B-52 Re-engining?

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"

In article ,
(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???

Not unless it was since I retired.

--
Ron

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

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.

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

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!

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/

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"

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"

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???