Jump to content

Recommended Posts

No doubt at 81k lbs of thrust per motor if the pylons could take that.  With that it would have another 25k lbs of thrust to deliver freedom with no telling how much lower fuel burn.
Avgeek page on re-engine stuff on ye old BUFF:
https://theaviationgeekclub.com/usaf-materiel-command-history-office-releases-graphics-of-historical-efforts-to-re-engine-the-b-52-strategic-bomber/

I asked a TPS grad who was a BUFF EWO about the re-engine thing a long time ago and he said the four engine thing was kinda out because there wasn't enough rudder authority to counter the asymmetric thrust from an engine-out situation, or something along those lines, IIRC.  Let the smarter people chime in...

Correct, that's why all of the proposals from GE, P&W, and Rolls-Royce are all low bypass turbofans from business/regional jets. It also keeps the ground clearance issues relatively simple.

The vertical stabilizer was shortened in the G/H BUFFs to decrease structural loads during low-level flight. The tactics change was to increase survivability and drove other modifications like the EVS. 
To reduce aerodynamic loads on the rear fuselage in low-level flight there was a 91-inch reduction in the height of the vertical stabilizer. This stubbier fin had been tested on the first B-52A. In practice, the short fin combined with spoilers-only lateral control induced a tendency to Dutch-roll and low level handling was more sensitive than on earlier B-52s.

— Davies, Peter E., Tony Thornborough, and Tony Cassanova. Boeing B-52 Stratofortress. Crowood, 1998.

 


So the there’s also less engineering work to do with keeping 8 similarly sized engines when you consider all the hydro subsystems etc., although figuring out how to deliver the power with modern gens has been an issue they have worked through.

Clark wrt more thrust, that’s actually not a good thing. Would over stress the wing spars etc. It’s never a thrust limited airplane; there’s virtually no condition heavyweight where more thrust is needed. Control authority and steel brakes are the limiting factors.
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 208
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Having had first hand experience in acquisitions, our process is truly a joke.    The hilarious thing is that a commercial off the shelf upgrade to something like a Garmin GPS 175 (not to menti

Along those lines... every aircraft the military has with a GPS based navigation system capable of dropping bombs within close range of troops, but not certified to fly into an international airport.

What’s your background? It can be pretty decent in the hands of someone with a bit of experience. From my personal collection and the only time I’ve been fortunate enough to fight an Eagle W

Posted Images

On 4/11/2021 at 10:01 AM, pbar said:

I asked a TPS grad who was a BUFF EWO about the re-engine thing a long time ago and he said the four engine thing was kinda out because there wasn't enough rudder authority to counter the asymmetric thrust from an engine-out situation, or something along those lines, IIRC.  Let the smarter people chime in...

The 787 has a smaller rudder than it really needs but the airplane just happens to be a flying computer wrapped in carbon fiber. Asymmetric thrust issues resulting in control problems only happen if you get slow. Boeing engineers solved this through software that will reduce power on the good motor if you are dumb enough to get slow while engine out. While exploring that feature in the sim, I came to the conclusion the airplane is definitely smarter than the operator if you are stupid regarding energy management and aircraft control. 

The B-52 possibly has too many 1950s issues to be compatible with newer technologies but auto power reduction to solve control problems might work. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

The B-52 possibly has too many 1950s issues to be compatible with newer technologies 

*than the government is willing to pay for

Auto thrust reduction would 100% solve the problem, works with the C-130J, too. Whether the AF is willing to fork over money to have the FADECs do their thing is another matter.

And that’s also why they’re keeping 8 engines. Changing to 4 would be a TON of engineering work for the pylons and subsystems etc they’re not interested in. They’re barely interested in doing the work to make the engineering for a nearly similarly sized engine work.
Link to post
Share on other sites

*than the government is willing to pay for

Auto thrust reduction would 100% solve the problem, works with the C-130J, too. Whether the AF is willing to fork over money to have the FADECs do their thing is another matter.

And that’s also why they’re keeping 8 engines. Changing to 4 would be a TON of engineering work for the pylons and subsystems etc they’re not interested in. They’re barely interested in doing the work to make the engineering for a nearly similarly sized engine work.

Along those lines... every aircraft the military has with a GPS based navigation system capable of dropping bombs within close range of troops, but not certified to fly into an international airport.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
  • Like 2
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Along those lines... every aircraft the military has with a GPS based navigation system capable of dropping bombs within close range of troops, but not certified to fly into an international airport.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Truth. Even our trainers, whose primary mission is flying in the NAS can’t.

#acquisitionswin
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Truth. Even our trainers, whose primary mission is flying in the NAS can’t.

#acquisitionswin
But the UH-1, mostly stationed in the northern tier and without any anti-icing equipment is LPV capable. For those three months out of the year when they can go in the clouds.
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
But the UH-1, mostly stationed in the northern tier and without any anti-icing equipment is LPV capable. For those three months out of the year when they can go in the clouds.

M/CH-47... no de-ice


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, SurelySerious said:


Truth. Even our trainers, whose primary mission is flying in the NAS can’t.

#acquisitionswin

Having had first hand experience in acquisitions, our process is truly a joke. 
 

The hilarious thing is that a commercial off the shelf upgrade to something like a Garmin GPS 175 (not to mention an even more featured GTN 650) would be super inexpensive in relative terms, and in the T-6 specifically, you could place it in the same space the old GPS sat and it would probably even be plug and play with the already existing avionics. And even if not, you could replace the ADI and HSI with a dual Garmin G5 set up and be done with it. 
 

But bring that solution forward in our acquisition process and we’ll tell you a thousand different reasons it could be a problem, spend a ton of money and years investigating, and either end up at the originally suggested solution having spent way more time and money than needed; or even more likely, spend the same amount of time and money and still end up at an ineffectual solution. 

Edited by kaputt
Typos
  • Like 2
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

In fairness the t-6 was developed during the steepest part of the gps learning curve (early 2000s) so it's not a huge surprise the kln900 became obsolete in a hurry. 
 

but that's no excuse for a broken acquisition system that can't figure out how to put something certified and relevant in the plane today when so many cheap great options exist. 
 

Sometimes I look down at the iPad on my leg and still think it's a miracle we actually got big AF to buy into foreflight.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites



In fairness the t-6 was developed during the steepest part of the gps learning curve (early 2000s) so it's not a huge surprise the kln900 became obsolete in a hurry. 
 
but that's no excuse for a broken acquisition system that can't figure out how to put something certified and relevant in the plane today when so many cheap great options exist. 
 
Sometimes I look down at the iPad on my leg and still think it's a miracle we actually got big AF to buy into foreflight.


If the AF really wanted to update the T-6 GPS , it would find the money and POM for it. It's easy to chuck spears at the acquisition folks, but if the operators don't make it a priority requirement in their rack and stack, and get the staff to buy off on it being necessary, acquisition won't get the funding to fix it. The acquisition itself would likely be easy, getting the money to do the acquisition is the hard part.

I am surprised we got foreflight given DoD paid to develop the aero app. Though if I remember correctly, foreflight is purchased by individual wings using their funds.

I guess we'll just have to bring back the fix to fix in the mighty T-6... :)
Link to post
Share on other sites
DoD did not pay a dime to develop Aero. That is an internal product developed by some NGA guys on their own time. It is not a program and has no official recognition or funding. That’s a large part of why it is a giant steaming pile of shit.


Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network mobile app


Don't know where you got your info...

https://www.linkedin.com/company/hilton-software-llc

Hilton Software is a United States of Department Prime Contractor. In 2013, Hilton Software was awarded a 3-year contract worth $9M. In 2017, Hilton Software won a 5-year contract worth over $17M to develop multi-platform solutions used throughout the world by US DoD pilots and our allies. [/Quote]

https://hiltonsoftware2.com/company/
Hilton Software is the prime contractor for the Department of Defense Aeronautical Mobile Application and recently became a prime contractor for the United States Department of Transportation. Hilton Software has won over $50M in Government contracts.



Link to post
Share on other sites
In fairness the t-6 was developed during the steepest part of the gps learning curve (early 2000s) so it's not a huge surprise the kln900 became obsolete in a hurry. 
 
but that's no excuse for a broken acquisition system that can't figure out how to put something certified and relevant in the plane today when so many cheap great options exist. 
 
Sometimes I look down at the iPad on my leg and still think it's a miracle we actually got big AF to buy into foreflight.

I guess my real issue is the fact we’ve been using it for years. I can’t say I’ve ever heard an aircrew getting violated or any course deviation issues (other than the occasional RAIM fail). Now all of a sudden it’s not safe or acceptable? I know that there are some additional steps we have to take like manually checking and setting it up, but it’s really like five step. Not the 2 page checklist we had in the C17. I don’t agree with the change, if anything I trust it more than I trust flying a VOR approach in the Texan.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Link to post
Share on other sites
DoD did not pay a dime to develop Aero. That is an internal product developed by some NGA guys on their own time. It is not a program and has no official recognition or funding. That’s a large part of why it is a giant steaming pile of shit.


Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network mobile app

We are currently having that fight in the push for the mobile mission planning system in USASOAC.

Every time we brief ForeFlight somebody will bring up AeroApp, which is an immediate identifier to discount all their other opinions.

If you have ever actually tried to employ AeroApp you would know better than to ever bring it up in conversation as a suitable product for use.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Link to post
Share on other sites



My info was pre-2017 when Aero was being developed in-house at the NGA. It’s sad that the DoD paid $17M for that junk app when the ForeFlight+Jeppesen data contract for the entire DoD is several million less.

Aero is shit. The only thing it does decently is Giant Reports and that is only because the NGA intentionally cut ForeFlight out of getting Giant Reports from the NGA.
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 4 weeks later...
Posted (edited)
On 4/13/2021 at 1:36 PM, SurelySerious said:


*than the government is willing to pay for

Auto thrust reduction would 100% solve the problem, works with the C-130J, too. Whether the AF is willing to fork over money to have the FADECs do their thing is another matter.

And that’s also why they’re keeping 8 engines. Changing to 4 would be a TON of engineering work for the pylons and subsystems etc they’re not interested in. They’re barely interested in doing the work to make the engineering for a nearly similarly sized engine work.

I'm hearing the Rolls is by far the best. Engines aren't "handed" and can be used on the right side or left side with minimal modification. 

Edited by fire4effect
spellun
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/15/2021 at 8:38 PM, Bode said:

Can’t even use GPS for lateral navigation outside the FAF in the T-6 now. Let alone down to LPV minimums.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

What happened? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
What happened? 

We’ve been flying under a waiver but I guess AFFSA and the FAA didn’t like the waiver this go round. We can use it for en-route nav but not terminal area nav. Sounds like we are getting a stay of execution here soon and will be back to utilizing. Also, talks of an AMP to the A models is in works, the question is what do we want the future to look like?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Link to post
Share on other sites

Also, talks of an AMP to the A models is in works, the question is what do we want the future to look like?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Image1621306149.097008.jpg
Senior AF leaders imagining a “modern” cockpit

Image1621306246.558331.jpg
Every GA plane owner with $3k to burn
  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Bode said:


We’ve been flying under a waiver but I guess AFFSA and the FAA didn’t like the waiver this go round. We can use it for en-route nav but not terminal area nav. Sounds like we are getting a stay of execution here soon and will be back to utilizing. Also, talks of an AMP to the A models is in works, the question is what do we want the future to look like?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Other than getting a G430/530W for LPV that else would they "modernize"? The instruments were pretty good from what I could remember, especially for a primary trainer aircraft.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Other than getting a G430/530W for LPV that else would they "modernize"? The instruments were pretty good from what I could remember, especially for a primary trainer aircraft.

They are pretty good. I do see a potential to offload some of the advanced aircraft training into the T-6 especially if we have an avionics suite similar to the B model which is why the UPT next guys were using Navy birds because it allowed them to do some air to air intercepts and other functions for their “IFF” which were not capable of being done in the A model. The Navy is taking their birds back so we will be losing that ability here soon.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/16/2021 at 10:47 AM, ThreeHoler said:

 


My info was pre-2017 when Aero was being developed in-house at the NGA. It’s sad that the DoD paid $17M for that junk app when the ForeFlight+Jeppesen data contract for the entire DoD is several million less.

Aero is shit. The only thing it does decently is Giant Reports and that is only because the NGA intentionally cut ForeFlight out of getting Giant Reports from the NGA.

 

 

I'm just amazed that they actually got the iPad approved for us fighter guys.  Of course they can't make it a total win, so they have to throw a wrench into the situation and have the system completely wipe itself clean after a month of inactivity.  Makes total sense, would really hate for the enemy to get access to the Hi-Tacan approach plate!  Works great for part-timers, or people returning from a deployment and the associated leaves.  They just can't make things smooth and easy...   

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




×
×
  • Create New...