Serious question

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

"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

All of those statements are correct. The original quote does not suggest
that the B1 and B52 cannot also do the same.

--
http://www.delversdungeon.dragonsfoot.org
Remove the X's in my email address to respond.
"Damn you Silvey, and your endless fortunes." - Stephen Weir
I hate furries.

Bill Silvey wrote:

"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

All of those statements are correct. The original quote does not suggest
that the B1 and B52 cannot also do the same.

True, and tks for response Bill. I agree it doesn't suggest B1 and B52
can't do the same, but SOME people might take the inference that the B-2
is the only a/c that can do so -- otherwise, why mention it?

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

"BackToNormal" wrote in message
.nnz
Bill Silvey wrote:

"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

All of those statements are correct. The original quote does not
suggest that the B1 and B52 cannot also do the same.

True, and tks for response Bill. I agree it doesn't suggest B1 and B52
can't do the same, but SOME people might take the inference that the
B-2 is the only a/c that can do so -- otherwise, why mention it?

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

You might consider:

"The B2, like it's non-stealthy counterparts B-1 and B-52, thanks to
in-flight refueling has a range limited only by crew endurance."

Hmm, that's a tad clunky, though...

--
http://www.delversdungeon.dragonsfoot.org
Remove the X's in my email address to respond.
"Damn you Silvey, and your endless fortunes." - Stephen Weir
I hate furries.

(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?
--

-Gord.

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

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"