http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/once-again-the-usaf-is-looking-to-re-engine-its-b-52-fl-1685747978
Once Again The USAF Is Looking To Re-Engine Its B-52 Fleet
The USAF is kicking around ‘creative concepts’ under which it could re-engine its fleet of 74 ever evolving B-52H Stratofortresses. With the bombers remaining in front-line service until at least 2040, and considering that flying with eight 1960s vintage TF33 engines is far from fuel efficient (burning 3k gallons an hour), re-engined B-52s should make great financial sense.
Defensenews.com quoted Lt. Gen Mike Holmes, deputy chief of staff for Strategic Plans and Requirements, telling reporters at a February 6th event:
“To go out and buy new engines for the B-52, you’d have a really hard time fitting that into our program, but that’s why we’re interested in a public-private partnership, which would be a different way to amortize those engines over time and pay for them in the savings that they actually generate, instead of paying for them out of savings that you hope for…. The idea is in a public-private partnership, somebody funds the engine and then we pay them back over time out of the fuel savings, which are generated out of the new engines. Our government has a way to do that with facilities. We don’t have a way to do that with airplanes, and we are exploring whether there are alternative ways that would let us do that… Look at what the airline industry is doing — they’re all re-engining. Why? Because it saves you a lot of money. If there is a commercially available engine which can give a 25-30 percent increase in either range or loiter, you have my attention.”
My opinion:
I personally believe that they should aim for a pair of CF6-80C2, because they already own a stock of them. The outboards would still require weight, therefore place – for takeoffs emergency use only – a single F404 or F1x0 on each outboard. That would give them plenty of power on takeoff and in the event of an emergency to stay airborne albeit at greatly reduced range. The B-52E began life with 10,000 lb st J57’s that were later upgraded to 13,000 pound static thrust each. The TF33’s currently give takeoff thrust up to 17,000 pound static thrust. It’s been possible on more than one occasion to remain airborne in older models with four engines. Even if one CF6-80C2 gave out, the remaining engine would suffice to remain airborne. Look at swapping out the 700-gallon wing tanks for the 1,000 gallon wing tanks from previous models to prevent wing flap on the lighter wing loading.
I built a list of weights and engines to compare:
1 ea. 3,000-gallon wing tanks (B-52C only) approx. 25,000 pounds each
1 ea. 1,000-gallon wing tanks (B-52A to B-52G) approx. 8,000 pounds each
1 ea. 700-gallon wing tanks (B-52H only) approx. 6,000 pounds each
1 ea. i-TF33-P-3 approx. 4,200 pounds ea. dry (Take-off 17,000 / Continuous ?) Fan 52″ dia.
1 ea. CF6-80C2 approx. 9,000 pounds ea. dry (Take-off 62,100 / Continuous 53,000) Fan 93″ dia.
1 ea. Trent 768 approx. 10,600 pounds ea. dry (Take-off 67,500 / Continuous ?) Fan 98″ dia.
1 ea. GEnx-2B67 approx. 12,500 pounds ea. dry (Take-off 67,400 / Continuous 58,500) Fan 105″ dia.
1 ea. Trent 875 approx. 13,100 pounds ea. dry (Take-off 75,000 / Continuous ?) Fan 110″ dia.
1 ea. GEnx-1B67 approx. 12,800 pounds ea. dry (Take-off 69,400 / Continuous 61,500) Fan 111″ dia.
1 ea. Trent 1000-A approx. 12,700 pounds ea. dry (Take-off 69,300 / Continuous 64,100) Fan 112″ dia.
1 ea. GP7270 approx. 14,800 pounds ea. dry (Take-off 81,500 / Continuous 74,700) Fan 116″ dia.
1 ea. Trent 970B-84 approx. 13,800 pounds ea. dry (Take-off 78,300 / Continuous 72,000) Fan 116″ dia.
1 ea. GE F404 approx. 2,300 pounds ea. dry (Dry 11,000 / Wet 17,700) Max. 35″ dia.
1 ea. GE F414 approx. 2,500 pounds ea. dry (Dry 13,000 / Wet 22,000) Max. 35″ dia.
1 ea. F100-PW-220 approx. 3,800 pounds ea. dry (Dry 14,600 / Wet 23,800) Max. 47″ dia.
1 ea. F110-GE-129 approx. 4,400 pounds ea. dry (Dry 18,000+ / Wet 29,400) Max. 47″ dia.
Sign In
February 24, 2015 at 4:18 am