B-52 strategic bomber engine upgrades

In the Marines, I'm an aviation logistician and cost analysis guy. We are constantly battling the UH-1Y cost per hour (CPH). This fiscal year, we're aghast that its costing $7300/hr.

Look at the B52H's CPH. You'll be surprised. CPH is due to many different factors: Aviation Consumables, Repairables and Fuel. My guess is that the old warhorse is a fuel hog.

The true CPH for the B-52 has to include a proportion of the cost of running the KC-135 fleet that supports it. That cannot help the bottom line. It's the factor the GAO say the air force left out in the original engine study. Better engines not only mean better mileage from the BUFF, but fewer tanker missions to support them.
 
...some types in the air force already consider the PW2000 yesterday's engine. ...

It is kinda old, but I guarantee the C-17 will be around for a looooooong time. That's probably the best candidate airplane in our current inventory to eventually outlive the B-52. If we don't wear them all out prematurely in South West Asia.

Of the engines mentioned in your link, the CFM56, the CF34, and the Royal-Royce RB.211; the PW2000 is the youngest. Though the GE's CF34 is from that same early '80's era.

The previous link mentions the Pratt & Whitney PW1135. That is a new engine. Base on a design first run in 2008. Maybe that will be the hot ticket.

Whatever is on the new tanker won't work. That's a two engine airplane, so they'll be way to big for the Buff.
 
B-52 entered service in 1955. Present plans are for Air Force to fly them until mid 2040s.

Most folks can't relate to, or even care, but there were times when the Federal Government could do something right.

David
 
It is kinda old, but I guarantee the C-17 will be around for a looooooong time. That's probably the best candidate airplane in our current inventory to eventually outlive the B-52.

My money is on the C-130. First flight was 1954 (just a few years after the B-52 first flight) and 60 years later we are STILL making them! The last B-52 rolled off the line in 1962.
 
The first time I saw a B-52 was at Kincheloe AFB in the mid 60s.
I KNEW I was about to see a giant airplane crash!
The wings were FLAPPING!!

We used to fish lakes in AR back when the BUFFs were running OB routes --
I can still feel 'em going over :)
 
I had the pleasure of working on them in the early 1970's at Minot AFB in North Dakota. B52H has TF33 engines on them and the KC135's had J57 engines with water injection for extra boost.. Was quite impressive to see tankers take off then 8 to 10 B52 elephant walk and take off each breaking off in different directions to avoid the jet wash from the plane ahead of it
 
I wonder if that changes the flight characteristics?

I would think that going from four mount points each with two engines attached to the same mount points with one larger engine each would not change things much assuming that the total weight and thrust of each of four engines is rougly equal to the combine weight and thrust of the two engines being replaced. Much not so than a case where you went from four mount points down to two for example where you would to do extensive testing and likely other structural changes to provide the necessary balance and ensure you didn't end up with flutter at speed under load.
 
Recently made the acquaintance of a retired Lt. Col, USAF, B-52 commander.

He was relating to us the capabilities of the birds as they are today, and I gotta say it's impressive. I wonder what he WASN'T telling us!

I asked him about the two-engine conversions, and remembering that even his info is now dated, he said very unlikely, though as another on this thread said, it keeps coming up. I have to guess the underwing room is limiting. Maybe they'll do what was done withe the 737s and flatten the bottom of the cowl.

I'd love to see one.

In '71 I was chatting with a Buff driver (yes, it's "Big Ugly Fat F&$5#r") at Naked Phanny, and telling him how impressed I was at having dropped 12,000 lbs of ordnance that day from my "Little Bird". He said, and I quote. "Mmmfph." Really, as in REALLY unimpressed!
 
It is kinda old, but I guarantee the C-17 will be around for a looooooong time. That's probably the best candidate airplane in our current inventory to eventually outlive the B-52. If we don't wear them all out prematurely in South West Asia.

Of the engines mentioned in your link, the CFM56, the CF34, and the Royal-Royce RB.211; the PW2000 is the youngest. Though the GE's CF34 is from that same early '80's era.

The previous link mentions the Pratt & Whitney PW1135. That is a new engine. Base on a design first run in 2008. Maybe that will be the hot ticket.

Whatever is on the new tanker won't work. That's a two engine airplane, so they'll be way to big for the Buff.


My money is on the C-130. First flight was 1954 (just a few years after the B-52 first flight) and 60 years later we are STILL making them! The last B-52 rolled off the line in 1962.

It depends on how you look at it. In "service" there are still plenty of DC-3s flying around delivering cargo and passengers, and there are probably still more than a few military operators in third world countries. The DC-3 makes the C-130 look young.

With regard to the C-130 however, eventually it may out last the DC-3.

The center wing box has a life limit of 60,000 flight hours and a corrosion limit of 40,000 flight hours. The former is dependent on a mission severity factor multiplied by the flight hours and the latter is dependent on where it's located, operated and engineering opinion based on inspections.

Ui USAF service, we're just now retiring the E model based HC-130Ps and they are for the most part still under those limits.

The USAF is talking about a C-"X" to replace both he C-130 in the tactical airlift role and the C-17 in the strategic airlift role, but it won't fly until 2024 at the earliest and would probably not be in production until 2030. That would leave the C-130 in service from 1957 (actually December 1956) until 2030, a 73 year span, and that's only if the C-X flies and the C-130s ar al phased out in 2030. If the C-"X" does not materialize, the C-130 won't be going anywhere soon, and even if it does materialize, the C-130 will probably still hang around in service for another decade until 2040 or so. Either way, the C-130 won't be going anywhere soon in US service and we can expect a 75-80 year service life.

US service is also only a small piece of the puzzle as well, given that it is in service with over 70 countries as well as civilian operators. Total service life will probably top 100 years, if it follows the same post USAF service trajectory of the DC-3.

Where the B-52 is king is in the service life of the individual airframes. As noted above, the last H model rolled out the door at Boeing in 1962. That makes the youngest H model 53 years old. There are USAF pilots flying the same airframes their grandfathers flew.

That's a testament to the durability and adaptability of the B-52 airframe , as well as to the short sighted nature of USAF procurement.

The old joke is that the crews that retire the last B-1 and B-2 to Davis-Monthan will be picked up by a B-52. That's not much of a stretch as the B-52s today are not averaging anywhere near the flight hours they averaged during the airborne alert years, so they have a lot of life left in them at current utilization rates.
 
I saw two of these bad boys yesterday afternoon flying into
Nellis AFB here in Las Vegas with the upgraded CF high bypass
turbo fan engines. They were very quiet and left no black smoke
trail like the old engines did. I like seeing my tax dollars put
to good use. :)

OP, I wish I could have been there with you to see what you saw because I cannot find anything which says that any B-52s have been re-engined in this manner and are flying. As many have pointed out this is a project which has been brought up many times but never approved.

The only airplane I can think of which which has such engines is the KC-135R which has the CFM-56 turbofan engine and is shown below.

I certainly don't mean to impugn your integrity or your aircraft identification skills but if a re-engined B-52 were flying today it would be huge news and we would have many images of it on the ground and in flight.
 

Attachments

  • KC-135_Stratotanker_Elephant_Walk.jpg
    KC-135_Stratotanker_Elephant_Walk.jpg
    83.4 KB · Views: 48
OP, I wish I could have been there with you to see what you saw because I cannot find anything which says that any B-52s have been re-engined in this manner and are flying. As many have pointed out this is a project which has been brought up many times but never approved.

The only airplane I can think of which which has such engines is the KC-135R which has the CFM-56 turbofan engine and is shown below.

I certainly don't mean to impugn your integrity or your aircraft identification skills but if a re-engined B-52 were flying today it would be huge news and we would have many images of it on the ground and in flight.

My thoughts exactly. Add in the RC-135 fleet to possible candidates, especially the Combat Sent variant. RC-135U Combat Sent > U.S. Air Force > Fact Sheet Display

Note the chin and tail equipment fittings giving a profile similar to a B-52.
 
while I envy you guys being able to see B 52's in flight, I'll just have to make do watching the birds that fly out of Whiteman AFB...... we live close to them & occasionally am blessed with seeing a nice variety of some of the best air craft in the inventory of the USAF... No matter the branch, no matter if they are fixed wing or rotor.. the USA is blessed with having the best aircraft and best crews in the world.
 
..if a re-engined B-52 were flying today it would be huge news and we would have many images of it on the ground and in flight.

Could be something Boeing and Pratt & Whitney are doing on their own dime. No tax payer money, no disclosures, no publicity.
 
Could be something Boeing and Pratt & Whitney are doing on their own dime. No tax payer money, no disclosures, no publicity.

Then they fly it into Nellis in plain view and none of the aircraft twitchers pick it up in the middle of Red Flag? I find that highly unlikely.

Even the rumour of a four motor B-52 would have every airplane geek in town (and we have lots) sitting up by the Speedway with a camera.
 
Back
Top