Yep, originally only one "F" but for civilian usage it was change to a double "F" - fat fellow................yeah, right!!!
I was in B-52 outfits in 1956 and again in 1971-72..............we never used the double F.
B-52 strategic bomber engine upgrades
- Thread starter mojave30cal
- Start date
Yep, originally only one "F" but for civilian usage it was change to a double "F" - fat fellow................yeah, right!!!
I was in B-52 outfits in 1956 and again in 1971-72..............we never used the double F.
yeah...but can it take off from a carrier with only 4 engines??
yeah...but can it take off from a carrier with only 4 engines??
Well, IF the carrier had a long enough flight deck....
Big Cholla
Member
I LIKE A/C THAT WORK!
I agree whole heartedly. The airframe of the B-52 has proved to be timeless in adapting to the next needed big bomber job. I think we should encourage Boeing to do an updated redesign of a few features of the airframe, re-engine with the most efficient four engine application possible and built one or two on speculation. Then when the 'right' bunch of politicians is in total control of congress and the executive branch. Present the package. I think the descendants of the original B-52 just might be flying for another 75 years. Of course by then there won't be any humans on board, but that is just progress. ...............
I agree whole heartedly. The airframe of the B-52 has proved to be timeless in adapting to the next needed big bomber job. I think we should encourage Boeing to do an updated redesign of a few features of the airframe, re-engine with the most efficient four engine application possible and built one or two on speculation. Then when the 'right' bunch of politicians is in total control of congress and the executive branch. Present the package. I think the descendants of the original B-52 just might be flying for another 75 years. Of course by then there won't be any humans on board, but that is just progress. ...............
Big Cholla
Member
KC-135 Air to Air Refueling
About 1985 I was flying a Beechcraft Bonanza from Denver to Salt Lake City. I had "Flight Following" in operation with ATC. I went to FL 14.5 to fly over a cloud layer between Cheyenne and Rock Springs. The ATC controller came up and told me that I had traffic approaching me head on but at FL 20 that was an Air to Air refueling in progress. He told me that they were having a 'slight' problem and were descending to maintain airspeed. I thanked him and started watching way out front. I soon saw a KC-135 with a B-52 in the re-fueling position coming my way. I diverted just a bit and watched them pass above me at about FL 18. What a sight! I almost turned back to watch them as long as possible, but at my altitude I was marginal in performance. I continued and descended back to a more normal operational altitude for my Beechcraft V-Tail. Since ATC doesn't chat willingly with pilots not flying IFR, I didn't ask what the Re-fueling operation's problem was. .....................
About 1985 I was flying a Beechcraft Bonanza from Denver to Salt Lake City. I had "Flight Following" in operation with ATC. I went to FL 14.5 to fly over a cloud layer between Cheyenne and Rock Springs. The ATC controller came up and told me that I had traffic approaching me head on but at FL 20 that was an Air to Air refueling in progress. He told me that they were having a 'slight' problem and were descending to maintain airspeed. I thanked him and started watching way out front. I soon saw a KC-135 with a B-52 in the re-fueling position coming my way. I diverted just a bit and watched them pass above me at about FL 18. What a sight! I almost turned back to watch them as long as possible, but at my altitude I was marginal in performance. I continued and descended back to a more normal operational altitude for my Beechcraft V-Tail. Since ATC doesn't chat willingly with pilots not flying IFR, I didn't ask what the Re-fueling operation's problem was. .....................
Last edited:
Babalooie
US Veteran
Guys, it's "BUF" not "BUFF" that's what you do after waxing a car. Believe me. I'm a SAC-trained killer.
"Peace is our profession. War is just a hobby."
"Peace is our profession. War is just a hobby."
Long Barrel
Member
a long time ago, and far away....
I was sitting on a hill next to my boss, when we heard thunder off to the west. I complained that I'd have to work in the rain all night. He had been out on that firebase longer than me, so he knew it wasn't a rain storm. He said "that's an arclight raid". It was 50 miles away, and it went on for 45 minutes, just listening to it scared hell out of me.
The things carry something like 108 five hundred pound iron bombs. One of our most accurate systems. Every bomb hits the ground every time. It was like they were making war on the earth, and anything or anyone else that happened to be there at the time.
I was sitting on a hill next to my boss, when we heard thunder off to the west. I complained that I'd have to work in the rain all night. He had been out on that firebase longer than me, so he knew it wasn't a rain storm. He said "that's an arclight raid". It was 50 miles away, and it went on for 45 minutes, just listening to it scared hell out of me.
The things carry something like 108 five hundred pound iron bombs. One of our most accurate systems. Every bomb hits the ground every time. It was like they were making war on the earth, and anything or anyone else that happened to be there at the time.
Sorry, but without pics I'm going to have to call BS on a four engine flying B-52. There is that one modded with a test engine, it was mentioned earlier. That mod was to test potential C-5 Galaxy engines.
A reengining of the most public and venerable operational strategic bomber on the planet does not happen in a vacuum and every plane geek in the world would know about it. Pictures would be everywhere. The pic shown in the OP's first post is a stock painting of a reengined B-52 from one of the first "4 engine B-52" articles pulled up by a Google search.
They've been talking about reengining the B-52 since at least the early 1980's.
Lastly, the B-52 started a massive upgrade effort in mid-2013, here's an article on it from Defense.com. Absolutely nothing said about reengining the B-52. Air Force Begins Massive B-52 Overhaul | DoD Buzz
Don't know what you saw with four engines but it wasn't a B-52. Sorry.
A reengining of the most public and venerable operational strategic bomber on the planet does not happen in a vacuum and every plane geek in the world would know about it. Pictures would be everywhere. The pic shown in the OP's first post is a stock painting of a reengined B-52 from one of the first "4 engine B-52" articles pulled up by a Google search.
They've been talking about reengining the B-52 since at least the early 1980's.
Lastly, the B-52 started a massive upgrade effort in mid-2013, here's an article on it from Defense.com. Absolutely nothing said about reengining the B-52. Air Force Begins Massive B-52 Overhaul | DoD Buzz
Don't know what you saw with four engines but it wasn't a B-52. Sorry.
Last edited:
B-52's are LOOONG over due for upgraded engines. 
Water injected turbo jet engines were state of the art 60 years ago. But no more. When they replaced KC-135 engines with turbo fans it made a big difference.
I can't believe they have waited so long with the BUF!
Water injected turbo jet engines were state of the art 60 years ago. But no more. When they replaced KC-135 engines with turbo fans it made a big difference.
I can't believe they have waited so long with the BUF!
Reminds me of a little fun a colonel on my base had a with a delivery truck driver - the air force bought the distilled water used for injecting on takeoff by the tanker truck load. One driver asked the colonel what the Air Force did with all that distilled water; the colonel replied " we burn it" then walked away with no further explanation. The look on the driver's face was something between confused and interested.
LVSteve
Member
B-52's are LOOONG over due for upgraded engines.
Water injected turbo jet engines were state of the art 60 years ago. But no more. When they replaced KC-135 engines with turbo fans it made a big difference.
I can't believe they have waited so long with the BUF!
I don't think any of the J-57 turbojet models are still flying.
The B-52H, the only model still in service, does have turbofans, but they are ancient TF-33s from the early 1960s. One proposal linked in my other post has the 8xTF-33s replaced by eight more modern engines that will fit in the same nacelle, weigh less, generate 10-15% more thrust and have 10-15% better mileage.
Kernel Crittenden
US Veteran, Absent Comrade
It could be said the TF-33 is just a J-57 with a fan section bolted to the front.
An eight engine solution seem like modest gains for all the cost and bother. At least four engines would cut the number of engines in half. Halve the spares. Halve the failures. Halve the maintenance. Maybe enough to offset the complexity of going from eight to four. One thing for sure, whatever happens, the whole endeavor will be an exercise in bean counting.
You could be right. I don't remember. I work G and H models a long time ago.
There is another consideration. Water injection. The BUF has a 360 gallon water tank. That's over 30,000 pounds of water!
There is another consideration. Water injection. The BUF has a 360 gallon water tank. That's over 30,000 pounds of water!
Huh? Water weighs approximately 8 lbs per gallon. 360 gallons would be about 2880 lbs.
They pulled Night Rider out of the boneyard last month and flew it to Barksdale. The first time a BUFF was called up. It was to replace one that had a fire. The pilot said it did good. Did anyone read the story? I have a good friend who drove one in Nam-a classmate.
linedo50
Member
There is another consideration. Water injection. The BUF has a 360 gallon water tank. That's over 30,000 pounds of water![/QUOTE]
H model Buffs never had water injection. No water tank on board. I only worked on H models at Minot and Kincheloe Michigan.
[/QUOTE]H model Buffs never had water injection. No water tank on board. I only worked on H models at Minot and Kincheloe Michigan.
45Wheelgun
Member
I was born on a top secret B52 SAC base in northern Montana. Spend the first 15 or so years moving from one B52 Base to another as my father racked up 2000 hours flying the BUFF. I have seen many a MITO launch. A 14k pin that Boeing gave my father:
LVSteve
Member
I think there may be some method in the eight engine replacement. If the nacelles and pylons remain intact, they don't have so much to do to get flight safety certification. No re-engineering of the pylon/wing interface would be a huge saving I reckon.
Keeping eight also allows the basic flight manual to stay largely the same. While I have little doubt that a three engine (one big turbofan out) B-52 would be able to fly, it would take considerable time and money to test that assertion and write a new manual for the situation and maintain safety.
You sir would be correct. We still run TF-33's on the bird I work on. And yup, anything with those engines leaves a nice trail of black smoke. I haven't heard anything about a re-engine program for BUFF's, but that doesn't mean it won't happen or isn't in a test phase. C-5's have been getting new engines, and they don't have that traditional C-5 sound. If I ever need to have a flashback to what our birds sound like, I can always watch "Bullit" and go to the scene where they are running across the runway at LAX.
