17,000 x 4= 68,000 of thrust per side. That is not even in GE90 territory yet.Just attach a GE90 on each side and call it a day I say
B-52s to be re-engined by Rolls Royce!
- Thread starter 19074
- Start date
I do clearly remember the controversy over AC Transit buying Van Hool when Gillig was right there in Hayward. I rode on a lot of AC Transit Gillig buses from jr high to college, and I rather liked them. But they had a director who seemed to be convinced that "European" was better. Not sure why they didn't go with the Allison system for their hybrid buses, but I don't think that particular choice was quite as controversial.
SFMTA(SF Muni) went with the series hybrid BAE Systems HybriDrive system - while the engine is running at all times, it’s a smaller engine(similar as the Cummins B-series engines used in a Dodge Ram 2500/3500) and has better acceleration up hills along with an pure electric drive to the wheels - the ICE isn’t connected to the wheels at any time, unlike the Allison system or a Prius(or any Toyota-based parallel-split hybrid system).
A GE90/9X would have involved a lot of clever engineering for it to be installed.
I’ve read years ago, the military was studying using the P&W JT9D off the 747-100/200 series or the GE CF6 and going to 4 engines vs. 8. But that would have been expensive too.
I like the look of 4 engines better than 8.
History in Two: New Power for an Old Soldier—Re-engining the B-52 Stratofortress
There is an old joke that runs through the bomber fleet that when the B-1 and B-2 bombers are retired, the pilots will be flown home from the boneyard in the B-52 Stratofortress. With the recent
www.afmc.af.mil
The ol' BUFF is going to get a work out and become even more BUFF!
These new efficient engines and their management system will not only greatly increase the BUFF's range and loiter time, but it will surely take a bit of the workload off the tanker fleet, which benefits the entire force.
These new efficient engines and their management system will not only greatly increase the BUFF's range and loiter time, but it will surely take a bit of the workload off the tanker fleet, which benefits the entire force.
I think the choices from Pratt & Whitney and General Electric probably would have provided similar benefits. I know there's going to be some criticism of going with Rolls even though they provide a ton of American jobs.
From what I've gathered, Rolls proposal was much more precise as to what needed to be done, in terms of both engineering and cost, and they convinced the Air Force they offered lower risk and a more accurate cost assessment.
They also have the manufacturing capacity and facilities to jump right in, (in other words, idle production space/capacity) possibly with less initial investment in infrasrtructure than GE or Pratt, according to friends at RR. But they aren't directly connected to this project, so I'm not sure how accurate that is.
I'm sure GE and Pratt had great proposals, though. From what I saw they had engines that would have fit the bill very well, too. I really think it came down to things other than the engines themselves.
Yep, I was there as well. Crew Chief on the B52s.
Here is some reading on the bombing campaigns in Cambodia: https://www.airforcemag.com/article/the-shadow-war-in-cambodia/
Stationed in Guam in early 1970 TDY (Temporary Duty for 3 months).
Returned to our home base for a month then back to Guam for another 3-month TDY. Rinse and repeat.
Returned to our home base for a month then back to Guam for another 3-month TDY.
Back to the states for a month. Then was reassigned to U-Tapao AFB in Thailand for a year. Early 1971 to early 1972.
I didn't cope well with US base life, so I volunteered for a return assignment to U-Tapao for another year.
This tour was from Sept 1972 until Sept. 1973.
The last B52 bombing mission was in August 1973.
All and all I was involved in the Arc Light and Linebacker II bombing campaigns.
Here is a good read on the Linebacker II campaigns: https://www.historynet.com/the-11-day-war.htm
I was a crew chief on B52s in the early 70's, those things leaked like a sieve. You never had a pair of fatigues without oil stains on them.
The worst part was removing the engine cowling for engine maintenance. Total drenching of JP4, Hydraulic fluid and engine oil!
The B-52 could be modified to fly with 4 engines, of course. It would require changes to the support, both the pylon and throughout the wing and into the fuselage, but it could be done. The very design of the B-52, however, lends itself to operating with 8 engines rather than 4. The B-52 has an exceptionally small rudder, offering a 10% chord when most aircraft have at least 25%. Why this is dates all the way back to the early designs of the aircraft and the failure to realize the desired "all moving tail" design, but the end result was what we see today- a large aircraft with a rudder so small that it is incapable of providing "crab" maneuvering during cross-wind landings, which coincidentally led Boeing to develop the yaw-adjustable cross-wind landing gear. This rudder design also meant that the B-52 was especially susceptible to asymmetrical thrust in an engine-out event. Having 8 engines, producing lower amounts of thrust each, mitigated this problem.
Here's an interesting article about the B-52 that lost nearly all of it's vertical stabilizer while testing the effects of turbulence at low levels, yet was able to fly from East Spanish Peak, CO all the way to Blytheville AFB in Arkansas.
LINK
Here's an interesting article about the B-52 that lost nearly all of it's vertical stabilizer while testing the effects of turbulence at low levels, yet was able to fly from East Spanish Peak, CO all the way to Blytheville AFB in Arkansas.
LINK
Couldn't all of that be mitigated with a new rudder and fly by wire systems? Of course that gets to the point where just way too much is being modified in order to achieve one original goal. However, I'm pretty sure the height of the engines is also an issue, and it was clearly designed with relatively narrow engines.
