AvObserver
Topic Author
Posts: 2434
Joined: Sat Apr 06, 2002 7:40 am

Latest B-52 Re-engine Proposal

Tue Jul 08, 2003 7:13 am

 
Spacepope
Posts: 3242
Joined: Tue Dec 28, 1999 11:10 am

RE: Latest B-52 Re-engine Proposal

Tue Jul 08, 2003 9:02 am

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?

T.J.
The last of the famous international playboys
 
User avatar
RayChuang
Posts: 8024
Joined: Sat Jun 24, 2000 7:43 am

RE: Latest B-52 Re-engine Proposal

Tue Jul 08, 2003 9:26 pm

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.
 
galaxy5
Posts: 1952
Joined: Sat Mar 18, 2000 10:09 pm

RE: Latest B-52 Re-engine Proposal

Wed Jul 09, 2003 2:11 am

it wont happen, why would it? the Airforce has tons of TF-33 spares to choose from with the retirement of the c-141 tf-33s and the Kc-135e's tf-33s whats the point.
"damn, I didnt know prince could Ball like that" - Charlie Murphy
 
bobrayner
Posts: 2038
Joined: Sun Apr 27, 2003 8:03 am

RE: Latest B-52 Re-engine Proposal

Wed Jul 09, 2003 4:05 am

it wont happen, why would it? the Airforce has tons of TF-33 spares to choose from with the retirement of the c-141 tf-33s and the Kc-135e's tf-33s whats the point.

Perhaps so, and that's the cheapest option in the short term, but parts availability isn't the only factor.

New engines would presumably have lower downtime.

Plus, they'd be more fuel-efficient, hence improved range and/or less mid-air refuelling on long deployments.

Both of these would also imply savings in the long term.
Cunning linguist
 
Spacepope
Posts: 3242
Joined: Tue Dec 28, 1999 11:10 am

RE: Latest B-52 Re-engine Proposal

Wed Jul 09, 2003 6:25 am

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.

T.J.
The last of the famous international playboys
 
galaxy5
Posts: 1952
Joined: Sat Mar 18, 2000 10:09 pm

RE: Latest B-52 Re-engine Proposal

Wed Jul 09, 2003 9:01 am

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
 
L-188
Posts: 29881
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 1999 11:27 am

RE: Latest B-52 Re-engine Proposal

Wed Jul 09, 2003 9:48 am

Anybody else besides me feel that a B-52 isnt' a B-52 unless it has eight motors?

I say forget the four engine mod, and mount 8 Br-715's on the sucker.

But I also want to say, a lot of the time the older engines are stronger then the newer designs.

They overbuilt everything back then, since they didn't know how much they could wittle away.
OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
 
jwenting
Posts: 9973
Joined: Mon Apr 23, 2001 10:12 pm

RE: Latest B-52 Re-engine Proposal

Wed Jul 09, 2003 2:28 pm

If you read correctly it's looks to be just a reporter digging up the old plan that was rejected in 1996 and writing it's under review...

I wish I were flying
 
Spacepope
Posts: 3242
Joined: Tue Dec 28, 1999 11:10 am

RE: Latest B-52 Re-engine Proposal

Thu Jul 10, 2003 6:41 am

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.

T.J.
The last of the famous international playboys
 
bobrayner
Posts: 2038
Joined: Sun Apr 27, 2003 8:03 am

RE: Latest B-52 Re-engine Proposal

Thu Jul 10, 2003 7:49 am

Nothing on http://www.boeing.com/news/releases/...
Any other news on it?
Cunning linguist
 
SWA TPA
Posts: 1454
Joined: Wed Aug 29, 2001 6:10 am

RE: Latest B-52 Re-engine Proposal

Thu Jul 10, 2003 8:36 am

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  Sad
I love this plane. They cant disfigure her like that! NOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!
I believe I can fly.....
 
galaxy5
Posts: 1952
Joined: Sat Mar 18, 2000 10:09 pm

RE: Latest B-52 Re-engine Proposal

Thu Jul 10, 2003 8:49 am

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
 
dragogoalie
Posts: 1172
Joined: Sun Oct 14, 2001 3:58 pm

Re:

Sun Jul 20, 2003 5:24 pm

You lived in ND Galaxy? I'm sorry to hear that  Wink/being sarcastic. I'm over here in GFK going to the University of North Dakota. Haven't been out to Minot, but I would imagine there's even less to do out there  Wink/being sarcastic.

--dragogoalie-#88--
Formerly known as Jap. Srsly. AUSTRALIA: 2 days!
 
manzoori
Posts: 1459
Joined: Sun Sep 22, 2002 7:08 am

RE: Latest B-52 Re-engine Proposal

Sun Jul 27, 2003 1:45 am

Something like this perhaps?


 Wink/being sarcastic

Rez
Flightlineimages DOT Com Photographer & Web Editor. RR Turbines Specialist
 
Spacepope
Posts: 3242
Joined: Tue Dec 28, 1999 11:10 am

RE: Latest B-52 Re-engine Proposal

Sun Jul 27, 2003 3:18 am

Thr original image on your site looks good, the one on this page here shows up incomplete. The original is here: http://homepage.ntlworld.com/rez.manzoori/fakes/524-buff.jpg . I especially like the smoke trails coming off.

T.J.
The last of the famous international playboys
 
manzoori
Posts: 1459
Joined: Sun Sep 22, 2002 7:08 am

RE: Latest B-52 Re-engine Proposal

Sun Jul 27, 2003 7:37 am

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!!  Wink/being sarcastic

Cheers!

Rez
 Big thumbs up

Flightlineimages DOT Com Photographer & Web Editor. RR Turbines Specialist
 
cancidas
Posts: 3985
Joined: Thu Jul 03, 2003 7:34 am

RE: Latest B-52 Re-engine Proposal

Mon Jul 28, 2003 3:12 pm

it wouldn't look like a B-52 with only 4 engines. take 8 engines off the A340 and put them on. that might look better, no?

"...cannot the kingdom of salvation take me home."
 
L-188
Posts: 29881
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 1999 11:27 am

RE: Latest B-52 Re-engine Proposal

Mon Jul 28, 2003 9:11 pm

Minot at least has hills.

As far as the 4 engined B-52.


No sir. I don't like it.
OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
 
Spacepope
Posts: 3242
Joined: Tue Dec 28, 1999 11:10 am

RE: Latest B-52 Re-engine Proposal

Tue Jul 29, 2003 6:06 am

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.

T.J.
The last of the famous international playboys
 
supa7E7
Posts: 1360
Joined: Fri Aug 27, 2004 2:05 am

RE: Latest B-52 Re-engine Proposal

Fri Jan 21, 2005 9:35 am

Mid-air refueling costs $17.50 per gal (!)

Makes ya think.
"Who's to say spaceships aren't fine art?" - Phil Lesh
 
User avatar
N328KF
Posts: 5810
Joined: Tue May 25, 2004 3:50 am

RE: Latest B-52 Re-engine Proposal

Fri Jan 21, 2005 9:55 am

Just use GE90s.  Big grin Actually, why not CF6-80s instead of CF6-50s?
When they call the roll in the Senate, the Senators do not know whether to answer 'Present' or 'Not guilty.' -Theodore Roosevelt
 
L-188
Posts: 29881
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 1999 11:27 am

RE: Latest B-52 Re-engine Proposal

Fri Jan 21, 2005 10:31 am

Well the Br715, was my original suggestion a long time ago. But how about 8 off those Allisons that are used on the citation X?

Actually there is a 707 CFM-56 re-engine kit out there so why not take the TF-33's off the E-8,E-3, and the other remaining 707 frames.
OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
 
User avatar
N328KF
Posts: 5810
Joined: Tue May 25, 2004 3:50 am

RE: Latest B-52 Re-engine Proposal

Fri Jan 21, 2005 11:22 am

Convert them all to Old Dog configuration.
When they call the roll in the Senate, the Senators do not know whether to answer 'Present' or 'Not guilty.' -Theodore Roosevelt
 
aeroweanie
Posts: 1577
Joined: Fri Dec 03, 2004 9:33 pm

RE: Latest B-52 Re-engine Proposal

Fri Jan 21, 2005 2:50 pm

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.
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 9064
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

RE: Latest B-52 Re-engine Proposal

Sat Jan 22, 2005 1:10 am

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 stability problem.. If you have 8 problems this is less of a problem (it's designed for that..) & 6 engines could be a workable compromise..

Dod already ordered more then 2000 CFM56's in different variants, KC135, E3, E6, C40, 737MP..
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
User avatar
Moose135
Posts: 2616
Joined: Mon Oct 04, 2004 11:27 pm

RE: Latest B-52 Re-engine Proposal

Sat Jan 22, 2005 8:34 am

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)
KC-135 - Passing gas and taking names!
 
KFLLCFII
Posts: 3185
Joined: Sat Sep 11, 2004 7:08 am

RE: Latest B-52 Re-engine Proposal

Mon Feb 07, 2005 3:15 am

Please forgive me for being ignorant, but what does BUFF stand for?
"About the only way to look at it, just a pity you are not POTUS KFLLCFII, seems as if we would all be better off."
 
Spacepope
Posts: 3242
Joined: Tue Dec 28, 1999 11:10 am

RE: Latest B-52 Re-engine Proposal

Mon Feb 07, 2005 3:34 am

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 peen approved for switchover from TF-33 to CFM-56, as there has been a higher than usual incidence of in-flight shutdowns on station with the antique powerplants. A lot of this has to do with increased utilization lately both domestically and in the Middle east.

Interesting that the E-3 was originally proposed to be powered by 8 TF-34s (same engine as the A-10/S-3) instead of the conventional 4 TF-33 powerplants.
The last of the famous international playboys
 
aeroweanie
Posts: 1577
Joined: Fri Dec 03, 2004 9:33 pm

RE: Latest B-52 Re-engine Proposal

Mon Feb 07, 2005 6:08 am

The E-8s will probably get JT8D-200s, not CFM56s. The CFM56 nacelles block part of the belly radar sweep.
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11022
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: Latest B-52 Re-engine Proposal

Tue Mar 15, 2005 7:17 pm

Just hang 8 J-57s on the B-52H and call it a B-52G!

Steam-jets forever!!!!!!!!!

LOL
 
Venus6971
Posts: 1415
Joined: Tue Dec 14, 2004 1:55 pm

RE: Latest B-52 Re-engine Proposal

Wed Mar 16, 2005 1:31 am

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 and cursed them over a 22 year career. At this stage of their life they are a piece of junk, they are no longer completely rebuilt anymore unless they reach their 6000 hour HSI and then only parts that are worn are replaced(cost saving) no preventative maintennce has been done on them since the early 90's. If one is removed from a wing for a depot level fix only the discrepency that caused its removal is fixed and nothing else is fixed .Being forward deployed and changing 7 engines in 2 Weeks on the same acft(E-3) then seeing how the engine troops on the KC-135R's are more or less unemployed. The people who produce the numbers that say the TF-33 has years to go are project managers at Tinker who have vested interest in their own job security  banghead 
I would help you but it is not in the contract
 
dl021
Posts: 10836
Joined: Fri May 21, 2004 12:04 pm

RE: Latest B-52 Re-engine Proposal

Wed Mar 16, 2005 5:07 am

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 have anything on that?
Is my Pan Am ticket to the moon still good?
 
LeanOfPeak
Posts: 496
Joined: Thu Oct 21, 2004 2:18 am

RE: Latest B-52 Re-engine Proposal

Wed Mar 16, 2005 8:37 am

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 engines that have been selected in the proposals have been selected in the proposals specifically because of their diameters.

Additionally, the B-52 does not land in a slip (It never de-crabs; The gear design allows the aircraft to land crabbed), so the dramatic pictures of 747's landing in high crosswinds are not a major consideration either.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: blacksoviet, Oroka and 15 guests

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos