Re: [MBZ] OT - More B-52 stuff
When you design something right to start with, it lasts. B 52 stands as testimony of that mindset. Which is exactly why this board exists. We own and drive ancient Mercedes because they were engineered to out live current fashion. Like the B 52, we find they are also out living the parts supply as well.. [Mercedes content complete] ATTA BOY! Wilton. Grant... On Wed, Oct 15, 2014 at 7:10 AM, WILTON via Mercedes mercedes@okiebenz.com wrote: From Air Force Magazine Daily Report Friday, October 10, 2014 Getting More BUFF -John A. Tirpak A perennial B-52 upgrade idea - re-engining - is being considered again, Lt. Gen. Stephen Wilson, head of Air Force Global Strike Command, said Thursday. Speaking at an AFA-sponsored, Air Force breakfast in Arlington, Va., Wilson said plans call for the B-52 to remain in service until 2040 and possibly beyond. Wilson told Air Force Magazine that he's been talking to engine contractors, who say a commercial motor for the B-52 could save us 25-30 percent on fuel, but an even bigger payback could come from ripple effects in logistics and operations. Some new engines can stay on-wing for 20 years producing large savings on depot maintenance, and greater fuel efficiency translates to greater range, reducing the need for tankers, he said. An engine replacement might pay for itself by the mid-'30s but make even more sense because Wilson thinks the B-52 will serve longer than that. We're flying them less, and racking up hours more slowly, he said. There's no money in the coming budget for new engines, but Wilson said he's exploring whether Congress would be willing to allow the Air Force to use some money earmarked for energy-saving upgrades at installations for the project. Right now, the money can't be used for aircraft modifications. ___ http://www.okiebenz.com To search list archives http://www.okiebenz.com/archive/ To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to: http://mail.okiebenz.com/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_okiebenz.com All posts are the result of individual contributors and as such, those individuals are responsible for the content of the post. The list owner has no control over the content of the messages of each contributor. ___ http://www.okiebenz.com To search list archives http://www.okiebenz.com/archive/ To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to: http://mail.okiebenz.com/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_okiebenz.com All posts are the result of individual contributors and as such, those individuals are responsible for the content of the post. The list owner has no control over the content of the messages of each contributor.
Re: [MBZ] OT - More B-52 stuff
Great idea. Too bad the washington fools spend the money on stupid stuff in place of good stuff like new engines for the B-52s. I can forsee the B-52 being serviceable 100 years after the original design (2046). I hope by then we are smart enough to manage our money so congress/USAF can order some new, updated ones, but they should still be B-52(x) I?, J?, K? From Air Force Magazine Daily Report Friday, October 10, 2014 Getting More BUFF -John A. Tirpak A perennial B-52 upgrade idea - re-engining - is being considered again, Lt. Gen. Stephen Wilson, head of Air Force Global Strike Command, said Thursday. Speaking at an AFA-sponsored, Air Force breakfast in Arlington, Va., Wilson said plans call for the B-52 to remain in service until 2040 and possibly beyond. Wilson told Air Force Magazine that he's been talking to engine contractors, who say a commercial motor for the B-52 could save us 25-30 percent on fuel, but an even bigger payback could come from ripple effects in logistics and operations. Some new engines can stay on-wing for 20 years producing large savings on depot maintenance, and greater fuel efficiency translates to greater range, reducing the need for tankers, he said. An engine replacement might pay for itself by the mid-'30s but make even more sense because Wilson thinks the B-52 will serve longer than that. We're flying them less, and racking up hours more slowly, he said. There's no money in the coming budget for new engines, but Wilson said he's exploring whether Congress would be willing to allow the Air Force to use some money earmarked for energy-saving upgrades at installations for the project. Right now, the money can't be used for aircraft modifications. ___ http://www.okiebenz.com To search list archives http://www.okiebenz.com/archive/ To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to: http://mail.okiebenz.com/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_okiebenz.com All posts are the result of individual contributors and as such, those individuals are responsible for the content of the post. The list owner has no control over the content of the messages of each contributor.
Re: [MBZ] OT - More B-52 stuff
Since the J-75 or whatever it was was slapped on as what was out there in the first place, a re-engine is at least 40 years overdue. There is absolutely no excuse for not putting a bypass engine on there instead of a straight turbojet. The JT-7D was literally a J-75 with a fan stuck on the front of the compressor shaft and a new housing for it, increased static thrust at least 20%, and that was in 1960. After all, the AF FINALLY put CFM-56 engines on the KC-135 -- can't be in too much of a hurry, after all, gotta wait until the commerical aviation system quits using it, eh? The CFM-56 has been available since what, the early 80's? All the hard work was done already in that case as the B737 wing is very close in design to the KC135 (it's the wing on the 707 if I remember correctly). Almost a simple as putting the other engine on. I'd guess at least 30% less fuel, probably 35%, and equally higher all up weight if the airframe can handle it (probably not). Shorter runways, much less fuel, vastly greater low speed handling, 30% more range, why has this taken so long? However, when my brother worked at GE engines, every single engineering improvement was rejected by the AF. Every one, even if it would make the engines last twice as long or burn much less fuel. Some BS about supply chain confusion and not wanting multiple versions in service, etc. Seems to me at the rate they burn out, it should not take long to replace them all anyway. Peter ___ http://www.okiebenz.com To search list archives http://www.okiebenz.com/archive/ To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to: http://mail.okiebenz.com/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_okiebenz.com All posts are the result of individual contributors and as such, those individuals are responsible for the content of the post. The list owner has no control over the content of the messages of each contributor.
Re: [MBZ] OT - More B-52 stuff
Enhanced definitions. Elephant: A mouse built under government contract. Any questions? On Wed, Oct 15, 2014 at 4:59 PM, Peter Frederick via Mercedes mercedes@okiebenz.com wrote: Since the J-75 or whatever it was was slapped on as what was out there in the first place, a re-engine is at least 40 years overdue. There is absolutely no excuse for not putting a bypass engine on there instead of a straight turbojet. The JT-7D was literally a J-75 with a fan stuck on the front of the compressor shaft and a new housing for it, increased static thrust at least 20%, and that was in 1960. After all, the AF FINALLY put CFM-56 engines on the KC-135 -- can't be in too much of a hurry, after all, gotta wait until the commerical aviation system quits using it, eh? The CFM-56 has been available since what, the early 80's? All the hard work was done already in that case as the B737 wing is very close in design to the KC135 (it's the wing on the 707 if I remember correctly). Almost a simple as putting the other engine on. I'd guess at least 30% less fuel, probably 35%, and equally higher all up weight if the airframe can handle it (probably not). Shorter runways, much less fuel, vastly greater low speed handling, 30% more range, why has this taken so long? However, when my brother worked at GE engines, every single engineering improvement was rejected by the AF. Every one, even if it would make the engines last twice as long or burn much less fuel. Some BS about supply chain confusion and not wanting multiple versions in service, etc. Seems to me at the rate they burn out, it should not take long to replace them all anyway. Peter ___ http://www.okiebenz.com To search list archives http://www.okiebenz.com/archive/ To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to: http://mail.okiebenz.com/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_okiebenz.com All posts are the result of individual contributors and as such, those individuals are responsible for the content of the post. The list owner has no control over the content of the messages of each contributor. ___ http://www.okiebenz.com To search list archives http://www.okiebenz.com/archive/ To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to: http://mail.okiebenz.com/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_okiebenz.com All posts are the result of individual contributors and as such, those individuals are responsible for the content of the post. The list owner has no control over the content of the messages of each contributor.
