Unbuilt B-52s

royabulgaf said:
Some day, I just gotta do a model of a B-52 with warp nacelles under them.


I also think that capital investment money such as new engines would detract from investment in new bomber projects.
Click to expand...
you mean like this?
ss_imvc-895s.jpg

no idea who made it, but i found the image ages ago..
 
Jeb - The DSB pretty well demolished that case in 2004.

www.acq.osd.mil/dsb/reports/ADA428790.pdf

Not only did the USAF underestimate TF33 depot costs, but they based their economics on fuel prices on the ground and forgot about the cost of KC fuel.
 
A B-52 with P&W engines, B737-300 engine pylons.
Found @MP.net.

BTW, here an article about future B-52 upgrades
The planned upgrades total three:
• The CONECT program will put a digital backbone and communications suite into the largely analog aircraft.
• A new 1760 databus architecture will allow the old bird to drop modern smart weapons from its internal weapon bays.
• Strategic radar will replace the B-52’s antiquated 1960s-vintage system.
Click to expand...
Source/Link: Air Force Times - Upgrades to keep B-52s flying through 2040


No re-engining program so far and probably never.
 

Attachments

  • B-52P&Wpromoart.png
    B-52P&Wpromoart.png
    95.7 KB · Views: 1,595
mithril said:
royabulgaf said:
Some day, I just gotta do a model of a B-52 with warp nacelles under them.


I also think that capital investment money such as new engines would detract from investment in new bomber projects.
Click to expand...
you mean like this?
ss_imvc-895s.jpg

no idea who made it, but i found the image ages ago..
Click to expand...

...Might wanna check with the forum over at Starship Modeler, as ISTR this one showing up on .history - Pat Flannery may have posted the link to the image - right about the time Polar Lights released their 1:1000-scale TOS Enterprise kit. The engines are supposed to be 2nd Pilot nacelles, which means the spike on the bussard domes, and the "pinholes" in the exhaust ports. A couple of the modelers on .history were talking about making similar kitbashes with the YF-12A and B-58 kits, but I never did see anything come about from those ideas.

[thinks]

...Heh, replace the engines on a Hughes H-4 with the PL nacelles, and the pontoons with the ones from the AMT 18" kit, and imagine the wake left behind as the plane reaches takeoff speed :) ;) :D ;D :eek:

fightingirish said:
No re-engining program so far and probably never.
Click to expand...

...Never say never where the BUFFs are concerned, When I first enrolled in NROTC, we had one of the Air Farce types give an open lecture on air superiority, and during the lecture he predicted that "by 1990 the Pentagon will put out the first call for proposals for a 'multi-role' new-tech bomber to replace the B-52s by the end of the century." Of course, this was several years before Jack Northrup was vindicated and the B-2 was declassified. Then, in 1991, See-BS News did a short segment on the "aging B-52" fleet, and how they were all going to be refurbished to last "until 2010, when they'd be gradually phased out and replaced with newer Stealth bombers that will replace the B-2's."

...It's 2011 now, the Evil Soviet Empire is gone, there's no 24/7 sorties and Fail-Safe points, and there's damned sure no B-3 Super Stealths no matter what the Groom Lake Watchdogs claim. The B-52 is still our major bomber component, all the BUFFs are about to get their cockpits glassed, their cables fibered, their wings tweaked, the tires checked, and maybe even MP3 players in their custom-designed toilets. Hell, they may even get magnetic "Gulf Kick In Your Gas Tank" magnetic horseshoes to put next to the fuel inlets. Add a coating of Turtle Wax, and the B-52s will probably last well into the third quarter of the 21st century. Which is why I wouldn't rule out the possibility of an engine swapout to a more fuel-efficient design sometime after 2030 to 2040 at the latest.

Most of us old guys won't see this happen, but hopefully this forum will live long enough to see my prediction come to pass...
 
Ah the Buff. That thing will outlive us all. I guess I shouldn't be surprised if the B-52 does indeed get its service life extended past 2040 considering all of the things OM said.
 
AAAdrone said:
Ah the Buff. That thing will outlive us all. I guess I shouldn't be surprised if the B-52 does indeed get its service life extended past 2040 considering all of the things OM said.
Click to expand...

...Thank you. Sir. From what I've gathered, the B-52 has outlived something like 75% of its initial designers, and there's nobody still working for Boeing who were on the original assembly teams. And yet, the BUFF flies on, maintaining our nation's ability to strike back at our enemies hard and heavy. If only we could get a President and a Congress in power who'll approve funds for the jamming systems they've needed since the Aardvarks were phased out :mad: :mad: :mad:
 
OM said:
If only we could get a President and a Congress in power who'll approve funds for the jamming systems they've needed since the Aardvarks were phased out :mad: :mad: :mad:
Click to expand...
Fat chance. They'd be diverting funds from all the snazzy new projects, keeping the stuff they actually use in working order is out of fashion.
 
True. To divert funds to make jamming equipment for the B-52 would mean diverting funds from the F-35 despite the F-35 being cancelled eventually regardless.
 
AAAdrone said:
...the F-35 being cancelled eventually regardless.
Click to expand...
That's premature. Anyway, my point was not to attack any specific new project, but rather the Pentagon's propensity of starting any number of new projects, finding out along the way they cost rather more than projected, cancelling some of them outright or severely cutting back the numbers eventually built. Meanwhile, re-engining and new ECM for the Buff, both of them eminently sensible and relatively cheap, never happen.
 
[Sheldon_mode]My default setting is to take things at face value.[/Sheldon_mode]
 
Found in the French forum.avionslegendaires.net.
According to that forum, the original picture comes from the Boeing archives.
Nuclear or Liquid hydrogen powered or like the B-52X "Zwilling" just a fake?! :-\
Maybe our French members can translate the picture caption posted at that forum. :)


Edit: Orthography
 

Attachments

  • boeing464-245.jpg
    boeing464-245.jpg
    187.5 KB · Views: 1,111
Sorry, but as far as I understand it, it's a fake, like the B-52X, the two inner engine pods should have been
replaced by tanks with 157.000 litres each. And the question was asked: How it would be able to take off
with a full fuel load ?
 
This might work as a study for a liquid hydrogen fuel testbed - 2 x 157,000 litre tanks comes in at about 20 tons, which is vaguely plausible, and if you don't carry a significant quantity of other fuel, four engines might get the aircraft off the ground in a sane runway length.
 
Arjen said:
That's premature. Anyway, my point was not to attack any specific new project, but rather the Pentagon's propensity of starting any number of new projects, finding out along the way they cost rather more than projected, cancelling some of them outright or severely cutting back the numbers eventually built. Meanwhile, re-engining and new ECM for the Buff, both of them eminently sensible and relatively cheap, never happen.
Click to expand...


How exactly do you know that an worthwhile improvement in ECM for a plane with such a massive radar cross section is relatively cheap? How will new ECM alone make the aircraft capable of operations in defended airspace in which jamming would be required in the first place? Certainly none of the existing fighter pods are going to be effective from lack of enough power, you'd need new hardware and that's billions of dollars and decade plus long program territory like Next Generation Jammer. Also Next Generation Jammer is being designed to be modular anyway, so why start a new program?

New engines, yeah that'd be nice, but that's also billions of dollars up front. Its certainly not cheap just to upgrade a very aged air frame that works perfectly fine.
 
fightingirish said:
Found in the French forum.avionslegendaires.net.
According to that forum, the original picture comes from the Boeing archives.
Nuclear or Liquid hydrogen powered or like the B-52X "Zwilling" just a fake?! :-\
Click to expand...

I have a photocopy of the original drawing that was made from, copied from the D-4500 files at the Boeing archive. It's legit.
 
Sorry gents to detract from the main topic. But can anyone please tell me what the USAAF / USAF Material Experimental (MX-???) / Weapons System (WS-???) designation was the Boeing B-52 designed to meet?

Regards
Pioneer
 
Matej said:
What the hell is that??

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_vZyHxmcMvtg/TKBxbjDQbFI/AAAAAAAAB6E/4lcgDcUqozA/s1600/dsc_7590.jpg
Click to expand...


Greetings,

Canadair CL-52
* * One of the most unusual B-47B conversions was the Canadair CL-52 which was a B-47B loaned in 1956 to the Royal Canadian Air Force
to test the new, powerful Orenda Iroquois
turbojet (rated at 19,250 lbf (85.6 kN) dry, 25,000 lbf (111 kN) afterburning) for the Avro Canada CF-105 Arrow
interceptor
. Canadair Aircraft, the sub-contractor, attached the Iroquois engine to the right side of the rear fuselage near the tail; due to the large exterior diameter of the engine, no other location was feasible.
Flying the CL-52 was reportedly a nightmare. After the Arrow project was cancelled in early 1959, the B-47B/CL-52, with about 35 hours of engine flight tests to its credit, was returned to the U.S. Some sources claimed it was bent out of shape by the tests, but in any case, it was subsequently scrapped. The CL-52 was the only B-47 to be used by any foreign service.

Regards,
AK
 

Attachments

  • B47lge.jpg
    B47lge.jpg
    40 KB · Views: 896
Pioneer said:
Sorry gents to detract from the main topic. But can anyone please tell me what the USAAF / USAF Material Experimental (MX-???) / Weapons System (WS-???) designation was the Boeing B-52 designed to meet?

Regards
Pioneer
Click to expand...
The MX-number is MX-839 and the WS-numbers are WS-101A for B-52 and WS-101L for RB-52. -SP
 
The Advanced Concepts folks a LTV took a look at the re-engine the B-52G using either a
C-17 or 757, nacelle and engine combination in an un-numbered document titled "Installation
of C-17 Nacelle & Engine on B-52G" This would be right in line for interest as C-17 Nacelles and
Pylons were currently in production at LTV.


They found there would be enough ground clearance on the outboard nacelles using either design.
They also discovered that a new pylon would have to be built, they could not use the C-17 pylon as
currently in manufacture as the engine needed to be mounted closer to the B-52 wing.


Also identified was a problem with Asymmetric Power with the loss of an outboard engine.


"The loss of the outboard engines' 40,000 lbs. of thrust on takeoff cannot be handled by
the B-52 as presently configured. The control system's authority with the existing fin/rudder
combination is inadequate."


Proposed solutions included: automatic thrust control to compensate for lost engine, more
throw on existing rudder, larger chord rudder.


Attached are a couple of drawings from the small report.
Source Vought Aircraft Historical Foundation


bill
 

Attachments

  • B-52-with-C-17-Nacelle_001.jpg
    B-52-with-C-17-Nacelle_001.jpg
    40.8 KB · Views: 1,520
  • B-52-with-C-17-Nacelle_004.jpg
    B-52-with-C-17-Nacelle_004.jpg
    33.7 KB · Views: 1,486
  • B-52-with-C-17-Nacelle_005.jpg
    B-52-with-C-17-Nacelle_005.jpg
    28.8 KB · Views: 1,492
What alterations to the T33 would be made to decrease it's fuel consumption?
 
Bill S said:
The Advanced Concepts folks a LTV took a look at the re-engine the B-52G using either a
C-17 or 757, nacelle and engine combination in an un-numbered document titled "Installation
of C-17 Nacelle & Engine on B-52G" This would be right in line for interest as C-17 Nacelles and
Pylons were currently in production at LTV.


They found there would be enough ground clearance on the outboard nacelles using either design.
They also discovered that a new pylon would have to be built, they could not use the C-17 pylon as
currently in manufacture as the engine needed to be mounted closer to the B-52 wing.


Also identified was a problem with Asymmetric Power with the loss of an outboard engine.


"The loss of the outboard engines' 40,000 lbs. of thrust on takeoff cannot be handled by
the B-52 as presently configured. The control system's authority with the existing fin/rudder
combination is inadequate."


Proposed solutions included: automatic thrust control to compensate for lost engine, more
throw on existing rudder, larger chord rudder.


Attached are a couple of drawings from the small report.
Source Vought Aircraft Historical Foundation


bill
Click to expand...


If I remember correctly the Concord faced potentially similar problems with the loss of an engine.
 
I wonder if reverting to the early B-52 tall tail would help. I suppose modifying the current rudder is more feasible.
 
Grey Havoc said:
www.flightglobal.com

Boeing B-52 bombers to get new Raytheon AESA radars

The US Air Force (USAF) plans to upgrade the radar on its fleet of Boeing B-52 Stratofortress bombers to new active electronically scanned array (AESA) systems, which will be developed by Raytheon.
www.flightglobal.com www.flightglobal.com
Click to expand...

Good news for the B-52, the radar was another part that was badly needing updated. So it looks like the B-52 will carry on flying until 2045.
 
Arjen said:
OM said:
If only we could get a President and a Congress in power who'll approve funds for the jamming systems they've needed since the Aardvarks were phased out :mad: :mad: :mad:
Click to expand...
Fat chance. They'd be diverting funds from all the snazzy new projects, keeping the stuff they actually use in working order is out of fashion.
Click to expand...
Meh. They're unlikely to bother as the Buff isn't a first strike platform anymore, except maybe as a cruise missile carrier. Uses will likely remain as they were in Afghanistan, with Litening Pods for precision hits and a belly full of bad news for everything else.
 
hesham said:
Why do you send it here dear Grey ?!.
Click to expand...
Because they appear to have been planning to use a B-52, either a new airframe or a conversion of an existing USAF example, as the demonstrator. Furthermore, I suspect that this may have been part of a larger proposal for converting the whole operational B-52 fleet into dedicated heavy battlefield air support platforms or similar after the B-52s intended replacement in its strategic roles by the B-70.
 
Last edited:
jeffb said:
Meh. They're unlikely to bother as the Buff isn't a first strike platform anymore, except maybe as a cruise missile carrier. Uses will likely remain as they were in Afghanistan, with Litening Pods for precision hits and a belly full of bad news for everything else.
Click to expand...
On the one hand, there isn't really any alternative at the moment to the B-52 in the nuclear role at the moment; there are only a few B-2s, and the B-1s were rather foolishly removed from the nuclear role long ago, not to mention that that fleet is nearly extinct anyway thanks to very heavy usage in the War on Terror and corner cutting. On the other hand, with the new administration you are probably correct in that the Buff's remaining airframe hours are going to be quickly burnt away in various bushfire wars, police actions, and the like, rather than being husbanded to help counter the PRC's ambitions.

And the new B-21 looks a bit light on the strategic side in terms of overall capability from what we know about it, compared to its B-52, B-2, and B-1 predecessors. One could even argue that it has evolved into a 21st Century FB-111, albeit firmly subsonic, a far cry indeed from what the B-21 was originally intended to be. And despite being drastically scaled down in terms of capability, it still ended up costing more than a supersonic heavy bomber would have, long before reaching the production stage (which is still in doubt despite all the assurances).
 
Last edited:
This may be the wrong thread for this question but why did most B-52s have quad .50 caliber machine guns as the tail armament instead of 20mm cannons? The B-47 had twin 20mm M24 Hispanos. The M39 revolver cannon entered service at about the same date as the B-52 as well.
 
The old 'Pennywise, Pound foolish' approach in action, I believe. Though to be fair, originally there were supposed to be more of them:
The first USAF B-52s entered service in November 1955. Initial Air Force requirements for the long-range strategic bomber called for a crew of five, plus turret gunners. But the B-52B—the first deployed variant of the bomber—carried only one gunner, who manned four .50-caliber M3 machine guns. The barrels of these weapons protruded menacingly from the bomber’s rear, like a giant multipronged stinger.
Click to expand...

The B-52 Gunners | Air & Space Forces Magazine

Few know it now, but enlisted gunners protected B-52 bombers through the 1991 Gulf War.
www.airforcemag.com www.airforcemag.com
 
Last edited:
"Also identified was a problem with Asymmetric Power with the loss of an outboard engine."

As many civilian jet engines now have thrust diverters, would such suffice to compensate ? Or would their weight penalty be excessive ??

Aside from perhaps being able to handle adverse runway cross-winds, would thrust diversion at 'full military power' provide VIFF-capability, or simply detach pod ??
 
Colonial-Marine said:
This may be the wrong thread for this question but why did most B-52s have quad .50 caliber machine guns as the tail armament instead of 20mm cannons? The B-47 had twin 20mm M24 Hispanos. The M39 revolver cannon entered service at about the same date as the B-52 as well.
Click to expand...
Grey Havoc said:
The old 'Pennywise, Pound foolish' approach in action, I believe. Though to be fair, originally there were supposed to be more of them:
The first USAF B-52s entered service in November 1955. Initial Air Force requirements for the long-range strategic bomber called for a crew of five, plus turret gunners. But the B-52B—the first deployed variant of the bomber—carried only one gunner, who manned four .50-caliber M3 machine guns. The barrels of these weapons protruded menacingly from the bomber’s rear, like a giant multipronged stinger.
Click to expand...

The B-52 Gunners | Air & Space Forces Magazine

Few know it now, but enlisted gunners protected B-52 bombers through the 1991 Gulf War.
www.airforcemag.com www.airforcemag.com
Click to expand...
Several B-52Bs and RB-52Bs had a pair of M24A1 20mm cannon.
Source
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom