WHIFs found at HyperScale

[zenrat]

Not just a case of drilling new mounting holes and bolting them up then?

Couldn't they have used superglue? That's what we'd have done, wasn't it? 

Gaffer tape, fencing wire and bailer twine?

[nighthunter]

Why not take wings from the 747 and mount them on the B-52? (Alas I am poor, so I can't do it myself)

[kitnut617]

Why not take wings from the 747 and mount them on the B-52? (Alas I am poor, so I can't do it myself)

Not 747 but 767 wings, I'm working on a project like that (in 1/72) which will have two GE90 engines, long sponsons down the sides and with  three wheels to each u/c leg. No outrigger wheels though. I'm going to add about an inch to the wing root ends of the wings too.

Incidentally, the Boeing XC-X proposal would have had 747 wings, they would have looked like how the C-135A wings are compared to a 707-320 wing

[jcf]

Why not take wings from the 747 and mount them on the B-52? (Alas I am poor, so I can't do it myself)

Because a 747 is a whole hell of a lot bigger than a B-52.
The B-52 is closer in size to a 767-200, and a fair bit smaller than a 777.

BTW the B-52H MTOW is 488,000lbs with 8 engines, 767-400ER is 450,000 lbs (following civil regs) with
2 engines.

[nighthunter]

Thanks for the lesson, guys!

[kerick]

I've been tossing around an idea in my head for quite a while about using airliner wings on a new fuselage. The energy efficiency of up to date technology in engines and wings with a fuselage designed to be a bomber. No fancy schmancy stealth and all that. Just a modern bomb truck to replace the B-52.

[zenrat]

Why not take wings from the 747 and mount them on the B-52? (Alas I am poor, so I can't do it myself)

Because a 747 is a whole hell of a lot bigger than a B-52.
The B-52 is closer in size to a 767-200, and a fair bit smaller than a 777.

BTW the B-52H MTOW is 488,000lbs with 8 engines, 767-400ER is 450,000 lbs (following civil regs) with
2 engines.

Second that.  I was surprised how "small" the B52 was when I had a good sticky beak at one at the air show in 2015.

[PR19_Kit]

Why not take wings from the 747 and mount them on the B-52? (Alas I am poor, so I can't do it myself)

Because a 747 is a whole hell of a lot bigger than a B-52.
The B-52 is closer in size to a 767-200, and a fair bit smaller than a 777.

BTW the B-52H MTOW is 488,000lbs with 8 engines, 767-400ER is 450,000 lbs (following civil regs) with
2 engines.

Second that.  I was surprised how "small" the B52 was when I had a good sticky beak at one at the air show in 2015.

And they're very low compared to airliners too, mainly because their payload is carried below the wings as it's designed to get off at the half way point. An airliner's payload is mostly above the wings, the self-loading payload anyway.

[TheChronicOne]

I've often wondered what it was that determined whether a wing was high or low on the fuselage.  For instance, would it wreck the flight characteristics of a Galaxy if the wings were attached on the bottom? I realize they have to have a bit of an upward angle instead of the "droopiness" of the original.  Further, what would happen to a 747 if the wing were moved to the top?

[TomZ]

I think high or low wings also has a lot to do with the purpose of the aircraft.
Galaxy: Important to be able to drive the cargo straight in -> high wing
747: Important to have a cabin uninterrupted by a wing spar but no problem to have two separate cargo bays-> low wing

TomZ

[TheChronicOne]

I see!! thanks.  Seems pretty obvious now that you explain it like that. 

[scooter]

Further, what would happen to a 747 if the wing were moved to the top?

Since the 747 came out of the C-5 competition-

The Boeing proposal in back

[TheChronicOne]

Oh myyy... I'm in love!!!!   

[Madoc]

As I understand it, re-engining the BUFFs would save a huge amount in fuel and in maintenance as the new turbofans are a lot more efficient and easier to maintain.  Those old jet engines on the B-52s are maintenance hogs and are no longer being manufactured.  Plus, they're 1950s vintage efficiency.

The money the conversion would save would more than pay for the conversion costs.

It's just the upfront portion of the cost that the Air Force - and Congress - always balks at.  And that's enough to kill the project right there.

[jcf]

The fairly recent PW2000 proposal was a re-engine with 8 new engines in appropriately sized nacelles,
thus reducing airframe redesign, so new engines just not with four big high-pass airliner turbo-fans, any
of which would make the RCS even worse than it is. A lot of systems changes would still have been required
and that's where the $$$$$$ start adding up.

Again the business case failed because long term fuel cost savings (a variable cost) did not balance
engineering cost (an upfront cost).

Instead P&W came up with an upgrade package for the TF33 (JT3D), haven't seen anything about the
mods installation being approved or proceeding.
Around ~8,600 TF33/JT3D variants were built between 1958 and 1986 and they still support the TF33.