If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
"Greg Hennessy" wrote in message ... On Thu, 09 Oct 2003 14:52:45 GMT, "Gord Beaman" ) wrote: wait... wai... wai... before we get into discussing the virtues of circularly-anti-symettric-shock wave diffusers, vs new plastic spoons in the galley, can anyone point to a future REQUIREMENT for a faster B-1 flavored bomber? Just as a by-stander, it looks like we could use more practical, dull, slow, effective turban-surpressing style planes, not ones to win the Reno air races. |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
"George R. Gonzalez" wrote:
"Greg Hennessy" wrote in message ... On Thu, 09 Oct 2003 14:52:45 GMT, "Gord Beaman" ) wrote: wait... wai... wai... before we get into discussing the virtues of circularly-anti-symettric-shock wave diffusers, vs new plastic spoons in the galley, can anyone point to a future REQUIREMENT for a faster B-1 flavored bomber? Just as a by-stander, it looks like we could use more practical, dull, slow, effective turban-surpressing style planes, not ones to win the Reno air races. In the case of the B-1B, it could really use a higher ceiling in military power given current "stay above the AAA and MANPAD/SHORAD/MEAD" tactics. The B-1 has less than 1/2 the thrust of the B-52 in military power (usual caveats: ISA, sea level, static, uninstalled): 60,000 lb.* vs. 136,000 lb. What the relative thrusts are at current operational altitudes and speeds I don't know; the two engines concerned have different bypass ratios and were optimized for very different flight regimes. If it uses max A/B then the B-1B's thrust (same caveats as above) goes up to 120,000 lb., but that's both fuel inefficient and marks the a/c's position at night. It also has a considerably higher wing loading than the B-52H: B-52H MTOW 488,000 lb. / 4,000 sq. ft. wing = wing loading of 122 lb./sq. ft. B-1B T/O weight with max. internal load is probably in the region of 435,000 lb. / 1,950 sq. ft. wing = wing loading of 223 lb./ sq. ft. (it also develops considerable lift from the fuselage, apparently up to 50% of the total when at high q/low level, but I have no info on what the equivalent wing area might be at altitude and typical bombing speed/Mach). Bottom line, the B-1B has been operating at Flight Levels in the mid to high 20s over Iraq and presumably Afghanistan, while the Buffs can comfortably go probably 10,000 feet higher. Doubling the military power available should boost their ceiling and/or available g considerably. The downside is that their range may decrease, because the engines will be oversized for cruise. However, there may be a positive range tradeoff if they use less fuel during combat (less/no need for A/B) and loiter (higher altitude). It would probably depend on what bypass ratio they chose. Guy *All sources I have state that the F101-GE-102s produce 17,000 lb. of thrust each in mil. (usual conditions), but Jim Baker (who flew them) says the Dash -1 states 15,000 lb. It's possible this is a peacetime de-rating as is often done for fighters, but he didn't think so. |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
"George R. Gonzalez" wrote in message news:CpWhb.538167$Oz4.437079@rwcrnsc54point to a future
SNIP Just as a by-stander, it looks like we could use more practical, dull, slow, effective turban-surpressing style planes, not ones to win the Reno air races. SNIP: WOW! A Bone at Reno? I wanna see that race! The Sea Fury was awesome, but a Bone in a 75 degree bank all the way around the course? Stupendous! Walt BJ |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|