Register here

Author Topic: Unbuilt B-52s  (Read 33443 times)

Offline Dronte

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Confidential
  • **
  • Posts: 96
  • Argentinean ugly bird
Unbuilt B-52s
« on: April 23, 2006, 07:56:33 pm »
Two non built versions of the B-52:

-The "Colossal Guppy" projected to replace  the  NASA's Guppys .  It is a project of the sixties that was refloated in the 90s (alone be abandoned again). Twelve motors and a " hump " of twelve meters.

-A illustration of 1993 showing at a B-52 as platform  of an airborne
laser system.

Offline pometablava

  • Global Moderator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 3144
Re: Unbuilt B-52s
« Reply #1 on: April 24, 2006, 03:12:17 pm »
ˇGracias Dronte!
The laser B-52 was unknown for me. The old bird looks awesome in this missile destroyer role!

More unbuilt B-52 from:
Boeing B-52 A Documentary History
Walter J. Boyne
Schiffer
ISBN: 0-88740-600-9

A couple of modernisation proposals

1. Reengined with jumbo jet derived engines (no model given)

2. A more extensive "lifting treatment"

B-52 number 70119 actually tested a General Electric XTF39 engine in place of one J57 pod

More info about this programs would be welcome!

Offline Orionblamblam

  • Secret Projects Guru
  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 6683
    • Aerospace Projects Review
Re: Unbuilt B-52s
« Reply #2 on: April 24, 2006, 08:27:20 pm »
Supersonic B-52
Aerospace Projects Review


And so the endless circle of life comes to an end, meaningless and grim. Why did they live, and why did they die? No reason. Two hundred million years of evolution snuffed out, for in the end Nature is horrific and teaches us nothing

Offline Orionblamblam

  • Secret Projects Guru
  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 6683
    • Aerospace Projects Review
Re: Unbuilt B-52s
« Reply #3 on: April 24, 2006, 08:28:12 pm »
Boeing flying wing design to meet B-52 requirements
Aerospace Projects Review


And so the endless circle of life comes to an end, meaningless and grim. Why did they live, and why did they die? No reason. Two hundred million years of evolution snuffed out, for in the end Nature is horrific and teaches us nothing

Offline Dronte

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Confidential
  • **
  • Posts: 96
  • Argentinean ugly bird
Re: Unbuilt B-52s
« Reply #4 on: April 24, 2006, 11:46:03 pm »
Thanks to you and  Orionblamblam too .The material that have presented it is really fascinating. Here is an illustration more recent from Boeing, a B-52 with 4 new turbofans.
I have understood that, up to now, all the proposals of engine change have been discarded for uneconomical.

Offline Sentinel Chicken

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 577
  • American 71 Heavy, contact departure 126.47
    • TAILS THROUGH TIME: Short Trips on the Long Road of Aviation History
Re: Unbuilt B-52s
« Reply #5 on: April 25, 2006, 02:30:37 pm »
At one point I believe the proposal had matured to using RB211 engines simiilar to what American Airlines uses on the bulk of their 757-200 fleet. As a matter of fact, Boeing's proposal even had American's engine maintenance folks in charge of maintaining the RB211 engines of a re-engined B-52.

Offline lark

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1712
Re: Unbuilt B-52s
« Reply #6 on: April 26, 2006, 09:56:39 am »
Great drawings Orionblam..
 Wil your forthcoming U.S. bomber book be a single volume
 or may we hope for a small series devoted to the specific requests
 for proposals... ?

Thanks in advance.

Offline Orionblamblam

  • Secret Projects Guru
  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 6683
    • Aerospace Projects Review
Re: Unbuilt B-52s
« Reply #7 on: April 26, 2006, 10:52:01 am »

 Wil your forthcoming U.S. bomber book be a single volume

Probably one massive volume, though it may be released a chapter or three at a time to help fund the final project.
Aerospace Projects Review


And so the endless circle of life comes to an end, meaningless and grim. Why did they live, and why did they die? No reason. Two hundred million years of evolution snuffed out, for in the end Nature is horrific and teaches us nothing

Offline pometablava

  • Global Moderator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 3144
Re: Unbuilt B-52s
« Reply #8 on: April 26, 2006, 04:08:20 pm »
Quote
massive volume

I love it!. This means a lot unbuilt projects

I can't wait for the moment to buy a copy ::)

Offline Orionblamblam

  • Secret Projects Guru
  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 6683
    • Aerospace Projects Review
Re: Unbuilt B-52s
« Reply #9 on: April 26, 2006, 06:44:10 pm »
Quote
massive volume

I love it!. This means a lot unbuilt projects

No kidding. The scanning job is fairly gigantic, and it's nowhere near done yet... and after all the scanning is done, every single design needs to be redrawn in at least a 3-view. This'll take a while.

Some of what I've got scanned in...
Aerospace Projects Review


And so the endless circle of life comes to an end, meaningless and grim. Why did they live, and why did they die? No reason. Two hundred million years of evolution snuffed out, for in the end Nature is horrific and teaches us nothing

Offline Sentinel Chicken

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 577
  • American 71 Heavy, contact departure 126.47
    • TAILS THROUGH TIME: Short Trips on the Long Road of Aviation History
Re: Unbuilt B-52s
« Reply #10 on: April 26, 2006, 08:38:10 pm »
Heyyyyyyyy....I see schematics for the lenticular defense missile!

Offline PlanesPictures

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 884
Re: Unbuilt B-52s
« Reply #11 on: May 13, 2006, 03:13:40 pm »
Hi all, I found today this excellent webpage I am  excited mainly with preview on unbuilded B-52 versions. Can I ask you on source?
Now I'm working on more Boeing's not builded projects (804-4, 464-17) pictures and I will like to do some next of them. Samples from my work are on webpage  www.planespictures.com maybe you will like some of them.

Thanks
Jozef Gatial

Offline Sentinel Chicken

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 577
  • American 71 Heavy, contact departure 126.47
    • TAILS THROUGH TIME: Short Trips on the Long Road of Aviation History
Re: Unbuilt B-52s
« Reply #12 on: May 13, 2006, 03:26:33 pm »
Welcome Jozef! Your computer graphics work is amazing- which version of the Boeing 804 are you talking about?

Offline PlanesPictures

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 884
Re: Unbuilt B-52s
« Reply #13 on: May 13, 2006, 03:49:53 pm »
I'm working on Boeing Model 804-004 very nice six-engined heavy bomber, submitted for WS-110. I was longer time too busy but now 3D model is ready and I started work on textures. In 7-10 days I will release its first pictures

Offline elmayerle

  • Aerospace Engineer
  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1137
Re: Unbuilt B-52s
« Reply #14 on: May 13, 2006, 10:46:34 pm »
Now that is something I'll very much be looking forward to seeing.  I've enjoyed your work for a number of years now and have all three of your websites, that I know of, bookmarked.  Very glad to have you here with us, sir.

Offline PlanesPictures

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 884
Re: Unbuilt B-52s
« Reply #15 on: May 14, 2006, 02:30:33 am »
Thank you very much for your kind words. For now only previews from my modeller

Offline Dronte

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Confidential
  • **
  • Posts: 96
  • Argentinean ugly bird
Re: Unbuilt B-52s
« Reply #16 on: May 14, 2006, 05:20:59 pm »
Hi all, I found today this excellent webpage I am  excited mainly with preview on unbuilded B-52 versions. Can I ask you on source?
Now I'm working on more Boeing's not builded projects (804-4, 464-17) pictures and I will like to do some next of them. Samples from my work are on webpage  www.planespictures.com maybe you will like some of them.

Thanks
Jozef Gatial


 :o :o Jozef Gatial!

You are my idol! I began to  be interested in unbuilt aeronautical projects due to your fantastic works.
Welcome!

Alone an objection to PlanesPictures.com (I believe that somebody already mentioned it
in another topic): They are almost sadistic ;D those small images of the Home page
without any reference, neither a way is  given to getting them
in complete size.  :'(
There is an in particular that has me intrigued

For the isoclinic wings of the Shorts ph13 and all that is sacred in this world: What
airship is THIS? :


Offline Sentinel Chicken

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 577
  • American 71 Heavy, contact departure 126.47
    • TAILS THROUGH TIME: Short Trips on the Long Road of Aviation History
Re: Unbuilt B-52s
« Reply #17 on: May 14, 2006, 08:36:10 pm »
Do my eyes deceive me or did you even include the unusual main wheel "fenders" on the Boeing 804? Very cool!

Offline PlanesPictures

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 884
Re: Unbuilt B-52s
« Reply #18 on: May 15, 2006, 10:54:24 am »
It is longer history why this plane was more as four years "secret". It is Focke-Wulf TaBomber and I will move 3D model in my new render programs and in near future to render similar as a lot of next done but not published planes.

Offline GTX

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2196
  • All hail the God of Frustration!!!
    • Beyond The Sprues
Re: Unbuilt B-52s
« Reply #19 on: August 06, 2009, 12:26:45 pm »
Not sure if this is the right place to ask, but it seemed as good as any.  I am after information on the various proposals to re-engine the B-52H's with more modern turbofans (i.e. replace the TF-33s with something like RB211s etc).  I am also doing other research into the topic offline, but would be grateful for any assistance you folks could provide.  I know there have been a number of proposals (the last being from Boeing I believe) but all have been rejected.  I'd especially welcome any technical info on the proposals, what their specific advantages were and more so why they were rejected.  copies of formal proposals and reports detailing rejection reasons would be very welcome.

Thank you in advance.

Regards,

Greg

Offline F-14D

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1676
  • I really did change my personal text
Re: Unbuilt B-52s
« Reply #20 on: August 06, 2009, 02:25:08 pm »
Not sure if this is the right place to ask, but it seemed as good as any.  I am after information on the various proposals to re-engine the B-52H's with more modern turbofans (i.e. replace the TF-33s with something like RB211s etc).  I am also doing other research into the topic offline, but would be grateful for any assistance you folks could provide.  I know there have been a number of proposals (the last being from Boeing I believe) but all have been rejected.  I'd especially welcome any technical info on the proposals, what their specific advantages were and more so why they were rejected.  copies of formal proposals and reports detailing rejection reasons would be very welcome.

Thank you in advance.

Regards,

Greg

Someone else might be able to provide more detail, but two of the biggest reasons seem to have been: 

No one wanted to ask Congress for the upfront money that might be taken from another program USAF wanted more (similar to why, although virtually everyone wants it to have more power, USAF has never been willing to seriously entertain re-engining the A-10).

Not Invented Here;  Washington doesn't regularly look on ideas that come from outside its hallowed acres with much favor. 

As for reports detailing reasons for rejection on ideas that USAF didn't ask for, remember that DoD is under no obligation to respond to or evaluate unsolicited proposals.  It can reject them and give a reason, reject them and give no reason, or simply ignore them.  In fact, even if the proposals are in response to an inquiry of interest without any definition of a follow-on solicitation, DoD can do the same thing. 

Offline CFE

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 258
Re: Unbuilt B-52s
« Reply #21 on: August 07, 2009, 07:55:09 pm »
Initial evaluation of the proposal came to the conclusion that the upfront costs of putting RB211's on the BUFF would be more expensive than the money saved through the RB211's reduced fuel consumption.  I'd certainly like to examine the study's ground rules and assumptions, especially its estimate for how much longer the BUFF would remain in service.  The engine upgrade on the KC-135R made sense, so why wouldn't something similar (albeit RB211's for TF33's, rather than CFM56's for J57's) make sense on the BUFF?

Offline royabulgaf

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 364
Re: Unbuilt B-52s
« Reply #22 on: August 08, 2009, 12:55:22 pm »
Some day, I just gotta do a model of a B-52 with warp nacelles under them. 


I also think that capital investment money such as new engines would detract from investment in new bomber projects.

Offline mz

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 681
Re: Unbuilt B-52s
« Reply #23 on: August 11, 2009, 05:53:16 am »
Initial evaluation of the proposal came to the conclusion that the upfront costs of putting RB211's on the BUFF would be more expensive than the money saved through the RB211's reduced fuel consumption.  I'd certainly like to examine the study's ground rules and assumptions, especially its estimate for how much longer the BUFF would remain in service.  The engine upgrade on the KC-135R made sense, so why wouldn't something similar (albeit RB211's for TF33's, rather than CFM56's for J57's) make sense on the BUFF?

Because the tankers fly probably most of all the air force aircraft?

Offline frank

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 620
Re: Unbuilt B-52s
« Reply #24 on: August 11, 2009, 09:01:53 am »

       ISTR a design of a B-52 variant that was similar to the Colossal Guppy in concept, not nearly as big, for the USAF to transport missiles. I'm pretty sure it was in an early issue of APR, in its early 'paper days'.




Two non built versions of the B-52:

-The "Colossal Guppy" projected to replace  the  NASA's Guppys .  It is a project of the sixties that was refloated in the 90s (alone be abandoned again). Twelve motors and a " hump " of twelve meters.

-A illustration of 1993 showing at a B-52 as platform  of an airborne
laser system.

Offline CFE

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 258
Re: Unbuilt B-52s
« Reply #25 on: August 11, 2009, 08:14:07 pm »
Initial evaluation of the proposal came to the conclusion that the upfront costs of putting RB211's on the BUFF would be more expensive than the money saved through the RB211's reduced fuel consumption.  I'd certainly like to examine the study's ground rules and assumptions, especially its estimate for how much longer the BUFF would remain in service.  The engine upgrade on the KC-135R made sense, so why wouldn't something similar (albeit RB211's for TF33's, rather than CFM56's for J57's) make sense on the BUFF?

Because the tankers fly probably most of all the air force aircraft?

It all depends on how many more flying hours you expect to get out of each airframe.  The RB211 upgrade was considered back in the mid-90's, when the AF was expecting to fly the BUFF for another 40-50 more years before retiring them.  The engine choice also has a huge effect on mission capable rates.  Look at the KC-135E's with their older TF33's and how little they've flown in comparison with the KC-135R's and their newer CFM56's.

Offline jemhouston

  • CLEARANCE: Restricted
  • Posts: 6
Re: Unbuilt B-52s
« Reply #26 on: August 12, 2009, 12:21:12 am »
Initial evaluation of the proposal came to the conclusion that the upfront costs of putting RB211's on the BUFF would be more expensive than the money saved through the RB211's reduced fuel consumption.  I'd certainly like to examine the study's ground rules and assumptions, especially its estimate for how much longer the BUFF would remain in service.  The engine upgrade on the KC-135R made sense, so why wouldn't something similar (albeit RB211's for TF33's, rather than CFM56's for J57's) make sense on the BUFF?

From my understanding, the fuel savings estimate was based on strictly fueling the Buff on the ground. If you factor in of midair refueling, new engines would provide a cost savings.

Offline hesham

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 19047
Re: Unbuilt B-52s
« Reply #27 on: October 26, 2009, 10:22:38 am »
Hi,

some modifications for Boeing B-52,that is included a horizontal canard.

http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19760024082_1976024082.pdf

Offline blackstar

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1591
Re: Unbuilt B-52s
« Reply #28 on: October 26, 2009, 05:39:06 pm »

Someone else might be able to provide more detail, but two of the biggest reasons seem to have been:  

No one wanted to ask Congress for the upfront money that might be taken from another program USAF wanted more (similar to why, although virtually everyone wants it to have more power, USAF has never been willing to seriously entertain re-engining the A-10).

Not Invented Here;  Washington doesn't regularly look on ideas that come from outside its hallowed acres with much favor.  

As for reports detailing reasons for rejection on ideas that USAF didn't ask for, remember that DoD is under no obligation to respond to or evaluate unsolicited proposals.  It can reject them and give a reason, reject them and give no reason, or simply ignore them.  In fact, even if the proposals are in response to an inquiry of interest without any definition of a follow-on solicitation, DoD can do the same thing.  

I think there were a couple of other factors involved.  They sort of agree with what you wrote.

One was the fact that the contractors were not simply making an unsolicited proposal, but were proposing something that the Air Force had not prioritized.  It might have been a great idea, but it was not something that the USAF leadership had already decided to spend money on.  That creates two problems.  The first problem is that it forces USAF to find something to take the money from to give to this new project.  The second problem is that it becomes tough to argue for in front of Congress.  Congress (rightly) will ask: "if this is so important, why didn't you guys think of it?"

I think the second problem was that the contractors were proposing a unique approach.  I forget the details, but they were essentially offering to provide the reengining "free" in return for a servicing contract.  They wanted to in effect lease the engines to the USAF.  You can imagine a lot of problems with that.  First, from a bureaucratic standpoint, there may not be a method to do this.  It might not actually be _legal_ for USAF to sign such an agreement.  (Of course, the solution is to change federal contracting law to make it legal, but changing a law is not easy.)  Second, such an arrangement then puts the government at risk of the contractor jerking them around--the contractor could in effect say "We are raising your rent, and if you don't like it, we will take our engines back."  That would require all kinds of contract stipulations to forbid this from happening.

I thought that the reengining idea was great, until I realized that it had a lot of strings attached.
« Last Edit: October 27, 2009, 02:46:32 pm by blackstar »

Offline XP67_Moonbat

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2039
Re: Unbuilt B-52s
« Reply #29 on: April 01, 2010, 09:19:49 pm »
In God we trust, all others we monitor. :-p

Offline Kadija_Man

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1516
Re: Unbuilt B-52s
« Reply #30 on: April 04, 2010, 12:59:36 am »

Someone else might be able to provide more detail, but two of the biggest reasons seem to have been:  

No one wanted to ask Congress for the upfront money that might be taken from another program USAF wanted more (similar to why, although virtually everyone wants it to have more power, USAF has never been willing to seriously entertain re-engining the A-10).

Not Invented Here;  Washington doesn't regularly look on ideas that come from outside its hallowed acres with much favor.  

As for reports detailing reasons for rejection on ideas that USAF didn't ask for, remember that DoD is under no obligation to respond to or evaluate unsolicited proposals.  It can reject them and give a reason, reject them and give no reason, or simply ignore them.  In fact, even if the proposals are in response to an inquiry of interest without any definition of a follow-on solicitation, DoD can do the same thing.  

I think there were a couple of other factors involved.  They sort of agree with what you wrote.

One was the fact that the contractors were not simply making an unsolicited proposal, but were proposing something that the Air Force had not prioritized.  It might have been a great idea, but it was not something that the USAF leadership had already decided to spend money on.  That creates two problems.  The first problem is that it forces USAF to find something to take the money from to give to this new project.  The second problem is that it becomes tough to argue for in front of Congress.  Congress (rightly) will ask: "if this is so important, why didn't you guys think of it?"

I think the second problem was that the contractors were proposing a unique approach.  I forget the details, but they were essentially offering to provide the reengining "free" in return for a servicing contract.  They wanted to in effect lease the engines to the USAF.  You can imagine a lot of problems with that.  First, from a bureaucratic standpoint, there may not be a method to do this.  It might not actually be _legal_ for USAF to sign such an agreement.  (Of course, the solution is to change federal contracting law to make it legal, but changing a law is not easy.)  Second, such an arrangement then puts the government at risk of the contractor jerking them around--the contractor could in effect say "We are raising your rent, and if you don't like it, we will take our engines back."  That would require all kinds of contract stipulations to forbid this from happening.

I thought that the reengining idea was great, until I realized that it had a lot of strings attached.

What you're saying could be true but with, as you state, a little imagination it would be possible to work ways around this.

Apart from your already mentioned need to perhaps change Government contracting law, it would be possible to create special legislation to cover this specific case and which makes sure that it is impossible for the contractees (the engine manufacturers/owners) to suddenly raise their prices without warning and excessively.   One though is forced to wonder how companies as such as Haliburton and others can be contracted so easily by the US Army to provide third and fourth line support for military activities, including combat in such faraway places as Afghanistan and Iraq.  While the case of the "Private Military Contractors" (PMCs) and their private armies raises interesting legal questions.  The major problem as I see it, is as you've also mentioned the difficulties of getting such legislation passed in the American political system.  One only has to look at the recent health care debate to see how lubricious that system actually is.

If such a contract was to be written, it would have to take into account the problems of writing off non-combat and combat losses of engines (interesting claim and counter-claim potentials on non-combat losses actually. Who compensates whom in the case of an engine failure resulting in aircraft loss?), the replacement of engines and of course the ongoing maintenance.   All are not surmountable, just untidy.  It might be easier for the USAF and the Congress not to try and take into account - in legislation - every opportunity but rather allow for the creation of regulations to cover such possibilities.   Many Western militaries have done similar things with the use of the aforementioned military contractors.  Perhaps the USAF should be looking at what the US Army is doing/has done?

Offline Matej

  • Deputy Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 2604
  • Multiuniversal creator
    • Hitechweb - bizare aviation
Re: Unbuilt B-52s
« Reply #31 on: August 20, 2011, 03:58:29 am »

Bizarre aviation expert.

Offline fightingirish

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1837
Re: Unbuilt B-52s
« Reply #32 on: August 20, 2011, 05:22:39 am »

Seen before at OBB's Blog.  A nuclear powered B-52.
Link: http://up-ship.com/blog/?p=7227
Slán,
fightingirish

Slán ist an Irish Gaelic word for Goodbye.  :)

Offline jstar

  • CLEARANCE: Confidential
  • *
  • Posts: 106
Re: Unbuilt B-52s
« Reply #33 on: August 20, 2011, 05:53:26 am »
Here's something similiar, just a little smaller:

Offline Matej

  • Deputy Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 2604
  • Multiuniversal creator
    • Hitechweb - bizare aviation
Re: Unbuilt B-52s
« Reply #34 on: August 20, 2011, 05:57:08 am »
Thanks for the clarification.

Bizarre aviation expert.

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 8756
Re: Unbuilt B-52s
« Reply #35 on: August 20, 2011, 06:39:07 am »
Here's something similiar, just a little smaller:

Canadian markings on a B-47?  :o
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline starviking

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 809
Re: Unbuilt B-52s
« Reply #36 on: August 20, 2011, 06:56:37 am »
Here's something similiar, just a little smaller:

Canadian markings on a B-47?  :o

It's the Orenda Iroquois Engine test bed.

Offline jstar

  • CLEARANCE: Confidential
  • *
  • Posts: 106
Re: Unbuilt B-52s
« Reply #37 on: August 20, 2011, 06:58:35 am »
Yep. Loaned to the RCAF as a test bed for the Orenda Iroquois engine to be used in the CF-105.

Offline LowObservable

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1732
Re: Unbuilt B-52s
« Reply #38 on: August 20, 2011, 07:56:08 am »
It looks odd to me. The sketch is amateurish and even for a nuclear engine, that looks ridiculously large, and apt to burn the tail off.

Suspect that it was a 1950s joke....

Offline Jeb

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 152
Re: Unbuilt B-52s
« Reply #39 on: August 27, 2011, 09:00:48 am »
Initial evaluation of the proposal came to the conclusion that the upfront costs of putting RB211's on the BUFF would be more expensive than the money saved through the RB211's reduced fuel consumption.  I'd certainly like to examine the study's ground rules and assumptions, especially its estimate for how much longer the BUFF would remain in service.  The engine upgrade on the KC-135R made sense, so why wouldn't something similar (albeit RB211's for TF33's, rather than CFM56's for J57's) make sense on the BUFF?


As I read it once, it was because SAC/USAF had stacks of TF33s in the B-52 parts bin, bought & paid for, ready for use. Ergo, the cost savings issue carried less weight.

Offline mithril

  • CLEARANCE: Confidential
  • *
  • Posts: 113
Re: Unbuilt B-52s
« Reply #40 on: August 28, 2011, 12:24:35 am »
Some day, I just gotta do a model of a B-52 with warp nacelles under them. 


I also think that capital investment money such as new engines would detract from investment in new bomber projects.
you mean like this?

no idea who made it, but i found the image ages ago..

Offline LowObservable

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1732
Re: Unbuilt B-52s
« Reply #41 on: August 28, 2011, 08:41:33 am »
Jeb - The DSB pretty well demolished that case in 2004.

www.acq.osd.mil/dsb/reports/ADA428790.pdf

Not only did the USAF underestimate TF33 depot costs, but they based their economics on fuel prices on the ground and forgot about the cost of KC fuel.

Offline fightingirish

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1837
Re: Unbuilt B-52s
« Reply #42 on: October 05, 2011, 11:55:11 am »

A B-52 with P&W engines, B737-300 engine pylons.
Found @MP.net.

BTW, here an article about future B-52 upgrades
Quote
The planned upgrades total three:
• The CONECT program will put a digital backbone and communications suite into the largely analog aircraft.
• A new 1760 databus architecture will allow the old bird to drop modern smart weapons from its internal weapon bays.
• Strategic radar will replace the B-52’s antiquated 1960s-vintage system.
Source/Link: Air Force Times - Upgrades to keep B-52s flying through 2040


No re-engining program so far and probably never.
Slán,
fightingirish

Slán ist an Irish Gaelic word for Goodbye.  :)

Offline OM

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 753
    • OMBlog
Re: Unbuilt B-52s
« Reply #43 on: October 06, 2011, 04:20:36 am »
Some day, I just gotta do a model of a B-52 with warp nacelles under them. 


I also think that capital investment money such as new engines would detract from investment in new bomber projects.
you mean like this?

no idea who made it, but i found the image ages ago..

...Might wanna check with the forum over at Starship Modeler, as ISTR this one showing up on .history - Pat Flannery may have posted the link to the image - right about the time Polar Lights released their 1:1000-scale TOS Enterprise kit. The engines are supposed to be 2nd Pilot nacelles, which means the spike on the bussard domes, and the "pinholes" in the exhaust ports. A couple of the modelers on .history were talking about making similar kitbashes with the YF-12A and B-58 kits, but I never did see anything come about from those ideas.

[thinks]

...Heh, replace the engines on a Hughes H-4 with the PL nacelles, and the pontoons with the ones from the AMT 18" kit, and imagine the wake left behind as the plane reaches takeoff speed  :) ;) :D ;D :o

No re-engining program so far and probably never.

...Never say never where the BUFFs are concerned, When I first enrolled in NROTC, we had one of the Air Farce types give an open lecture on air superiority, and during the lecture he predicted that "by 1990 the Pentagon will put out the first call for proposals for a 'multi-role' new-tech bomber to replace the B-52s by the end of the century." Of course, this was several years before Jack Northrup was vindicated and the B-2 was declassified. Then, in 1991, See-BS News did a short segment on the "aging B-52" fleet, and how they were all going to be refurbished to last "until 2010, when they'd be gradually phased out and replaced with newer Stealth bombers that will replace the B-2's."

...It's 2011 now, the Evil Soviet Empire is gone, there's no 24/7 sorties and Fail-Safe points, and there's damned sure no B-3 Super Stealths no matter what the Groom Lake Watchdogs claim. The B-52 is still our major bomber component, all the BUFFs are about to get their cockpits glassed, their cables fibered, their wings tweaked, the tires checked, and maybe even MP3 players in their custom-designed toilets. Hell, they may even get magnetic "Gulf Kick In Your Gas Tank" magnetic horseshoes to put next to the fuel inlets. Add a coating of Turtle Wax, and the B-52s will probably last well into the third quarter of the 21st century. Which is why I wouldn't rule out the possibility of an engine swapout to a more fuel-efficient design sometime after 2030 to 2040 at the latest.

Most of us old guys won't see this happen, but hopefully this forum will live long enough to see my prediction come to pass...
 
« Last Edit: October 06, 2011, 04:40:20 am by OM »

AAAdrone

  • Guest
Re: Unbuilt B-52s
« Reply #44 on: October 07, 2011, 03:11:28 pm »
Ah the Buff.  That thing will outlive us all.  I guess I shouldn't be surprised if the B-52 does indeed get its service life extended past 2040 considering all of the things OM said.

Offline OM

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 753
    • OMBlog
Re: Unbuilt B-52s
« Reply #45 on: October 08, 2011, 07:37:46 pm »
Ah the Buff.  That thing will outlive us all.  I guess I shouldn't be surprised if the B-52 does indeed get its service life extended past 2040 considering all of the things OM said.

...Thank you. Sir. From what I've gathered, the B-52 has outlived something like 75% of its initial designers, and there's nobody still working for Boeing who were on the original assembly teams. And yet, the BUFF flies on, maintaining our nation's ability to strike back at our enemies hard and heavy. If only we could get a President and a Congress in power who'll approve funds for the jamming systems they've needed since the Aardvarks were phased out  >:( >:( >:(

Offline Arjen

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1843
  • It's turtles all the way down
Re: Unbuilt B-52s
« Reply #46 on: October 09, 2011, 02:52:01 am »
If only we could get a President and a Congress in power who'll approve funds for the jamming systems they've needed since the Aardvarks were phased out  >:( >:( >:(
Fat chance. They'd be diverting funds from all the snazzy new projects, keeping the stuff they actually use in working order is out of fashion.

AAAdrone

  • Guest
Re: Unbuilt B-52s
« Reply #47 on: October 09, 2011, 07:09:41 pm »
True.  To divert funds to make jamming equipment for the B-52 would mean diverting funds from the F-35 despite the F-35 being cancelled eventually regardless.

Offline Arjen

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1843
  • It's turtles all the way down
Re: Unbuilt B-52s
« Reply #48 on: October 10, 2011, 01:05:52 am »
...the F-35 being cancelled eventually regardless.
That's premature. Anyway, my point was not to attack any specific new project, but rather the Pentagon's propensity of starting any number of new projects, finding out along the way they cost rather more than projected, cancelling some of them outright or severely cutting back the numbers  eventually built. Meanwhile, re-engining and new ECM for the Buff, both of them eminently sensible and relatively cheap, never happen.

AAAdrone

  • Guest
Re: Unbuilt B-52s
« Reply #49 on: October 10, 2011, 11:34:21 am »
I'm just being cynical.

Offline Arjen

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1843
  • It's turtles all the way down
Re: Unbuilt B-52s
« Reply #50 on: October 11, 2011, 12:22:10 am »
[Sheldon_mode]My default setting is to take things at face value.[/Sheldon_mode]

Offline fightingirish

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1837
Re: Unbuilt B-52s
« Reply #51 on: October 12, 2012, 01:11:19 pm »
Found in the French forum.avionslegendaires.net.
According to that forum, the original picture comes from the Boeing archives.
Nuclear or Liquid hydrogen powered or like the B-52X "Zwilling" just a fake?! :-\
Maybe our French members can translate the picture caption posted at that forum.  :)


Edit: Orthography
« Last Edit: October 12, 2012, 03:50:52 pm by fightingirish »
Slán,
fightingirish

Slán ist an Irish Gaelic word for Goodbye.  :)

Offline Jemiba

  • Global Moderator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 7550
Re: Unbuilt B-52s
« Reply #52 on: October 12, 2012, 01:17:45 pm »
Sorry, but as far as I understand it, it's a fake, like the B-52X, the two inner engine pods should have been
replaced by tanks with 157.000 litres each. And the question was asked: How it would be able to take off
with a full fuel load ?
It takes a long time, before all mistakes are made ...

Offline RLBH

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 156
Re: Unbuilt B-52s
« Reply #53 on: October 12, 2012, 02:51:19 pm »
This might work as a study for a liquid hydrogen fuel testbed - 2 x 157,000 litre tanks comes in at about 20 tons, which is vaguely plausible, and if you don't carry a significant quantity of other fuel, four engines might get the aircraft off the ground in a sane runway length.

Offline SpudmanWP

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 682
Re: Unbuilt B-52s
« Reply #54 on: October 12, 2012, 03:19:47 pm »
What sane runway, the Edwards AFB lakebed?

WE4-45-1-08     OMHIWDMB
"The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."

Offline Sea Skimmer

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 392
Re: Unbuilt B-52s
« Reply #55 on: October 12, 2012, 03:53:45 pm »
That's premature. Anyway, my point was not to attack any specific new project, but rather the Pentagon's propensity of starting any number of new projects, finding out along the way they cost rather more than projected, cancelling some of them outright or severely cutting back the numbers  eventually built. Meanwhile, re-engining and new ECM for the Buff, both of them eminently sensible and relatively cheap, never happen.


How exactly do you know that an worthwhile improvement in ECM for a plane with such a massive radar cross section is relatively cheap? How will new ECM alone make the aircraft capable of operations in defended airspace in which jamming would be required in the first place? Certainly none of the existing fighter pods are going to be effective from lack of enough power, you'd need new hardware and that's billions of dollars and decade plus long program territory like Next Generation Jammer. Also Next Generation Jammer is being designed to be modular anyway, so why start a new program?

New engines, yeah that'd be nice, but that's also billions of dollars up front. Its certainly not cheap just to upgrade a very aged air frame that works perfectly fine.


Offline Orionblamblam

  • Secret Projects Guru
  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 6683
    • Aerospace Projects Review
Re: Unbuilt B-52s
« Reply #56 on: October 12, 2012, 05:07:12 pm »
Found in the French forum.avionslegendaires.net.
According to that forum, the original picture comes from the Boeing archives.
Nuclear or Liquid hydrogen powered or like the B-52X "Zwilling" just a fake?! :-\

I have a photocopy of the original drawing that was made from, copied from the D-4500 files at the Boeing archive. It's legit.
Aerospace Projects Review


And so the endless circle of life comes to an end, meaningless and grim. Why did they live, and why did they die? No reason. Two hundred million years of evolution snuffed out, for in the end Nature is horrific and teaches us nothing

Offline Pioneer

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1346
  • Seek out and close with the enemy
Re: Unbuilt B-52s
« Reply #57 on: October 13, 2012, 12:45:03 am »
Sorry gents to detract from the main topic. But can anyone please tell me what the USAAF / USAF Material Experimental (MX-???) / Weapons System (WS-???) designation was the Boeing B-52 designed to meet?

Regards
Pioneer
« Last Edit: October 13, 2012, 01:04:06 am by Pioneer »

Offline Ardavan.K

  • CLEARANCE: Confidential
  • *
  • Posts: 147
Re: Unbuilt B-52s
« Reply #58 on: October 13, 2012, 05:16:39 am »
What the hell is that??

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_vZyHxmcMvtg/TKBxbjDQbFI/AAAAAAAAB6E/4lcgDcUqozA/s1600/dsc_7590.jpg


Greetings,

 Canadair CL-52
* * One of the most unusual B-47B conversions was the Canadair CL-52 which was a B-47B loaned in 1956 to the Royal Canadian Air Force
to test the new, powerful Orenda Iroquois
turbojet (rated at 19,250 lbf (85.6 kN) dry, 25,000 lbf (111 kN) afterburning) for the Avro Canada CF-105 Arrow
interceptor
. Canadair Aircraft, the sub-contractor, attached the Iroquois engine to the right side of the rear fuselage near the tail; due to the large exterior diameter of the engine, no other location was feasible.
Flying the CL-52 was reportedly a nightmare. After the Arrow project was cancelled in early 1959, the B-47B/CL-52, with about 35 hours of engine flight tests to its credit, was returned to the U.S. Some sources claimed it was bent out of shape by the tests, but in any case, it was subsequently scrapped. The CL-52 was the only B-47 to be used by any foreign service.

Regards,
AK
« Last Edit: October 13, 2012, 05:18:40 am by Ardavan.K »
Aeronautics was neither an industry nor a science.
It was a miracle.

Offline Steve Pace

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2256
  • Aviation History Writer
Re: Unbuilt B-52s
« Reply #59 on: October 13, 2012, 07:31:16 am »
Sorry gents to detract from the main topic. But can anyone please tell me what the USAAF / USAF Material Experimental (MX-???) / Weapons System (WS-???) designation was the Boeing B-52 designed to meet?

Regards
Pioneer
The MX-number is MX-839 and the WS-numbers are WS-101A for B-52 and WS-101L for RB-52. -SP
When you know you're right, go ahead.

Offline Bill S

  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 449
Re: Unbuilt B-52s
« Reply #60 on: September 28, 2013, 11:10:42 am »
The Advanced Concepts folks a LTV took a look at the re-engine the B-52G using either a
C-17 or 757, nacelle and engine combination in an un-numbered document titled "Installation
of C-17 Nacelle & Engine on B-52G" This would be right in line for interest as C-17 Nacelles and
Pylons were currently in production at LTV.


They found there would be enough ground clearance on the outboard nacelles using either design.
They also discovered that a new pylon would have to be built, they could not use the C-17 pylon as
currently in manufacture as the engine needed to be mounted closer to the B-52 wing.


Also identified was a problem with Asymmetric Power with the loss of an outboard engine.


"The loss of the outboard engines' 40,000 lbs. of thrust on takeoff cannot be handled by
the B-52 as presently configured. The control system's authority with the existing fin/rudder
combination is inadequate."


Proposed solutions included: automatic thrust control to compensate for lost engine, more
throw on existing rudder, larger chord rudder.


Attached are a couple of drawings from the small report.
Source Vought Aircraft Historical Foundation


bill




Offline Triton

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 8879
  • Donald McKelvy
    • Deep Blue to Wild Blue
Re: Unbuilt B-52s
« Reply #61 on: January 11, 2014, 12:06:35 am »
Artist's impression of re-engined Boeing B-52 Stratofortress.

Source:
http://www.boeing.com/news/frontiers/archive/2004/april/cover1.html

Online Grey Havoc

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 7038
  • _ \\ //
Re: Unbuilt B-52s
« Reply #62 on: April 30, 2016, 01:25:39 pm »
To the Stars

Offline JohnR

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 353
Re: Unbuilt B-52s
« Reply #63 on: April 30, 2016, 05:15:40 pm »
What alterations to the T33 would be made to decrease it's fuel consumption?

Offline NeilChapman

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 605
  • Interested 3rd party
Re: Unbuilt B-52s
« Reply #64 on: April 30, 2016, 06:56:29 pm »
The Advanced Concepts folks a LTV took a look at the re-engine the B-52G using either a
C-17 or 757, nacelle and engine combination in an un-numbered document titled "Installation
of C-17 Nacelle & Engine on B-52G" This would be right in line for interest as C-17 Nacelles and
Pylons were currently in production at LTV.


They found there would be enough ground clearance on the outboard nacelles using either design.
They also discovered that a new pylon would have to be built, they could not use the C-17 pylon as
currently in manufacture as the engine needed to be mounted closer to the B-52 wing.


Also identified was a problem with Asymmetric Power with the loss of an outboard engine.


"The loss of the outboard engines' 40,000 lbs. of thrust on takeoff cannot be handled by
the B-52 as presently configured. The control system's authority with the existing fin/rudder
combination is inadequate."


Proposed solutions included: automatic thrust control to compensate for lost engine, more
throw on existing rudder, larger chord rudder.


Attached are a couple of drawings from the small report.
Source Vought Aircraft Historical Foundation


bill


If I remember correctly the Concord faced potentially similar problems with the loss of an engine. 


Offline frank

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 620
Re: Unbuilt B-52s
« Reply #65 on: May 01, 2016, 05:54:51 am »
I wonder if reverting to the early B-52 tall tail would help. I suppose modifying the current rudder is more feasible.