"ttyymmnn" (ttyymmnn)
02/12/2018 at 11:53 • Filed to: Planelopnik
3
34|
"ttyymmnn" (ttyymmnn)
02/12/2018 at 11:53 • Filed to: Planelopnik | 3
| 34 |
B-1 and B-2 crews will hitch a ride home from AMARG in a B-52.
!!! UNKNOWN CONTENT TYPE !!!
facw
> ttyymmnn
02/12/2018 at 12:06 |
|
Not sure this is wise, keeping the B-1s frankly seems like it would be more economical than the B-52s.
Not so bad if the B-21 program is going well, but of course we have no way of knowing.
I’m still extremely bothered by “B-21", we don’t need to be choosing number designations for marketing purposes. B-3 would have been fine.
chaozbandit
> facw
02/12/2018 at 12:08 |
|
As Tyler puts it, this is essentially “B2 ‘2.0'” with nearly 3 decades of technological improvements.
Dusty Ventures
> ttyymmnn
02/12/2018 at 12:11 |
|
...if they don’t want the B-1 anymore can I have one? Please?
Future next gen S2000 owner
> ttyymmnn
02/12/2018 at 12:13 |
|
I don’t think the B-52 will ever stop flying.
|
ttyymmnn
> facw
02/12/2018 at 12:14 |
|
Yeah, I can see ditching the B-2, but I think the B-1 probably has a lot of life left in it. I just hope I’m alive to see the Buff reach 100 years of service.
|
facw
> chaozbandit
02/12/2018 at 12:17 |
|
Yeah, I can see replacing the B-2 right away, despite it being the most advanced of the three. In theory the idea behind the B-21 is to do what the B-2 can do, but cheaply enough that we can afford a bunch of them, rather than pushing for tons of new capabilities. With the B-1 and B-52 though, they cost about the same to fly, while the B-1 has nearly double the payload, and while those swing wings are complicated, there is also nothing easy to maintain about a sixty year-old aircraft with eight engines. I think if I had to choose, I’d ease the B-52 out first.
Chariotoflove
> Dusty Ventures
02/12/2018 at 12:17 |
|
This is the correct response.
Ash78, voting early and often
> Dusty Ventures
02/12/2018 at 12:22 |
|
They threatened to kill the B-1 back in the 80s and I remember thinking it would be done before it saw any real service. Then 9/11, etc...
VonBootWilly - Likes Toyota, but it's still complicated.
> ttyymmnn
02/12/2018 at 12:22 |
|
Wait, which B-1 and B-2 are we talking about?
I have some great memories from airshows when I was a kid, of the B-2, not that show, that was after my time lol.
|
Dusty Ventures
> facw
02/12/2018 at 12:23 |
|
Nearly double the payload, and it’s the fastest of all four bombers. Hell, it can do a higher speed at under 1,000 feet than the other three can do at cruise.
|
ttyymmnn
> VonBootWilly - Likes Toyota, but it's still complicated.
02/12/2018 at 12:26 |
|
What show is that?
user314
> ttyymmnn
02/12/2018 at 12:28 |
|
|
ttyymmnn
> user314
02/12/2018 at 12:33 |
|
Well, that certainly makes sense.
|
ttyymmnn
> facw
02/12/2018 at 12:35 |
|
Those engines will likely be replaced soon.
|
user314
> ttyymmnn
02/12/2018 at 12:38 |
|
Still disappointed we’re not getting the B-1R.
|
facw
> ttyymmnn
02/12/2018 at 12:39 |
|
I’d hope so, but if I remember correctly they’ve given up on moving to a four-engine design and will instead use regional jet engines that will fit in the existing pods. So while you’ll get improved efficiency and reliability, you’re still dealing with eight engines which is never going to be an efficient or low maintenance power plant.
|
ttyymmnn
> facw
02/12/2018 at 12:41 |
|
I think that decision was made for aerodynamics reasons, since the wing was originally designed for those double pods. I think it will also require the least amount of engineering, since the entire pod mount wouldn’t need to be replaced.
|
facw
> ttyymmnn
02/12/2018 at 12:49 |
|
Maybe. We’ve certainly stuck high-bypass engines on there previously:
I’d imagine doing the outboard engines would be trickier though, given the significant flex and droop in the B-52's wing. Frankly at this point though, engines are good enough that you could surpass the thrust of those eight engines with two from a 787-9, so maybe just leave the outboard engines off entirely.
|
ttyymmnn
> facw
02/12/2018 at 12:54 |
|
Easy to do for one, harder perhaps all the way across the fleet. I think you assessment of the problems with wing drop are accurate. And, I’d also wonder what would happen if they only used two engines. Again, the thing was designed from the start with those eight engines. I’m no aero engineer, but I would imagine that changes of that magnitude might also cause other issues.
I also wonder what the cost differences would be of 8 smaller engines vs 4 or even 2 larger ones.
415s30 W123TSXWaggoIIIIIIo ( •_•))°)
> VonBootWilly - Likes Toyota, but it's still complicated.
02/12/2018 at 13:08 |
|
|
415s30 W123TSXWaggoIIIIIIo ( •_•))°)
> Dusty Ventures
02/12/2018 at 13:12 |
|
One of those flew very low over us in Montana back in the 80's, my did is from up there and they have land near Red Lodge.
|
415s30 W123TSXWaggoIIIIIIo ( •_•))°)
> Future next gen S2000 owner
02/12/2018 at 13:13 |
|
It’s the Keith Richards of aviation.
Bman76 (hates WS6 hoods, is on his phone and has 4 burners now)
> ttyymmnn
02/12/2018 at 13:31 |
|
That’s too bad, but hopefully the B-21 actually gets enough production to adequately replace all those planes.
My parents still talk about McConnell AFB here in Wichita doing scramble drills back in the 80’s. Apparently all the B-1s would climb out at full burner max climb trying to get the heck outta dodge. They said the whole city just shook for 15-20 minutes and you could see the exhaust for miles.
RacinBob
> facw
02/12/2018 at 13:37 |
|
Somewhere in Jalopnic/War Zone is an excellent technical explanation on why the 4 engine solution doesn’t work for the B-52. I believe a majpr concern is that were they to lose an engine under some speed conditions, there is not enough tail control/authority to offset the drag. If someone can find the link, it is very instructive and reminds me that designing airplanes is not so easy as it looks.
|
ttyymmnn
> Bman76 (hates WS6 hoods, is on his phone and has 4 burners now)
02/12/2018 at 13:42 |
|
Tyler has a pretty good take on this over at The Drive .
|
user314
> ttyymmnn
02/12/2018 at 13:47 |
|
|
ttyymmnn
> user314
02/12/2018 at 13:56 |
|
Looks like I picked the wrong week to stop sniffing glue.
|
user314
> ttyymmnn
02/12/2018 at 14:05 |
|
Looking back on it now, there’s segments of Sesame Street that feel like they’re more for adults in the “proper frame of mind”
EngineerWithTools
> ttyymmnn
02/12/2018 at 14:43 |
|
Saw this just the other day!
|
ttyymmnn
> EngineerWithTools
02/12/2018 at 14:47 |
|
Brilliant. In other news, that star logo made out of five B-2s is also brilliant. There’s something fascinating out of saying that the B-2 is no longer relevant technologically, yet the Buff, simply by virtue of its size, will be flying after 100 years. Of course, if we got in a major shooting war with Russia or China, the Buff would probably be a sitting duck. But for Afghanistan and Syria, there’s simply nothing better.
|
RacinBob
> ttyymmnn
02/12/2018 at 19:17 |
|
Here is something on the topic.
BaconSandwich is tasty.
> 415s30 W123TSXWaggoIIIIIIo ( •_•))°)
02/12/2018 at 21:50 |
|
Would that also make it the Chevy Cavalier of the skies?
|
415s30 W123TSXWaggoIIIIIIo ( •_•))°)
> BaconSandwich is tasty.
02/12/2018 at 22:53 |
|
No, the unkillable cars are Most Toyotas, Hondas, W123 Mercedes and old Volvos.
For Sweden
> ttyymmnn
02/13/2018 at 00:37 |
|
...until someone decides to cut holes in the bottom of a C-130