I am a retired B-52 F, D, and G pilot and aircraft commander. The H model was not powered by a J-57 but a TF-33 which did not have water injection. All the prior models did
@@davidschiffer4448 Old school for sure. Flew Fs at Castle in 72, D's in Thailand and Guam in 74, and G's at Castle, Beale, Seymour Johnson, and Guam (Combat) from 72-78. A/C from 76-78. They did correct it later in the video. Kenneth P. Johnson, Lt Col, USAF (Ret)
@u2mister17 To my knowledge no. The new engines might change some aerodynamic characteristics and the maximum Mach but cruise Mach should remain the same.
@@kennethjohnson6619 Thanks for getting back to me. It is not a well talked about detail. But you know the older turbo jet engines are much faster than newer design turbo fans.
As an ex Rolls Royce engineer, every airline & military do not own Rolls Royce engines they are leased that’s how they can eliminate purchase cost but pay for lease service, repair & overhaul more affordable, if I’m correct I believe a very high percentage of American Airlines in fort worth have rolls Royce engines & are geared up to do their own maintenance, which I’m proud to say a majority of my colleagues at the time trained the first wave of their fitting/engineering crew Sorry to bore but tiny bragging rights lol, & no I don’t have an ego issue, it’s just great to see the USA take rolls Royce as a serious aviation manufacturer
And rr remotely monitors the engines, which lead to them telling a quantas a380 flight to land ASAP as they detected potential failure warnings. Of course that monitoring would not exist in military engines, at least not remotely whilst operating.
One of the reasons for 8 engines has to due with yaw control in the case of an engine failure. If one of four on one wing fails, the thrust difference from side to side is much less than the thrust difference if one of two on one side fails in a 4 engine configuration.
Rolling down the runway throttles open wide see the mighty Phantom sway from side to side airborne again without a blip It's just one more aborted trip but we're pressing on regardless for the wg cdrs AFC Went to early briefing climbed into the Kite opened up the throttles and roared into the night leaving the flare path far behind It's dark outside, but we don't mind cos we're pressing on regardless for the wg cdr's AFC Rolling down the runway throttle open wide see the mighty Falcon sway from side to side airborne again with just 9 G I wish I had a nav with me (!) but we're pressing on regardless for the wg cdr's AFC Rolling down the runway throttles open wide see the mighty Jaguar sway from side to side airborne again, but only just It's not much fun with F*** all thrust but we're pressing on regardless for the wg cdr's AFC GIVE ME BUCCANEERS! They're British through and through The Banana Jet The Best we've had yet We are the last of the few. Don't give me the Jaguar Unless you refer to the car The car is a ground hog The aircraft is half frog Don't give me the Jaguar. Give me Buccaneers They're British through and through The Banana Jet The Best we've had yet We are the last of the few. Don't give me the Harrier jump jet You haven't convinced me yet Jets that fly backwards Are soon to be knackered Don't give me the Harrier jump jet Well… Not just yet... Give me Buccaneers... They're British through and through The Banana Jet The Best we've had yet We are the last of the few. Don't give me this computer crap It's no way to tackle a SAP It's OK for Dicks, Germans and Spicks But Gentleman always carry a map! Give me Buccaneers... They're British through and through The Banana Jet The Best we've had yet We are the last of the few. Don't give me Air Traffic Control They live in a bloody great hole… They scream, and they shout, then F**k you about Don't give me Air Traffic Control. Give me Buccaneers... They're British through and through The Banana Jet The Best we've had yet We are the last of the few. Don't give me the F-104 It's only a ground loving whore It goes in a turn, flick, spin and burn Don't give me the F-104. Give me Buccaneers They're British through and through The Banana Jet The Best we've had yet WE ARE THE LAST OF THE FEW!
I was stationed at Loring AFB, Maine. 81150/SP for 8 months after returning from overseas. Want to see something awesome is a KLAXON with a kickover of all Class A B-52'S in the Double A area. When those packs kick those motors over and they start up all those engines from all the AA Aircraft......A SMOKE SCREEN and fumes is unreal. Years prior I was at Plattsburgh, AFB/FB-111's.....as they say once SAC you always go back to SAC !!! I loved the country and area of both these bases.....all be it Loring had a long winter but what an area and the locals were always nice to us.
Turbofans are much more efficient. If you ever watch early 60's era movies where they show a commercial jet you'll notice the jet engines are very long and thin. These are turbojets. The turbofan adds a big fan at the front that increases efficiency bigly. Those engines are not long pencils but more like stubby Coke cans.
@@protorhinocerator142 True. Like the cigar shaped engines that lasted so long on the 737 - really made them stand out for a time in the 70s. Also why large, slow aircraft all moved away from internal engines to wing mounted.
F130 is the military version of the BR700-series. BR710 first ran in 1995. Not really sure how this 30-year-old engine technology fitted on a 70-year-old aircraft will "change aviation forever"...
Yeah. I was waiting to hear just how such a niche application of an already-widely-used engine is going to change aviation forever. Such a title detracts what is otherwise informative and interesting video. They shoot themselves in the foot when they do that.
the engine has evolved over the years, it's not a 30 yr old engine. but if I change the subject to Boeing 737 it has not evolved well and is a baby killer which the B52 was accused of being a number of years ago.
@@paulmorgan8254 , based on just one article that I’ve read (online), after the second B 737 Max crash and subsequent grounding, the reason that Boeing in general, and the 737 in particular, has gone downhill is directly related to them buying McDonnell Douglas a number of years ago. McDonnell was going downhill because of bad management so when Boeing bought them, that action put them inside of Boeing, so that they could do for Boeing what they had done for McDonnell Douglas. Specifically, Boeing had always promoted aeronautical engineers into management, so that whenever engineers had questions, they could simply ask people who had good answers. After the McDonnell Douglas people got promoted/ moved into those senior positions, the engineers kept asking them questions. The difference being that the McDonnell Douglas people were NOT any type of engineer. They were accountants and such. So, with so many of upper management now being other-than-engineers, and tired of being embarrassed with not knowing the answers, they moved corporate far away, to the Morton Salt building in Chicago, the article said. So now upper management can hide from the engineers, but their lack of expertise now shows up In defective products. Actually, it seems that I heard that now, upper management is looking to move to some third location. Probably somewhere where they won’t get shot at during their commute.
The RB211 was made for the Lockheed Tristar. It was flight tested on a Vickers VC10 with the engine replacing two of the VC10s Spey engines. I had a number of flights on this aircraft.
It's an armed spaceship that will never leave our atmosphere. A testament to the engineering it received over the past 60-70 years. Constantly improved and never obsolete because nothing else comes close in terms of it's mission.
How is it a spaceship?! That’s an odd description as it is dependent upon aero foils and atmospheric jet engines and has no ability to achieve escape velocity.
It is my understanding that the main reason for keeping 8 smaller engines rather than 4 bigger one is that the B-52 has less rudder than what it would need to compensate for the breackage of one of the bigger ones, especially in the outer pylons. Rebuilding half the plane to enlarge its rudder would be a true waste of resources. On the other hand, a current B-52 losing an engine - and there may be people shooting at the BUFF ... I suspect the pilots would be just mildly annoyed, modtly at the idea of the paperwork.
The B-52 wing is rather flexible and four larger single engines would have reduced ground clearance greatly; that's my understanding of why they went with these
I remember a discussion during B-52 initial training at Castle AFB, about a 1970s attempt at updating the B-52 engines. The issue with going to 4 engines was that the systems on the B-52 include 4 generators bleed air to/from all 8 engines and hydraulic pumps on 6 engines. The hydraulic systems were not exactly fully redundant, more like losing one pump wouldn't lose all spoiler control, just some of them, so with 4 engines, you could lose 2 hydralic systems with the loss of a single engine, which might be extremely dangerous. Of course,, this discussion was back in the 1980s, when I did my initial B-52 training, and nobody imagined that the planes would still be flying in 2023. Heck, in 1983 the Gs and Hs that were the only ones still flying, already looked like they were one foot in the grave. So the re-engine program was dropped, for 40 years. We would have saved a bunch of gas and maintenance had the pentagon paid for the upgrade back the instead of today but, gas was cheap and there were piles of J-57/TF-33 engines and parts sitting in retired 707s and DC-8s.
I was going to say the same thing. Having a 10,000 lb weight shift in 20 minutes at the tail of the plane would have caused an unacceptable CG test during take off and early climb out.
So glad the Air Force is still dropping massive amounts of ordinance with the iconic weapons platform while doing it in an environmentally responsible manner.
Dad was a USAF test pilot. At Edwards he was involved in the initial work on the X and Y B-47 and B-52. Later at Wright Patterson he was chief of Flight Test and Bomber Operations. Our home was in Beavercreek a mile or two directly off the end of the runway. When SAC would scramble the fleet they went right over our house. You simply cannot imagine the awe felt as 21 B-52’s two abreast flew very low over our home. I thought then that others would have to be insane to start something with the USA.
I remember watching the B-52's flying out of March AFB in Riverside, CA when I was a kid back in the 60's. Awesome sight to see especially for a kid fascinated by air and space back then. I wrote a report on the Saturn V back in 1969. Still fascinated by both subjects to this day!
I lived in Redlands with my family from ‘56 to ‘59, then occasionally we went back and forth to there from our new home in San Diego county. For one period I remember seeing March just packed with parked B-52s, but I can’t remember exactly when. Do you remember the time frame?
Yes the Saturn V was really an incredible achievement, back in the day when the US was such a great country. I was just a 4 year old kid then but I saw the Saturn V launch on Apollo 10. I remember the feeling of pounding on my chest as it rose into the sky. I also get a bit misty eyed thinking about those days... :)
@@fishbike9103 My ex BIL was in the Air Force, stationed at Austin, TX. My then wife and I drove from CA to visit her sister and our new BIL. He was kind of a rebel, never paid much attention to any rules......we went to his base on a Sunday afternoon when it was lightly staffed. A B-52 was parked next to some office buildings....noone around, so he and I went exploring...up to and inside of this B-52...I even sat in the pilot's seat. Also, don't recall just how we got on top of the craft itself, but walked along the main fuselage all the way back to the tail...that tail fin looked like it was 50' tall when standing right beside it. He also 'borrowed" a really nice pair of four legged jack stands, returned to the base about midnight......the guy 'on duty' was asleep at his desk, my BIL went over to a set of jack stands on the floor, picked them up, loudly clanged them back down onto the concrete, saying to the guy on duty, "I brought those jack stands back"....to which he replied, "Yeah, OK!" For years I ran an auto repair 'on the side' and those stands have had a lot of use...much more heavy duty than the standaed three legged ones.....and, over 60 years later, still have them. For 35 years I ran huge rotary kilns which ran 24/7, and would often go 18 months without shutting down.....I had one week end off/month. Anyone who thinks the graveyard shift is just another eight hour period of time needs to work it for a few decades....like I did. BHE
When I lived in Hucknall, Notts, UK back in the 1960’s the RB 211 was running constantly on its test-bed at Rolls-Royce. We all grew up with that as a constant background noise.
Sorry to spoil your eardrums, but in the RB211 development I supplied the real time data acquisition computers to RR Derby. The accustic chamber was unnerving to work in (you could hear your own heartbeat) in complete contrast to the bearing testing labs.
I'd be more worried about the main wing spars than anything else. When the Air Force was practicing with the B-52 and Kc-135 for a "demostration team,' the main wing spars were showing signs of stress. The B-52 will be around long after the B-1B, B-2 and B-23 has flown into history. LONG LIVE THE BUFF! (Fairchild AFB 1983-1988)
Airframe age is one thing but how many total hours/cycles on the average? I’m sure Boeing has published an aging aircraft inspection program that should keep the B52 airworthy for a long time.
We have had a wing failure previously i.e. the fatal crash killing three on the BUF from Seymour Johnson over South Carolina in September 75 but that is the only one I know of. I later flew with the IP who ejected from the CP seat and he told me much of the details. That was not wing spar but a wing separation during a fuel leak between pod 3 and 4 flying back and shearing the horizontal stabilizer.
Refit to 4 engines is a bad idea. Loosing two engines on the same pylon is a serious situation on the B52. If the aircraft is fitted with 4 large engines, loosing one engine would also pose a threat. The pylons are old and can not take a lot of extra thrust.
1979: Hey, that Bleriot XI is top notch! A little windy and hot at the feet, but hey, just swap the engine and it will be fine. 1989: Hey, lets keep the Vicker Vimy Bomber in service. Such a good girl. The copilot needs a better ice pick, though. Just swap the engines and it will be fine. 2013: Hey, that Me 262 is totally hot! Lasts forever. I mean dont pull and push too hard on the throttles you know. Easy man. Just swap the engines and it will be fine. 2023: Hey, that B-52 had so many broken arrows, you have to love it! Take a break! We better just swap the engines and it will be fine. 2093: Hey that Starship is...
Wasn’t the best modern engine they could have picked but the one that required the least new flight testing and certification. Really a hard envelope to stuff a modern engine into.
Nowadays every time I hear of B-52 life extensions I think of Pliver Wendell Holmes poem, 'The Wonderful One Hoss Shay,' a buggy built so well that everything wore out together and on it's 100th birthday it had an RUD.
Rather the merlin was suggested for the p51 to fix its poor performance with the original Allison engine. The merlin had been in use and development in Britain since the mid 1930s by then and was rather well developed. Of course without the merlin there would not have been a Britain for allied forces to launch from later in the war as it was crucial for the battle of Britain.
@@Coyote27981 If a Major or Col was in their 30 or 40s when they flew the first 52s or 130s they could have a son in flight training, giving another generation.
Airline VP and technical representative at DAC/Boeing during the B 717 program. The RR/BMW engines used on the 717 were truly marvelous. I met the German professor who designed the powerplants, and he was sure proud of himself! He earned it. In any event, congrats to the USAF for choosing RR/BMW, but I must admit I am dismayed at the prospect of continuing to utilize an airframe 70 years old. From my experience this is irresponsible for safety. For example, the critical joins that comprise the aircraft structure and especially the wiring harness, much of it cannot be accessed for maintenance/replacement remain a valid concern. I am worried about safety of crews and payloads of extremely aging aircraft.
The depot level service programs for most USAF aircraft of the era were designed to keep them flying forever if needed. They can remanufacture and replace any part of the structure, wiring harnesses, etc. that they need to. I'd wager that the B-52s flying today have very few original parts still on them, for critical structural parts like wing/fuselage joining areas it's a safe bet that none of that factory original. It'd be really cool to see their maintenance and repair history made public record if they're ever retired. Physical copies of all the mx logs for a single in service B-52 would probably take up a few bookshelves at least, that'd be an awesome addition a collector's library!!
The B-52 is the best bomb truck ever created. When you really need to bomb someone back to the stone age, use a B-52. They aren't stealthy, and are in fact the furthest thing from stealth. Those huge flat surfaces ensure they give off an enormous radar signature. When you see a B-52 being used in war, it means definitively that the enemy has literally nothing left that can shoot down a plane. If they had anything at all, they would shoot it at the B-52. The goal then, would be to use stealth aircraft to wipe out all the radar and anti-aircraft as soon as possible so the B-52's can move in. Once the B-52's start bombing, it becomes a painful beat-down. An enemy just has to get used to the idea of being carpet bombed every day. This is the new normal until the war is over. There are very few things on the battlefield that compare to a B-52 carpet bombing when it comes to making the enemy want to surrender immediately.
So, if the B52 four larger engines, the RB211 for example, the wings would’ve had to be redesigned, which would ultimately have made the B52’s extended operation be financially unacceptable?
When a B-52 gets scrapped, the whole thing should be put in civilian hands. As a fire extinguisher, I can't see many planes doing a better job at soaking large swaths, except from a higher altitude and a little faster. The present firefighter planes would remain low-altitude craft. I can't estimate how valuable a craft such as the B-52 as a hurricane plane might be. They can always become a thin-body airliner. Astronomers... yeah, I think my case for demilitarizing the B-52 fleet has been presented well enough. Keep it alive, but it doesn't fight any more.
They did. B-58, B-1, B-2, B-21. But they haven't come up with anything better or more capable or more versatile that can fill its unique capability suite.
the video is interesting and explaining the history of the strato fortress and the current problems. and at some point when the producers finished the video, they remembered the title: oh, why is this engine changing aviation forever. so what are the real benefits besides having that one new engine on that one plane? possibly 5 other planes that could use the engine?
Considering the total diameter of a GE90 turbofan engine, that's not really that impressive. One couldn't simply use it on a bomber such as the B52, considering the distance between ground and wing's surface
@@nunomc2815 I wasn't suggesting that it could be used on the B-52, I was just marveling at the thrust today's turbofan engines can produce when compared to early turbojet engines.
The Air Force is making a critical mistake by not upgrading to a much sturdier engine that has 40.000 tons of thrust, a new electronics package that would take 6 tons of weight off the plane and giving a new armament package that would keep the plane relevant for the next 3 decades.
more thrust doesn`t have a point to it if the planes aging structure can`t take it. they probably(?) focused around durability/reliability and fuel consumption
I am sure that the hundreds of scientists, engineers, military strategists, and top level program managers all appreciate your observations and plan to seek out your advice in the future so that their fundamental mistakes will never happen again. 🤣🤣
@@larrysorenson4789 We both know that this would indeed be the smart thing to do but nobody's getting in the way of defence contracts and people making big bonuses. I'm only trying to do right by the world.
Great to see such an iconic aircraft as the BUFF getting a new lease of life, but how viable is it in even this decade let alone those to come? I know I'd rather be in a B2 than a B52 in anything other than totally uncontested airspace with stealth fighters and upcoming stealth drones an incredible threat 😢.
Still quite a bit of use for b52s once airspace is uncontested, especially looking to the pacific. A bomb/missile truck capable of crossing the pacific at a relatively low cost would still be extremely valuable.
In the Gulf War in 1991 the B-52s were launching long range bombs from thousands of miles away. They'll do the same thing in any upcoming war. There's no need to put them in danger.
@@ColinDyckes I was wondering what they were called when I was making the above post. I know most bombs are glide bombs, which means short range, but not all. I also know most missiles are air-to-air. I knew B-52s were bombing targets, so I went with bombs. I was half-right. 😁
@@Bob10009 They are both good looking aircraft, but as bombers practicality is what counts. That's why the B52 still flies. The Vulcans range was limited (look at the silly, imprecise raids in The Falklands!), it couldn't carry anywhere near what a B52 can, the crew conditions were cramped and cockpit visibility was woeful!
Unmentioned in the video are two controversies over the engine replacement. First, initial studies indicated that engine replacement would not be economical in regards to fuel efficiency- the engines would not save enough fuel to justify the cost. Then, someone at the USAF took a second look at those costs- the initial study showed the price of fuel on the ground... but most B-52 missions include some air-to-air refueling, and that cost SEVENTEEN TIMES AS MUCH per pound of fuel. So the USAF reconsidered. The next item was, wouldn't it be cheaper to put four larger engines rather than eight? Why, yes, it would, but that created another problem- what happens if you lose an engine, particularly an outboard one? The yaw created by an engine out on No. 1 or No. 4 would have to be compensated by the rudder... and it wasn't big enough! (Remember, it's a REALLY LARGE TAIL to begin with!) Studies were done to put on a twin tail, but that was far more expensive than eight smaller engines. Ergo, the present situation. This was all covered in Aviation Week & Space Technology. Kudos to Boeing for a one-hundred year aircraft that still works. A side note, the US Navy built battleships that were only intended to last 20 to 25 years!
A single GE9 is like 100,000 lbs of thrust, and a single GE9x is like 135,000lbs. Why can't we rewing the b52 for 4 of them? Rewinging the plain would still be cheaper than a new jet, and 500,000lbs of cargo capacity would be cool, (if the fusulage can handle the weight.)
the total thrust for all 8 engines is 168,000lbs. If you put two GE9x's on one wing, that's more thrust than all 8 engines combined, on one wing. The wings have enough tension as it is with the current 86,000 lbs of thrust per wing. Puting GE9X's would just rip the wings off...
@@BL4NK43V3R that's also why I said "rewing." It's a term describing a plain redisign that only changes the wing design. Re-engine is currently what the upgrade is. An example of a "rewinged" plain is the 777x which is a 777 with new wings and a new engine. Another is those little v tips they've added to the end of several jet wings. Given the 2x power increase I'd probably do a "truss braced wing" rewing design which could increase lift while decreasing drag. But I'm totally unsure how the fusulage substructure of the b52 could hold up. Either a "deeper" wing or a "truss braced wing would require additional fusilage areas to be able to handle the wing forces. Either a deeper wing or trusbraced wing would add the additional support strength to the plane required for the power increase if correctly implemented.
Knowing how the military wastes money im just waiting to hear how this all goes over budget and timeframe and in the end a complete debacle... Am i right?
Airships are great! 🛸Modern airships need plasma propulsion panels. The panels are arranged in the form of circular zones around the perimeter and on the bottom of the aircraft. Thousands of cells work in such engines, they shoot plasma pulses with a high frequency. If an electric current is applied to the rails contacts, induction accelerates the spark closing the contacts to cosmic speeds. In the motor plasma panels, small cell-shaped dischargers are connected together (as in plasma TV screens). There, the railguns are reduced to the size of a pencil, assembled into flat panels that resemble plasma TV panels in design. The distance between the contacts is insignificant - up to 1 mm - the discharge spark becomes a jumper between them. The cells work synchronously: they shoot streams of plasma - sparks of electric discharges accelerated by the force of induction. The speed is high, the number of railguns in the panels reaches hundreds of thousands - the total motor impulse in the end is huge! The discharges come with a megahertz frequency, each pulse hits the air. The air swirls into toroidal rings. These propulsion panels are used for aircraft in the atmosphere: a column of circular vortices is created from below and along the movement by pulses of plasma panels. So they fly even against the wind. In a vortex jet, the rotation of the air lowers the temperature - moisture from the air is frozen by snowflakes, on which the light created by electrical discharges sparkles. It turns out a "solid beam", which, when the device is rocked, bends due to the curvature of the trajectory of the departing vortex rings. It should be emphasized - this technology is not perfect. Such devices fly fast and maneuverable - because of the lightness of the device, but microwave radiation arises from pulsed plasma engines. It is not dangerous for cargo airships, the remoteness of the engines from the cockpit reduces the danger of microwave radiation.
Wow imagine if US army went with the RR RB211 convrersion that would of been some powerful aircraft that I still think the RB211 is still the best engine RR ever made ❤
It not an engine, it's a turbine. Let's review: An engine is what you have in the average car. A motor is what you have in a Tesla. A thruster is what you put in a rocket and a turbine is what you place in a jet. Read it, learn it, live it.
@robertmatthews4285 The FAA civilian mechanics license used to be called A&E, airframe and engine. It is now called A&P, airframe and powerplant to cover all the newer terminology.
@@johnlang3198 I don’t understand your point in context to the fact that jet engines are engines and are called engines. Did I misunderstand something in your post?
And you would be wrong. Engines convert Energy into Mechanical work. All of your examples are covered in that definition. If you are going to try and split hairs you better know your thermodynamics.
I am a retired B-52 F, D, and G pilot and aircraft commander. The H model was not powered by a J-57 but a TF-33 which did not have water injection. All the prior models did
Yessir. glad you pointed that little fun fact out. I flew G's and H's. F & Ds? Wow, Old School for sure. Nice.
@@davidschiffer4448 Old school for sure. Flew Fs at Castle in 72, D's in Thailand and Guam in 74, and G's at Castle, Beale, Seymour Johnson, and Guam (Combat) from 72-78. A/C from 76-78. They did correct it later in the video. Kenneth P. Johnson, Lt Col, USAF (Ret)
I understand the new engines will reduce cruise speed significantly.
@u2mister17 To my knowledge no. The new engines might change some aerodynamic characteristics and the maximum Mach but cruise Mach should remain the same.
@@kennethjohnson6619 Thanks for getting back to me.
It is not a well talked about detail.
But you know the older turbo jet engines are much faster than newer design turbo fans.
Well done to all at Rolls Royce engines. That have again made something very special.
As an ex Rolls Royce engineer, every airline & military do not own Rolls Royce engines they are leased that’s how they can eliminate purchase cost but pay for lease service, repair & overhaul more affordable, if I’m correct I believe a very high percentage of American Airlines in fort worth have rolls Royce engines & are geared up to do their own maintenance, which I’m proud to say a majority of my colleagues at the time trained the first wave of their fitting/engineering crew
Sorry to bore but tiny bragging rights lol, & no I don’t have an ego issue, it’s just great to see the USA take rolls Royce as a serious aviation manufacturer
“Every airline doesn’t own their Rolls Royce engine”? Are you sure about that, because I’m pretty sure that’s not true in every case!
And rr remotely monitors the engines, which lead to them telling a quantas a380 flight to land ASAP as they detected potential failure warnings. Of course that monitoring would not exist in military engines, at least not remotely whilst operating.
@@bash102 im fairly certain that was not his point
One of the reasons for 8 engines has to due with yaw control in the case of an engine failure. If one of four on one wing fails, the thrust difference from side to side is much less than the thrust difference if one of two on one side fails in a 4 engine configuration.
I read vertical stab was originally supposed to prove trim, that’s why the rudder is so small and the need to keep the 8 engines.
Rolling down the runway
throttles open wide
see the mighty Phantom
sway from side to side
airborne again without a blip
It's just one more aborted trip
but we're pressing on regardless
for the wg cdrs AFC
Went to early briefing
climbed into the Kite
opened up the throttles
and roared into the night
leaving the flare path far behind
It's dark outside, but we don't mind
cos we're pressing on regardless
for the wg cdr's AFC
Rolling down the runway
throttle open wide
see the mighty Falcon
sway from side to side
airborne again with just 9 G
I wish I had a nav with me (!)
but we're pressing on regardless
for the wg cdr's AFC
Rolling down the runway
throttles open wide
see the mighty Jaguar
sway from side to side
airborne again, but only just
It's not much fun
with F*** all thrust
but we're pressing on regardless
for the wg cdr's AFC
GIVE ME BUCCANEERS!
They're British through and through
The Banana Jet
The Best we've had yet
We are the last of the few.
Don't give me the Jaguar
Unless you refer to the car
The car is a ground hog
The aircraft is half frog
Don't give me the Jaguar.
Give me Buccaneers
They're British through and through
The Banana Jet
The Best we've had yet
We are the last of the few.
Don't give me the Harrier jump jet
You haven't convinced me yet
Jets that fly backwards
Are soon to be knackered
Don't give me the Harrier jump jet
Well… Not just yet...
Give me Buccaneers...
They're British through and through
The Banana Jet
The Best we've had yet
We are the last of the few.
Don't give me this computer crap
It's no way to tackle a SAP
It's OK for Dicks, Germans and Spicks
But Gentleman always carry a map!
Give me Buccaneers...
They're British through and through
The Banana Jet
The Best we've had yet
We are the last of the few.
Don't give me Air Traffic Control
They live in a bloody great hole…
They scream, and they shout, then F**k you about
Don't give me Air Traffic Control.
Give me Buccaneers...
They're British through and through
The Banana Jet
The Best we've had yet
We are the last of the few.
Don't give me the F-104
It's only a ground loving whore
It goes in a turn, flick, spin and burn
Don't give me the F-104.
Give me Buccaneers
They're British through and through
The Banana Jet
The Best we've had yet
WE ARE THE LAST OF THE FEW!
I was stationed at Loring AFB, Maine. 81150/SP for 8 months after returning from overseas. Want to see something awesome is a KLAXON with a kickover of all Class A B-52'S in the Double A area. When those packs kick those motors over and they start up all those engines from all the AA Aircraft......A SMOKE SCREEN and fumes is unreal. Years prior I was at Plattsburgh, AFB/FB-111's.....as they say once SAC you always go back to SAC !!! I loved the country and area of both these bases.....all be it Loring had a long winter but what an area and the locals were always nice to us.
The engines were changed from turbojets to turbofans in 1964, so not 70 years ago, but still going on a very respectable 60 years.
Actually, the change first occurred in 1961 with the rollout of the H and the TF33.
Turbofans are much more efficient.
If you ever watch early 60's era movies where they show a commercial jet you'll notice the jet engines are very long and thin. These are turbojets.
The turbofan adds a big fan at the front that increases efficiency bigly. Those engines are not long pencils but more like stubby Coke cans.
@@protorhinocerator142 True. Like the cigar shaped engines that lasted so long on the 737 - really made them stand out for a time in the 70s. Also why large, slow aircraft all moved away from internal engines to wing mounted.
@@smgdfcmfah I never thought of that but yeah it makes sense.
F130 is the military version of the BR700-series. BR710 first ran in 1995. Not really sure how this 30-year-old engine technology fitted on a 70-year-old aircraft will "change aviation forever"...
Everything Changes EVERYTHING. so much noise . . . . . .
Yeah. I was waiting to hear just how such a niche application of an already-widely-used engine is going to change aviation forever.
Such a title detracts what is otherwise informative and interesting video. They shoot themselves in the foot when they do that.
the engine has evolved over the years, it's not a 30 yr old engine. but if I change the subject to Boeing 737 it has not evolved well and is a baby killer which the B52 was accused of being a number of years ago.
Thank you, sir. Much appreciated...
@@paulmorgan8254 , based on just one article that I’ve read (online), after the second B 737 Max crash and subsequent grounding, the reason that Boeing in general, and the 737 in particular, has gone downhill is directly related to them buying McDonnell Douglas a number of years ago.
McDonnell was going downhill because of bad management so when Boeing bought them, that action put them inside of Boeing, so that they could do for Boeing what they had done for McDonnell Douglas.
Specifically, Boeing had always promoted aeronautical engineers into management, so that whenever engineers had questions, they could simply ask people who had good answers.
After the McDonnell Douglas people got promoted/ moved into those senior positions, the engineers kept asking them questions. The difference being that the McDonnell Douglas people were NOT any type of engineer. They were accountants and such.
So, with so many of upper management now being other-than-engineers, and tired of being embarrassed with not knowing the answers, they moved corporate far away, to the Morton Salt building in Chicago, the article said. So now upper management can hide from the engineers, but their lack of expertise now shows up In defective products.
Actually, it seems that I heard that now, upper management is looking to move to some third location. Probably somewhere where they won’t get shot at during their commute.
Those are good engines. The RR Tay is in the same family. I flew them in the F-100 Fokker. Very fuel efficient and quiet.
The RB211 was made for the Lockheed Tristar. It was flight tested on a Vickers VC10 with the engine replacing two of the VC10s Spey engines. I had a number of flights on this aircraft.
It's an armed spaceship that will never leave our atmosphere. A testament to the engineering it received over the past 60-70 years. Constantly improved and never obsolete because nothing else comes close in terms of it's mission.
How is it a spaceship?! That’s an odd description as it is dependent upon aero foils and atmospheric jet engines and has no ability to achieve escape velocity.
@@rcpmac You are being too literal is all.
@@rcpmac takes up a lot of space
It is my understanding that the main reason for keeping 8 smaller engines rather than 4 bigger one is that the B-52 has less rudder than what it would need to compensate for the breackage of one of the bigger ones, especially in the outer pylons. Rebuilding half the plane to enlarge its rudder would be a true waste of resources.
On the other hand, a current B-52 losing an engine - and there may be people shooting at the BUFF ... I suspect the pilots would be just mildly annoyed, modtly at the idea of the paperwork.
The B-52 wing is rather flexible and four larger single engines would have reduced ground clearance greatly; that's my understanding of why they went with these
I remember a discussion during B-52 initial training at Castle AFB, about a 1970s attempt at updating the B-52 engines. The issue with going to 4 engines was that the systems on the B-52 include 4 generators bleed air to/from all 8 engines and hydraulic pumps on 6 engines. The hydraulic systems were not exactly fully redundant, more like losing one pump wouldn't lose all spoiler control, just some of them, so with 4 engines, you could lose 2 hydralic systems with the loss of a single engine, which might be extremely dangerous.
Of course,, this discussion was back in the 1980s, when I did my initial B-52 training, and nobody imagined that the planes would still be flying in 2023. Heck, in 1983 the Gs and Hs that were the only ones still flying, already looked like they were one foot in the grave. So the re-engine program was dropped, for 40 years. We would have saved a bunch of gas and maintenance had the pentagon paid for the upgrade back the instead of today but, gas was cheap and there were piles of J-57/TF-33 engines and parts sitting in retired 707s and DC-8s.
The water tank was not in the back of the plane, it was just aft of the crew compartment.
Was thinking the same earlier😮Makes sense, obviously weight distribution should help the climb.
I was going to say the same thing. Having a 10,000 lb weight shift in 20 minutes at the tail of the plane would have caused an unacceptable CG test during take off and early climb out.
So glad the Air Force is still dropping massive amounts of ordinance with the iconic weapons platform while doing it in an environmentally responsible manner.
Dad was a USAF test pilot. At Edwards he was involved in the initial work on the X and Y B-47 and B-52. Later at Wright Patterson he was chief of Flight Test and Bomber Operations. Our home was in Beavercreek a mile or two directly off the end of the runway. When SAC would scramble the fleet they went right over our house. You simply cannot imagine the awe felt as 21 B-52’s two abreast flew very low over our home. I thought then that others would have to be insane to start something with the USA.
I remember watching the B-52's flying out of March AFB in Riverside, CA when I was a kid back in the 60's. Awesome sight to see especially for a kid fascinated by air and space back then. I wrote a report on the Saturn V back in 1969. Still fascinated by both subjects to this day!
I lived in Redlands with my family from ‘56 to ‘59, then occasionally we went back and forth to there from our new home in San Diego county. For one period I remember seeing March just packed with parked B-52s, but I can’t remember exactly when. Do you remember the time frame?
You're our enemy today, how about that then, Yank? Be gone.
Yes the Saturn V was really an incredible achievement, back in the day when the US was such a great country. I was just a 4 year old kid then but I saw the Saturn V launch on Apollo 10. I remember the feeling of pounding on my chest as it rose into the sky. I also get a bit misty eyed thinking about those days... :)
@@fishbike9103 My ex BIL was in the Air Force, stationed at Austin, TX. My then wife and I drove from CA to visit her sister and our new BIL. He was kind of a rebel, never paid much attention to any rules......we went to his base on a Sunday afternoon when it was lightly staffed. A B-52 was parked next to some office buildings....noone around, so he and I went exploring...up to and inside of this B-52...I even sat in the pilot's seat. Also, don't recall just how we got on top of the craft itself, but walked along the main fuselage all the way back to the tail...that tail fin looked like it was 50' tall when standing right beside it.
He also 'borrowed" a really nice pair of four legged jack stands, returned to the base about midnight......the guy 'on duty' was asleep at his desk, my BIL went over to a set of jack stands on the floor, picked them up, loudly clanged them back down onto the concrete, saying to the guy on duty, "I brought those jack stands back"....to which he replied, "Yeah, OK!" For years I ran an auto repair 'on the side' and those stands have had a lot of use...much more heavy duty than the standaed three legged ones.....and, over 60 years later, still have them.
For 35 years I ran huge rotary kilns which ran 24/7, and would often go 18 months without shutting down.....I had one week end off/month. Anyone who thinks the graveyard shift is just another eight hour period of time needs to work it for a few decades....like I did. BHE
When I lived in Hucknall, Notts, UK back in the 1960’s the RB 211 was running constantly on its test-bed at Rolls-Royce. We all grew up with that as a constant background noise.
Sorry to spoil your eardrums, but in the RB211 development I supplied the real time data acquisition computers to RR Derby. The accustic chamber was unnerving to work in (you could hear your own heartbeat) in complete contrast to the bearing testing labs.
Great to see the b52 still going strong
I'd be more worried about the main wing spars than anything else.
When the Air Force was practicing with the B-52 and Kc-135 for a "demostration team,' the main wing spars were showing signs of stress.
The B-52 will be around long after the B-1B, B-2 and B-23 has flown into history.
LONG LIVE THE BUFF!
(Fairchild AFB 1983-1988)
Airframe age is one thing but how many total hours/cycles on the average? I’m sure Boeing has published an aging aircraft inspection program that should keep the B52 airworthy for a long time.
The saying is that when the last B1 goes to Davis-Monthan, its crew will be picked up in a B-52. Same for the B-2.
We have had a wing failure previously i.e. the fatal crash killing three on the BUF from Seymour Johnson over South Carolina in September 75 but that is the only one I know of. I later flew with the IP who ejected from the CP seat and he told me much of the details. That was not wing spar but a wing separation during a fuel leak between pod 3 and 4 flying back and shearing the horizontal stabilizer.
Refit to 4 engines is a bad idea. Loosing two engines on the same pylon is a serious situation on the B52. If the aircraft is fitted with 4 large engines, loosing one engine would also pose a threat. The pylons are old and can not take a lot of extra thrust.
@oldmech619 Darn right stupid for a lot of reasons. They looked at it and it was not feasible.
You're going to see the B-52 fly for more than a hundred years. That's like having an F4U or a P51 still serving today.
Hundred years ago we were still flying biplanes.
One of the few contemporary military aircraft I'm still interested in. As a Brit, rather glad to see RR engines going on to it.
1979: Hey, that Bleriot XI is top notch! A little windy and hot at the feet, but hey, just swap the engine and it will be fine.
1989: Hey, lets keep the Vicker Vimy Bomber in service. Such a good girl. The copilot needs a better ice pick, though. Just swap the engines and it will be fine.
2013: Hey, that Me 262 is totally hot! Lasts forever. I mean dont pull and push too hard on the throttles you know. Easy man. Just swap the engines and it will be fine.
2023: Hey, that B-52 had so many broken arrows, you have to love it! Take a break! We better just swap the engines and it will be fine.
2093: Hey that Starship is...
Best comment!
Wasn’t the best modern engine they could have picked but the one that required the least new flight testing and certification. Really a hard envelope to stuff a modern engine into.
Nowadays every time I hear of B-52 life extensions I think of Pliver Wendell Holmes poem, 'The Wonderful One Hoss Shay,' a buggy built so well that everything wore out together and on it's 100th birthday it had an RUD.
Rolls Royce made an engine for an American plane in WW2 ,I heard it turned out to be pretty good........called the Merlin engine
The Merlins helped win the war!
Made by Americans under licence (Packard I think) and improved by using modern technology. A Brit.
@@eddyd8745 yes it was made under license by Packard motor cars .......just ask a man who drives one ....lol
Rather the merlin was suggested for the p51 to fix its poor performance with the original Allison engine. The merlin had been in use and development in Britain since the mid 1930s by then and was rather well developed. Of course without the merlin there would not have been a Britain for allied forces to launch from later in the war as it was crucial for the battle of Britain.
@@bionicgeekgrrl... the Hawker Hurricane had more 'kills' than the Spitfire, but you might well be right.
"This smart bomb has been transported to your chimney by the greenest means possible, have a nice day".
I've always wondered if any current B-52 or C-130 pilots had great grandfathers who flew the same type.
I think so far its "only" 3 generations. But if the B-52 is as long lived as its planned, a 4th generation and maybe 5th should be possible.
@@Coyote27981 If a Major or Col was in their 30 or 40s when they flew the first 52s or 130s they could have a son in flight training, giving another generation.
Be patient.
It's a beautiful engine and will be around forever.☮
Interesting, thanks for sharing
god bless B 52,s!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! good jets long time!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Forever is a very long time. Do you even think there will be planes in forever? There should be a law against misleading RUclips video titles. 🙄
Making sure a bomber which can carry nuclear weapons won't pollute the atmosphere as it did previously: brilliant!!
Airline VP and technical representative at DAC/Boeing during the B 717 program. The RR/BMW engines used on the 717 were truly marvelous. I met the German professor who designed the powerplants, and he was sure proud of himself! He earned it. In any event, congrats to the USAF for choosing RR/BMW, but I must admit I am dismayed at the prospect of continuing to utilize an airframe 70 years old. From my experience this is irresponsible for safety. For example, the critical joins that comprise the aircraft structure and especially the wiring harness, much of it cannot be accessed for maintenance/replacement remain a valid concern. I am worried about safety of crews and payloads of extremely aging aircraft.
The depot level service programs for most USAF aircraft of the era were designed to keep them flying forever if needed. They can remanufacture and replace any part of the structure, wiring harnesses, etc. that they need to. I'd wager that the B-52s flying today have very few original parts still on them, for critical structural parts like wing/fuselage joining areas it's a safe bet that none of that factory original. It'd be really cool to see their maintenance and repair history made public record if they're ever retired. Physical copies of all the mx logs for a single in service B-52 would probably take up a few bookshelves at least, that'd be an awesome addition a collector's library!!
@@DHEFDAWG'Trigger's broom' basically.
The Airship of Theseus.
Im sure it’s still safer than a new 737 max
The B-52 is the best bomb truck ever created. When you really need to bomb someone back to the stone age, use a B-52.
They aren't stealthy, and are in fact the furthest thing from stealth. Those huge flat surfaces ensure they give off an enormous radar signature.
When you see a B-52 being used in war, it means definitively that the enemy has literally nothing left that can shoot down a plane. If they had anything at all, they would shoot it at the B-52.
The goal then, would be to use stealth aircraft to wipe out all the radar and anti-aircraft as soon as possible so the B-52's can move in. Once the B-52's start bombing, it becomes a painful beat-down. An enemy just has to get used to the idea of being carpet bombed every day. This is the new normal until the war is over.
There are very few things on the battlefield that compare to a B-52 carpet bombing when it comes to making the enemy want to surrender immediately.
So, if the B52 four larger engines, the RB211 for example, the wings would’ve had to be redesigned, which would ultimately have made the B52’s extended operation be financially unacceptable?
Tbh its a good looking engine
Every bit helps! Good luck with the new engines
Best Engine ever around world
Somethings off with the cover image. That technician must be hot behind those live engines!!!!
A good one!
When a B-52 gets scrapped, the whole thing should be put in civilian hands. As a fire extinguisher, I can't see many planes doing a better job at soaking large swaths, except from a higher altitude and a little faster. The present firefighter planes would remain low-altitude craft. I can't estimate how valuable a craft such as the B-52 as a hurricane plane might be. They can always become a thin-body airliner. Astronomers... yeah, I think my case for demilitarizing the B-52 fleet has been presented well enough. Keep it alive, but it doesn't fight any more.
Nothing like seeing and feeling a ARC LIGHT STRIKE , YOU WILL BELIEVE THERE IS A GOD
The Navy A3D also utilized the J57P6b 10,500 # thrust.
The whale.
Flew in EKA3D IN NAM
Not surprised. That rolls royce Merlin engine in the p-51 turned the tide of the air war over Europe.
It is without doubt, very comforting to know that we are increasing fuel efficiency and emissions .................. on a long range bomber!
Good read of the PR blurb
The water tank is located closer to the crew compartment. Tho not used anymore it is still called the water tank.
I would like to know the percentage of fuel savings I can't even imagine
Awesome Video
Most effective Bomber Ever ! Glade to see it Live on.
Extending the service life of the B-52 to over a century…let that sink in!
Call it the M1 Abrams of aviation!
That sounds Amazing 😁
ROLLs Royce makes good THINGS!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Thanks rsvp !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
*How much per hour do they cost now to run with the new engines?*
The B52 has a ground tracker radar, so at low altitude they could see you from miles away. And buzz over you just playing.
Thats a beautiful ginormous plane love it
They should have scrapped those old B-52's and built replacements a long time ago. That would have been the best approach.
They did. B-58, B-1, B-2, B-21. But they haven't come up with anything better or more capable or more versatile that can fill its unique capability suite.
the video is interesting and explaining the history of the strato fortress and the current problems. and at some point when the producers finished the video, they remembered the title: oh, why is this engine changing aviation forever.
so what are the real benefits besides having that one new engine on that one plane? possibly 5 other planes that could use the engine?
Love the channel name ! Beyond facts , totally identifies science as it is today , beyond facts 🤣🤣
And to think that just one of the 777-300ER's GE90s produces almost as much thrust as all eight of the B-52's J-57s combined.
Considering the total diameter of a GE90 turbofan engine, that's not really that impressive. One couldn't simply use it on a bomber such as the B52, considering the distance between ground and wing's surface
The GE90 is a giant too big for this plane. So you could say it's 8 in 1
@@nunomc2815 I wasn't suggesting that it could be used on the B-52, I was just marveling at the thrust today's turbofan engines can produce when compared to early turbojet engines.
@@FunnyVideoCollector Ya the TF-30 along with many others would say other wise...
@@FunnyVideoCollectoryou should specify high bypass, plenty of fighters fly at supersonic speeds using low bypass turbofans. F15,16 Typhoon, F22.
The Air Force is making a critical mistake by not upgrading to a much sturdier engine that has 40.000 tons of thrust, a new electronics package that would take 6 tons of weight off the plane and giving a new armament package that would keep the plane relevant for the next 3 decades.
more thrust doesn`t have a point to it if the planes aging structure can`t take it. they probably(?) focused around durability/reliability and fuel consumption
I am sure that the hundreds of scientists, engineers, military strategists, and top level program managers all appreciate your observations and plan to seek out your advice in the future so that their fundamental mistakes will never happen again. 🤣🤣
@@larrysorenson4789 We both know that this would indeed be the smart thing to do but nobody's getting in the way of defence contracts and people making big bonuses.
I'm only trying to do right by the world.
It’s crazy how all those engine are producing 80000 pounds of thrust combined . When a single GE9X is producing 136000 pounds of thrust alone
Great to see such an iconic aircraft as the BUFF getting a new lease of life, but how viable is it in even this decade let alone those to come? I know I'd rather be in a B2 than a B52 in anything other than totally uncontested airspace with stealth fighters and upcoming stealth drones an incredible threat 😢.
Still quite a bit of use for b52s once airspace is uncontested, especially looking to the pacific. A bomb/missile truck capable of crossing the pacific at a relatively low cost would still be extremely valuable.
In the Gulf War in 1991 the B-52s were launching long range bombs from thousands of miles away. They'll do the same thing in any upcoming war. There's no need to put them in danger.
@@jimdigitalvideo They were cruise missiles to have that range, but agreed!
@@ColinDyckes I was wondering what they were called when I was making the above post. I know most bombs are glide bombs, which means short range, but not all. I also know most missiles are air-to-air. I knew B-52s were bombing targets, so I went with bombs. I was half-right. 😁
2052 a pilot will be saying my great grandfather flew a B52.
The B52 is a magnificent aircraft. The name BUFF should be outlawed. There is nothing ugly about it! About time it got a modern engine, too! 👍
However it left huge BUFF's in the ground when the bombs went off!
@@kenhurley4441 So?🤷♂️
Crewmembers like me (A/C) refer to it as the BUF or Big Ugly Fu__er, although it is hardly ugly.
Nah, it’s Fugly compared to a Vulcan. 🇬🇧
@@Bob10009 They are both good looking aircraft, but as bombers practicality is what counts. That's why the B52 still flies. The Vulcans range was limited (look at the silly, imprecise raids in The Falklands!), it couldn't carry anywhere near what a B52 can, the crew conditions were cramped and cockpit visibility was woeful!
I wish Rolls Royce could also make sport cars & bikes. Nothing lasts forever….not the good - nor the bad….
It is INSANE... that the Air Force.. KEEPS this plane ...and NOT RETIRED IT DECADES AGO 😮
Unmentioned in the video are two controversies over the engine replacement. First, initial studies indicated that engine replacement would not be economical in regards to fuel efficiency- the engines would not save enough fuel to justify the cost. Then, someone at the USAF took a second look at those costs- the initial study showed the price of fuel on the ground... but most B-52 missions include some air-to-air refueling, and that cost SEVENTEEN TIMES AS MUCH per pound of fuel. So the USAF reconsidered. The next item was, wouldn't it be cheaper to put four larger engines rather than eight? Why, yes, it would, but that created another problem- what happens if you lose an engine, particularly an outboard one? The yaw created by an engine out on No. 1 or No. 4 would have to be compensated by the rudder... and it wasn't big enough! (Remember, it's a REALLY LARGE TAIL to begin with!) Studies were done to put on a twin tail, but that was far more expensive than eight smaller engines. Ergo, the present situation. This was all covered in Aviation Week & Space Technology. Kudos to Boeing for a one-hundred year aircraft that still works. A side note, the US Navy built battleships that were only intended to last 20 to 25 years!
And then suddenly, I see Slim Pickens riding a Bomb...
It feels like we are in decline in a way. 100 years on the same plane tells me that we have stalled in technological advancement.
Looked at the first picture an thought the afterburners were on till i realized the orange engine covers were on
*Too bad they did not build an extra 900 of these why back when they where cheaper to build.*
I thought the thumbnail was a set of giant binoculars.
I want to see confetti and volcano smoke going in the test too.
A single GE9 is like 100,000 lbs of thrust, and a single GE9x is like 135,000lbs. Why can't we rewing the b52 for 4 of them? Rewinging the plain would still be cheaper than a new jet, and 500,000lbs of cargo capacity would be cool, (if the fusulage can handle the weight.)
the total thrust for all 8 engines is 168,000lbs. If you put two GE9x's on one wing, that's more thrust than all 8 engines combined, on one wing. The wings have enough tension as it is with the current 86,000 lbs of thrust per wing. Puting GE9X's would just rip the wings off...
@@BL4NK43V3R that's also why I said "rewing." It's a term describing a plain redisign that only changes the wing design. Re-engine is currently what the upgrade is. An example of a "rewinged" plain is the 777x which is a 777 with new wings and a new engine. Another is those little v tips they've added to the end of several jet wings. Given the 2x power increase I'd probably do a "truss braced wing" rewing design which could increase lift while decreasing drag. But I'm totally unsure how the fusulage substructure of the b52 could hold up. Either a "deeper" wing or a "truss braced wing would require additional fusilage areas to be able to handle the wing forces. Either a deeper wing or trusbraced wing would add the additional support strength to the plane required for the power increase if correctly implemented.
What does the airframe look like on planes.
Knowing how the military wastes money im just waiting to hear how this all goes over budget and timeframe and in the end a complete debacle... Am i right?
Nothing can go wrong.
Random C-130 ground crew @ 6:33 🤣
What the total thrust compared to weight ratio of these engines performance and not just saying it saves on fuel and carbon reductions !
The B-52 will probably still be flying when the NGAD is retired.
I didn’t get the „change aviation forever“ part, though.
Me: sees title/thumbnail
Also me: boutta char-boil that homie 4ever
I don't care if the engine chokes chipmunks. I want the damn thing to work when it's supposed to.
I want RR to build a pod racer xxx
Airships are great! 🛸Modern airships need plasma propulsion panels. The panels are arranged in the form of circular zones around the perimeter and on the bottom of the aircraft. Thousands of cells work in such engines, they shoot plasma pulses with a high frequency. If an electric current is applied to the rails contacts, induction accelerates the spark closing the contacts to cosmic speeds. In the motor plasma panels, small cell-shaped dischargers are connected together (as in plasma TV screens). There, the railguns are reduced to the size of a pencil, assembled into flat panels that resemble plasma TV panels in design. The distance between the contacts is insignificant - up to 1 mm - the discharge spark becomes a jumper between them. The cells work synchronously: they shoot streams of plasma - sparks of electric discharges accelerated by the force of induction. The speed is high, the number of railguns in the panels reaches hundreds of thousands - the total motor impulse in the end is huge! The discharges come with a megahertz frequency, each pulse hits the air. The air swirls into toroidal rings. These propulsion panels are used for aircraft in the atmosphere: a column of circular vortices is created from below and along the movement by pulses of plasma panels. So they fly even against the wind. In a vortex jet, the rotation of the air lowers the temperature - moisture from the air is frozen by snowflakes, on which the light created by electrical discharges sparkles. It turns out a "solid beam", which, when the device is rocked, bends due to the curvature of the trajectory of the departing vortex rings. It should be emphasized - this technology is not perfect. Such devices fly fast and maneuverable - because of the lightness of the device, but microwave radiation arises from pulsed plasma engines. It is not dangerous for cargo airships, the remoteness of the engines from the cockpit reduces the danger of microwave radiation.
Sounds good
So is this video about a new engine that will change aviation, or an old engine? I don’t get the “will change” part.
This video is almost word for word from the Wikipedia entry for B-52
Wow imagine if US army went with the RR RB211 convrersion that would of been some powerful aircraft that I still think the RB211 is still the best engine RR ever made ❤
I can't imagine the fuel savings
How can average jet engine change aviation ?
Realy I like it
Rolls Royce 🇬🇧 🤝🏻 🇺🇸
I want a wider body B-52. I will put it in the pipeline.
It not an engine, it's a turbine. Let's review: An engine is what you have in the average car. A motor is what you have in a Tesla. A thruster is what you put in a rocket and a turbine is what you place in a jet. Read it, learn it, live it.
Someone needs to send a memo to Pratt, GE and Rolls. They all call them engines. At least they did for the 20 years I worked at Pratt.
@robertmatthews4285 The FAA civilian mechanics license used to be called A&E, airframe and engine. It is now called A&P, airframe and powerplant to cover all the newer terminology.
@@johnlang3198 I don’t understand your point in context to the fact that jet engines are engines and are called engines. Did I misunderstand something in your post?
And you would be wrong. Engines convert Energy into Mechanical work. All of your examples are covered in that definition. If you are going to try and split hairs you better know your thermodynamics.
An engine is "a machine with moving parts that convert power into motion" which that definition is from the Oxford dictionary
Tip tanks are retained to control wing tip fluttering
The water yank was not in the tail.....and the H model had TF 33
Your are showing old B-52 at 3:50 the B-52 is carrying Hound Dog Missiles (Retired in 1975)
Yes our military should be most concerned with climate change and electric car. Great priorities
What's the mpg?
Please add metric units for the rest of the world to understand?
Why