by "ttyymmnn" (ttyymmnn)
Published 03/14/2017 at 10:00
by "ttyymmnn" (ttyymmnn)
Published 03/14/2017 at 10:00
Tags: Planelopnik
STARS: 14
The US Air Force is moving ahead with plans to re-engine the venerable B-52H and keep it flying until at least 2050. Interestingly, one of the leading ideas is not to replace the eight Pratt & Whitney TF33 low-bypass turbofans with four modern airliner engines, but with eight regional/business jet engines each providing 17,000-19,000 pounds of thrust. P&W, GE and Rolls-Royce are all vying for a contract that would call for over 600 new engines. Using eight smaller engines rather than four large ones would require fewer modifications to the wings and keep the Buff closer to its original aerodynamic design.
!!! UNKNOWN CONTENT TYPE !!!
"Jcarr" (jcarr)
03/14/2017 at 10:04, STARS: 4
I hear that the same team that is leading the development of a mid-engine Corvette is heading up this project.
"Smallbear wants a modern Syclone, local Maple Leafs spammer" (smallbear94)
03/14/2017 at 10:06, STARS: 2
!!! UNKNOWN CONTENT TYPE !!!
That’s almost a century of service. Dayum. This thing is fast becoming the new DC3, but exclusively in military service.
"jimz" (jimz)
03/14/2017 at 10:08, STARS: 2
how many times have they talked about re-powering the BUFF?
yeah, this one makes more sense; I can’t imagine they could replace each pair with a single high-bypass engine and still stay clear of the ground. even pancaking it like the 737's nacelles probably wouldn’t work.
"Seat Safety Switch" (seat-safety-switch)
03/14/2017 at 10:09, STARS: 2
Why not put in eight of the big engines?
"Urambo Tauro" (urambotauro)
03/14/2017 at 10:09, STARS: 3
Restomod B-52s? Hell yeah!
"ttyymmnn" (ttyymmnn)
03/14/2017 at 10:10, STARS: 2
That might be interesting. Let’s get McMike to make us a artist’s rendering.
"ttyymmnn" (ttyymmnn)
03/14/2017 at 10:15, STARS: 2
It’s certainly close. While the B-52A took its maiden flight in 1952, the B-52H first flew in 1960. But even 90 years is absolutely remarkable.
"ttyymmnn" (ttyymmnn)
03/14/2017 at 10:16, STARS: 1
Does that mean the Corvette will be 20 years in development and millions of dollars over budget?
"WilliamsSW" (williamssw)
03/14/2017 at 10:19, STARS: 0
The ones from the Dreamliner - -pretty sure they’re the biggest around (based on me looking out my window at the intakes).
"Jcarr" (jcarr)
03/14/2017 at 10:19, STARS: 0
Naturally
"McMike" (mcmike)
03/14/2017 at 10:20, STARS: 11
!!! UNKNOWN CONTENT TYPE !!!
Yes please
"Smallbear wants a modern Syclone, local Maple Leafs spammer" (smallbear94)
03/14/2017 at 10:21, STARS: 0
CARRY ALL THE BOMBS
"WilliamsSW" (williamssw)
03/14/2017 at 10:21, STARS: 0
Good point - as big as the intakes are on high-bypass turbofans are, this may be part of the issue, too—
"bob and john" (bobandjohn)
03/14/2017 at 10:22, STARS: 0
While I understand trying to extend the service life, and planes dont need to be as technologically advanced as say, a missile, am I the only one thinking a century of service is just a little excessive?
"Jcarr" (jcarr)
03/14/2017 at 10:23, STARS: 3
The GE90 from the 777 is currently the largest in diameter. As you can see, it’s only about a foot less in diameter than the fuselage of a 737.
"McMike" (mcmike)
03/14/2017 at 10:24, STARS: 2
...or all the fuel.
Not both :)
"WilliamsSW" (williamssw)
03/14/2017 at 10:24, STARS: 1
Love it - we assumed that they’re replacing the old engines, but nah. They’ll just add new ones! Pilots will have to spend time preparing for the dreaded 31 engine approach...
"MonkeePuzzle" (monkeypuzzle)
03/14/2017 at 10:26, STARS: 1
well if the PLAN is for 2050, I can fully expect it to continue into 2060. If not in the US, then by some allied country we gift them too when they are 90 years old.
"Smallbear wants a modern Syclone, local Maple Leafs spammer" (smallbear94)
03/14/2017 at 10:27, STARS: 0
Pfft, that’s what tankers are for. Carry all the bombs and enough fuel to get off the ground.
Though you might need a fleet of tankers. That could be problematic.
"ttyymmnn" (ttyymmnn)
03/14/2017 at 10:28, STARS: 3
I doubt we’ll be passing them on. They’ll go sit in the desert so we can resurrect them to fight against Skynet.
"WilliamsSW" (williamssw)
03/14/2017 at 10:28, STARS: 0
Damn - I just looked it up. GE90 is 123"/128", and the GEnx on the 787 is only 111". Suspect that the 777's I’ve been on are older. Certainly none of them were -300ERs.
"Future next gen S2000 owner" (future-next-gen-s2000-owner)
03/14/2017 at 10:30, STARS: 2
Since I’ve seen mid engine Corvette “guarantees” since the mid-70's, I’d say they are well past 20 years in development. They must be working on the millions over budget part now.
"McMike" (mcmike)
03/14/2017 at 10:30, STARS: 5
Imagine all the throttles
"Jcarr" (jcarr)
03/14/2017 at 10:31, STARS: 0
The GE9x that is in development for the new 777-8 and -9 is going to be up to 6" wider still.
"ttyymmnn" (ttyymmnn)
03/14/2017 at 10:31, STARS: 2
As long as it can continue to do the job, it is cheaper to keep flying them than to build a replacement. The Buff has outlasted the last two attempts to replace it (three, if you consider the B-1A and B-1B to be different aircraft), and it will likely outlive the B-21 . I find it interesting that we are getting so much done with 40-year-old aircraft. All the high-tech stealth stuff seems a bit superfluous, but if we ever get into a war with Russia or China we’re going to need it. As long as we are fighting ISIS in Syria, A-10s and B-52s get the job done just fine.
"Future next gen S2000 owner" (future-next-gen-s2000-owner)
03/14/2017 at 10:32, STARS: 0
If the main superstructure doesn’t fatigue, and the avionics and engines can be updated, why replace it? A new bomber of this size would probably not be stealth and only marginally faster, why develop a new plane?
"MonkeePuzzle" (monkeypuzzle)
03/14/2017 at 10:33, STARS: 1
sure, unless the russians want to watch by satellite while we guillotine them into 8 bite sized chunks.
"WilliamsSW" (williamssw)
03/14/2017 at 10:34, STARS: 0
Based on the photo of the guy you posted with his hand on the intake, I’m guessing that 6 inches will about put them at the limit for the 777, unless the landing gear are redesigned. Or they flatten the bottom, which I would presume they’re loathe to do.
"Jcarr" (jcarr)
03/14/2017 at 10:37, STARS: 0
Yeah, I’m not sure they can go much farther.
"whoarder is tellurium" (whoarder)
03/14/2017 at 10:37, STARS: 1
Cot damn, this could’ve been done AGES ago Mr. USAF. Especially now that we’re committed to using the BUFF till its dust.
However, I definitely like the idea of using engines similar in profile to the TF33.
"GE90man" (ge90man)
03/14/2017 at 10:37, STARS: 1
just strap on a few GE90's. just kidding, there are probably tons of problems with that. however, I do believe the B-52 could use some new engines. I do find it impressive that the B52 has been in service the 1950s and 60s. because the current engines on the B52 are rated at 10,000-15,000 pounds of thrust, it wouldn’t take much for new engines to be on efficiently. even something like the CFM56 produces more than enough power.
"bob and john" (bobandjohn)
03/14/2017 at 10:38, STARS: 1
I get that, and I get its a bomber not an attack fighter, but still. 100 years later, and we cant design a different plane thats more efficient and better?
"ttyymmnn" (ttyymmnn)
03/14/2017 at 10:57, STARS: 1
More efficient? Probably, at least as far as the engines are concerned. Fuel efficiency and range are the greatest driving factors of large aircraft development today. The thing about the Buff, though, is that its size allows it to be upgraded with more modern avionics for relatively little money, and its size also allows it to carry a very large and very diverse payload. To make an entirely new, clean sheet design today would cost exorbitant amounts of money and take many years (just look at how much the F-35 is costing, and how long it’s taking to produce). I find it interesting that replacements like the B-1 and B-2, while both very capable aircraft, simply can’t do the same sized tasks as a plane designed during the Cold War. So more efficient, yes, but better? That’s a tall ask, unless you are considering supersonic speed or stealth an improvement. But those capabilities simply aren’t required in the low-intensity conflicts we are fighting today.
"ttyymmnn" (ttyymmnn)
03/14/2017 at 11:03, STARS: 1
One of the proposals is from P&W to offer an updated TF33. This is an interesting solution, since very little modification would be required to the structure, while new engines would have to be substantially modified to support the electrics in the Buff. It will be interesting to see if the AF goes with something shiny and new, when upgrading the original engine might make more sense.
"Comes over to help work on your car and only drinks beer" (cyclonefan94)
03/14/2017 at 11:05, STARS: 1
It’s kind of the same thing with cars...from a consumer standpoint, you can always justify a new car if the newer one is more something (fun, efficient, etc.)...but from a ‘business’ perspective, the efficiency gains have to overcome the replacement cost. The problem with that right now is the air force would spec something so dazzling that it’d be a billion per airframe and then everyone ends up saying ‘ehh, let’s do an overhaul on the old Chevy’.
On the fighter side, we do what you suggest...we buy and build the latest and greatest in case we have to go against another superpower, but with bomb taxis, once you start using them, you control the skies, and it’s more about ongoing operations costs vs. the cost of procurement.
"RamblinRover Luxury-Yacht" (ramblininexile)
03/14/2017 at 11:06, STARS: 0
“It’s full of engines”
"jimz" (jimz)
03/14/2017 at 11:12, STARS: 0
F-35.
"Spaceball-Two" (spaceball-two)
03/14/2017 at 11:17, STARS: 1
Megafortress?
"MonkeePuzzle" (monkeypuzzle)
03/14/2017 at 11:22, STARS: 3
needs more pollution
"HammerheadFistpunch" (hammerheadfistpunch)
03/14/2017 at 11:22, STARS: 1
Cf-34 option? interesting.
We could have some very different sounding buffs
!!! UNKNOWN CONTENT TYPE !!!
"whoarder is tellurium" (whoarder)
03/14/2017 at 11:28, STARS: 1
Give em afterburners!
Now, being realistic... I’m sure the solution will be influenced by jobs for constituents in a congressional district.
"McMike" (mcmike)
03/14/2017 at 11:33, STARS: 3
We’ll just pollute our enemies into submission.
Brilliant!
"X37.9XXS" (x379xxs)
03/14/2017 at 11:35, STARS: 1
BUF’s are aerodynamic?
Well, they can land sideways and the wings flap
"bob and john" (bobandjohn)
03/14/2017 at 11:35, STARS: 0
F35 is an exception, not the rule. No other program on earth is as over-funded and behind schedule as that
"MonkeePuzzle" (monkeypuzzle)
03/14/2017 at 11:38, STARS: 4
we’ll drown them with rising sea levels!
"ttyymmnn" (ttyymmnn)
03/14/2017 at 11:46, STARS: 0
True, but let’s wait and see what happens to the B-21. I’m by no means an F-35 hater. But I wish they had built a couple hundred more F-22s instead.
"ttyymmnn" (ttyymmnn)
03/14/2017 at 11:48, STARS: 1
The AW&ST article mentions “airflow changes around the bomber’s nuclear-armed weapons.” So it seems that drastically changing the size of the engines could/would affect the release of weapons.
"ttyymmnn" (ttyymmnn)
03/14/2017 at 11:50, STARS: 1
No need for supersonic. Hell, the AF is actually looking at supplementing the A-10s with single-engine turboprops for CAS and ground attack.
"ttyymmnn" (ttyymmnn)
03/14/2017 at 11:51, STARS: 1
SuperDuperStratoFortress.
"ttyymmnn" (ttyymmnn)
03/14/2017 at 11:51, STARS: 0
Superduperstratofortress.
"bob and john" (bobandjohn)
03/14/2017 at 11:53, STARS: 0
Same. I’d rather have 2 or 3 specialized planes then one that costs as mich as the three and can’t do their jobs as well.
"ttyymmnn" (ttyymmnn)
03/14/2017 at 12:02, STARS: 1
It’s a shame that the lessons of the F-111 went unlearned.
"user314" (user314)
03/14/2017 at 12:10, STARS: 1
The F-35 was conceived and designed by Jezza. Captain Slow and the Hamster.
“We’re going to build a multi-role, multi-service, stealth STOVL/CATOBAR/CTOL strike fighter.”
“What could possibly go wrong?”
"ttyymmnn" (ttyymmnn)
03/14/2017 at 12:12, STARS: 0
Jack of all trades, master of none.
"Grindintosecond" (Grindintosecond)
03/14/2017 at 12:53, STARS: 2
The A-10 uses virtually the same engines found on a regional jet CRJ700. The upgraded version of those are found ontheEmbraer 190 and are within the thrust rating of what’s on the B52 already. To top it off, they’re nearly the same diameter as well so would absolutely be a perfect fit given their battle proven background.
So when it comes time to pick the best one, I’m sure they won’t be picked because someone has money /industry deals to make by picking someone else for the engine program.
"WilliamsSW" (williamssw)
03/14/2017 at 13:12, STARS: 0
That will make an in flight engine shutdown an interesting proposition!
"ttyymmnn" (ttyymmnn)
03/14/2017 at 13:27, STARS: 0
So when it comes time to pick the best one, I’m sure they won’t be picked because someone has money/industry deals to make by picking someone else for the engine program.
You must work in government.
"Turbineguy: Nom de Zoom" (will-alib)
03/14/2017 at 14:21, STARS: 0
Dale Brown approves.
"Turbineguy: Nom de Zoom" (will-alib)
03/14/2017 at 14:28, STARS: 0
Are they really moving ahead with this or still just talking about it. (like they have for decades now) GE’s CF34-10A would be a good fit, as would Rolls’ BR725. Not sure what Pratt has in that thrust/fan dia. range - maybe an uprated PW800?
(Former turbine engine analyst)
"ttyymmnn" (ttyymmnn)
03/14/2017 at 14:43, STARS: 1
P&W are proposing an upgraded TF33. Considering the original design of the Buff, that makes a lot of sense. Bigger engines work on the KC135 because its basically an airliner to begin with. Modding the wings of the B-52 would be a big task.
FTA:
“Commercial engines offer advantages of higher fuel savings, extended mission range, reduced aerial refueling and minimized overhaul maintenance,” a company spokesman says. “However, all commercial engines in this class require increased ability to support the B-52H electric and hydraulic load requirements, and would also require extensive airframe integration and flight testing.”
The firm’s engine enhancement package would address the TF33’s performance, durability, reliability, fuel consumption and time between scheduled overhauls as much as possible without needing to buy new. “The TF33 currently meets all B-52H power and performance specifications and would not require any changes to the aircraft structure,” the company says.
P&W is pitching this as the “affordable option.” Digitally-controlled commercial propulsors would also need to be militarized and hardened against electromechanical pulses resulting from nuclear explosions as well as cyberattacks.
"ttyymmnn" (ttyymmnn)
03/14/2017 at 14:45, STARS: 0
Also this FTA:
A request for information issued in 2014 sought alternative solutions that achieve 10-25% better fuel consumption and 15-25 years of use between schedule depot overhauls. On Feb. 3, the government issued another RFI, this time seeking TF33 replacements, specifying “regional/business-size jet engines.”
"jimz" (jimz)
03/14/2017 at 15:37, STARS: 0
what do they mean by “updating” the TF33? basing it on the same core while making it a high-bypass engine? ‘cos I don’t see that kind of improvement in fuel consumption merely by massaging a low-bypass engine. the CF34-10 from the Embraer E190 could meet the thrust requirements, and supposedly is only 3" greater diameter than the JT3D.
"ttyymmnn" (ttyymmnn)
03/14/2017 at 16:25, STARS: 0
The company says it could offer a new commercial engine, but believes an upgrade makes the most sense.
“Commercial engines offer advantages of higher fuel savings, extended mission range, reduced aerial refueling and minimized overhaul maintenance,” a company spokesman says. “However, all commercial engines in this class require increased ability to support the B-52H electric and hydraulic load requirements, and would also require extensive airframe integration and flight testing.”
The firm’s engine enhancement package would address the TF33’s performance, durability, reliability, fuel consumption and time between scheduled overhauls as much as possible without needing to buy new. “The TF33 currently meets all B-52H power and performance specifications and would not require any changes to the aircraft structure,” the company says.
P&W is pitching this as the “affordable option.” Digitally-controlled commercial propulsors would also need to be militarized and hardened against electromechanical pulses resulting from nuclear explosions as well as cyberattacks.
"Rusty Vandura - www.tinyurl.com/keepoppo" (rustyvandura)
03/14/2017 at 18:03, STARS: 0
Did Trump tweet about this?
"ttyymmnn" (ttyymmnn)
03/14/2017 at 18:21, STARS: 1
Not that I’m aware of. It showed up in my daily AW&ST feed.
"Grindintosecond" (Grindintosecond)
03/14/2017 at 18:33, STARS: 1
......southwest (shh)
"MrDakka" (mrdakka)
03/14/2017 at 19:27, STARS: 0
Only slightly less insane than Project Pluto!
"e36Jeff now drives a ZHP" (e36jeff)
03/14/2017 at 19:30, STARS: 0
I hope it really does happen, but at the same time, they should be looking for commonality with already in use engines to keep costs down. The C-17 and C-5M’s engines would be a good place to start looking.
"ttyymmnn" (ttyymmnn)
03/14/2017 at 19:36, STARS: 0
Well, if they go with the CF34/TF34 they’ll share with the A-10. And that engine is already militarized. But if P&W can actually deliver on a significantly improved TF33, that might be the best way to go. But there is something geekily appealing in the idea of a new, smaller engine actually providing more power.
"Full of the sound of the Gran Fury, signifying nothing." (granfury)
03/14/2017 at 20:30, STARS: 1
The GE90-115B is even bigger, and produces 115,000 lbs of thrust as compared to about 72,000 on the biggest version of the GEnx on the 787. The fan on the GEnx is 111 inches, whereas the one on the GE90-115B is 128 inches. The GE90 is about the same as the fuselage of a 737 as shown in the photo below, and the one in the picture is actually an older, smaller, less powerful version of the GE90
The engine on the far left is the same as the engine below, so that tells you how big the GE90 really is.
And the engine above is the JT3D; the military designation is TF33, which is the engine that is currently installed on the BUFF.
And here’s a big dude standing inside of a GE90-115B:
"Rusty Vandura - www.tinyurl.com/keepoppo" (rustyvandura)
03/15/2017 at 00:34, STARS: 3
Wow; lotsa views.
No fan of the Buff should fail to watch “Dr. Strangelove.”
"ttyymmnn" (ttyymmnn)
03/15/2017 at 00:52, STARS: 0
Lotsa replies too. Good conversation.
"ttyymmnn" (ttyymmnn)
03/15/2017 at 00:53, STARS: 0
Great analogy.
"Turbineguy: Nom de Zoom" (will-alib)
03/15/2017 at 08:56, STARS: 1
Oh right, I had read about their TF33 proposal somewhere. That doesn’t seem like much of an upgrade, not when comparing to a modern high-bypass engine like the CF34. Before the JSTARS program got wiped, P&W had proposed a similar repowering on the E-8 with JT8D-219 engines pulled from storage and rebuilt vs the CFM56-3 route the KC-135R fleet got. Now they’re looking at bizjets for that mission.
"ttyymmnn" (ttyymmnn)
03/15/2017 at 09:01, STARS: 0
I think it speaks volumes about technological advancement and miniaturization when you can use a Gulfstream to replace a 707.
"Smallbear wants a modern Syclone, local Maple Leafs spammer" (smallbear94)
03/15/2017 at 09:28, STARS: 1
“Chemtrails”
"jimz" (jimz)
03/15/2017 at 12:52, STARS: 0
I saw that. I’m curious about the details.
"Turbineguy: Nom de Zoom" (will-alib)
03/16/2017 at 08:33, STARS: 0