BUFFs heading in for new upgrades

scooter · October 23, 2013, 03:30:13 PM

USAF Begins B52 Upgrades

But no new engines yet...

sandiego89 · October 23, 2013, 05:21:42 PM

Quote from: scooter on October 23, 2013, 03:30:13 PM
USAF Begins B52 Upgrades

But no new engines yet...

I agree- long overdue for four modern turbofans.

Captain Canada · October 23, 2013, 05:42:49 PM

I ot all excited 'cause I thought you were talking about the DHC version !

Still good news tho

Weaver · October 23, 2013, 05:43:18 PM

From AIR International 22nd June 2042:

FASTER THAN LIGHT DRIVE DISCOVERED!
US Air Force begins study on B-52 upgrade

Logan Hartke · October 23, 2013, 06:05:12 PM

From AIR & SPACE International 24th February 2043:

TO INFINITY AND BEYOND
USAF scraps B-52 FTL drive, opts for more limited avionics & sensors upgrade
P&W modifying TF33s to burn unobtanium for interplanetary travel

Thanks,

Logan

zenrat · October 23, 2013, 06:27:49 PM

633 squadron was on the TV during the week. According to the guide the director, George Grauman, flew B52s in WW2. In which case they could certainly do with an upgrade by now...
Coincidentally as i've been off sick this week i've been catching up on stuff I recorded and then didn't get to watch and so viewed Bombers B52. Not much to rave about as far as movies go but worth watching for the F86, B47s and B52s. And as it was filmed in 1956 it's not really that long after WW2 anyway...

kerick · October 23, 2013, 07:12:55 PM

These aircraft have been modified so many times that there is miles of cable and wire inside that is no longer used. You would have to take half the plane apart to get it out. I'm sure the range would improve if all that weight were removed.
I just don't understand why no one has put new engines on these warhorses!

Logan Hartke · October 23, 2013, 07:18:13 PM

Quote from: kerick on October 23, 2013, 07:12:55 PMI'm sure the range would improve if all that weight were removed.

Those bundles of wire may be the only things holding them together, too!

Cheers,

Logan

PR19_Kit · October 24, 2013, 02:15:54 AM

I posted a reply to this right after scooter's first post, and it's vanished.............

What I said was, that Boeing has already done the engineering to hang big turbofans on the B-52 wings because they did exactly that when they used them as engine test beds. It shouldn't be THAT expensive to do that to the USAF fleet to my mind.

Weaver · October 24, 2013, 04:11:26 AM

Didn't one of the proposals get bogged down in politics because the engines in question were Rolls-Royce RB211s?

PR19_Kit · October 24, 2013, 04:27:31 AM

Quote from: Weaver on October 24, 2013, 04:11:26 AM
Didn't one of the proposals get bogged down in politics because the engines in question were Rolls-Royce RB211s?

Well, THERE'S a surprise............. [cynic mode off]

pyro-manic · October 24, 2013, 12:25:28 PM

I seem to recall reading that the engine upgrades were actually ditched because the improvement in fuel efficiency would only just pay for the cost of the upgrades, so wasn't worth the hassle.

Gondor · October 24, 2013, 12:27:25 PM

Quote from: pyro-manic on October 24, 2013, 12:25:28 PM
I seem to recall reading that the engine upgrades were actually ditched because the improvement in fuel efficiency would only just pay for the cost of the upgrades, so wasn't worth the hassle.

If that is the case then one day it will become economically feasible to change the engines.

Gondor

jcf · October 24, 2013, 01:40:56 PM

Quote from: Weaver on October 24, 2013, 04:11:26 AM
Didn't one of the proposals get bogged down in politics because the engines in question were Rolls-Royce RB211s?

Umm, the GAO questioned the program on cost not geographic origin, the RB211 was suggested by Boeing
in 2003 because they were very familiar with using it on commercial aircraft.
Anyhow Rolls-Royce had purchased Allison in 1995, so technically R-R was by the time of the Boeing proposal,
for purchasing considerations, an 'American' company and, if y'all recall, R-R was chosen for the F-35 program
in 2001.
So the 'not built here' theory doesn't fly.

Re-engining the B-52 would be a lot more complicated than folks seem to realize, and if it had gone
forward in 2006-2008 (best case if approved in 2003-2004) the program would probably already be
at least 25-30% percent over budget and way behind schedule with maybe 5-6 aircraft 'completed'
but probably still not back in service.

rickshaw · October 24, 2013, 04:34:23 PM

There was a proposal a few years back to re-engine them with CFM fans as well. IIRC they proposed leasing the engines to the USAF, rather than selling to "sweeten" the deal. That one did, I believe founder partly on geopolitical problems and partly on cost.

Personally, considering the present economic difficulties the US is in, I really can't see a programme as big as that would be required to re-engine the fleet going ahead.

I wonder how soon it will be before the first grand-child of an original B-52 pilot flies one?

I suspect that the B-52s will rust away before they are officially replaced.