Boeing B-52J / B-52 Re-Engining

There was quite a bit of concern early about the change in airflow potentially caused by even another twin-engine nacelle, so I suspect the goal remains adding the new engines in nacelles as near the original in shape and location as possible.
 
That's why I posted the late bit since this contradicts what have been said since the change to take into consideration the fatigue already built into the wings by years of service happened a couple of years ago.
The fact that there is potentially an alternative to single pod or move the location of the pylons is, if confirmed, a new deal.
 
TomcatViP said:
That's why I posted the late bit since this contradicts what have been said since the change to take into consideration the fatigue already built into the wings by years of service happened a couple of years ago.
The fact that there is potentially an alternative to single pod or move the location of the pylons is, if confirmed, a new deal.
Click to expand...

They are buying eight engines per aircraft. There is no feasible way to arrange them except in four twin pods. Any other arrangement would mean restructuring the entire wing, which isn't in the scope of work.
 
TomcatViP said:
That's why I posted the late bit since this contradicts what have been said since the change to take into consideration the fatigue already built into the wings by years of service happened a couple of years ago.
The fact that there is potentially an alternative to single pod or move the location of the pylons is, if confirmed, a new deal.
Click to expand...
As much as it's possible it makes sense to keep the aeroelastic properties very close to those of the TF-33's to avoid a full up P&FQ V&V on a 70 year old airframe. Strategic placements of lead or DU are totally worth making sure the moments of inertia and what else are the same, or very close to possible as the old installation to avoid a longish certification...
 
^ Wait! Does anyone seriously use DU for ballast in the 21st century?! Do they hate their lineys?
 
The more I think of this the more it comes out as a great win for RR.
They've got maintenance monies coming in on these engines for the next 50 years (and thats where you really make your money), they can turn around to any potential customer of the engine and point to a near certain 50 year future in service support of a significant number of engines.
 
timmymagic said:
The more I think of this the more it comes out as a great win for RR.
They've got maintenance monies coming in on these engines for the next 50 years (and thats where you really make your money), they can turn around to any potential customer of the engine and point to a near certain 50 year future in service support of a significant number of engines.
Click to expand...
given the weak travel sector, its a great win for RR. Roll on the good enough for a B52 adverts.....

Who knows, maybe it will catch on, maybe re-engine those A380's, 8 has to be better than 4, shirley?
 
Fluff said:
timmymagic said:
The more I think of this the more it comes out as a great win for RR.
They've got maintenance monies coming in on these engines for the next 50 years (and thats where you really make your money), they can turn around to any potential customer of the engine and point to a near certain 50 year future in service support of a significant number of engines.
Click to expand...
given the weak travel sector, its a great win for RR. Roll on the good enough for a B52 adverts.....

Who knows, maybe it will catch on, maybe re-engine those A380's, 8 has to be better than 4, shirley?
Click to expand...

Surely, you can't be serious !
 
Opportunistic Minnow said:
^ Wait! Does anyone seriously use DU for ballast in the 21st century?! Do they hate their lineys?
Click to expand...
Yes, it’s not ballast, but rather a flutter weight. When you shift the CG of the aero surface forward of the elastic axis it then acts as a damper for aeroelastic driven vibrations. At least that’s way I remember it, been two decades, but at a high level the point is made.

As for DU it isn’t that radioactive, don’t confuse it with enriched uranium which is a totally different thing.
 
FighterJock said:
timmymagic said:
Looks like its definitely going ahead...

https://twitter.com/x/status/1453481914665418753
View: https://twitter.com/AirForceMag/status/1453481914665418753
Click to expand...

Good news, I always had thought that General Electric and Pratt and Whitney would have filed a protest by the time of the deadline.
Click to expand...
So are they going to retune the bizjet engines, to create that characteristic plume, or will the idea of a smokey B52 become just folklore, like fairies.....and Aurora??
 
Thanks for that. A lot of detail in there I was unaware of, for instance the drag chute being used in a normal landing and there being pyrotechnical quick start method for the engines (I was actually aware that air carts were used to start two engines and air bled off to start the rest). And the pains of cleaning a B-52. :)
 
It is possible that about 2/3rds of the current B-52H fleet could be fitted with the F130, rather than all of them, given that one or more additional B-52Hs might suffer a TF33 engine failure and suffer damage on crash landing or could be rented to the US Space Force for use as launch platforms for new-generation military TSTO launch vehicles.
 
Has there ever been any proposals to turn 767s (close enough to B-52 MTOW) into bomber? Not sure if this is the best thread to ask but doesn't warrant starting new.
 
Bounce said:
Has there ever been any proposals to turn 767s (close enough to B-52 MTOW) into bomber? Not sure if this is the best thread to ask but doesn't warrant starting new.
Click to expand...
If I were a Boeing shareholder, I would certainly hope not (considering the current company financial record on 767 conversions into military aircraft).
 
Bounce said:
Has there ever been any proposals to turn 767s (close enough to B-52 MTOW) into bomber? Not sure if this is the best thread to ask but doesn't warrant starting new.
Click to expand...

Bombers have very different internal arrangements than airliners and the latter doesn't translate into the former. The 787 airframe likely could not survive having large holes put forward or aft of its wings; it definitely couldn't structurally survive anything in the center of the aircraft, as that is where all the weight of the landing gear on the ground and weight of the aircraft on the wings is supported. Civilian aircraft adopt this geometry because it allows the same wing box structure to support the plane's weight in both circumstances rather than having two sections of the aircraft have to support its full weight, like in a B-52 or airlifter, but civilian airliners don't have to have massive holes in the airframe or suffer the sudden weight and CoG changes of 1/4 of their MTOW separating in thirty seconds from the aircraft. The high MTOW of such planes is evenly distributed around the aircraft and outside fuel burn off, doesn't change much. Civilian aircraft have been converted to MPAs, but the bomb bays n these aircraft are far forward or far back, and comparative small/shallow. Weight wise, a P-8 pretty much has the internal war load of an F-35.
 
Vahe Demirjian said:
It is possible that about 2/3rds of the current B-52H fleet could be fitted with the F130, rather than all of them, given that one or more additional B-52Hs might suffer a TF33 engine failure and suffer damage on crash landing or could be rented to the US Space Force for use as launch platforms for new-generation military TSTO launch vehicles.
Click to expand...
Why is that a problem? If a B-52 with TF33 have engine failure, they don't need to repair the TF33 and just start the modification to put F130 while B-52 in repair.
 
www.collinsaerospace.com

Boeing selects Collins Aerospace electric power generation system for B-52

Boeing has selected Collins Aerospace to upgrade the aircraft with a new electric power generation system (EPGS).
www.collinsaerospace.com www.collinsaerospace.com
Jan. 11, 2022
Boeing selects Collins Aerospace electric power generation system (EPGS) for B-52
The new EPGS will include eight generators per aircraft providing the added redundancy in onboard electrical power necessary to support future B-52 modernization upgrades including radar, avionics and mission systems.
Click to expand...

www.defensedaily.com

Reducing Development Risk Key to B-52 Re-Engining Program - Defense Daily

While the U.S. Air Force is looking at boosting engine power on Boeing B-52H bombers for future missions, the service and Boeing also want to reduce the
www.defensedaily.com www.defensedaily.com
The existing TF33-PW-103 engine architecture for the eight engined B-52 includes four generators–one generator for every two engines. “Those generators each have a capacity of 125 kVa [kilovolt-amperes],” said Jim Kroening, the Boeing CERP program manager. “What we’re looking at on CERP is one generator per engine, but a lower overall power capacity generator relative to the 125, perhaps something in the 65 kVa range.”
Click to expand...
 
Since the B-52Hs will be re-engined with the F130, is it possible that the USAF could assign them the new designation B-3 (just because the USAF surprisingly chose to designate the winning Northrop Grumman LRSB design as B-21 instead of B-3) or more realistically B-52J to emphasize their distinctness from the original B-52H with TF33s?
 
Vahe Demirjian said:
Since the B-52Hs will be re-engined with the F130, is it possible that the USAF could assign them the new designation B-3 (just because the USAF surprisingly chose to designate the winning Northrop Grumman LRSB design as B-21 instead of B-3) or more realistically B-52J to emphasize their distinctness from the original B-52H with TF33s?
Click to expand...

Absolutely no reason to change the base designation; it certainly would violate the relevant regs and conplicate all sorts of logistics tools. I would expect a new type suffix like B-52J. And so, apparently, does the Air Force:

B-52H May Become B-52J | Air & Space Forces Magazine

The Air Force is likely to redesignate the B-52H as the B-52J once it receives a slew of modifications adding up to a “major modification,” Brig. Gen. Heath Collins, service program executive officer for fighters and bombers, told reporters June 20.
www.airforcemag.com www.airforcemag.com
 
Is it possible? Sure, but I think that it [redesignation to B-3] is infinitely improbable.

"B-52J" would be proper with the engine and other changes, but that would incur the cost of revising probably hundreds of thousands of pages of technical documentation (including flight and maintenance manuals) associated with the aircraft. Remember that the Air Force, for political reasons (primarily to not confuse the congresscritters), maintains two engine configurations (F100 and F110) under each of the F-16C and F-16D designations.

My smartass prognostication as an armchair designationista based on how the Air Force really operates? B-52H Upgrade, Block 1 Extreme, Increment A Plus Plus. (TM)

Edit: Forgot the Trademark. Probably needs a Copyright, too.
 
Last edited:
TomS said:
Vahe Demirjian said:
Since the B-52Hs will be re-engined with the F130, is it possible that the USAF could assign them the new designation B-3 (just because the USAF surprisingly chose to designate the winning Northrop Grumman LRSB design as B-21 instead of B-3) or more realistically B-52J to emphasize their distinctness from the original B-52H with TF33s?
Click to expand...

Absolutely no reason to change the base designation; it certainly would violate the relevant regs and conplicate all sorts of logistics tools. I would expect a new type suffix like B-52J. And so, apparently, does the Air Force:

B-52H May Become B-52J | Air & Space Forces Magazine

The Air Force is likely to redesignate the B-52H as the B-52J once it receives a slew of modifications adding up to a “major modification,” Brig. Gen. Heath Collins, service program executive officer for fighters and bombers, told reporters June 20.
www.airforcemag.com www.airforcemag.com
Click to expand...
That article is from 2019. Still, USAF officials may be in the process of planning to allocate B-52J to the B-52Hs currently in service that will be re-engined with the F130.
 
aim9xray said:
Is it possible? Sure, but I think that it [redesignation to B-3] is infinitely improbable.

"B-52J" would be proper with the engine and other changes, but that would incur the cost of revising probably hundreds of thousands of pages of technical documentation (including flight and maintenance manuals) associated with the aircraft. Remember that the Air Force, for political reasons (primarily to not confuse the congresscritters), maintains two engine configurations (F100 and F110) under each of the F-16C and F-16D designations.

My smartass prognostication as an armchair designationista based on how the Air Force really operates? B-52H Upgrade, Block 1 Extreme, Increment A Plus Plus. (TM)

Edit: Forgot the Trademark. Probably needs a Copyright, too.
Click to expand...

Can't argue too hard with this. But they did redesignate the KC-135s with the CFM56 engines as KC-135R, so there's precedent the other way as well. Especially with the new radar and digital cockpit mods also coming in around the same time.

The engines strike me as an especially significant thing; you would want to immediately see which engines are fitted when building an ATO, because it's going to have a big impact in terms of tanker support, loiter time available, etc. The different F-16 engines don't have that much operational impact, AIUI, while the new B-52 engines mean something like 30-40% more range.
 
TomS said:
Can't argue too hard with this. But they did redesignate the KC-135s with the CFM56 engines as KC-135R, so there's precedent the other way as well. Especially with the new radar and digital cockpit mods also coming in around the same time.
Click to expand...
Well THAT re-engining option was pushed by Boeing as the KC-135RE, and was designated the KC-135R when the adults took over. But that ignored the fact that there had already been a "KC-135R" in the sixties. Oh well!
 
FighterJock said:
How many flight hours are currently left in the existing B-52 engines? I hope that it is not getting too critical before the new engines are ready to be fitted.
Click to expand...
The hours are most likely there for the next decade, the spare parts for all of the accessories off of the spare engines from the C-141's and KC-135E's may be cost prohibitive to find someone to manufacture today. Since 20 years ago we got all of that stuff from all those jets we sent to DM and the suppliers moved on to other things, or went out of business.
 
Just a nice video that should bring you a big smile... Or reveals some pronounced cross-eyes!

View: https://youtu.be/nhVD3E0-0Wc

The pilot simply dials in the runway's heading via a rotary dial in the cockpit and the gear will remain properly aligned with a selected compass heading throughout the jet's approach. This way the pilot can fly the approach crabbed into the wind, with its wings level, all the way down to touchdown and rollout. This capability is especially relevant as the B-52's wingtips and outrigger landing gear are far from the fuselage's centerline and hang nearly as low as the jet's lower fuselage edge. Just a couple of degrees of roll to the left or to the right could result in a wing dipping multiple feet. As a result, using ailerons to sideslip or even de-crab the jet before touchdown could end in a wing-strike catastrophe. Thus B-52 pilots fly intensely crabbed crosswind approaches, sometimes looking out the cockpit's side windows at the runway, all the way through touchdown and rollout.
Click to expand...

Sourced from TheDrive.com

www.thedrive.com

Watch This B-52 'Crabwalk' Down The Runway In A Heavy Crosswind Like Only It Can

Watch this B-52's unique swiveling landing gear get a full workout during this windy recovery at RAF Fairford.
www.thedrive.com www.thedrive.com
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom