Water AFAIK hasn’t been used on the B-52’s since J57’s.
They do not have to do anything structurally anytime soon. The AF and Boeing have clearly said so. With the average hours on the B-52 fleet around 20,000 hours per frame, that makes perfect sense. Boeing had programs for rebuilding the wings, but the problem is the wings have always been overbuilt. The CF6-80C2 (aka F138-GE-100) would probably work fine. The C-5M fleet plus the upcoming KC-46 fleet are using that engine type. My next choice would be F108-CF-100 (CFM56-2B) because they already have enough of them in retired KC-135R’s to do the work. And there were 4,000 more built for the civilian world. If I was being unrealistic then I’d be asking for engines that offer far bigger fuel savings using engines not even fully tested. 🙂
Every solution requires changes to the datalinks, electrical, hydraulic, bleed air, and fuel systems. It boils down to do you rip open the internal wing channels or leave the old tubes and cables in place? IMHO you open them up and remove the old stuff to save weight. Kerosene rot is eating the fuel lines and storage tanks. I don’t think they have much choice, but to put every B-52H through modernization. http://www.af.mil/News/ArticleDisplay/tabid/223/Article/140526/air-force-tackles-aging-aircraft-issue-head-on.aspx
Another realistic suggestion is adding a dedicated APU or two. The B-52H never had any and uses six engines to generate electrical power.
Just to show the CF6-80C2 isn’t a giant leap in size…
The 747 is carrying the CF34-8, smaller sibling of the CF34-10E that Boeing wants to use.
8 engines is the only sensible option.
4 bigger engines come with a lot of problems as you mentioned. One engine out is another problem with the B-52’s tiny rudder. To sort out all these issues would require major design work and thus is a no-go imho.
Surely a company like Boeing can figure out such trivialities such as too little vertical stab…
I another forum I foud this about reengining the B-52
I would prefer a pair of fuselage mounted CF6-80C2 or better simply because it’s the least complicated way to add new technology engines with the datalink and whatnot. The nuclear engine was going to add far more than 20,000 pounds. The B-52 uses a lifting tail, which simplifies the balancing act under load. The real trick is what to do with the flappy wings unloaded, which is why I would prefer spare low-profile afterburning engines like F404 under each wing. Not four F404, just one each wing. Then add more weight in the way of external datalinked weapon racks and fuel tanks. If you could utilize modularity, like using existing F-15E conformal tanks, it keeps development costs down.
Sign In
