Unbuilt B-52s

Dronte

Argentinean ugly bird
Joined
Feb 19, 2006
Messages
96
Reaction score
3
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.
 

Attachments

Antonio

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Staff member
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 22, 2006
Messages
3,363
Reaction score
28
¡Gracias 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!
 

Attachments

Dronte

Argentinean ugly bird
Joined
Feb 19, 2006
Messages
96
Reaction score
3
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.
 

Attachments

Sentinel Chicken

American 71 Heavy, contact departure 126.47
Joined
Jan 17, 2006
Messages
575
Reaction score
1
Website
www.tailsthroughtime.com
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.
 

lark

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Feb 17, 2006
Messages
1,782
Reaction score
3
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.
 

Antonio

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Staff member
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 22, 2006
Messages
3,363
Reaction score
28
massive volume
I love it!. This means a lot unbuilt projects

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

Orionblamblam

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2006
Messages
7,262
Reaction score
124
Website
www.aerospaceprojectsreview.com
pometablava said:
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...
 

Attachments

PlanesPictures

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
May 13, 2006
Messages
903
Reaction score
3
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
 

PlanesPictures

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
May 13, 2006
Messages
903
Reaction score
3
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
 

elmayerle

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 8, 2006
Messages
1,246
Reaction score
1
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.
 

Dronte

Argentinean ugly bird
Joined
Feb 19, 2006
Messages
96
Reaction score
3
PlanesPictures said:
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
:eek: :eek: 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? :
 

Attachments

PlanesPictures

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
May 13, 2006
Messages
903
Reaction score
3
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.
 

GTX

All hail the God of Frustration!!!
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 15, 2006
Messages
2,634
Reaction score
23
Website
beyondthesprues.com
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
 

F-14D

I really did change my personal text
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 4, 2007
Messages
1,731
Reaction score
4
GTX said:
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.
 

CFE

CLEARANCE: Secret
Joined
Sep 1, 2007
Messages
258
Reaction score
0
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?
 

royabulgaf

CLEARANCE: Secret
Joined
Dec 29, 2008
Messages
398
Reaction score
2
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.
 

mz

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
May 28, 2007
Messages
683
Reaction score
1
CFE said:
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?
 

frank

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
May 20, 2006
Messages
617
Reaction score
3
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'.




Dronte said:
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.
 

CFE

CLEARANCE: Secret
Joined
Sep 1, 2007
Messages
258
Reaction score
0
mz said:
CFE said:
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.
 

jemhouston

CLEARANCE: Restricted
Joined
Sep 6, 2008
Messages
6
Reaction score
0
CFE said:
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.
 

hesham

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Joined
May 26, 2006
Messages
23,629
Reaction score
626
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
 

Attachments

blackstar

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 26, 2008
Messages
1,676
Reaction score
9
F-14D said:
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.
 

XP67_Moonbat

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Jan 16, 2008
Messages
2,153
Reaction score
8
Re-engining The B-52:
http://www.acq.osd.mil/dsb/reports/ADA412982.pdf
 

Kadija_Man

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 26, 2011
Messages
1,891
Reaction score
14
blackstar said:
F-14D said:
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?
 

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
11,638
Reaction score
128
jstar said:
Here's something similiar, just a little smaller:
Canadian markings on a B-47? :eek:
 

jstar

CLEARANCE: Confidential
Joined
Oct 12, 2007
Messages
125
Reaction score
4
Yep. Loaned to the RCAF as a test bed for the Orenda Iroquois engine to be used in the CF-105.
 

LowObservable

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 18, 2006
Messages
2,163
Reaction score
18
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....
 

Jeb

CLEARANCE: Secret
Joined
Jul 2, 2007
Messages
256
Reaction score
11
CFE said:
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.
 
Top