires X amount of fuel. Leave fuel behind to reduce take-off weight and top off at a more fuel efficient altitude. I've seen fuel flows of over 84,000 lbs per hour on take-off. then at 40,000 ft. it's around 18,000 lbs per hour for the 8 engines. Quite a difference!
@@williamhudson4938 , I read a blog on the wing issue. At the time there was an issue with either the upper wing panels or lower wing panels having some type of stress corrosion cracking that would be aggravated by changing from the 17,900 pound thrust TF33 engines to something along the lines of 24,000 pound thrust CFM56 engines. The B52 pilots on the blog indicated that the USAF was trying to avoid a big wing rebuild program. They didn't want to go to Congress and ask for too much too close together. The idea at the time was to get the engine replacement then after that was completed ask for the wing rebuild/repair program. I worked on the C-141 program and the wing problems meant that all the engine upgrade proposals were the same as this B52 engine upgrade. No thrust increase, significantly increased MTBF, significantly decreased fuel consumption, fit in the same overall cowl dimensions. Of course the C-17 was to replace the C-141, so there was no reengine program.
Tell the truth i thought they just took turns rolling the dice and then pushed buttons sending army's back to their regular jobs.with a thank you for serving their country.. making war green also makes war sustainable and helps the climate change problem . Can't they make electric bombers and an environmental friendly napalm.
New planes to fill a nich that is being filled very well by the B-52's and it is much cheaper to reengine and refit than to build new ones. Case in point, the F-35!
Andy, good luck getting the load carrying capacity out of either of those two platforms. Typically in modern warfare most if not all ground defenses have been eliminated and the bombers would be escorted to their targets and back. Save the hugely expensive "stealth" stuff for the fighters who take out the active threats.
The truly amazing thing that you don't hear in this interview is that the B-52 is still the best heavy bomber the US has after 65+ years of continuous service, and the plan to keep using it for at least a century of service. That is one heck of a testament to battlefield platform.
The B-52; is a flying example of what was right with America 65 years ago. It's a testament to engineering genius, and hard work. The fact; that the "modern" defense industry cannot seem replace it. Is a demonstration of everything wrong with the defense industry today.
It's not just about what's tough, reliable, rugged, or stealthy. It's that today's "contractors" treat each successive program; as a bonanza. Instead of a means to provide the best possible solution for the mission, for the best possible price.
After all; the price of each platform; is not just measured in dollars, ruggedness, or reliability. Ultimately that price, is measured in American lives.
I was a jet mechanic in the Navy and worked on Pratt&Whitney TF30P-408s. It was a great engine. But that was nearly 50 years ago. They have come along ways in design and efficiency. I hope P&W gets the contract too.
Good, I've always loved the B-52. I agree, stay with the 8 engine layout
Gotta love this old bird - The old man flew a "G" model in the early 60's and my son flew the "H" in the 90's - somewhere I have a couple of pictures of the kid sitting in the same plane (57-6490) as the old man 30 years later.
As for the engine issues, it ain't just a matter of slapping a new engine with equal or greater thrust under the wing and calling it good. The KC-135 was a good example of that. As stated in the beginning of the interview, the plane needs eight engines.The B-52 was designed with eight engines and its internal systems, electrical, hydraulic and bleed air are dependent on those eight engines. Reducing the engines to four would require some systems to be doubled on one engine or more. The bleed air revisions alone would require a massive rework of the wings.
Then there is the issue of the vertical tail assembly - not just the rudder but the tail itself. The original design used an extremely tall tail fin to accommodate the lower air density encountered in high level bombing. It needed a bigger tail to resist side-slip and provide control in the event of an engine loss in the thinner air. With the "G" model the tail was reduced by eight feet in height to reduce the flutter encountered with the low level missions (anti-ship warfare and mine laying) that were anticipated for the plane. Those missions never really materialized and when the plane returned to its high level missions, there were all sorts of yaw control problems. Yaw dampers were added to provide stability especially in high level refueling. The vertical tail is the one real 'weak' point of the plane. If a B-52 powered by four engines lost one of them at high altitude, the potential loss of control would be claustrophobic. Remember, this is a real airplane with control cables, no instantaneous computer driver fly-by-wire to save your bacon. There are also rudder issues that would need to be addressed.
Simply put, the plane was designed with eight engines and if it is re-engined, it will need to be done with eight engines.
there is talk of using 8 smaller modern engines for all the reasons you've highlighted, so four doesnt seem to be a sure thing from what I read.
Claustrophobic?
@@williamsimmons152 Oops! Catastrophic? Then again, one might suffer from claustrophobia in a BUFF that was out of control and headed for the ground.
@@denali9449 good job on your write up.
@@williamsimmons152 Thank you. The B-52 has always been close to my heart and am glad to see that it will probably outlive me. The first flight of YB-52 was six months after I was born - in all honesty, it has aged much better that me.
I hope P&W gets this contract. They Make awesome Engines!
LOL! "PRATT & WHITNEY'S JOHNSON ON USAF B-52 BOMBER" was as far as I got before I sprayed beer all over my phone... LOL!
It is a long way from when P&W told the USAF to go pound sand and refused to offer anything but a mildly upgraded TF33. A real threat of a serious open competition for the replacement engine seems to have motivated them to do better in creating a proposal that attempts to addresses all of the USAF's concerns for B52H engine long term logistics life cycle costs.
Upgrading an ancient engine design is not feesible.
The new 8 has many advantages over using the larger 4.
They've been talking about replacing the engines of the B52 since the late 80's, and they are still talking. Years of research to replace the engines. Yet in 1942 a Rolls Royce pilot flew the P51A, and said this aircraft would be great with the Merlin engine. One year later, the classic P51 Mustang, with the Rolls Royce Merlin engine was flying.
@David Hutchison
That’s thanks to the help people with MBA’s “contribute”...
A ??
The dive bomber versions kept the Allisons.
@soaringtractor yep, they used the Rolls Royce Merlin, BUILT by Packard. It was still a Merlin engine.
@@hotrodray6802 Yep. the P51A and the dive bomber (A36 I think) used the Allison. Great engine low down at ground level. It was only in 1945 that Allison developed a two stage, two speed supercharger for the Allison that matched the Merlin. FYI the P38 lightning had turbo superchargers, so kept the Allison for its full production run, as the turbo's enabled the engines to perform at altitude.
It's difficult to understand why this program didn't take place years ago.
@Superb Media Content Creator Lol! Good guess, but it's not that simple. A lot more, is going on here. Much, perhaps most of it, is classified.
The BUFF wouldn't look the same with 4 engines, 8 engines are the way to go.
Yes but fewer engines would equate to lower maintenance and lower cost plus the new engines are more powerful which means you could carry even more ordinance.
@@lorenzomaximo1818 The B-52H carries 307,600 pounds of fuel and is refueled in the as much as it needs, the P&W 4000 series are already used in airliners and have an excellent reliability factor and are 1/3 more efficient than the current P&W TF-33 plus having 8 engines means they could shutdown 2 and still make back to abase capable of handling a B-52 and it's outrigger landing gear. So it's really oa question of being able to work on the aircraft and not spoiling the look of classic aircraft, especially since we are both the same age, but the Big Ugly Fat Fucker has aged better than I have.
@@Chuck59ish
Charles I hear what you're saying and I understand but it all comes down to the money and maintenance factor. I haven't age well either LOL. But I never considered B-52 as a big fat ugly fucker. I think it's a good looking aircraft it looks very threatening with that giant wingspan. And remember it's a war machine it's not a beauty queen.
@@lorenzomaximo1818 BUFF is what the fighter jocks called them in Vietnam, it's the best Shock and Awe weapon in the world, when they drop their load it's like an earthquake, and if you're unfortunate enough to be under it, you be buried and probably not alive.
@@Chuck59ish
Yes I'm familiar with the history of the Buff name. I was involved in operation linebacker and linebacker 2 during 1972. We bombed the snot out of North Vietnam. Using many many B-52s along with A7s F-4 Phantoms F-111 and assortment of other aircraft. One of our A7 corsairs number 513 got underneath the B-52 unleashing its bomb load and one of the bombs went through the tail I have a picture of it. That A7 Corsair was Bingoed to Danang for repairs. Yes that's for sure you do not want to be underneath the B-52 when it's pissing bombs. It's reported that the B-52 will be around until the late 2040s or 2050s I'll be long gone by then I hope it continues on great aircraft.
The B-52 ... the greatest aircraft ever built ... 5400 pounds less ... those wings will like that.This world will not be here in 2040 as we know it ... but nice to know these engines are that good.
Hard to believe an engine that works on a Gulfstream V will work on a B-52. Or did I misunderstand?
X8
@@artoo45 Thanks for that info. The engines designated as P&W300 are used on the Dassault Falcon 7X and 8X. They develop a maximum takeoff thrust of 5,220 pound feet with a thrust to weight ratio of 5.26 at takeoff. Pratt & Whitney also supplies the engines for the current B52 designated as J57 or JT3C. This engine develops 11,700 pound feet of thrust. My question remains.
Well the engines on this acft was designed and MANUFACTURED in the late 50’s 60’s. Those prats lasted 50 something years so I’m betting they know what there doing on this engine.
@@Travisesty That's gotta be it. Thanks.
All 3 manufacturers are proposing engines that are typically used on biz jets or regional jetliners: the TF34, GE Passport, P&W 800, BR700/F130. Previous proposals looked to replace 8 with 4. This time it's replace 8 with 8 and the size and thrust range of these engines are suitable for this application.
P&W should have this one. So many pluses and so few negatives with their well established powerplant and legacy experience with the platform.
I think you are right. The Boeing guy sounded like they were just going through the motions but didn't expect to win.
The risk is zero
how about an interview with GE?
Another good reason to keep 8 engines is not scientific, economic or technical. B-52s are one of the coolest looking planes ever made. They have an iconic profile and aspect to them. Plus all of the other good reasons.
Who made the engines that are already on the buff
I am not sure who made the original 1952 turbojet engine. Pratt & Whitney made the turbofans on today’s B52’s.
Will a lighter weight engine contribute to wing flutter or flapping?? You can't add more fuel to compensate it.
Place the lighter engines further toward the wing tip & place them further ahead of the wing to dampen wing flutter.
Dumb question...how many serviceable air frames are there? Remember stories of spares taken from static display models for use during mid east service.
Enough to keep the plane in service another 25 years.
The main constraining factor is the wing. They figure the upper surface is good up to 31,000-32,000 flight hours which is not bad. That's about 1.5 times what a commercial arliner although those can get extended to 40,000 hrs.
There were 102 H-models produced; they have around 76 in service now with around 17 spare's. They have recycled planes back into service after being parked in the desert for 20+ years.
The static display planes you speak of are decommissioned F-18's -- mainly A and C-models. They haven't made one of those since 2003 (the current production F-18 are the E and F and they're really a completely different plane; they keep calling them F-18 for political reasons) so it's harder to come by spares for those planes and what they removed doesn't affect the safety or stability of a retired airframe. You would presume the situation is better for the Marine Corps (which this issue mainly affected) since the US Navy retired the F18A-D from frontline duty in 2018; they won't be serving on carriers anymore which frees more airframes (and their spares) up for the Marine Corps.
I hope they win, but, it always comes down to the right type of grease in our "Honorable Politician's" palms. Like how the YF23 beat the YF22, but the F22 still won. The 2 YF 23's were destroyed.
No they were not, they stayed at Edwards air force base for like a decade before finally the team that built them came and restored them before putting them in museums.
One is in the national airforce museum in Dayton.
The B52 needs hyperjets or warp drive units. Not this earthling stuff!
777jones _It's in the works for the 2050 re-engine program._ 👍
Just need good EPS conduits for the Warp Drives
I don't know if Pratt & Whitney will get it. A PW4000 just ate it over Denver.
How about 4 engines instead of 8, too many engines are obsolete.
Yaw problems in engine out situations.
Also ground clearance issues on outboards with fatter single instead doubles.
When they considered 4x big turbofans before the single biggest engineering cost would have been the design and development of new pylons and nacelles.
Too expensive and aerodynamically UNWISE to halve the number of engines.
The B-52 was designed for 8 engines. You'd have to rebuild more of the plane than is practical to install 4 engines and that would arguably destroy any savings you'd gain in fuel efficiency. Any engine selected has to fit within the existing nacelle/strut supports without major re-engineering.
To date, the B-52 upgrades since the 1970s have cost several times more than what the planes were originally bought for in the 1950s and early 1960s! That's part of why it's critical to keep the cost down AND do the re-engining right. They MIGHT have screwed this up had they tried this 20 years but they probably understand the plane better now. (You'd think they would after nearly 70 years of service!!!)
The other issue is thrust imbalance. It wasn't designed around 4 engines, period. If you lose thrust from one engine of 4, it creates more adverse yaw issues for this bomber than it would a 747 for example. The 747 was designed around 4 engines but it was designed about 20 years AFTER the B-52 when they understood some aerodynamic factors better and engines were more reliable than when the B-52 project started.
They (Boeing and USAF) actually screwed themselves in the last 2 models of the B-52 (G and H) when they redesigned the tail for low-level operations but you have to understand about aerodynamics and flight control. That tail is another factor for why 4 engine use is NOT advisable for this airframe. It really doesn't have enough rudder and with 4 engines (instead of 8) that control would be more marginal than it is now!
8 is optimal for the plane and not a pound more in thrust, either, because that airframe was not designed for afterburners or 30,000lb thrust engines!
You don't reinvent the wheel for cars and you DON'T re-engine planes without understanding the overall design and what kind of thrust it was designed for.
The endless 40 yr debate....... should i or should i not reengine....lol...
When I joined in 1980 they bragged about how old the BUFF was. The BUFF is older than almost everyone now.
RR could get in this being based in the USA and all jobs will be American.
The airframe, IMO, is far too old. The entire aircraft should be reinvented by Boeing along the original design and brought to life.
I would like to see what a 4 engine setup and performance specs would look like
It failed the critical engine out during takeoff testing simulation. A failure of the number 1 or 4 engine created a yawning vector that exceeded the rudder authority of the B52H. By the time the rudder was delivering the maximum counter to the failed engine's drag the aircraft had been dragged off the runway and had crashed. From what I understand it was a very violent event as far as aircraft failing that test. Other aircraft had failed similar tests, but the B52H's performance was one of the worst ever seen in such a test.
@@davidhoffman1278 thanks for the info / very interesting
@@davidhoffman1278 Thanks for sharing that info
ข้อเสนอเรื่องเงินไม่สำคัญเท่ากับการรักษาความเป็นส่วนตัวความรับ
I Hope NO Foreign engine manufacturer IE Rolls Royce ETC wasted any money on this project because the US was/is NEVER going to give it to a NON US Manufacturer!
Apparently the Pentagon has privately stated that the RR engine ticks more boxes and the USAF have an engine facility that is qualified on that RR unit as there are many of them in the AF inventory already. I still don't expect RR to win though.
Didn't Rolls-Royce get the nod? Looks like your statement that the US Air Force would only choose US designed engines was incorrect. The RR engines will be assembled in Indiana, that makes it more attractive.
Thrust ??
16,011 pounds, but that is just a listed specification for one version. They get to have up to 20,000 pounds in theory.
@@davidhoffman1278 is that more or less than the current engine?
@@RichardShelton ,
The current TF33 engines are rated at 17,900 pounds of thrust.
The original TF33 engines were rated at 17,100 pounds of thrust.
I only hope this engine will perform the same if not better than the 33.
WTF kind of name is that?
lasso atrain
I can't help but wonder how Pratt and Whitney feel about the 5.5 trillion dollar stimulus package our goverment had issued themselves before they even decided what they needed or where it would go. Just like another budget or free shopping spree. 5.5 trillion would had bought 37,631 F22's or it could of bought 432 nuclear aircraft carriers. What goes thru the corporate mind when it hear's their goverment life line just had a coronary?
Junk engines, less thrust than a tf33 just lighter and less fuel burn because of less thrust! Put some bigger motors on there so they can haul more! Come on GE!
Meh, the TF33 gets its higher thrust using water injection.
pdutube
The TF 33 P-3 that are on the Buff do not use Water! Only the ones that ran turbojets did.
The B52 aircraft has routinely been launched with maximum weapons load and reduced fuel load. They get topped off from the tankers that launch with them. The wing can only handle so much takeoff thrust. Pilots have indicated that they are fine with getting the same 17,100 pounds of thrust that the first B52H's had. With significantly decreased fuel usage, 33% approximately, the initial fuel load can be lowered from what is now.
The ultimate goal is reduced overall tanker usage in order to have more tankers available for other missions.
@@davidhoffman1278 Close but no cigar. The wing can handle every bit of the thrust of the engines. It does it every time it flies. Every pound you take off with requires X amount of fuel. Leave fuel behind to reduce take-off weight and top off at a more fuel efficient altitude. I've seen fuel flows of over 84,000 lbs per hour on take-off. then at 40,000 ft. it's around 18,000 lbs per hour for the 8 engines. Quite a difference!
@@williamhudson4938 ,
I read a blog on the wing issue. At the time there was an issue with either the upper wing panels or lower wing panels having some type of stress corrosion cracking that would be aggravated by changing from the 17,900 pound thrust TF33 engines to something along the lines of 24,000 pound thrust CFM56 engines. The B52 pilots on the blog indicated that the USAF was trying to avoid a big wing rebuild program. They didn't want to go to Congress and ask for too much too close together. The idea at the time was to get the engine replacement then after that was completed ask for the wing rebuild/repair program.
I worked on the C-141 program and the wing problems meant that all the engine upgrade proposals were the same as this B52 engine upgrade. No thrust increase, significantly increased MTBF, significantly decreased fuel consumption, fit in the same overall cowl dimensions. Of course the C-17 was to replace the C-141, so there was no reengine program.
Tell the truth i thought they just took turns rolling the dice and then pushed buttons sending army's back to their regular jobs.with a thank you for serving their country.. making war green also makes war sustainable and helps the climate change problem . Can't they make electric bombers and an environmental friendly napalm.
Sorry but Rolls Royce all the way.
More corporate welfare, I hope this engine is better than that piece of crap F35 engine
B52 outdated, stop flogging a tired nearly dead horse. More B2s or 21s
New planes to fill a nich that is being filled very well by the B-52's and it is much cheaper to reengine and refit than to build new ones. Case in point, the F-35!
@Anthony Tolhurst no bigger or better bomb truck with the longest loiter time....BUFFs in Space!!!!!
Andy, good luck getting the load carrying capacity out of either of those two platforms. Typically in modern warfare most if not all ground defenses have been eliminated and the bombers would be escorted to their targets and back. Save the hugely expensive "stealth" stuff for the fighters who take out the active threats.