Serious question

Yes on both accounts--both the B-52 and the B-1 are capable of the same
range with mid-air refueling. Same goes for USAF fighers--F-15Es flew 15
hour+ sorties during OEF with air refueling, flying from bases in the
Persian Gulf to Afghanistan and back. This is not a new thing with the B-2.
The other thing to realize is that the $2 billion per aircraft price tag is
a bit misleading--that is the entire cost of the B-2 program, which includes
things such as construction at Whiteman for the jet, all of the R&D, etc,
etc, ,divided by the number of jets built. The original B-2 program was for
135 aircraft, which would have meant that the costs would have been
amortized by many more aircraft, and thus the "per jet" cost would have been
much less.

Spot

B-1 WSO


"BackToNormal" wrote in message
p.nnz...
Is the following accurate?

"The U.S. Air Force's most expensive bomber is the B-2. It is a stealth
bomber built by Northrop Grumman. Its price tag was near $2 billion per
aircraft. This plane is capable of flying to any target in the world
from its base in the center of the United States and back without
stopping anywhere by means of midair refueling".

Costs for a start. AND, isn't a B52 also capable of flying non stop from
US to anywhere in world and return courtesy of midair refuelling. B1?
Others?

ronh

--
"People do not make decisions on facts, rather,
how they feel about the facts" Robert Consedine

On Sat, 01 Nov 2003 05:35:15 GMT, "Gord Beaman" ) wrote:

(BackToNormal) wrote:


Anyway, prob fixed. I'm suggesting adoption of a sentence from the B52
page which states "The use of aerial refueling gives the B-2 a range
limited only by crew endurance".

cheers

ronh

But is 'that' statement correct? Doesn't the B-52 and the B-2
(all a/c actually) use lubricating oil? How does that consumption
stack up?

In a turbine engine you should consume almost no oil. It is not
burt in the combustion as it is in a recip, and the tolerances are
close enough (at least on US built engines) that leakage is
minimal.

Al Minyard

"Alan Minyard" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 01 Nov 2003 05:35:15 GMT, "Gord Beaman" )
wrote:

(BackToNormal) wrote:


Anyway, prob fixed. I'm suggesting adoption of a sentence from the B52
page which states "The use of aerial refueling gives the B-2 a range
limited only by crew endurance".

cheers

ronh

But is 'that' statement correct? Doesn't the B-52 and the B-2
(all a/c actually) use lubricating oil? How does that consumption
stack up?

In a turbine engine you should consume almost no oil. It is not
burt in the combustion as it is in a recip, and the tolerances are
close enough (at least on US built engines) that leakage is
minimal.

Hmm. I still think the engines would need attention before crew endurance
became an issue. After all, with two pilots (hell, they could carry three or
four) and a place to sleep, you could otherwise go on for months?

John

Alan Minyard wrote:

On Sat, 01 Nov 2003 05:35:15 GMT, "Gord Beaman" ) wrote:

(BackToNormal) wrote:


Anyway, prob fixed. I'm suggesting adoption of a sentence from the B52
page which states "The use of aerial refueling gives the B-2 a range
limited only by crew endurance".

cheers

ronh

But is 'that' statement correct? Doesn't the B-52 and the B-2
(all a/c actually) use lubricating oil? How does that consumption
stack up?

In a turbine engine you should consume almost no oil. It is not
burt in the combustion as it is in a recip, and the tolerances are
close enough (at least on US built engines) that leakage is
minimal.

Al Minyard

I don't think so Al. While a turbine engine may not burn much it
has to burn some. The compressor rotates and therefore must have
lubricated bearings therefore there has to be some loss (however
small) across that bearing surface. Now, a turbine engine's
bearings use very much higher RPM than recips do plus the oil
itself is much thinner than recip oil both of which facts lead to
more loss. I realize that the loss is small (I flew a turboprop
a/c as a Flight Engineer for several years so I'm familiar with
them and what they use for oil).
--

-Gord.

"Alan Minyard" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 01 Nov 2003 05:35:15 GMT, "Gord Beaman" )
wrote:

(BackToNormal) wrote:


Anyway, prob fixed. I'm suggesting adoption of a sentence from the B52
page which states "The use of aerial refueling gives the B-2 a range
limited only by crew endurance".

cheers

ronh

But is 'that' statement correct? Doesn't the B-52 and the B-2
(all a/c actually) use lubricating oil? How does that consumption
stack up?

In a turbine engine you should consume almost no oil. It is not
burt in the combustion as it is in a recip, and the tolerances are
close enough (at least on US built engines) that leakage is
minimal.

Al Minyard

In 1987 our squadron flight planned and proposed an around the world flight
for the B-1. We were turned down by SAC for lack of enough data on oil
burn. They were worried about running low on oil, not crew or fuel. Later,
with more data, the B-1B did complete an around the world flight.

JB

(BackToNormal) wrote in
p.nnz:

"The U.S. Air Force's most expensive bomber is the B-2. It is a
stealth bomber built by Northrop Grumman. Its price tag was near
$2 billion per aircraft.

Costs for a start.

You can twiddle the costs around depending on what you count as part of
the B-2 program. ISTR that the $2G/plane figure includes more-or-less
all stealth research up to that point in addition to the actual cost of
the actual planes.

The marginal cost of an additional B-2 to the fleet would have been far
less than $2G, probably.

--
Jim Battista
A noble spirit embiggens the smallest man.

I seem to recall Air Force One can add oil in flight. I would think a greater
concern would be oil breaking down over a period of time. Then again food and
water would also be a limiting facor.

Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired

From: "Gord Beaman" (
Alan Minyard wrote:


Anyway, prob fixed. I'm suggesting adoption of a sentence from the B52
page which states "The use of aerial refueling gives the B-2 a range
limited only by crew endurance".
cheersronh

But is 'that' statement correct? Doesn't the B-52 and the B-2
(all a/c actually) use lubricating oil? How does that consumption
stack up?

In a turbine engine you should consume almost no oil. It is not
burt in the combustion as it is in a recip, and the tolerances are
close enough (at least on US built engines) that leakage is
minimal.

Al Minyard

I don't think so Al. While a turbine engine may not burn much it
has to burn some. The compressor rotates and therefore must have
lubricated bearings therefore there has to be some loss (however
small) across that bearing surface. Now, a turbine engine's
bearings use very much higher RPM than recips do plus the oil
itself is much thinner than recip oil both of which facts lead to
more loss. I realize that the loss is small (I flew a turboprop
a/c as a Flight Engineer for several years so I'm familiar with
them and what they use for oil).
--

-Gord.

On Sat, 01 Nov 2003 15:56:20 GMT, Mike Marron
wrote:

snip]
Back in 1998, a Brit named Brian Milton flew a trike (a Pegasus
Quantum 912 exactly like mine) around the world in 80 flying days.
[snip]
Incredible...gets my vote for the "Biggest Brass Balls of All" award!

He's got a website...

http://www.brian-milton.com/

--
Kulvinder Singh Matharu
Contact details : http://www.metalvortex.com/form/form.htm
Website : http://www.metalvortex.com/

"It ain't Coca Cola, it's rice" - The Clash

But is 'that' statement correct? Doesn't the B-52 and the B-2
(all a/c actually) use lubricating oil? How does that consumption
stack up?

The last B-52H around the world flight in '94 burned/leaked about half of its
useable oil (an average over 8 engines). On one occasion during the early days
of OEF, a B-2 had its engines running continuously for 3 days. It had flown a
40+ hour mission from CONUS, landed at the FOL, did an engine running crew swap
(they were concerned shutting down systems increased the chances something
would break upon restart) and flew 28+ hours back to Missouri. At the FOL, no
oil was required in any of the engines. I never heard about oil status upon
landing at Whiteman. A B-1B had an around the world flight around 96-97
timeframe but I never heard anything about their oil consumption.


BUFDRVR

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

Then again food and
water would also be a limiting facor.


And a place to put "recycled" food and water


BUFDRVR

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