Mislovrit Posted September 9, 2007 Posted September 9, 2007 They did upgrade. They just need to do it again. Anyways----a further upgrade is certainly possible and has been studied many times, but nothing ever comes of it. Money I'd guess is the main reason. Until the engines literally fall apart, I think they don't see a need to replace them. Note that any retrofit will most likely be four engines. PW2037's would be a good choice, that's very similar to what's on the C-17. Or go up to 2040's. If they really wanted to keep 8 engines, they could probably use JT8D-217's----plenty of older MD-80's to get them from. JT8D-17R from 727's would be an even better fit (literally and power-wise) but really wouldn't be worth it, age/fuel-wise. But I don't even know if there's enough of those to go around---pretty rare option on the 727, and no other plane AFAIK used that version. You'd need 4 MD-80's worth of engines for each B-52. Buying 4 larger, new engines would be easier (and more fuel-efficient and powerful), but cost a lot more. Iirc retraining the ground crews, and replacing all of their equipment have made changing over to new engines uneconomical.
David Hingtgen Posted September 9, 2007 Posted September 9, 2007 If they go with C-17 engines they can't have too much of an excuse--it'd just be more of what they already have.
buddhafabio Posted September 10, 2007 Posted September 10, 2007 as useful as B-52s still are. i just dont see the airforce actually doing the re engine program. they seem to want to tie their budget up on other toys. think of all the raptors that could be bought with the money of buying 350-400 jet engines for the B-52s they would kill off the B-52s just like the f-14s were killed off if it meant better toys.
David Hingtgen Posted September 10, 2007 Posted September 10, 2007 That'd be what, 2, maybe 3 Raptors?
Warmaker Posted September 11, 2007 Posted September 11, 2007 2 would be pushing it, considering how insanely expensive those things are. But to have reengined B-52's? Worth the price instead of just 2 more F-22's. But those 2 F-22's would make magnificent cannibalization birds...
David Hingtgen Posted September 11, 2007 Posted September 11, 2007 This was actually made some time ago, when this was actually proposed:
F-ZeroOne Posted September 11, 2007 Posted September 11, 2007 Worlds fastest production road car versus Worlds - ahem - greatest fighter jet... http://www.tv.com/top-gear/show/27682/rich...47980/msgs.html
Apollo Leader Posted September 12, 2007 Author Posted September 12, 2007 Surprised no one's posted it, so... Russia tests out "dad of all bombs". Allegedy the most powerful air launched conventional bomb ever made. Dropped from a Tu-160 Blackjack. Video of said bomb test.
Dante74 Posted September 12, 2007 Posted September 12, 2007 The link to the video isn't working for me.
Apollo Leader Posted September 12, 2007 Author Posted September 12, 2007 The link to the video isn't working for me. I just tested the link and it works for me. What are you having problems with? Just getting the video to play? Could be your security settings.
Dante74 Posted September 12, 2007 Posted September 12, 2007 I just tested the link and it works for me. What are you having problems with? Just getting the video to play? Could be your security settings. I took a screencap. This is all I get, maybe it's a Firefox issue. No biggie, I'll look it up on youtube or I'll try it at work tomorrow.
eugimon Posted September 12, 2007 Posted September 12, 2007 I took a screencap. This is all I get, maybe it's a Firefox issue. No biggie, I'll look it up on youtube or I'll try it at work tomorrow. that's pretty much what I see as well. I'm running ie on vista.
the white drew carey Posted September 12, 2007 Posted September 12, 2007 Same thing here. Safari on Mac.
Cruel Angel's Thesis Posted September 13, 2007 Posted September 13, 2007 Just read about bomb big and nasty. In other news, about a week to 2 weeks ago, Airbus was showing off their huge plane in Thailand and while taxing it out to liftoff, they kinda sideswiped a building. Seems the plane wingspan was a little too big. Both plane and building took very minor damage. The flight IIRC was delayed about 4 hours as they examined the damage to the wing. Also http://www.spacemart.com/reports/Skyray_48...Flight_999.html About time they got this up in the air. Have seen photos of the sucker from Langley Research Center, nice to know she has taken to the sky. Cruel Angel's Thesis
Apollo Leader Posted September 13, 2007 Author Posted September 13, 2007 Okay, here's a Youtube video showing a Russian news report on the "Father of all Bombs". It shows the Tu-160 Blackjack that allegedly carried it. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z1ee_cDX7ys Regarding the Fox News video viewer, I can view clips on there no problem at work, but when I try to watch the same clips at home, it will show the viewer but never show the video so I'm guessing it's something toggled on or off in the web browser security settings.
Apollo Leader Posted September 13, 2007 Author Posted September 13, 2007 I took a screencap. This is all I get, maybe it's a Firefox issue. No biggie, I'll look it up on youtube or I'll try it at work tomorrow. Yeah that's what I get when I use IE at home.
David Hingtgen Posted September 15, 2007 Posted September 15, 2007 First, this is a REALLY cool picture---darn watermark ruins it for wallpaper though. (And the shape's hard to fit) http://www.airliners.net/open.file/1265696/L/ But--look at the F-22's. Do they actually have different canopies, or is the slightly different angle enough to totally change how they look? They're almost exactly the same position in relation to the camera.
Lynx7725 Posted September 15, 2007 Posted September 15, 2007 Probably sunlight. The upper F-22 looks like it's passing through a shadow. BTW, it looks kinda 'shopped..
Warmaker Posted September 15, 2007 Posted September 15, 2007 Nice picture with the F-117's and F-22's, but it's spoiled by the site marking right in the middle of the pic. Lots of money in one picture
David Hingtgen Posted September 16, 2007 Posted September 16, 2007 Every pic at A.net is photoshopped to some degree.
Nied Posted September 16, 2007 Posted September 16, 2007 First, this is a REALLY cool picture---darn watermark ruins it for wallpaper though. (And the shape's hard to fit) http://www.airliners.net/open.file/1265696/L/ But--look at the F-22's. Do they actually have different canopies, or is the slightly different angle enough to totally change how they look? They're almost exactly the same position in relation to the camera. You're not going crazy. I noticed the same thing in this image from the USAF article on the 100th Raptor being delivered.
Apollo Leader Posted September 16, 2007 Author Posted September 16, 2007 Maybe there is a newer transparency for the F-22's canopy that's being tested out. The gold tinting is a RCS reducing measure to prevent radar from bouncing around the cockpit; the cockpit on most aircraft tends to be one of the biggest RCS sources. Maybe a new tinting is being put to use. But then again the combination of material and that the shape of the canopy is designed for a lower RCS to begin with, even the slightest change in position could effect the visual appearance and transparency of the cockpit.
Apollo Leader Posted September 16, 2007 Author Posted September 16, 2007 World's Largest RC Aircraft Somebody posted that video two pages back. There was also a similar size B-52 RC aircraft though the thing crashed.
Nied Posted September 16, 2007 Posted September 16, 2007 Maybe there is a newer transparency for the F-22's canopy that's being tested out. The gold tinting is a RCS reducing measure to prevent radar from bouncing around the cockpit; the cockpit on most aircraft tends to be one of the biggest RCS sources. Maybe a new tinting is being put to use. But then again the combination of material and that the shape of the canopy is designed for a lower RCS to begin with, even the slightest change in position could effect the visual appearance and transparency of the cockpit. That was my assumption as well. Gold isn't exactly inexpensive (it is gold after all) even in the extremely thin layers they use for aircraft canopies. I've noticed that the same is happening for other aircraft that used to have gold tinted canopies (F-16s, Super Hornet) it's likely we have just found a cheaper/more effective/easier to maintain canopy coating than frigging gilding our fighter canopies.
David Hingtgen Posted September 16, 2007 Posted September 16, 2007 AFAIK the main reason for the elimination of gold canopies on the F-16 and 18 is the increasing use of night-vision goggles. It interferes with them. You'll note F-16 Block 40's were the first to abandon it, and often just the front half of the canopy. But the F-22 isn't going to be night-bombing much.
Nied Posted September 16, 2007 Posted September 16, 2007 AFAIK the main reason for the elimination of gold canopies on the F-16 and 18 is the increasing use of night-vision goggles. It interferes with them. You'll note F-16 Block 40's were the first to abandon it, and often just the front half of the canopy. But the F-22 isn't going to be night-bombing much. Well technically speaking they will be night bombing, but they won't have much use for NVGs at 50,000 ft. Still I doubt the DoD was willing to trade a sizable RCS increase for better NVG capability. I'm willing to bet that they came up with something that was both NVG compatible and still maintained the RCS aspects. It was probably installed in the Raptor for commonality sake, that and you never know when you might need to quickly integrate NVGs on a new airframe.
Lynx7725 Posted September 16, 2007 Posted September 16, 2007 In other news, an MD-80 operated by One-Two-Go, a budget arm of Orient Thai, just crashed on landing at Phuket. http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/afp.../300192/1/.html From the news report and video, it was an aborted landing in very bad weather, and it looks like the plane skidded off the runway, into a ditch and an embankment, broke up and burned. They hadn't recovered the black boxes yet, since rescue work is still on-going.
David Hingtgen Posted September 19, 2007 Posted September 19, 2007 Way too long since cool pics were posted. Gah, MW is the only forum I know that doesn't support A.net's own linking system---this took like 20 mins to write with thumbnails! Not going to do it again unless the board supports Java... This is messy but it works--click the link, then click on the pic the link leads to. Then you'll have to request the large version if you want to make a wallpaper out of it. http://www.airliners.net/photoLink.inc?id=1256124 http://www.airliners.net/photoLink.inc?id=1266017 http://www.airliners.net/photoLink.inc?id=1268975 http://www.airliners.net/photoLink.inc?id=0716079 http://www.airliners.net/photoLink.inc?id=1225052 http://www.airliners.net/photoLink.inc?id=1260574 http://www.airliners.net/photoLink.inc?id=1255527 <a href="http://www.airliners.net/photoLink.inc?id=1250440" target="_blank">http://www.airliners.net/photoLink.inc?id=1250440</a>
Dante74 Posted September 19, 2007 Posted September 19, 2007 ---this took like 20 mins to write with thumbnails! But we sure appreciate it David. Thanks for those links!
Apollo Leader Posted September 19, 2007 Author Posted September 19, 2007 Thanks for the links, David. BTW, I just plunked $50 down to get a ride on a 1929 Ford Trimotor this Saturday. This will be my first time on a plane. http://www.airventuremuseum.org/fordtrimotor/
Fatalist Posted September 19, 2007 Posted September 19, 2007 Thanks for the links, David. BTW, I just plunked $50 down to get a ride on a 1929 Ford Trimotor this Saturday. This will be my first time on a plane. http://www.airventuremuseum.org/fordtrimotor/ Indy!! No pilots!! I believe thats the type of plane used in the first sequence of Indy and the Temple of Doom. I wanna say it was operated by the fictional Lao Che Ent.?
Phyrox Posted September 19, 2007 Posted September 19, 2007 Thanks for the links, David. BTW, I just plunked $50 down to get a ride on a 1929 Ford Trimotor this Saturday. This will be my first time on a plane. http://www.airventuremuseum.org/fordtrimotor/ Hold on, 34 and never on a plane? Impossible. Although if I could have had my first airplane experiance in a trimotor, I would.
VF-19 Posted September 19, 2007 Posted September 19, 2007 Thanks for the links, David. BTW, I just plunked $50 down to get a ride on a 1929 Ford Trimotor this Saturday. This will be my first time on a plane. http://www.airventuremuseum.org/fordtrimotor/ Heh, reminds me of my first time on a plane. Not a Ford Trimotor, but a Westjet 737 (Ottawa to Vancouver). Kept my camera in my lap the whole time, and got some nifty shots out of it. We even had some nasty turbulence at 39000 feet, and it was fun! No worse than some of the roads in Montreal. Personally I think takeoff is the best part; really nice acceleration. Granted, there aren't any afterburners on a 737, but that plane can sure move...
Apollo Leader Posted September 19, 2007 Author Posted September 19, 2007 Hold on, 34 and never on a plane? Impossible. Although if I could have had my first airplane experiance in a trimotor, I would. It's just been the case that I've never needed to go anywhere by plane. Last Saturday a guy I know who works for Duncan Aviation in Lincoln gave me a flyer promoting that Trimotor being in Lincoln and giving rides over a four day period. I looked at the site this morning and decided that now was my big chance. I've had some previous opportunities to maybe go flying, but nothing panned out.
Recommended Posts