A blog by a "sucker" and a "loser" who served her country in the Navy.
If you're one of the Covidiots who believe that COVID-19 is "just the flu",
that the 2020 election was stolen, or
especially if you supported the 1/6/21 insurrection,
leave now.
Slava Ukraini!
Sunday, March 15, 2020
5 comments:
House Rules #1, #2 and #6 apply to all comments. Rule #3 also applies to political comments.
In short, don't be a jackass. THIS MEANS YOU!
If you never see your comments posted, see Rule #7.
All comments must be on point and address either the points raised in the blog post or points raised by commenters in response.
Any comments that drift off onto other topics are subject to deletion.
(Please don't feed the trolls.)
中國詞不評論，冒抹除的風險。僅英語。
COMMENT MODERATION IS IN EFFECT UFN. This means that if you are an insulting dick, nobody will ever see it.
Truly the sound of freedom!
ReplyDeleteWondered about this:
ReplyDeletehttps://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.
Stewart Dean
ReplyDeleteHere'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'.
Todd:
ReplyDeleteThanks for the link on the Re-Engine issues.
Interesting stuff I had not considered.
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
ReplyDelete