A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Military Aviation
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

B-52 Re-engining?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #51  
Old September 27th 03, 03:21 PM
bsp
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default



Frank May wrote:

So anybody find out what the new 8 are? My bet is they're F-404s.


Maybe JT8Ds. JSTARS will be re-engined with P&W JT8D-219s.

  #52  
Old September 27th 03, 05:10 PM
Rolf T. Kappe
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Sat, 27 Sep 2003 17:21:12 +0300, bsp wrote:



Frank May wrote:

So anybody find out what the new 8 are? My bet is they're F-404s.


Maybe JT8Ds. JSTARS will be re-engined with P&W JT8D-219s.


I think one proposal was BMW/Rolls Royce BR700 series.
(Boeing 717, Gulfstream V)
--Rolf


  #53  
Old September 27th 03, 05:29 PM
Gene Storey
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

I'd like to see 4 of those Bear Bomber counter-rotating turbo-props
on the B-52. Hell, it would probably cruise at Mach .92 with those!


  #54  
Old September 27th 03, 08:39 PM
James Hart
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Gene Storey wrote:
I'd like to see 4 of those Bear Bomber counter-rotating turbo-props
on the B-52. Hell, it would probably cruise at Mach .92 with those!


Now that'd be a sight worth seeing.

--
James...
http://www.jameshart.co.uk/


  #55  
Old September 27th 03, 08:44 PM
Darrell
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Hey BUFDRVR, you must have worn out those great engines.

I flew the B-52H at Minot when they were brand new. Still had the new car
smell. (1961-1966)

--

B-58 Hustler History: http://members.cox.net/dschmidt1/
-

"BUFDRVR" wrote in message
...
And I bet you cant wait.... :-).


It'll be like Christmas in (insert month of first operational re-engined

BUFF
arriving here). The proposal will also give us an upgraded avionics, which

will
be worth as much to the average crewdog as the engines themselves.


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it

harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"



  #56  
Old September 27th 03, 08:47 PM
Darrell
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

No auto-rudder on the 757 when I retired from AA in 1993.

--

B-58 Hustler History: http://members.cox.net/dschmidt1/
-

"BUFDRVR" wrote in message
...
What's this auto-rudder bit. In my years on the 757 with the RB-211's
there was no such thing.


Hmm, according to Boeing's literature it's installed on 757s???


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it

harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"



  #57  
Old September 27th 03, 10:39 PM
Gene Storey
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

2 engine jets don't need an auto-rudder. 4 engines is another story.


"Darrell" wrote

No auto-rudder on the 757 when I retired from AA in 1993.

"BUFDRVR" wrote

What's this auto-rudder bit. In my years on the 757 with the RB-211's
there was no such thing.


Hmm, according to Boeing's literature it's installed on 757s???



  #58  
Old September 28th 03, 01:46 AM
BUFDRVR
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

I'd like to see 4 of those Bear Bomber counter-rotating turbo-props
on the B-52. Hell, it would probably cruise at Mach .92 with those!


The current TF-33's will push you very close to mach if you let them. Our
airspeed limit is set by the EVS pods under the chin, before that it was the
rear empanage. Interestingly enough, the tall tails (B-D) were limited to .96
mach while the G's and Hs (pre-EVS) were .94. Anyone know why having a taller
verticle stabilizer would allow you to fly faster before you exceeded the
elastic limit? By the way, the mach limit on the BUFF is .82 *indicated*. The
EVS pods not only slowed us down physically, but they disturbed the airflow to
the pitot static system affecting indicated mach. You can actually fly an H to
..90 mach with complete indifference to the mach gauge if you correctly compute
it. The only person I know who's ever computed it and flew it (you fly off the
true airspeed gauge), found when he looked at the mach gauge, it was a knats
ass over .84 mach. That was good enough to convince me that .84 indicated mach
was close enough to .90 true mach.


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"
  #59  
Old September 28th 03, 01:48 AM
BUFDRVR
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Hey BUFDRVR, you must have worn out those great engines.

Since 9/11/01 we've really flown the hell out of these jets. I've had a lot of
help wearing out the TF-33s.


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"
  #60  
Old September 28th 03, 01:49 AM
BUFDRVR
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

No auto-rudder on the 757 when I retired from AA in 1993.

I have no reason to doubt you, just wondering what the hell Boeings putting out
in their literature. Does anyone with RB-211s have an auto rudder system?


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:06 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2025 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.