Words of Advice:

"We have it totally under control. It's one person coming from China. It's going to be just fine." -- Donald Trump, 1/22/2020

“We will not see diseases like the coronavirus come here..and isn't it refreshing when contrasting it with the awful presidency of President Obama."
-- Trump Press Secretary Kayleigh McEnany, 2/25/20

"I don't take responsibility for anything." --Donald Trump, 3/13/20

"If Something Seems To Be Too Good To Be True, It's Best To Shoot It, Just In Case." -- Fiona Glenanne

"Flying the Airplane is More Important than Radioing Your Plight to a Person on the Ground Who is Incapable of Understanding or Doing Anything About It." -- Unknown

"There seems to be almost no problem that Congress cannot, by diligent efforts and careful legislative drafting, make ten times worse." -- Me

"What the hell is an `Aluminum Falcon'?" -- Emperor Palpatine

"Eck!" -- George the Cat

Sunday, March 15, 2020

Your Sunday Morning Jet Noise

B-52s!

5 comments:

Old NFO said...

Truly the sound of freedom!

Stewart Dean said...

Wondered about this:
https://www.airforcemag.com/article/re-engining-the-b-52/
interesting side note:
The B-1 and B-2, which are at least 22 and 30 years younger, respectively, will retire before the B-52 for a range of reasons, according to the Bomber Vector study:

The B-52 has in recent years racked up mission capability rates of 60 percent, far above that of the B-1 and B-2, which are at about 40 and 35 percent, respectively.
The B-52 costs about $70,000 per flying hour, roughly half that of the B-2—even before it gets more efficient engines.
The B-52 “has good bones,” Rand said, noting that the B-52H spent most of its service life on ground alert for nuclear operations, and still has many thousands of hours of airframe life remaining.

Tod Germanica said...

Stewart Dean
Here's a good post on the extreme difficulties of re-engining the B-52...
http://www.airpowerstrategy.com/2016/11/22/old-dog-new-engines/
It boils down to this:
USAF cares little about fuel burn rates, unlike the airlines. It's a minimal cost.
New engines would not increase range, speed, bomb load, etc because of other constraints. These include a too-small rudder and fin, among many others. Finally, the experience of re-engining the KC-135 showed the manifold unexpected delays, difficulties and cost overruns of swapping engines designed for an aircraft for newer, 'better' engines.
The existing power plants are still supported and the lifetime ending constraint on the Buff's airworthiness is not the eight mills, it's the top wing surface.
Like they say in airplane homebuilding 'change one thing, change everything'.

B said...

Todd:

Thanks for the link on the Re-Engine issues.
Interesting stuff I had not considered.

seafury said...

Have a friend who flew them on his first tour out of UPT. Said he always worried about the dreaded 7 engine approach. Went on to fly AWAC's then retired as an O-6 on KC135 's