• Hi Guest! Forum rules have been updated. All users please read here.

Unbuilt B-52s

mithril

CLEARANCE: Confidential
Joined
Mar 12, 2009
Messages
113
Reaction score
0
royabulgaf said:
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..
 

LowObservable

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 18, 2006
Messages
2,169
Reaction score
24
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.
 

fightingirish

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2006
Messages
2,123
Reaction score
97
A B-52 with P&W engines, B737-300 engine pylons.
Found @MP.net.

BTW, here an article about future B-52 upgrades
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.
 

Attachments

OM

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Jun 22, 2008
Messages
753
Reaction score
0
Website
www.io.com
mithril said:
royabulgaf said:
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 :eek:

fightingirish said:
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...
 
A

AAAdrone

Guest
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.
 

OM

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Jun 22, 2008
Messages
753
Reaction score
0
Website
www.io.com
AAAdrone said:
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 :mad: :mad: :mad:
 

Arjen

It's turtles all the way down
Senior Member
Joined
Nov 6, 2010
Messages
2,293
Reaction score
56
OM said:
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 :mad: :mad: :mad:
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.
 
A

AAAdrone

Guest
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.
 

Arjen

It's turtles all the way down
Senior Member
Joined
Nov 6, 2010
Messages
2,293
Reaction score
56
AAAdrone said:
...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.
 

Arjen

It's turtles all the way down
Senior Member
Joined
Nov 6, 2010
Messages
2,293
Reaction score
56
[Sheldon_mode]My default setting is to take things at face value.[/Sheldon_mode]
 

fightingirish

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2006
Messages
2,123
Reaction score
97
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
 

Attachments

Jemiba

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Staff member
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Mar 11, 2006
Messages
7,994
Reaction score
150
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 ?
 

RLBH

CLEARANCE: Confidential
Joined
May 5, 2007
Messages
197
Reaction score
14
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.
 

SpudmanWP

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Nov 10, 2008
Messages
1,075
Reaction score
20
What sane runway, the Edwards AFB lakebed?
 

Sea Skimmer

CLEARANCE: Secret
Joined
Jul 13, 2008
Messages
394
Reaction score
11
Arjen said:
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.
 

Orionblamblam

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2006
Messages
7,325
Reaction score
187
Website
www.aerospaceprojectsreview.com
fightingirish said:
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.
 

Pioneer

Seek out and close with the enemy
Senior Member
Joined
May 22, 2006
Messages
1,658
Reaction score
31
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
 

Ardavan.K

CLEARANCE: Confidential
Joined
Jul 6, 2012
Messages
148
Reaction score
2
Matej said:
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
 

Attachments

Steve Pace

Aviation History Writer
Joined
Jan 6, 2013
Messages
2,269
Reaction score
6
Pioneer said:
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
 

Photo Bill

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
May 17, 2008
Messages
507
Reaction score
58
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
 

Attachments

Triton

Donald McKelvy
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2009
Messages
9,723
Reaction score
170
Website
deeptowild.blogspot.com
Artist's impression of re-engined Boeing B-52 Stratofortress.

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

Attachments

JohnR

CLEARANCE: Secret
Joined
Sep 8, 2006
Messages
353
Reaction score
1
What alterations to the T33 would be made to decrease it's fuel consumption?
 

NeilChapman

Interested 3rd party
Joined
Dec 14, 2015
Messages
912
Reaction score
11
Bill S said:
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.
 

frank

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
May 20, 2006
Messages
617
Reaction score
4
I wonder if reverting to the early B-52 tall tail would help. I suppose modifying the current rudder is more feasible.
 

FighterJock

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Oct 29, 2007
Messages
1,004
Reaction score
23
Good news for the B-52, the radar was another part that was badly needing updated. So it looks like the B-52 will carry on flying until 2045.
 
Top