Register here

Author Topic: Unbuilt B-52s  (Read 33582 times)

Offline PlanesPictures

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 886
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: 886
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: 2201
  • 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.

Online hesham

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 19093
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: 2041
Re: Unbuilt B-52s
« Reply #29 on: April 01, 2010, 09:19:49 pm »
In God we trust, all others we monitor. :-p