Mach 2, 60,000 foot B-1R

Alan Minyard wrote in
:

On Wed, 2 Jun 2004 23:50:43 +0000 (UTC), Jim Yanik
wrote:



Why bother converting a B-1 into a supersonic reconnaissance
plane,when they could reactivate the SR-71's? What advantage would
there be?

SRs are *very* expensive to operate and maintain. The savings achieved
by using the B-1 would soon pay for themselves.

Al Minyard


At a shorter range and slower speed,and more vulnerability,not to mention
re-engineering costs that would be better spent.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik-at-kua.net

I've seen two proposals to this effect, makes for some interesting
reading... It is plausible, but the real question is if the money for
upgrades would be better spent on systems other than the engines. FWIW
reengining does bring interesting new capabilities.

Michael Kelly
Bone Maintainer

Paul F Austin wrote:
From this week's AvWeek. Boeing responded to an Air Force RFI against a
requirement for improved bombers by suggesting re-engining the B-1 fleet
with F-119 engines with the following characteristics: Mach 2 cruise, 3000
mile radius, 60,000 foot ceiling (with a couple of hours loiter).

Is this plausible? From others in this group, I though the B-1 was marginal
above 30,000 feet.

Scott Ferrin wrote:
3. The B-1A could do Mach 2.2 at 60,000ft so the basic airframe is
capable of it. Comes down to the engines, intakes, weight. The
article raised more questions than it answered.

Weight, fixed inlets and RCS vanes. Unfortunately, everything I've seen
on this is not for public consumption

Michael Kelly
Bone Maintainer

breyfogle wrote:

The F-101 produces enough thrust for Mach 1.2 to 1.25 and the shock is
stable somewhere in the inlet ducting. The F-119 should produce enough
extra thrust to increase the max Mach significantly. Sure, the shock front
moves aft as Mach increases and at some point the shock will reach the fan
and bad things happen. F-16's & F-18's reach 1.6 (1.8?) Mach with fixed
inlets.

Know some pilots who swear they've gone 1.4, but only for very short
times. The biggest limiting factor are those two big RCS vanes in each
inlet.

Michael Kelly
Bone Maintainer

Bob McKellar wrote:

But think of the fun when the fifth version ( fourth modification ) is
introduced.

Heck, we're already at the Block E configuration which entains quite a
few changes to the systems.

Michael Kelly
Bone Maintainer



Bob McKellar