OMG are they finally going to do it? (B-52 re-engine)

Discuss all aspects of military aviation here!

Moderators: MikeD, Robert Hilton

User avatar
elaw
Posts: 1454
Joined: Thu Jul 24, 2014 7:01 pm
Location: Massachusetts, USA

OMG are they finally going to do it? (B-52 re-engine)

Postby elaw » Fri Jan 13, 2023 1:04 pm

HR consultant, Yoyodyne Propulsion Systems, Inc.

User avatar
Not_Karl
Previously banned for not socially distancing
Posts: 3615
Joined: Thu Nov 12, 2009 6:12 pm
Location: Río Mono Dulce, Buenos Aires, Argentina

Re: OMG are they finally going to do it? (B-52 re-engine)

Postby Not_Karl » Fri Jan 13, 2023 1:21 pm

I'd like Evanie's opinion on the re-engining of a relic that should have been retired long ago. Hope they don't MCAS them...
International Ban ALL Aeroplanies Association, founder and president.

"I think, based on the types of aircraft listed, you're pretty much guaranteed a fiery death."
- Contemporary Poet flyboy2548m to a Foffie.

User avatar
Gabriel
Posts: 3153
Joined: Sat Feb 09, 2008 2:55 am
Location: Buenos Aires, Argentina

Re: OMG are they finally going to do it? (B-52 re-engine)

Postby Gabriel » Fri Jan 13, 2023 3:35 pm

Boeing had 2 competing projects.

One project was to replace the 8 engines in 4 pods with 4 modern bigger (+/- 737-like) engines in the 4 pods. That was Boeing's recommended path.

The alternate was to replace the 8 engines with 8 business-jet-like modern engines.

In both cases the engine would be off the shelf, or an adaptation of an off-the shelf engine (not a new development).

The first idea (4 737-size engines) was the most efficient in terms of fuel consumption and time and money needed for maintenance. It had the little problem, however, that a lot of the architecture of the airplane's systems is based on 8 engines, so it was a huge, time-consuming and expensive modification. That was Boing's preferred solution, I assume, because it would mean more money for Boeing.

The second idea (8 business jet sized engines), the one that eventually was selected by the DOD, was easier, faster and less expensive to implement, but would have less fuel efficiency and more maintenance time and cost.

Fuel efficiency is very important because having a lower fuel consumption not only reduces operational cost but, more importantly, allows the plane to reach further on the same fuel, or carry more payload (more "boom") for the same range. While the first plan was better at this, both plans represent a huge improvement from the current planes.

User avatar
Not_Karl
Previously banned for not socially distancing
Posts: 3615
Joined: Thu Nov 12, 2009 6:12 pm
Location: Río Mono Dulce, Buenos Aires, Argentina

Re: OMG are they finally going to do it? (B-52 re-engine)

Postby Not_Karl » Fri Jan 13, 2023 3:55 pm

The second idea (8 business jet sized engines), the one that eventually was selected by the DOD, was easier, faster and less expensive to implement, but would have less fuel efficiency, more maintenance time and cost and twice the chances of engine failure.
Fixed.
International Ban ALL Aeroplanies Association, founder and president.

"I think, based on the types of aircraft listed, you're pretty much guaranteed a fiery death."
- Contemporary Poet flyboy2548m to a Foffie.

User avatar
Gabriel
Posts: 3153
Joined: Sat Feb 09, 2008 2:55 am
Location: Buenos Aires, Argentina

Re: OMG are they finally going to do it? (B-52 re-engine)

Postby Gabriel » Fri Jan 13, 2023 4:04 pm

The second idea (8 business jet sized engines), the one that eventually was selected by the DOD, was easier, faster and less expensive to implement, but would have less fuel efficiency, more maintenance time and cost and twice the chances of engine failure.
Fixed.
Oh yes, the dreaded 7-engine climb out!


Return to “Military Aviation Discussion”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest