- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: New B-52 engines will keep em flying for 100 years.
Posted on 4/30/20 at 9:58 pm to vl100butch
Posted on 4/30/20 at 9:58 pm to vl100butch
quote:
nother thing that this will do is reduce the need for tankers...and that is a BIG deal!!!!
Just think.... the money they have dumped into the KC-46 (an existing platform at that) could have bought hundreds of engines!
0
Posted on 4/30/20 at 10:00 pm to GasMan
quote:
Amazing. I won't be around to see 100 years of the B-52 but that is some awesome shite.
"It may not be your father's air force, but it might be his plane"
Posted on 4/30/20 at 10:02 pm to red sox fan 13
Sorry. Accidental thumb downvote.
Posted on 4/30/20 at 10:18 pm to TejasHorn
see, that right there is why we elected trump.
any other president would just sign a blank check and say go build something completely new, trump asks why we cant just change engines?
any other president would just sign a blank check and say go build something completely new, trump asks why we cant just change engines?
Posted on 4/30/20 at 10:24 pm to brass2mouth
quote:
I don’t k ow how good I’d feel flying around in a 100+ yr old plane
They say the fleet surprisingly doesn't have a ton of air miles for their age which is part of the plan to keep them going even longer.
Although those of us who live around Barksdale AFB find the air miles part hard to believe
Posted on 4/30/20 at 10:26 pm to brass2mouth
quote:
I don’t k ow how good I’d feel flying around in a 100+ yr old plane
My thoughts as well. Metal fatigue is a thing.
Posted on 4/30/20 at 10:39 pm to TejasHorn
OK. OK. War story: on several occasions in Vietnam I was close enough to a B52 bombing run to experience caving in of the chest, shaking, and almost poo poo my pants. Imagine 500 lb bombs going off sequentially almost like a giant automatic weapon. That was 50 years ago with ancient technology and old WW2 style “iron bombs”. Didn’t know they were coming. Never saw or heard the aircraft. Imagine what those planes can deliver now. (Also, they’re probably the reason Berliners aren’t speaking Russian today.
Posted on 4/30/20 at 10:41 pm to TejasHorn
Stratofortress
Posted on 4/30/20 at 10:50 pm to meeple
It’s about time we re-engine them. They are simple/effective. They need to be more efficient, and engine tech has come a long way. I didn’t see it mentioned, but will this reduce the number of engines to 4? They only thing mentioned was they were still seeking the same power
Posted on 4/30/20 at 11:01 pm to TejasHorn
What kind of engine are we talking about here?
Is it a large high bypass turbofan engine like here in these renderings because if so, a rendering is one thing but reality is another as it remains to be seen whether or not the airframe and the wings can support that much weight and maintain enough clearance between the engine and the ground.
Is it a large high bypass turbofan engine like here in these renderings because if so, a rendering is one thing but reality is another as it remains to be seen whether or not the airframe and the wings can support that much weight and maintain enough clearance between the engine and the ground.
This post was edited on 4/30/20 at 11:11 pm
Posted on 4/30/20 at 11:02 pm to TejasHorn
DP.
This post was edited on 4/30/20 at 11:02 pm
Posted on 4/30/20 at 11:03 pm to Sentrius
quote:
DP
TWSS
Posted on 4/30/20 at 11:07 pm to TejasHorn
Posted on 4/30/20 at 11:13 pm to BuckyCheese
quote:
Metal fatigue is a thing.
It is but I believe that due to the design and how they are maintained that it's not as much an issue as one would think.
Posted on 4/30/20 at 11:14 pm to Sentrius
Yeah I'm pretty sure this has been considered.
Posted on 4/30/20 at 11:19 pm to beachdude
quote:
OK. OK. War story: on several occasions in Vietnam I was close enough to a B52 bombing run to experience caving in of the chest, shaking, and almost poo poo my pants.
I was about two miles south of the DMZ and all we ever saw of the 52s were blinking red lights way up in the starry sky. About 15-20 minutes later the horizon would light up. Arc Lighting at work.
Posted on 4/30/20 at 11:22 pm to MDB
Metal fatigue? I’m sure it’s a factor but then I don’t think they would pull much g-force on a regular basis.
Posted on 4/30/20 at 11:22 pm to TejasHorn
Airplanes have only existed for 117 years. The B-52 has been in the air for more than half of that time: 68 of those years.
This post was edited on 4/30/20 at 11:35 pm
Posted on 4/30/20 at 11:32 pm to BuckyCheese
quote:
My thoughts as well. Metal fatigue is a thing.
They've upgraded structural parts over the years. I don't think there are 100% original airframes still in the air. The whole thing doesn't start hitting fatigue limits at once, so they've been able to replace parts as they find fatigue problems during inspections and keep them flying.
This post was edited on 4/30/20 at 11:42 pm
Posted on 4/30/20 at 11:40 pm to MDB
quote:
Metal fatigue?
I'm not sure of it's the same for military jets, but with commercial aircraft it's how many cycles (takeoffs and landings) the airframe is subjected to. There are other factors involved, but a high number of cycles is major cause of metal fatigue.
Page 2 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News