A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

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.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Military Aviation
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Re-Engine B-52 proposal. (I love this debate)



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old July 11th 03, 10:33 AM
David McArthur
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Dean,

http://www.acq.osd.mil/dsb/b52.pdf
Page 31 (of the actual document, not the .pdf page numbering!) Not a
great pic, but was the only I've seen

David


(SSNBuff) wrote in message
...
I would love to see a schematic or drawing of a B-52 with four engines. Do any
exist?

Dean

  #12  
Old July 11th 03, 12:43 PM
Frank May
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

If you do a search for Dale Brown or Megafortress, there are several
drawings & photos (retouched, of course) of Dale Brown's "Old Dog" with
4 engines. It has the other Old Dog mods, but it has the 4 engines.
There's a book by Walter J Boyne about the B-52 that has some drawings
of 4 engine B-52s. One with 1 on each pylon, & another with 2 huge 'fans
paired on the inboard pylons. These are probably '70s, maybe '80s
"proposals".

  #13  
Old July 11th 03, 02:51 PM
BUFDRVR
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Okay - how about a twin-engined B52 using two of GE's 115000 pound
thrust engines? If that's not enough push, put ABs on them. (G).
Walt BJ


I think with all our engine driven accessories (hydraulic pumps and generators)
the min we could get down to is 4.


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"
  #14  
Old July 11th 03, 06:18 PM
Tarver Engineering
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"BUFDRVR" wrote in message
...
Okay - how about a twin-engined B52 using two of GE's 115000 pound
thrust engines? If that's not enough push, put ABs on them. (G).
Walt BJ


I think with all our engine driven accessories (hydraulic pumps and

generators)
the min we could get down to is 4.


Picture in your mind the "oh no" bird, known for his odd warbling sounding
much like "oh no, oh no" on each landing approach; with his 2 inch legs and
three inch balls ...


  #15  
Old July 11th 03, 07:20 PM
Peter Twydell
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article , Tarver Engineering
writes

"BUFDRVR" wrote in message
...
Okay - how about a twin-engined B52 using two of GE's 115000 pound
thrust engines? If that's not enough push, put ABs on them. (G).
Walt BJ


I think with all our engine driven accessories (hydraulic pumps and

generators)
the min we could get down to is 4.


Picture in your mind the "oh no" bird, known for his odd warbling sounding
much like "oh no, oh no" on each landing approach; with his 2 inch legs and
three inch balls ...


On this side of the pond it's called the Oomigoolie Bird.

Distantly related to the Keereye Bird, the Ooh-ah Bird and the fabled
Oozlum Bird.
--
Peter

Ying tong iddle-i po!
  #16  
Old July 13th 03, 07:13 AM
Bert Fiore
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Has anyone done a study about the usability of such a beast? Could be useful
against hardened targets if you could overcome problems like:

1: Size- you'd need a lotta motor to get a projectile to Mach 5 or higher
in the lower atmosphere.

2: Heating-keeping it from melting.

3: Guidance

4: Range

Maybe some of the technology from the old Sprint ABM missle could be
used. ISTR a proposal for AXE - a plan to use a MX/Peacekeeper
first stage as a booster for an area denial weapon (large quantity of
submunitions instead of upper stage(s)/warhead bus/RVs on top).

I would think that the ability to _accurately_ hit a hardened target
with a LARGE DU/tungsten/titanium penetrator would be very
handy indeed, even if you had to launch it by first dropping it
from a large transport craft, a la the C-141/Minuteman tests
of 25+ years ago!

Comments?

Bert





  #17  
Old July 13th 03, 12:15 PM
Keith Willshaw
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Bert Fiore" wrote in message
...
Has anyone done a study about the usability of such a beast? Could be

useful
against hardened targets if you could overcome problems like:

1: Size- you'd need a lotta motor to get a projectile to Mach 5 or higher
in the lower atmosphere.

2: Heating-keeping it from melting.

3: Guidance

4: Range

Maybe some of the technology from the old Sprint ABM missle could be
used. ISTR a proposal for AXE - a plan to use a MX/Peacekeeper
first stage as a booster for an area denial weapon (large quantity of
submunitions instead of upper stage(s)/warhead bus/RVs on top).

I would think that the ability to _accurately_ hit a hardened target
with a LARGE DU/tungsten/titanium penetrator would be very
handy indeed, even if you had to launch it by first dropping it
from a large transport craft, a la the C-141/Minuteman tests
of 25+ years ago!

Comments?


Bring back the Grand Slam, 22,000 lb of hardened steel at Mach 2
should do the job nicely with a guidance package attached. It should
be possible for a B-52 to carry one under each wing where the
Hounddog's used to go

Keith


  #18  
Old July 13th 03, 08:53 PM
Kevin Brooks
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Bert Fiore" wrote in message ...
Has anyone done a study about the usability of such a beast? Could be useful
against hardened targets if you could overcome problems like:

1: Size- you'd need a lotta motor to get a projectile to Mach 5 or higher
in the lower atmosphere.

2: Heating-keeping it from melting.

3: Guidance

4: Range

Maybe some of the technology from the old Sprint ABM missle could be
used. ISTR a proposal for AXE - a plan to use a MX/Peacekeeper
first stage as a booster for an area denial weapon (large quantity of
submunitions instead of upper stage(s)/warhead bus/RVs on top).

I would think that the ability to _accurately_ hit a hardened target
with a LARGE DU/tungsten/titanium penetrator would be very
handy indeed, even if you had to launch it by first dropping it
from a large transport craft, a la the C-141/Minuteman tests
of 25+ years ago!

Comments?

Bert


Various studies and experaments have already been conducted, or are
underway, of the viability of using long range ballistic missiles,
ranging from the Army's short range ATACMS all the way up to and
including use of conventionaly armed Minuteman ICBM's as deep
penetration weapons. In addition, there is a current R&D effort afoot
to develop a hypersonic strike system to strike time critical targets;
one owuld imagine that it could also serve as a means of striking very
deep/very hard targets.

I'd suspect that unless range is a non-issue, the ballistic missile
approach might be better than an air launched hypersonic vehicle as a
near-term deep penetrator. The technology is already there and proven,
meaning lower development risk.

Brooks
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Car engine FAA certified for airplane use Cy Galley Home Built 10 February 6th 04 04:03 PM
Objective Engine Discussion Rick Maddy Home Built 26 October 14th 03 04:46 AM
1710 allison v-12 engine WWII p 38 engine Holger Stephan Home Built 9 August 21st 03 08:53 AM
Corky's engine choice Corky Scott Home Built 39 August 8th 03 04:29 AM
Gasflow of VW engine Veeduber Home Built 4 July 14th 03 08:06 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:54 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.