They could have been re-engined one-for-one in the early 1980s with the 18,900 lbf JT8D-209 (certified 1979 for MD-80 airliners and for B727 re-engining (replacing the side-mounted engines) which were more fuel-efficient than the TF33s (JT3D) - and 4" smaller in diameter. The engine was retired from mainline airline use in 2020.
The TF33s soldiered on because the USAF retired all the C-141s and suddenly had hundreds if not thousands of spare engines available.
And one B-52E was loaned to P&W as a NB-52E and tested the JT9D engine.
Who was going to pay for doing the digitizing? Boeing isn't going to incur the cost, and you're also assuming that all of the drawings still exist and are easily to hand. It would be
The C-141 engines were TF33-P-7, which had 21K thrust and were heavier, vs the TF33-P-3 engines on the B-52H with 18K thrust. They are not interchangeable, but may have provided some spare part to the B-52H fleet. The P-7 engine is almost the same as the TF33-P-100 on the E-3 AWACS without the enlarged gearbox needed for the larger electrical generators needed for the AWACS application.
www.highergov.com
That of course presupposes there's enough thrust to overcome the drag rise. The old bird will quite happily do .92 M at 20,000 ft, been there done that and even dropped a MALD while we had both HSAB's on the jet. VNE is 90% of VD (been there done that also, but not on the BUFF) which comes out to 1.02 M. Usually, flutter is the main concern. If you Google B-52 Flutter Test this NASA report is the top result.
I'd thought bombers and transports were +3.5-1.5 in general?
The Bone can be anywhere from 2.0 to a little over 3 depending on load and wing sweep (I don’t have the dash one handy). It’s also been a while since I looked at the old Mil Std’s and I’m geographically separated from all my design books, so memory’s a bit fuzzy. The kicker now is that all of Mil Std’s are no longer binding unless specifically called out as a contract requirement so it’s entirely possible to have it vary by aircraft. I did have a DC-8 manual in the virtual library that I could reference quickly.
Yes, almost made that mistake myself. Part 23 aircraft, general aviation, come in two flavors (3 actually but aerobatic are supposed to pull G’s) Normal and Utility. Normal are your +3.8/-1.5 G and utility are +4.4/-1.76 G.
IIRC, a 727 also went through Mach 1 (the autopilot decided to do a very quick descent). The aircraft was landed safely, but the airframe was damaged beyond repair and the engines were rendered no longer flightworthy.
That'd be around the time the B52s were doing low level flight, so I'd believe it.
Will probably be about the same. Might go up some, because they're replacing a bunch of old hardware, but I don't expect the max takeoff weight to go up. Just Empty Weight going down.
It will get it longer range and endurance
It doesn't change how the B-52 is used. It still is a standoff and not a penetrater bomber
so what does it wait for other vehicles to destroy the air defenses before it goes in for a bombing run
"Standoff" means it doesn't "go in". It uses weapons like cruise missiles and gliding bombs,
That's about the time the BUFF took on the low-level role and they did the flutter tests so it wouldn't surprise me that the strain gages were some type of test mod with orange wire. Never saw anything like that on the H models I flew.
