Beyond The Sprues
Modelling => Ideas & Inspiration => Aero-space => Topic started by: GTX_Admin on April 27, 2013, 06:02:08 AM
-
Folks,
A thread for your Boeing B-52 Ideas and Inspiration.
(http://www.gunners.net/_fpclass/photos/B-52/AIR_B-52_Ordnance_Display_lg.jpg)
Regards,
Greg
-
To start with, what might be a suitable designation for a USN Turboprop powered B-52 in the '50s/'60s timeframe? Just asking...not implying any such build might be underway... ;)
-
I must admit that I have always liked the look of the original cockpit:
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f5/X-B52_Ground.jpg)
-
YEAH ! original cockpit + B-36 wing !! .... twin tails ?
48th scale Hercules engines on a 72nd kit ?
-
To start with, what might be a suitable designation for a USN Turboprop powered B-52 in the '50s/'60s timeframe? Just asking...not implying any such build might be underway... ;)
Well, likely P4B or P5B, depending on whether a similar conversion of a B-47 was done before then. It might be interesting to have a B-47 derivative powered by two T57 (turboprop version of J57) engines or, failing that, four T54 engines (analogous to the T40, but based on the T56 instead of the T38).
I once doodled up a turboprop-powered B-60 derivative.
-
I am toying with 4 T57 this making it akin to the Tu-95.
-
48th scale Hercules engines on a 72nd kit ?
Did you have to say that ? Now there is another kitbash added to wanna build list. Already needed three of me working 24/7 just to stunt rate of list growth.
-
Boeing-Republic B-536, 1950.
(http://i148.photobucket.com/albums/s34/hobgrot/b536.png)
-
Needs some turrets I think...
-
I must admit that I have always liked the look of the original cockpit:
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f5/X-B52_Ground.jpg)
Agreed!!
I guess you already know the reason behind the change in the original cockpit of the XB-52, to that of what it would eventually become in the production model's?
M.A.D
-
I am toying with 4 T57 this making it akin to the Tu-95.
That would make a very nice concept indeed. Particularly if combined with the tall tail of the majority of B-52s produced and the electro-optical systems installed on the B-52H. For grins, have a refueling probe plumbed into the aircraft just in front of the boom receptacle so it could use either inflight refueling method.
-
Needs some turrets I think...
profile updated
turrets added + manned rear guns.
-
I love that profile!! That deserves to be built :)
-
Click2Detail has a 1/72 conversion set
https://click2detail.com/products/21/XB-52-Stratofortress-Conversion-Set
-
Click2Detail has a 1/72 conversion set
https://click2detail.com/products/21/XB-52-Stratofortress-Conversion-Set
Already ordered... :-[
Just need to find the right B-52 kit now. Looking for probably a D, G or H...
-
Needs some turrets I think...
profile updated
turrets added + manned rear guns.
:)
-
I am toying with 4 T57 this making it akin to the Tu-95.
That would make a very nice concept indeed. Particularly if combined with the tall tail of the majority of B-52s produced and the electro-optical systems installed on the B-52H. For grins, have a refueling probe plumbed into the aircraft just in front of the boom receptacle so it could use either inflight refueling method.
You reading my mind again? Be careful what you find there... :)
-
*snicker* I know what I'll find in my own mind, I'm not worried. But, seriously, what other approach would be "obvious" here?
Oh, that turbo-prop B-60 I mentioned, that was doodled up for artist Richard Lewis Mendes and he used it in a picture. I'll have to hunt it up if it's still online.
-
A couple thoughts for a B-52-based patrol bomber:
1) The standard heavy bomb rack for the underwing pylons could probably carry air-launched derivatives of full-sized torpedoes, not your standard lightweight air-launched torpedoes.
2) Going to add a MAD boom or deployable mad "bomb"? I like the second option as it causes less blockage for your rear turret.
3) Do you intend to add a sonobuoy launch system and, if so, where? For that matter, will it be crew-served or automatic? The former constrains location considerably.
4) For anti-surface warfare, perhaps anti-shipping versions of the Rascal on the wing pylons? Or a similar derivative of the Hound Dog?
Just a few thoughts as to what might be needed.
-
Depth charge carpet bombing?
-
I am not sure yet. Am considering it as either a Patrol/Attack Bomber with anti Surface role or as a LNG range ASW platform.
-
I suppose my idea will be more akin to the Tu-142 then the Tu-95
-
I am wondering if I can get away with swapping out the eight TF33 engines to just four CFM56 engines on the B-52H. Anyone want to tell me I am wasting my time or that it is a good plan?
-
I'm thinking you're going to want larger engines that CFM56's or more than just four. CFM56's replaced TF33's on a one-for-one basis between the E-3A and the E-3D/F.
I seem to recall that a B-52 re-engining with four RB211's was studied at one time.
you could always do a B-52 with eight CFM56's mounted much the way TF34's were on Boeing's original AWACS proposal, with teh ability to shut down four engines to increase patrol time on station.
-
I'm thinking you're going to want larger engines that CFM56's or more than just four. CFM56's replaced TF33's on a one-for-one basis between the E-3A and the E-3D/F.
I seem to recall that a B-52 re-engining with four RB211's was studied at one time.
you could always do a B-52 with eight CFM56's mounted much the way TF34's were on Boeing's original AWACS proposal, with teh ability to shut down four engines to increase patrol time on station.
I want to have fewer engines. Some versions of the CFM56 were putting out enough thrust to equal the TF33 so with that in mind I was hoping it might be plausible to switch from eight to four engines. Also toying with the idea of using 1:48th scale TF34 engines from a couple of trashed ESCI A-10 kits but have to dig them out of storage to be sure. A quick comparison of a Monogram and Italeri A-10 engine pod shows some hope of it working but the huge gap in the side of the pod will require some body and fender work to cover it up. More later as the situation develops.
-
I'm thinking you're going to want larger engines that CFM56's or more than just four. CFM56's replaced TF33's on a one-for-one basis between the E-3A and the E-3D/F.
I seem to recall that a B-52 re-engining with four RB211's was studied at one time.
you could always do a B-52 with eight CFM56's mounted much the way TF34's were on Boeing's original AWACS proposal, with teh ability to shut down four engines to increase patrol time on station.
I want to have fewer engines. Some versions of the CFM56 were putting out enough thrust to equal the TF33 so with that in mind I was hoping it might be plausible to switch from eight to four engines. Also toying with the idea of using 1:48th scale TF34 engines from a couple of trashed ESCI A-10 kits but have to dig them out of storage to be sure. A quick comparison of a Monogram and Italeri A-10 engine pod shows some hope of it working but the huge gap in the side of the pod will require some body and fender work to cover it up. More later as the situation develops.
Sounds like you really need those CF-6's I sent you Jeff --- which you can also get from Aircraft in Miniature seperately through Hannants (you get four plus the pylons)
http://www.hannants.co.uk/product/TWC72009 (http://www.hannants.co.uk/product/TWC72009)
-
I'm thinking you're going to want larger engines that CFM56's or more than just four. CFM56's replaced TF33's on a one-for-one basis between the E-3A and the E-3D/F.
I seem to recall that a B-52 re-engining with four RB211's was studied at one time.
you could always do a B-52 with eight CFM56's mounted much the way TF34's were on Boeing's original AWACS proposal, with teh ability to shut down four engines to increase patrol time on station.
I want to have fewer engines. Some versions of the CFM56 were putting out enough thrust to equal the TF33 so with that in mind I was hoping it might be plausible to switch from eight to four engines. Also toying with the idea of using 1:48th scale TF34 engines from a couple of trashed ESCI A-10 kits but have to dig them out of storage to be sure. A quick comparison of a Monogram and Italeri A-10 engine pod shows some hope of it working but the huge gap in the side of the pod will require some body and fender work to cover it up. More later as the situation develops.
If you want the same performance you going to have to go for roughly at least the same thrust. That's why the RB.211 was proposed: 8 x TF33s (total thrust ~ 136,000 lb) vs 4 x RB211s (total thrust ~149,600 lb). If you go for the CFM56 (even in its big -7B27 version) you get 4 x CFM56s (total thrust ~109,200 lb). TF34 is going to be even worse...unless you call it something else. ;)
-
I'm thinking you're going to want larger engines that CFM56's or more than just four. CFM56's replaced TF33's on a one-for-one basis between the E-3A and the E-3D/F.
I seem to recall that a B-52 re-engining with four RB211's was studied at one time.
you could always do a B-52 with eight CFM56's mounted much the way TF34's were on Boeing's original AWACS proposal, with teh ability to shut down four engines to increase patrol time on station.
I want to have fewer engines. Some versions of the CFM56 were putting out enough thrust to equal the TF33 so with that in mind I was hoping it might be plausible to switch from eight to four engines. Also toying with the idea of using 1:48th scale TF34 engines from a couple of trashed ESCI A-10 kits but have to dig them out of storage to be sure. A quick comparison of a Monogram and Italeri A-10 engine pod shows some hope of it working but the huge gap in the side of the pod will require some body and fender work to cover it up. More later as the situation develops.
Sounds like you really need those CF-6's I sent you Jeff --- which you can also get from Aircraft in Miniature seperately through Hannants (you get four plus the pylons)
[url]http://www.hannants.co.uk/product/TWC72009[/url] ([url]http://www.hannants.co.uk/product/TWC72009[/url])
CF6 would definitely work from a thrust perspective.
-
If you want the same performance you going to have to go for roughly at least the same thrust. That's why the RB.211 was proposed: 8 x TF33s (total thrust ~ 136,000 lb) vs 4 x RB211s (total thrust ~149,600 lb). If you go for the CFM56 (even in its big -7B27 version) you get 4 x CFM56s (total thrust ~109,200 lb). TF34 is going to be even worse...unless you call it something else. ;)
48th scale TF34 on a 72nd scale B-52 = scale-o-rama and a new identity for the engines in question.
Even with the weight saved by reducing the number of engines by half it is still challenging to find something suitable as a replacement. The problem I see with the CF-6 is that the engines are huge and this could become a real issue for the outboard engine locations where the ground clearance would be the real problem.
-
Shorten the mounting pylon, or stick'em on top of the wing. ;D
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/88/Yc14-1_072.jpg/1280px-Yc14-1_072.jpg)
-
For the X/Y conversion, you need a D--there's a lot of revision in the crop-tail rear fuselages... and even a D will need a lot of work, but it does get you closer.
Reengining: GO BIG OR GO HOME! I had actually pitched to a contact IN B-52 program management @ Boeing Wichita, after consulting a GE tech-rep, installing four monster GE90's uprated to 125,000# each and strengthening the wing to handle it. A StratoPig that can accelerate STRAIGHT UP?
As part of that, I had also endorsed the full Old Dog conversion (replace three-piece stabilizer system with a short V-tail, faster Concorde-style nose, total rebuild with carbon-fiber and other more advanced materials), but also adding the capability to mount a full second weapons pylon (maybe not as high-cap as the mains, but DEF not just a Sidewinder/pod rail as already used) between each wing's nacelles. Possibly reverting to the old 3000-gallon tiptanks and adapting them into a BUFF version of what the F-15 "FAST Pack" CFT concept was: "Fuel/Armament/Sensor, Tactical"--to include a Nemesis DIRCM on the rear of each.
A lighter empty weight, a heavier MTOW--and most importantly, the ability to rack up a buttload of air-to-air payload for those "When you need to close down somebody's skies and KEEP 'EM CLOSED" situations. Might be interesting to compare costs and capabilities of a theoretical "FB-52"-enforced No Fly Zone vs. one patrolled by F-15s...
-
Boeing-Republic B-536, 1950.
Did piston engine confer any low-tech (for being low-tech?) or economical advantage compared to turbojet/turbofan?
-
If you want the same performance you going to have to go for roughly at least the same thrust. That's why the RB.211 was proposed: 8 x TF33s (total thrust ~ 136,000 lb) vs 4 x RB211s (total thrust ~149,600 lb). If you go for the CFM56 (even in its big -7B27 version) you get 4 x CFM56s (total thrust ~109,200 lb). TF34 is going to be even worse...unless you call it something else. ;)
48th scale TF34 on a 72nd scale B-52 = scale-o-rama and a new identity for the engines in question.
Even with the weight saved by reducing the number of engines by half it is still challenging to find something suitable as a replacement. The problem I see with the CF-6 is that the engines are huge and this could become a real issue for the outboard engine locations where the ground clearance would be the real problem.
Mount the outriggers in bays on the outboard engine nacelle?
-
If you want the same performance you going to have to go for roughly at least the same thrust. That's why the RB.211 was proposed: 8 x TF33s (total thrust ~ 136,000 lb) vs 4 x RB211s (total thrust ~149,600 lb). If you go for the CFM56 (even in its big -7B27 version) you get 4 x CFM56s (total thrust ~109,200 lb). TF34 is going to be even worse...unless you call it something else. ;)
48th scale TF34 on a 72nd scale B-52 = scale-o-rama and a new identity for the engines in question.
Even with the weight saved by reducing the number of engines by half it is still challenging to find something suitable as a replacement. The problem I see with the CF-6 is that the engines are huge and this could become a real issue for the outboard engine locations where the ground clearance would be the real problem.
You could perhaps mount and install it similarly to how the CFM56 is mounted and installed on the later 737 models?
-
Evan beat me to the punch... I was JUST about to post "chop down the pylons" after seeing Greg's reply by email.
Problem with doing it YC-14 style is that puts the hot exhaust above the wing... right where a fighter in Look Down Shoot Down can see it, while as-is they're somewhat screened by the wing.
-
Evan beat me to the punch... I was JUST about to post "chop down the pylons" after seeing Greg's reply by email.
Problem with doing it YC-14 style is that puts the hot exhaust above the wing... right where a fighter in Look Down Shoot Down can see it, while as-is they're somewhat screened by the wing.
There are steps that can be taken to mitigate that problem, but not totally resolve it. I'm familiar with some of them from various LO programs.
-
I was thinking a cockpit more like the B-47 -- more transparency and less greenhouse.
I was thinking of the following
1: 2 x Pilots, 1 x EWO/RC Gunner, 1 x Navigator/Bombardier
2: Wing design more like the HP Victor, lower incidence than the B-52; wing repositioned to the mid-position, fuselage flattened a little in the mid-section (allows more lift out of the carry-through area, blends with the wing); engine intakes more like the Avro-Vulcan (better blended) 4 to 6 engines carried there venting through the back of the wing; the remaining 2-4 carried under the wing in a B-52-esque pod :icon_ninja:
3: Tailcone more like the later B-52's with the remote controlled tail-gun
-
I had proposed something more like a Victor wing in the "extended upgrades" section of my pitch as well, but without fuse recontouring--my version, the goal was to increase the number of attach points at wing-body join so it could take more stress and add both speed and maneuverability, and CG was maintained by adding a plug to the forward fuse and stretching the bomb bay.
-
I had proposed something more like a Victor wing in the "extended upgrades" section of my pitch as well, but without fuse recontouring--my version, the goal was to increase the number of attach points at wing-body join so it could take more stress and add both speed and maneuverability
The idea of flattening the fuselage is that it is even more effective in building strength into the aircraft as the fuselage and wing become progressively blended into each other allowing a lighter fuselage for the same g-load. So long as an adequate bomb-load could be carried, you're good.
-
As an alternate engine fit, consider the flying testbed for the B-2 engine and exhaust (a special nacelle under a NKC-135) and use twin engine nacelles with a B-1B style intake and B-2 style exhausts. It'd still be an eight-engined aircraft but have a much lower signature and there would be engine commonality with the B-2 and U-2S.
-
ISTR that B-52s actually WERE used as the testbed for both CF6 and JT9D...
-
Last night while going through some of the models I got an idea for an upgraded B-52. I had pulled some parts out of the box which has my Boeing 767 in (radome AEW bits) when I looked at the kit itself again. The fuselage is earmarked for another project which would leave me with the wings (Jeff already has the engines from it), so after all the talk of re-engining the B-52, how about re-winging it too.
Some google searches reveals that the new 767-400 has a max' take-off weight of 450,000 lbs, that's pretty much on par with the max take-off weight of a B-52H (480,000) and one CF6 has almost the power as four TF-33's. So I would shoulder mount the 767 wing on the B-52 but then use a GE90 engine. You could modify the nacelle to a shape like the new 737 CFM 56 nacelles to make sure we had ground clearance.
I would do away with the wing tip u/c gear, and spread the main gear wider and have them in sponsons, maybe like a C-17 sponson only longer with the main gear at the front and back of each one, maybe even use C-17 main gear instead (three wheels per corner). The space between them could be additional bomb bay space ----- I think I like this idea ;)
-
Kitnut 617
I'd recommend against reducing the number of engines to two for the following reasons
- The B-52 was designed with four engine pylons with double-pods
- Even if you removed the double-pods and put a single engine in their place you'd keep the pylon number the same
- The pylons and pods effectively counteracted the flexure of the wing: You'd have to reposition the new pylon somewhere between the two old ones: This could necessitate a total wing redesign
That being said, I'd recommend using the RB211-535E4B
- Though I'm not fond of using a foreign engine in a military aircraft because it requires us to depend on a foreign country for supplies
- I'm also not fond of using foreign products when domestic products exist that can do the job
- That being said the RB211-E4 have already been proposed for the B-52
- Thrust level is about 43,500 an engine, fairly close to double that of the TF33 (maybe a little higher)
- It has a fairly low bypass ratio by the standards of most modern high-bypass ratio turbofans (4.0 to 4.4:1) which means more thrust at altitude than the PW2043 (the other design)
-
Kitnut 617
I'd recommend against reducing the number of engines to two for the following reasons
- The B-52 was designed with four engine pylons with double-pods
- Even if you removed the double-pods and put a single engine in their place you'd keep the pylon number the same
- The pylons and pods effectively counteracted the flexure of the wing: You'd have to reposition the new pylon somewhere between the two old ones: This could necessitate a total wing redesign [/b]
Nexus1171
I have said I would change the wing entirely, I'll use a Boeing 767 wing --- shoulder mounted ----
-
I have said I would change the wing entirely, I'll use a Boeing 767 wing --- shoulder mounted ----
Robert, might be a good time to consider the "V Tail" too :)
-
I have said I would change the wing entirely, I'll use a Boeing 767 wing --- shoulder mounted ----
Robert, might be a good time to consider the "V Tail" too :)
Not a fan of the 'Vee' tail Jeff, plus it's not that popular with the real engineers either, otherwise we'd see a lot more aircraft with it. I think for my project the fin and rudder will end up a little like a 767 though ----
-
Unless you've got other reasons, like hiding the engine exhuast on the Global Hawk, a V-tail does not ipso facto impart any special LO benefits. If I was doing an "Old Dog"-style aircraft, the tail would probably more resemble an inverted and scaled TSSAM set of tail surfaces and probably use similar LO structure.
-
If I was doing an "Old Dog"-style aircraft, the tail would probably more resemble an inverted and scaled TSSAM set of tail surfaces and probably use similar LO structure.
What benifits does the TSSAM style tail offer Evan ? and if I use the 767 wing, would it be compatable ?
-
Inverting and scaling the TSSAM tail surfaces gives you very nice planform-aligned edges. Since they are also all-moving, you can use big actuators within the fuselage rather than a bunch of small ones in the fixed portions of the tail surfaces. I don't expect there'd be any problem with using the 767 wing, though I suspect such a fit on a 1/1 scale bird would use different materials for signature reduction.
-
A plan comes together ------ ;)
-
This sounds intriguing to build. :)
You may start cutting and filing styrene at any time.
1/144 ?
-
This sounds intriguing to build. :)
You may start cutting and filing styrene at any time.
1/144 ?
1/72 -- ;)
-
For purposes of scaling the TSSAM tail surfaces, match the vertical tail "span" to that of the B-52G/H and similarly scale the horizontal tail surfaces. As all-moving surfaces, that's going to give you powerful tail control.
-
Where do you find a 1/72 767 ?
-
For purposes of scaling the TSSAM tail surfaces, match the vertical tail "span" to that of the B-52G/H and similarly scale the horizontal tail surfaces. As all-moving surfaces, that's going to give you powerful tail control.
I think I'll need that with a pair of GE90-85'2 Evan :-\
Where do you find a 1/72 767 ?
Aircraft in Miniature Bill --
http://www.aim72.co.uk/page231.html (http://www.aim72.co.uk/page231.html)
http://www.aim72.co.uk/page77.html (http://www.aim72.co.uk/page77.html)
which I have --- pics show a comparison with an Avro Vulcan/Atlantic
-
Various info here (http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,245.0.html) on all sorts of unbuilt B-52s including those with bigger engines.
-
kitnut617
Well, a new wing would fix the problem. Keep in mind though that the B-52 was designed to fly at altitudes higher than the 767 was designed to on a routine basis and as a result the plane's wing is larger in span and area.
Wing Area
B-52: 4000 square feet
767-400: 3130 square feet
Wingspan
B-52: 185'0"
767-400: 170'4"
Also, the 767s are designed for a lower maximum mach number than the B-52
B-52: Mach 0.90-91
767: Mach 0.86
I read GTX_Admin's link and there's some data that states the B-52 didn't have enough rudder-control to keep the plane in a straight line if had 4 engines each producing 40,000 pounds of thrust, and the outboards failed: I suppose you could put in a new rudder. I don't know if you'd need to enlarge the tail-fin, or if you'd just enlarge the area of the rudder.
-
I'm thinking that my concept of adopting the all-moving TSSAM-style vertical here (TSSAM lines scaled up to match the span of the B-52G/H vertical) might help with both reduced RCS and enhanced vertical tail authority.
-
kitnut617
Well, a new wing would fix the problem. Keep in mind though that the B-52 was designed to fly at altitudes higher than the 767 was designed to on a routine basis and as a result the plane's wing is larger in span and area.
Wing Area
B-52: 4000 square feet
767-400: 3130 square feet
Wingspan
B-52: 185'0"
767-400: 170'4"
I had already worked all that out Robyn (now is that your real, real name ::) ). However the two wings can lift nearly the same load ---- and as B-52's now fly at medium to low altitude, I'm not worried what it was initially designed to do. Plus the B-52 wing is a 1950's design, the 767 wing a 70's/80's so more advanced I would think ---- On top of all that I was going to increase the 767 wing span anyway, only not just extending wingtips, I'll work at the wing root, probably add an extra inch to the model's wings. This was planned because of the GE90 engines I intend to mount on the wing, I need some more space between them and the sponson mounted main u/c.
-
Yeah, keeping the interference drag down can help markedly. I suspect that, if this was done IRL, they'd keep the loft lines of the 767 wing but have more spars, spaced to mate with the B-52's spar frames in the fuselage. Anything else would start to get *real* messy. I'm looking forward to seeing how this goes.
-
Extending the various loft lines is how I intend to do it Evan, much the same as what I'm working out for my Vulcan wing re-engine project (for CFM 56 or RR equivalent). The profile gauge I have though is not dense enough with the spines to give a really accurate profile so I might have to cut the wing parallel and a couple of inches futher out from the wing root so I can trace the chord better. I'll then work it out on the computer.
-
I was doing some 1/72 engine sizing last night, a GE90-85 nacelle outside diameter is 137", which is 1.9" in 1/72, (the fan itself is 123" in diameter which is the same as a Spitfire prop). This is very convenient because 1 1/2" NPT pipe just happens to be 1.9" OD. All I've got to do is get a bunch of short pipe lengths in ABS plastic (2"-4") and stick them in a lathe and turn a shape onto them. This will also help with a visual of how it will look on the B-52 before hand ---
-
http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/show-daily/afa/2015/02/12/b52-engine-private-public-partnership/23185827/ (http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/show-daily/afa/2015/02/12/b52-engine-private-public-partnership/23185827/)
"Analysts have identified the Pratt PW2000 engine, known as the F117 on military aircraft, as a potential replacement. That engine is used on the 757 commercial jet, which ended production about a decade ago, and the C-17 military cargo plane, which ends production this year.
Speaking the day before Holmes, Bennett Croswell, head of Pratt's military engines unit, told reporters his company has made "some very attractive offerings" to the Air Force.
Croswell said that while the F117 may be logical, in the past there were issues with control authority of the plane that could have required a re-wing to mount the more powerful engines. That problem has been solved, he said, and the company has offerings that can keep the eight-engine configuration."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pratt_%26_Whitney_PW2000 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pratt_%26_Whitney_PW2000)
-
Here we go again...
-
Here we go again...
;D
-
Aw c'mon Greg, they're looking at new 'public/private cooperative ventures' for funding the program,
you know you want to get in on that.
;D
-
hmmm…spend lot's of money pursuing an opportunity that just isn't there…me thinks not.
-
Start a KickStarter or Crowd/Cloud Funding program to replace the engines on the B-52... :)
-
Start a KickStarter or Crowd/Cloud Funding program to replace the engines on the B-52... :)
;D
-
I know this comes up often but I would think that the upgrade is the last thing the USAF would want with LRS-B in the works. I know its been said before plenty but the juice probably isn't worth the squeeze for whats left with the B-52.
-
I know this comes up often but I would think that the upgrade is the last thing the USAF would want with LRS-B in the works. I know its been said before plenty but the juice probably isn't worth the squeeze for whats left with the B-52.
Well said; agree. Perhaps if there was more time left on B-52 clock.
Or,,,, Perhaps if cost is attractive enough a do limited number which eliminate comstraints on certain mission scenerios and reduce tanker demands. Thatz my WAG.
Make sense to retain those modified B-52 longer as bomb trucks for low threat missions ?
-
I know this comes up often but I would think that the upgrade is the last thing the USAF would want with LRS-B in the works. I know its been said before plenty but the juice probably isn't worth the squeeze for whats left with the B-52.
Well said; agree. Perhaps if there was more time left on B-52 clock.
Or,,,, Perhaps if cost is attractive enough a do limited number which eliminate comstraints on certain mission scenerios and reduce tanker demands. Thatz my WAG.
Make sense to retain those modified B-52 longer as bomb trucks for low threat missions ?
I think it might have been worth doing in the early 1990s hindsight being what it is, but having missed that window...
-
Random thought- USN EB-52 "Apollo"
-
Somewhere I saw a whiff of a B-52 modified as a seaplane waterbomber. I was thinking of putting the engines above the wings YC-14 style.
-
From Flight Global
PARIS: P&W developing upgrade package for B-52 engine
By: STEPHEN TRIMBLEPARIS Source: 6 hours ago
Pratt & Whitney is developing a proposal for a package of performance upgrades for the existing Boeing B-52 engine after
the US Air Force again postponed a plan to replace the venerable bomber’s 60-year old TF33 engine.
Several four-engined solutions have been evaluated by the USAF to replace the eight TF33s on board each B-52H.
But the four-engined aircraft may not have enough rudder authority to counter the adverse yaw generated by an
outboard engine-out scenario, says P&W military engines president Bennett Croswell.
So P&W proposed a re-engined B-52s with eight new turbofan engines, but the USAF instead decided to postpone the programme,
he says.
The TF33 was derived from the original P&W JT3 turbojet engine that drove the first generation of jet-powered Amercian airliners.
P&W is developing an upgrade package to improve the fuel and maintenance performance for the TF33 through the end of its service life.
The USAF currently plans to operate the B-52 fleet to at least 2060.
__________________________________________________________
Note this line: But the four-engined aircraft may not have enough rudder authority to counter the adverse yaw generated by an outboard
engine-out scenario, says P&W military engines president Bennett Croswell.
So perhaps a four-engine B-52 would need the old D model tail? ;D
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/3a/Boeing_B-52F-70-BW_%28SN_57-0162%29_in_flight_dropping_bombs_061128-F-1234S-004.jpg/1024px-Boeing_B-52F-70-BW_%28SN_57-0162%29_in_flight_dropping_bombs_061128-F-1234S-004.jpg)
-
Maybe just replace the TF33's on a one-for-one basis with JT8D-200 variants (possibly with by-pass ratio reduced to work with existing cowlings?)?
-
Here we go again...I wonder if they can make the business case work this time?
-
Here we go again...I wonder if they can make the business case work this time?
Clearly the business case failed, as the story states that no re-engining is going to happen, the TF33s are to be upgraded.
-
You could use the B-52 as a carrier aircraft for a reusable launch vehicle, e.g. as was envisioned in the early sixties for the Junkers RT-8-01 Raumtransporter two stage spaceplane shown here:
https://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQSxqDzNdIxsQlq9bg_TSwoICUIiGjgswyuivTURzgPb93fc5pZ-Q (https://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQSxqDzNdIxsQlq9bg_TSwoICUIiGjgswyuivTURzgPb93fc5pZ-Q)
More information and larger pictures (though you have to be a member to see them) can be found here:
http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,2334.0/all.html (http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,2334.0/all.html)
Yet more/larger pics of the Junkers concept can also be found here: http://www.fandom.ru/about_fan/zubakin_25.htm (http://www.fandom.ru/about_fan/zubakin_25.htm)
A more exotic variant would be to turn it into a twin fuselage design, once again as a carrier for a shuttle/reusable launch vehicle, as was envisaged in the seventies for the Conroy Virtus:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conroy_Virtus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conroy_Virtus)
Another variation of the B-52 as the basis for an outsized transporter was the Colossal Guppy concept from the same source as the Virtus design:
http://www.aerospaceprojectsreview.com/blog/?p=1221 (http://www.aerospaceprojectsreview.com/blog/?p=1221)
a twin configuration could also be used for launch operations, analogous to the twin C-5A conceived for RLV deployment by Robert Salkeld or the current Stratolaunch carrier aircraft:
http://www.pmview.com/spaceodysseytwo/spacelvs/sld039.htm (http://www.pmview.com/spaceodysseytwo/spacelvs/sld039.htm)
http://www.gizmag.com/stratolaunch-systems-air-launch/20839/ (http://www.gizmag.com/stratolaunch-systems-air-launch/20839/)
Martin
-
A different view of a B-52:
https://youtu.be/V0FPqdsC8_Y
-
A different view of a B-52:
https://youtu.be/V0FPqdsC8_Y
Great find
-
Last night while going through some of the models I got an idea for an upgraded B-52. I had pulled some parts out of the box which has my Boeing 767 in (radome AEW bits) when I looked at the kit itself again. The fuselage is earmarked for another project which would leave me with the wings (Jeff already has the engines from it), so after all the talk of re-engining the B-52, how about re-winging it too.
Some google searches reveals that the new 767-400 has a max' take-off weight of 450,000 lbs, that's pretty much on par with the max take-off weight of a B-52H (480,000) and one CF6 has almost the power as four TF-33's. So I would shoulder mount the 767 wing on the B-52 but then use a GE90 engine. You could modify the nacelle to a shape like the new 737 CFM 56 nacelles to make sure we had ground clearance.
I would do away with the wing tip u/c gear, and spread the main gear wider and have them in sponsons, maybe like a C-17 sponson only longer with the main gear at the front and back of each one, maybe even use C-17 main gear instead (three wheels per corner). The space between them could be additional bomb bay space ----- I think I like this idea ;)
I was doing some 1/72 engine sizing last night, a GE90-85 nacelle outside diameter is 137", which is 1.9" in 1/72, (the fan itself is 123" in diameter which is the same as a Spitfire prop). This is very convenient because 1 1/2" NPT pipe just happens to be 1.9" OD. All I've got to do is get a bunch of short pipe lengths in ABS plastic (2"-4") and stick them in a lathe and turn a shape onto them. This will also help with a visual of how it will look on the B-52 before hand ---
Well, the only thing left to source (or scratch-build) were some engines for my project , but now I have some 1/72 scale GE90's being made for me right now ---
-
Here's an odd one ripped from the headlines:
(https://www.flightglobal.com/assets/getasset.aspx?itemid=66042) (https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/usaf-flaunts-arsenal-plane-concept-at-air-warfare-422472/)
Flightglobal: USAF flaunts ‘arsenal plane’ concept at Air Warfare Symposium (https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/usaf-flaunts-arsenal-plane-concept-at-air-warfare-422472/)
The love child of a C-130 and a B-52, it reminds me a lot of the old C-123A, just sixty years on!
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/55/Chase_XC-123A.jpg)
Cheers,
Logan
-
Look, the last B-52 rolled off the line in 1960, for Pete's sake. You really want to spend that kind of dough to heavily modify these museum pieces? Buy another couple dozen C-17s wired up to handle this sort of thing. Hell, modify a couple dozen of the C-17s we have.
-
You learn something new every day: for instance, I never knew that some early B-52A/Bs had twin 20mm tail guns:
(http://www.donhollway.com/foxtwo/B-52B_53-0380.jpg)
(http://www.afwing.com/intro/b52/rb52b%20tailgun.jpg)
(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/564x/29/29/16/2929164719034c2f4982e2ca5180e664.jpg)
-
It looks like the tail turret from the B-47, just a different radar
-
Er, I believe you need to make a small correction in your post, Greg, that should be "20mm" not "200mm". Two 200mm guns firing aft would be impressive though, your own flying artillery battery. :)
-
That B-52A gun mount is ugly, it belongs on the front of some russian 1950s lavichkin
-
Well, I never knew about the 20mm, but the Gatling is also news to me! Cool beans!
-
Well, I never knew about the 20mm, but the Gatling is also news to me! Cool beans!
And now they have nothing:
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/23/B-52H_tail.JPG/800px-B-52H_tail.JPG)
-
I like what they propposed for the Seamaster. ;D
How about a new version for self-defense on the 'arsenal plane' B-52?
(http://i729.photobucket.com/albums/ww291/joncarrfarrelly/DES_143_BUSHFIRE_01.png)
-
Some guys will go to extraordinary lengths to keep the neighbours dogs/cats/kids off their property...
(http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3242/2656404343_39c8d04b69_z.jpg)
-
Here's an odd one ripped from the headlines:
(https://www.flightglobal.com/assets/getasset.aspx?itemid=66042) (https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/usaf-flaunts-arsenal-plane-concept-at-air-warfare-422472/)
Flightglobal: USAF flaunts ‘arsenal plane’ concept at Air Warfare Symposium (https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/usaf-flaunts-arsenal-plane-concept-at-air-warfare-422472/)
The love child of a C-130 and a B-52, it reminds me a lot of the old C-123A, just sixty years on!
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/55/Chase_XC-123A.jpg)
Cheers,
Logan
I love these! :) :) :)
-
(https://scontent-ord1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/t31.0-8/13247890_1103010743092199_4125442311356710504_o.jpg)
Source: Deviant Art via Facebook
-
That is really excellent. Love the winglets :-* :-*
-
That is really excellent. Love the winglets :-* :-*
Meh. Too blocky (looks like an A330 winglet), modern Boeing winglets are more curvy. :icon_punal:
(http://de.academic.ru/pictures/dewiki/66/Boeing_747_Flugel.jpg)
While not as organic as later, more recent designs, even the old 747-400 winglets have a subtle curve and greater rake than
what the illustrator has drawn.
(http://www.flugzeuge.de/userfiles/847/Boeing--Boeing-737-800-Turkish-mit-Winglets-_1890.JPG)
(https://worldairlinenews.files.wordpress.com/2014/04/southwest-737-800-sswl-n8624j-wingletssouthwestlr.jpg?w=620)
(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-kSV7YlhfEPQ/UmsvDooZM9I/AAAAAAAAAAA/ZJDCStGcYkE/s1600/Boeing_737-MAX_Dual_Winglet_K65656-02.JPG)
Anyhow to make it really up to date and have the Boeing heavy look, raked tips rather than winglets would be the way to go.
(http://www.defensetech.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/P_8A_over_water.jpg)
P-8 raked tips similar to 767-400 raked tip design, the first of the raked tip Boeing aircraft.
(http://img03.deviantart.net/ee0e/i/2010/040/0/b/boeing_747_8_overhead_by_shelbs2.jpg)
747-8F
-
Has anyone done a CB-52 transport conversion? I am thinking of something with the B-52 akin to the XC-99 - B-36 relationship:
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/47/Convair_XC-99_and_B-36B_in_flight_c1949.jpg)
-
That's an excellent idea Greg, and I look forward to your 1/48 version.
-
Well, there was this proposal:
(http://up-ship.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/Av-wee-nov-14-66-super-guppy.jpg)
(http://up-ship.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/colossal-guppy.jpg)
and also this:
(http://www.allaboutguppys.com/whatif/gupy260a.jpg)
Thoguh I was thinking of something a tad less radical and for more every day use.
-
Perhaps combine a B-52 wings and tail with an A380 fuselage, perhaps putting the wings at mid-level so the wing loads and beams go through the structure between the upper and lower decks; you'd need landing gear sponsons but it would be doable.
-
When I was getting bits and pieces to do this below, I thought about using B-52 wings for it. Problem was they were way too small in everyway.
-
The problem with the B-52 is that it's huge for a bomber, but not that huge for a transport - the 52 is about the same size as the Starlifter, but is positively dwarfed by the Galaxy. And while the 8-engine design may be advantageous in asymmetric thrust situations, it's just a maintenance black hole 99,99% of the time. I can see USAF wanting a transport version for "commonality" back in the day, but then again, there would probably be more sense in having a bit later larger 747F based transports and the suggested ALCM arsenal planes (which is what the G & H versions effectively were in their eventual nuclear deterrent role).
-
Maybe a tad boring, but a "quick smash" might just be using B-52 wings on a C-17 Fueselage, along with B-52 tails/tailfins. Bonus, you can use the C-17 wings for the re-engined B-52?
???
Don't know how they would size up...
-
Perhaps something along these lines:
(http://photos.smugmug.com/BTS/i-67rZJ4v/0/374875ce/O/707_DEV_3-VIEW_04.png)
-
That looks neat Jon :)
Now I wonder what we could use to make that (in 1/72 scale) think on it I will :icon_meditation:
-
Although not a transport per sae, this might give people some ideas:
(http://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e68/GTwiner/Boeing%20E-3%20AWACS%20early%208%20engines%202_zpsarwqur1e.jpg)
(http://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e68/GTwiner/707%20awacs_zpsupmfkxdv.gif~original)
(http://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e68/GTwiner/KGrHqIOKm8E2dzfDt8BNwj9elNZQ_3_zpsytjpeiqf.jpg)
-
Interesting looking AWACS...
(http://i2.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/000/976/824/913.gif)
-
Interesting looking AWACS...
([url]http://i2.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/000/976/824/913.gif[/url])
engines were 8X TF34s so that some could be shut down to prolong time on station while maintaining reasonable takeoff performance with all at full military power. I.e. shut some down completely rather than throttling back all of them.
-
No comments :-X
(http://i1080.photobucket.com/albums/j340/ysi_maniac/Drawing/B-52EX.jpg) (http://s1080.photobucket.com/user/ysi_maniac/media/Drawing/B-52EX.jpg.html)
-
Strangely attractive...
-
Me like very much! :D
-
([url]http://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e68/GTwiner/Boeing%20E-3%20AWACS%20early%208%20engines%202_zpsarwqur1e.jpg[/url])
Love this. Paired engines have a certain appeal to me. :-*
-
I sort of did that with my Concorde B.1
-
(https://scontent.fxds1-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/72949487_2362853423979749_6385168518496649216_n.jpg?_nc_cat=102&_nc_oc=AQmyKna_DYYxxrzixK8oO1vFAW0pA1CkD0uQ9M-uJerHJmAyQaF44cfJ_il2IgxcWEQ&_nc_ht=scontent.fxds1-1.fna&oh=14a4a3445140293efc718ffa263b6fda&oe=5E27881A)
-
Just a photo:
(https://i.pinimg.com/originals/d5/14/6b/d5146b889f1d2c2623c80f0b632bb2ed.jpg)
-
Steve Trimble @TheDEWLine
New Lockheed image. Four AGM-183A ARRWs on a B-52H. Those are some serious boosters. A B-1B will be able to carry six.
AGM-183A. Air-Launched Rapid Response Weapon (AARW) is a hypersonic strike weapon developed by the US Air Force.
https://defpost.com/lockheed-martin-releases-new-rendering-of-its-agm-183a-air-launched-rapid-response-weapon-arrw-showing-hypersonic-glide-warhead/
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EWz70k4XQAECpsp?format=jpg&name=large)
-
Jamie Hunter - Aviacom Media @jamie_aviacom
Apr 28
USAF has released draft RFP to replace B-52H's TF33 engines. GE Aviation, Pratt & Whitney, and Rolls-Royce expected to respond. Read the full story in forthcoming June
@AIR_Intl and soon on @key_aero #USAF
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EWrLaw5XsAA08-4?format=jpg&name=medium)
-
Six engined B-52:
(https://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e68/GTwiner/GTwiner154/XB-52%20J75%20test%20-crop_zpsxqedqtzl.jpg)
https://media.defense.gov/2020/Feb/21/2002253097/-1/-1/1/HN2-%20B-52%20RE-ENGINING.PDF
-
Via Facebook. XB-52 Tilt-Rotor.
(https://scontent.fxds1-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.6435-9/p843x403/240435512_10159864622822386_976253255045916869_n.jpg?_nc_cat=111&ccb=1-5&_nc_sid=825194&_nc_ohc=fNHSMvz3TWsAX8exUHJ&_nc_ht=scontent.fxds1-1.fna&oh=a8cc35fcf4f233258f437ce7019cfbe6&oe=6149B353)
-
;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Wonderful,,, and another ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Rolls-Royce North America selected to power the B-52 Commercial Engine Replacement Program
Rolls-Royce North America has been selected to provide the powerplant for the B-52 Stratofortress under the Commercial Engine Replacement Program (CERP), further extending a long history of powering the United States Air Force.
The decision means the American-made Rolls-Royce F-130 engine will power the B-52 for the next 30 years. The Air Force made the announcement after a vigorous multi-year competition.
Rolls-Royce will build and test the F130 engines at its Indianapolis, Indiana, facility following the recent completion of a $600 million investment to revitalize the advanced manufacturing campus -- providing some of the most technologically advanced state-of-the-art manufacturing facilities anywhere in the world. The B-52 CERP win creates demand for 650 engines to be produced at the site and will bring 150 new high-tech, high-skilled jobs for the state of Indiana.
[Note: The F130 is based on the BR725 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rolls-Royce_BR700)].
Press release here: https://www.rolls-royce.com/media/press-releases/2021/24-09-2021-rr-north-america-selected-to-power-the-b-52-commercial-engine-replacement-program.aspx (https://www.rolls-royce.com/media/press-releases/2021/24-09-2021-rr-north-america-selected-to-power-the-b-52-commercial-engine-replacement-program.aspx)
-
Was actually speaking with RR folks yesterday re this. The F130 is a RR BR725 which is itself a variant of the BR710. The BR725 is already used on platforms such as the Gulfstream G650.
Comparing engines:
P&W TF33-P-3 as already used on B-52H
Length: 142.3 in (3,610 mm)
Diameter: 53 in (1,300 mm)
Dry weight: 4,605 lb (2,089 kg)
Thrust: 17,000 lbf (75.62 kN)
RR F130 as proposed for new B-52?
Length: 129.8 in (3,297 mm)
Diameter: 50 in (1,270 mm)
Dry weight: 3,605 lb (1,635.2 kg )
Thrust: 17,000 lbf (75.62 kN)
So same thrust but in a slightly smaller, lighter package.
-
What about fuel and oil consumption rates of the F130 as compared to the TF-33?
I'll suggest that the new version be called the B-52RR. I know where the door is.
-
Speaking of differently engined B-52s:
(https://hosting.photobucket.com/images/e68/GTwiner/af-b52d.jpg)
(https://hosting.photobucket.com/images/e68/GTwiner/af-b52b.jpg)
(https://hosting.photobucket.com/images/e68/GTwiner/af-b52c.jpg)
https://www.aerotechnews.com/blog/2020/02/24/history-in-two-new-power-for-an-old-soldier-re-engining-the-b-52-stratofortress/ (https://www.aerotechnews.com/blog/2020/02/24/history-in-two-new-power-for-an-old-soldier-re-engining-the-b-52-stratofortress/)
-
What about fuel and oil consumption rates of the F130 as compared to the TF-33?
I'll suggest that the new version be called the B-52RR. I know where the door is.
The USAF's requirements were fairly stringent and their target was a 30% reduction in
fuel consumption, it would interesting to see how close R-R got with the F130 proposal.
-
New Article: Air Force Magazine: New Power for the B-52 (https://www.airforcemag.com/article/new-power-for-the-b-52/)
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FPLoQ50akAQYl6r?format=jpg&name=4096x4096)
Click on image to B-52 size it.
-
2060!
??? "the $500 million contract covers powerplants...valued at $2.6 billion"
Someone got a deal!!
-
2060!
??? "the $500 million contract covers powerplants...valued at $2.6 billion"
Someone got a deal!!
That's $500 million to cover the first two engines Gingie ;) the 162 odd engine production run will cost $2.6 billion
-
"2122 - The B-52 is getting its last engine upgrade, to 8 Hafnium isomer power plants. This should extend the life of the B-52 to 2152, it's bicentennial"
-
(https://hosting.photobucket.com/images/e68/GTwiner/20220402_235834.jpg)
-
The story of the B-52 Stratofortress that carried the Flashback Test Vehicle, the Nuclear Bomb Bigger than the Soviet Tsar Bomba
The Flashback Test Vehicle was larger by far than any other nuclear bomb in the US inventory at the time. It is a little bit bigger than the Soviet Tsar Bomba, the 50 megaton monster detonated in 1960 and designed to be 100 megatons in yield.
(https://theaviationgeekclub.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/B-52-FBNV.jpg)
(https://theaviationgeekclub.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/Flashback-B-52-Bomb-Bay.jpg)
(https://theaviationgeekclub.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/FBTV.jpg)
Source: https://theaviationgeekclub.com/the-story-of-the-b-52-stratofortress-that-carried-the-flashback-test-vehicle-the-nuclear-bomb-bigger-than-the-soviet-tsar-bomba/
-
(https://external-preview.redd.it/FGBxVIhIm7elyA8S6XGAZFt_C69q2qXGcBrH20N468c.png?width=960&crop=smart&auto=webp&s=0d7fb82a2b41e065443ceac425175cf33994e7f1)
-
Hey Glorck! Look at this! It's the strangest starship design I've ever seen.
-
Knew/felt it intuitively. They skipped the jets and went straight to warpdrive.
-
Would photon torpedoes fit in the bomb bay?
-
Well, in a couple of the movies they used photon torpedo cases as coffins for "burial in space", & they were barely longer than the occupants, so I'd say absolutely.
-
Would photon torpedoes fit in the bomb bay?
If you are okay with the prices at Shapeways, here is a link to a maker that offers the Star Trek Photon Torpedo in a number of scales including 1/48 and 1/72:
Shapeways > Lisbon Designs By Luís Monteiro (https://www.shapeways.com/shops/lisbondesign?section=star+Trek&s=0)
-
Interesting! Then there are the four warp drive engines. Phasers in the chin turrets under the cockpit?
-
(https://external-preview.redd.it/FGBxVIhIm7elyA8S6XGAZFt_C69q2qXGcBrH20N468c.png?width=960&crop=smart&auto=webp&s=0d7fb82a2b41e065443ceac425175cf33994e7f1)
That's the old one - it was later re-engined...again:
(https://hosting.photobucket.com/images/e68/GTwiner/BUFFs_forever!.jpeg?width=590&height=590&fit=bounds)
-
A clean wing for hanging weapons ...