If you don't know it, you can block a channel, and as soon as I finish typing this, I am going to block this channel. From the index screen, click on the three vertical dots to the right of the title under the thumbnail and select "Don't Recommend Channel." This is just an AI generated content channel.
Nothing but click bait. These engines are existing engines repurposed for the B-52. A great choice and a smart choice. I was in SAC in the 70’s and they were talking about re-engining the Buff back then but the Pentagon and Congress didn’t want you to invest that much money for an old bomber,but they had no idea the Buff would still be relevant and effective 50 years later.
No these engines are significantly less fuel efficient. They are just more powerful. I hate the computer read out because he reads so many things incorrectly.
@@terrainofthought Yea,but upgrading the Buff will cost much fewer tax dollars than the B-21 Raider and multi billion dollar Subs and Aircraft carriers,let alone all the money Congress has wasted on Ukraine and Israel. The flying wings are so expensive they don’t really get used that much.
@terrainofthought umm... What??? Clearly your not from the states so let me just say all of that comment is incorrect sir because we have all of those issues and a lot of each!!
They weren't smoke trails as such but predominantly unburnt fuel. Something common in non afterburning engines. The dear old F4 was only smokeless when in afterburner
They differ because airliners use High Bypass Ratio "fan jet engines" which are fuel efficient. Military planes are more "pure turbine high power units".
"The Army made eight variants" The Army, seriously ? The AAF issued perfomance requirements, they did not build anything. By the time the B-47 flew there was no AAF, it was the United Sates Air Force. There was no B-52 at all that had anything to do with the Army. What else did they get so obviously wrong ?
In the United States, Rolls-Royce employs nearly 6,000 people with significant operations in 27 states. The subject engines will be wholly produced in the US.
@@richardanderson2742 yes you are correct, USA nationals are working for the UK and making them rich and USA nationals depended , to the extend of not been able to develop their own national manufacturing any more , from car to cowboy boots . Thank you for reading my comment correctly. saludos
I am tired of seeing these videos, a new one every week! Stop making them! I want to know when they are going to fly the first plane after the new engines are installed!
So why will these engines destroy the entire aviation industry?
Quite, it's a valid question. They are merely turbofans so nothing unusual.
@@mothmagic1 the title is intended just to get your attention
If you don't know it, you can block a channel, and as soon as I finish typing this, I am going to block this channel. From the index screen, click on the three vertical dots to the right of the title under the thumbnail and select "Don't Recommend Channel." This is just an AI generated content channel.
Nothing but click bait. These engines are existing engines repurposed for the B-52. A great choice and a smart choice. I was in SAC in the 70’s and they were talking about re-engining the Buff back then but the Pentagon and Congress didn’t want you to invest that much money for an old bomber,but they had no idea the Buff would still be relevant and effective 50 years later.
No these engines are significantly less fuel efficient. They are just more powerful. I hate the computer read out because he reads so many things incorrectly.
The Army doesn't fly B-52's, the AIR FORCE does. The "I" in AI needs some work.
The “I” shouldn’t be capitalized!
The beginning designs of the B52 were Army Air Corps designs. First flight was as an Air Force plane.
@@tonyburzio4107 amazing new engine,,, i am not pro or against the US,,, but the US air force is the world number 1.. they have the funding..
His next video will preview the new tanks the navy is acquiring.
That’s the most stupendous title of a video in a long time. New engines in an ancient aircraft is nothing more than an upgrade.
I do so love the misleading clickbait headlines.
clickbait = thumbs down
I still don’t know how this engine will destroy the ENTIRE aviation industry. Clickbait.👎👎👎👎
The US is lucky. It has no inflation, no homelessness, and no unemployment. So it can spend freely on upgrading its army. Lucky, lucky, lucky.
@@terrainofthought Yea,but upgrading the Buff will cost much fewer tax dollars than the B-21 Raider and multi billion dollar Subs and Aircraft carriers,let alone all the money Congress has wasted on Ukraine and Israel. The flying wings are so expensive they don’t really get used that much.
@terrainofthought umm... What??? Clearly your not from the states so let me just say all of that comment is incorrect sir because we have all of those issues and a lot of each!!
@@JerzredCBS Oh how the irony is lost on the global north.
Kaptan kong will be happy😊😊
They weren't smoke trails as such but predominantly unburnt fuel. Something common in non afterburning engines. The dear old F4 was only smokeless when in afterburner
That is the definition of smoke, unburnt particulates.
Give them the best Rolls all the way.
This was made when Boeing was the tech gold standard.
Do better. At least, use the Air Force logo instead of the US Army.
THE DESTROYER
So, no "Tall Tails," today. Ah, but that big ole BUFF was a beauty.
You need to get a clue, the Army doesn't fly B-52's. the Air Force does.
Why just admit the upgrades are not happening - or delayed significantly.
What happens if you put the B-52 engines onto and passenger plane
Why are commercial engines so different from military ones?
They differ because airliners use High Bypass Ratio "fan jet engines" which are fuel efficient. Military planes are more "pure turbine high power units".
More and more long range military aircraft are moving to high bypass engines, the C17 is just one example.
Nothing different, the new ones are just normal engines like on business jets, nothing spectacular about them.
"The Army made eight variants" The Army, seriously ? The AAF issued perfomance requirements, they did not build anything.
By the time the B-47 flew there was no AAF, it was the United Sates Air Force. There was no B-52 at all that had anything to do with the Army.
What else did they get so obviously wrong ?
its all over
Why do you start the video with the seal of the Army? This is a US Air Force aircraft. Has nothing to do with the Army.
What a steaming load.
The fuel economy is worse. Why are you saying it's better the engine is more powerful
Why Army logo for an AirForce Jet?
Click Bait
RR is an English manufacturer no a United state of America corporation , made in the UK . saludos adios made in the USA
In the United States, Rolls-Royce employs nearly 6,000 people with significant operations in 27 states. The subject engines will be wholly produced in the US.
@@richardanderson2742 yes you are correct, USA nationals are working for the UK and making them rich and USA nationals depended , to the extend of not been able to develop their own national manufacturing any more , from car to cowboy boots . Thank you for reading my comment correctly. saludos
What is a "Boeing seven hundred and seventy seven?" Is it the same as the Boeing 777? Great video, but your text-to-speech utility isn't the best.
I am tired of seeing these videos, a new one every week! Stop making them! I want to know when they are going to fly the first plane after the new engines are installed!
Clickbait crap with nothing new. Doesn't even know which service flies the B52. Duh!!
AI Crap
Heh, I thought RR was sold and ended up Chinese.
Wrong
The Army?
Really a full of crap click bait title.
Total BS! These are the same engine powering Global expresses and the big gulf streams.. Not as suggested by this nonsense.
Drivel!
If it will destroy the aviation industry then why make it? Stupid title, click bait, ignoring channel.
Also contest is misspelled. Where is the editor?
What a stupid headline......
Click bait nonsense
@spaceace1006 It is utter fucking nonsense