B-52 Re-engining?

In article ,
(B2431) wrote:

I was an instructor and in Stan Eval in B-52Hs. (we
didn't call them "splaps" or "Splats")


I believe the correct technical term is "them big floppy thingies on the
wings."

Well, when working on F-4s, you quickly learn that those things that
hang down aren't "speed brakes," they're "dammits."

whonk "DAMMIT!"

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

On SRs we had a few poke "SON OF A B*&%$, call an ambulance"
KenG

Chad Irby wrote:

In article ,
(B2431) wrote:


I was an instructor and in Stan Eval in B-52Hs. (we
didn't call them "splaps" or "Splats")


I believe the correct technical term is "them big floppy thingies on the
wings."


Well, when working on F-4s, you quickly learn that those things that
hang down aren't "speed brakes," they're "dammits."

whonk "DAMMIT!"

Well, when working on F-4s, you quickly learn that those things that
hang down aren't "speed brakes," they're "dammits."

whonk "DAMMIT!"

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

I know, I have a ding in my left side from a speed brake on an F-4E.

Those little nylon drain tubes cut at a 45º angle along the underside were
called MFers for a reason.

Another goodie is to have the aux air doors cycle while buttoning up the
starter and starter exhaust panels when the centerline tank is installed. Catch
that across the knuckles once and you will cuss.

Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired

In article ,
KenG wrote:

Chad Irby wrote:

Well, when working on F-4s, you quickly learn that those things that
hang down aren't "speed brakes," they're "dammits."

whonk "DAMMIT!"

On SRs we had a few poke "SON OF A B*&%$, call an ambulance"

The first thing we taught the new guys was that most of the really sharp
nasty bits on the Phantom were at head height, and would turn invisible.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

In article ,
(B2431) wrote:

Another goodie is to have the aux air doors cycle while buttoning up the
starter and starter exhaust panels when the centerline tank is installed.
Catch
that across the knuckles once and you will cuss.


I've got a dent in my forehead from an aux air door, and stiches in my
head from an electrical access panel.

On Fri, 26 Sep 2003 16:41:04 -0700, "Tarver Engineering"
wrote:


"Scott Ferrin" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 26 Sep 2003 23:19:54 GMT, Chad Irby wrote:

"Tarver Engineering" wrote:

"BUFDRVR" wrote:

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.

Consider it a ten year life extension, in 2030.

At the rate they're going, you could be frozen for a thousand years,
wake up, and the only thing that you'll recognize will be made by
Boeing...

"Yeah, we kept upgrading them. The 2045 AD mods made them sentient, and
we had to keep them up to spec or they'd get cranky..."


The thing that amzes me is a couple guys designed it in a hotel room
over a weekend. (Obviously they didn't do all the detail work but
still)

All aircraft and aircraft systems begin as napkin drawings.



They built a model to go with it that weekend too. Hardly a napkin
and I doubt many (any actually) manufactures use napkin drawings for
their presentation to the brass.

From: Keith Kissane
Date: 10/1/2003 6:35 AM Central Daylight Time
Message-id:

In article ,
(B2431) wrote:

Another goodie is to have the aux air doors cycle while buttoning up the
starter and starter exhaust panels when the centerline tank is installed.
Catch
that across the knuckles once and you will cuss.


I've got a dent in my forehead from an aux air door, and stiches in my
head from an electrical access panel.


It sort of makes one wonder if the guys who designed the F-4 might have hated
maintenance types.

The F-4E was the only aircraft I ever worked on that one had to disassemble a
circuit breaker panel and dismount a rudder peddle just to change the battery.
Derigging the ailerons to remove engines was another smooth design.

What disturbs me most is I actually miss those pigs.

Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired

In article ,
(B2431) wrote:

It sort of makes one wonder if the guys who designed the F-4 might have hated
maintenance types.

The F-4E was the only aircraft I ever worked on that one had to disassemble a
circuit breaker panel and dismount a rudder peddle just to change the battery.

There were all sorts of fun little things like that. The ALR-46 system
was an afterthought, as far as anyone could tell, and we had crap all
*over* those planes.

And yes, a couple of our control panels had to come out when they
changed that &$#%! battery...

Derigging the ailerons to remove engines was another smooth design.

There was one splice area for ECM that you could only get to by pulling
the left engine. *Nobody* would authorize removing the engine just to
get to it, so it became a "whenever" job.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

(B2431) wrote:

It sort of makes one wonder if the guys who designed the F-4 might have
hated
maintenance types.

The F-4E was the only aircraft I ever worked on that one had to disassemble
a
circuit breaker panel and dismount a rudder peddle just to change the
battery.

There were all sorts of fun little things like that. The ALR-46 system
was an afterthought, as far as anyone could tell, and we had crap all
*over* those planes.

And yes, a couple of our control panels had to come out when they
changed that &$#%! battery...

Derigging the ailerons to remove engines was another smooth design.

There was one splice area for ECM that you could only get to by pulling
the left engine. *Nobody* would authorize removing the engine just to
get to it, so it became a "whenever" job.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

My theory about the design crew for the F-4E was they hung 4 ropes from the
ceiling, put an engine on 2 of them, the CADC on another and the battery on the
fourth. THEN they built the airplane around that stuff.

Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired

"Tarver Engineering" wrote...

The point being that a rudder has some tendancy to reverse in turbulance and
I have provided you with two cases of operators panicing, when operating
under those conditions. (as determined by the administrator)

Two cases in decades and millions of flight hours hardly presents a "general
case"!

Further, you have not shown any indication of panic on the part of any pilot.
You noted earlier that some pilots have been TAUGHT to use a significant amount
of rudder in circumstances such as those encountered by US 427. Such use of
rudder would have been reaction based on training, not on panic.


BTW, I have checked the 747-400 FHB, and turn coordination is indeed a
function of the yaw damper. I had overlooked that detail, since the spoilers
tend to assist in that same function.

Impressive Weiss, but a little late after you have been such a prick. The
707 is a much better study in spoiler deployment for YAW cancellation and
probably coser to the B-52H configurtion.

Late for what? Perhaps the only thing that's late is your period...

Hmmm... It appears the only thing subject to a prick is that thin-skinned,
inflated balloon that is your ego.

Maybe the A-6 comes even closer to current B-52 configuration for roll
control -- use of spoilers only, with no ailerons. In the case of the A-6,
coordinated turns could be accomplished with little or no use of rudder.
However, faster roll rates -- often tactically/operationally advantageous --
were available with rudder use.