Spacepope From Vatican City, joined Dec 1999, 2739 posts, RR: 1 Reply 1, posted (9 years 10 months 3 weeks 4 days ago) and read 9967 times:
So... what are we looking at here? Re-engining with 8 modern turbofans... JT8D-200 series? That could spell the end of much of the MD-80 fleet. RR Spey is out of the question. Perhaps BR-715. Either way, 4 engines or 8, it promises to be a different looking bird. Are there any artist's impressions available that shows how these re-engined birds would look?
RayChuang From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 7696 posts, RR: 5 Reply 2, posted (9 years 10 months 3 weeks 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 9880 times:
I think the proposal could come down to between using four GE F103 (neé CF6-50) engines rated at 51,000 lb. thrust or eight Pratt & Whitney JT8D-219 engines rated at 22,000 lb. thrust. The big question is whether the new engines will be able to withstand the rigors of low-altitude flying, which can impose a huge amount of stress on the engines.
Spacepope From Vatican City, joined Dec 1999, 2739 posts, RR: 1 Reply 5, posted (9 years 10 months 3 weeks 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 9839 times:
What good are boatloads of TF-33s if you can't afford to service them? Plus, what kind of reliability would you expect from an engine that not only has been sitting in a warehouse for 20 years, and before that recieved god knows what kind of maintainence while hanging off the wing of some beat up south american freighter? Maybe on the C-5 reliability is not an issue (hey, you don't really need the CF6 upgrade, the Air Force can just keep repairing the engines you're currently stuck with indefinitely, right?) but with current useage of the B-52 (they are still flying sorties over Afghanistan and Iraq, as well as participating in excercises in Africa), it's a way of piling up long hours per cycle. What is the minimum amount of engines that a B-52 can fly on now anyway? And how close to those numbers are the crews experiencing? 8 engines means twice the likelyhood of something going wrong as on the KC-135/C-141, and with their podded design, if a turbine comes apart, it'll probably take out its neighbor too. The BUFF needs new engines now, and will even more so by the time the study is finished. Constantly reworking clapped-out TF-33s may seem like the easiest solution, but new engines will be cheaper in the long run.
Galaxy5 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 2034 posts, RR: 27 Reply 6, posted (9 years 10 months 3 weeks 3 days ago) and read 9795 times:
The C-5 is a totally different subject, the TF-39 is not in abundant supply unlike the TF-33, there are no spares for the 39, and most of the TF-33's arent siting in a junk yard for 20 years, they are maintained in viable storage to be used when needed. The TF-33 relaiblity is also fairly high and there arent any major defects for the engine. The buff is in no rushed need for an engine upgrade, there are other projects out there that require funding before the B-52 needs new engines. And if current trends keep up the Buff or C-5 will never see upgraded engines.
"damn, I didnt know prince could Ball like that" - Charlie Murphy
Spacepope From Vatican City, joined Dec 1999, 2739 posts, RR: 1 Reply 9, posted (9 years 10 months 3 weeks 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 9721 times:
I disagree, as the report states clearly that there is a current research program underway, and that this new one is about to/ has already started. I really doubt that they would just re-publish a 7 year old article in Aviation Week, especially when it appears with articles about the prototype stealth drone used in Iraq as well.
SWA TPA From United States of America, joined Aug 2001, 1559 posts, RR: 43 Reply 11, posted (9 years 10 months 3 weeks 2 days ago) and read 9721 times:
No, no, no, no, no. Don't go messing with my big babies like that! Its not a B-52 if its got 4 engines! We must have 8! What's a B-52 with 4 engines? It would look like an anorexic Antonov aircraft or something.
Hmmm, maybe I could get a TF-33 for cheap then and stick in my back yard. On second thought, I don't think this would go over real big with the home owners association
I love this plane. They cant disfigure her like that! NOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!
Galaxy5 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 2034 posts, RR: 27 Reply 12, posted (9 years 10 months 3 weeks 2 days ago) and read 9729 times:
Hey SWA TPA i read your dosier and noticed how much you liked Buffs, i used to be the Crew Chief on 61-0007 "the Black Widow" at Minot AFB ND. I loved the aircraft and hope it gets more funding but i dont think it will happen, im sure it will remain the 8 engine behemoth it is.
"damn, I didnt know prince could Ball like that" - Charlie Murphy
Manzoori From UK - England, joined Sep 2002, 1516 posts, RR: 37 Reply 16, posted (9 years 10 months 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 9468 times:
Thanks for the comment TJ!
Yeah... the incomplete image thing is because of the new 'skyscraper' ad format seen down the side of the messages. As a first class member, If I were to log in then the image would appear OK on this page.
As for the smoke... hehehe! They're the original smoke from the dirty old TF-33! I would hope if they ever got re-engined with any of the newer engines then the last thing you would see on take-off is the plumes of smoke pouring out the back!!
Flightlineimages DOT Com Photographer & Web Editor. RR Turbines Specialist
Spacepope From Vatican City, joined Dec 1999, 2739 posts, RR: 1 Reply 19, posted (9 years 10 months 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 9384 times:
I have to disagree with Mr. Horse in the above statement. Watching too much Ren and Stimpy lately? I quite like it. Just what the BUFF needs, more bulbous interesting-looking hangy-off thingies. For a real interesting look, strap a pair of the proposed 15,000lb MOABS (not the original 21,000 pounders) onto the wing pylons.
AeroWeanie From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 1601 posts, RR: 52 Reply 24, posted (8 years 4 months 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 7969 times:
Seeing that the Bush administration just told the DoD to cut their procurement budget by $10,000,000,000 ($10 billion) to pay for more troops and supplies for Iraq, I think the chance of reengining B-52s is zero.
25 KEESJE: Some time ago there was a study of reengining them with 6 cfm56 class engines Story was a failure of one off the outwing engines would create some sta
26 Moose135: Mid-air refueling costs $17.50 per gal (!) And for that, we don't even check the oil or clean the windshield! Moose (ex-KC-135 driver)
27 KFLLCFII: Please forgive me for being ignorant, but what does BUFF stand for?
28 Spacepope: BUFF means "Big Ugly Fat F*cker" And a quick clarification, E-3s in USAF service do not have CFM-56 powerplants, only TF-33. The E-8 fleet has just pe
29 AeroWeanie: The E-8s will probably get JT8D-200s, not CFM56s. The CFM56 nacelles block part of the belly radar sweep.
30 KC135TopBoom: Just hang 8 J-57s on the B-52H and call it a B-52G! Steam-jets forever!!!!!!!!! LOL
31 Venus6971: To all of you who think why just keep the TF-33 there are ton's of them in stock and storage. Well take it from someone who has changed a few Tf-33's
32 DL021: Has anyone mentioned that the ground clearance required for high bypass turbofans such as the CF-6 may exceed that allowed by the BUFF? Does anyone ha
33 LeanOfPeak: Don't think it's a concern. If the engines would not clear the ground, the re-engine proposals would be even more difficult to sell than they are. The