Pretty neat.https://simpleflying.com/b-52-rolls-royce-engines-efficiency-upgrade/
The B52 is still in service?
>>65241552
>>65241532>Rolls-Royce enginesThese are the ones with the PS trackers built in? Didn't help Malaysia Airlines Flight 370, but a true fact.
>>65241573*G
>>65241566Nicely done.
>>65241573no, they're bespoke engines specifically designed for the B-52
>>65241552still raising hell
>>65241566I chuckled. Needs one with the Defiant and A-10.
>>65241604>bespoke enginesWhat gave you that idea? The BR700 is a thirty year old business jet engine. This isn't even the first plane the USAF has used them on since they're the normal engine on the Gulfstreams Vs.
>>65241532>Rolls-Royce enginesIs that why the one at Edwards went down?
>>65241566Really just need one with the starfleet phaser being phased out while the M2 remains in service.
>>65242538They're completely different companies, anon. Rolls-Royce is still a British company and makes fantastic engines, whereas Rolls-Royce is now a German company that makes fat ugly cuboids that break down constantly. Not that they didn't do that while they were still a British company, but now they're somehow even more cuboidal and shit.
>>65242538Engine just passed CDR and will not be mounted to any airframe until later this year. Crashed bird was likely the radar test one for a different part of the modernization program.
>>65241566M2 on Mars, Burke on Titan, BUFF in space
>>65242609.45acp as a planet killer?
>>65241552Well. One less now...
>>65242498You think they are civilian available, off the rack engines? For an American strategic bomber?
>>65243343Yes, dipshit. The explicit point of the program was to pick an off-the-shelf turbofan with established civillian use. Why would it even need something else? It's just a bomb truck.The only difference between the F130 and BR725 is the mounting pod just like the TF33 engines on the B-52 now are the same thing as the JT3Ds on the Boeing 720 with a different mounting pod.
>>65241532This is old fucking news OP. You been living under a rock?
Ok, so what does this mean?
>>65243934I am just curious as to how and why you are this stupid.You think the US Air Force is going to accept random production line motors without any modifications or military specifications to replace the engines in strategic bombers.
What was the greatest moment of the B-52 for you?For me, it was the Arc-light raids around the Khe-Sanh Combat Base perimeter in Vietnam. Entire regiments of gooks were wiped from existence as cells of 52's vaporized entire grid squares of jungle.
>>65244136Can you please explain exactly why they wouldn't?
>>65243934>only differenceI would bet my nuts those engines are inspected by Air Force personnel, probably a mix of E ground workers, Warrants and low Os, before final assembly, the best workers are assigned to them and certain substructures or assemblies are not stock.
>>65244136>accept random production line motorsThat is the logic behind the choice.I think they get to have them made locally.No billion dollar spanners for the B52 fleet.
>>65244109>crashing this plane>with no survivors!
>Buffs>A-10's>M2's>Burkes>1911's>plus any other iconic US dakka that will be used forever>in SpaceNot sure which way this should go. Warhammer or Kancolle.
>>65244455Wait, they actually provided CAS at one point?
>>65242549How to distinguish between two companies with the same name? It's not like one has a hyphen and the other doesn't.
>>65244455Still lost lmao
>>65244723Politically; yes. Because the veterans of WWII babied their kids in a vain attempt to protect them.Militarily; We wasted those dinks.
>>65244660Wouldn't call it "close."Weasels come in after light scout and SF teams designate AA, BUFFs fly high and saturate target outside the wire.
>>65244741>https://www.marines.mil/Portals/1/Publications/Close%20Air%20Support%20and%20the%20Battle%20for%20Khe%20Sanh%20%20PCN%2010600090000_2.pdfSays they got as close as 800m, that's gnarly.
>>652429599mm to blow the lungs out of any planet
>>65244759That is badass. But you are talking about trusting 52s to strike within 800m of the wire.Not them lowering to 800m altitude.
>>65244136>You think the US Air Force is going to accept random production line motorsIt's not a "random motor." It's a COTS engine that was specifically selected by and produced for the USAF. Literally the only modifications are to the pod mounts, the actual turny-burny parts are the same. This is Rolls-Royce, they're not some piddlefuck nobodies who don't know how US military contracting works. They're a major military contractor and they've supplied engines to the US in the past and currently. What military specifications and modifications do you even think they need? They burn the same Jet A (military F-24) and Jet A-1 (F-34/JP-8) fuel in civil air lines as they do in military service. They do the same job on a bomber as they do on a civilian passenger jet.
>>65244767>Be B-52 at 800m>Roll 90 to evade>Miraculously don't lose altitude>Wingtip now less than 774m above level
>>65244767I always assumed the close in CAS meant ordinance delivery, not aircraft position. No doubt for a line of 1,000lb gravity bombs that's pretty close.
>>65244771Feed line durability, emergency redundancy, after burner capability, ballistic shell, efficiency vs max power slight mods
>>65244698By not being an ignorant retard mostly. You're on the internet and have the sum total of human knowledge at your fingertips. If you can't figure things out, it's your own fault.
>>65244780>afterburnerAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAJesus christ, you really do know absolutely nothing about this, do you?
>>65244779It does. You just get a huge morale boost on the ground when you give friendlies a fast map of Earth fly by after.
>>65244788No. Fuck you air pussy. You mean to tell me there is no "laden start" option for a B-52?They only rely on ariel refuel to get max ordnance aloft?
>>65244780>efficiency vs max powerThe new engines can't be any more powerful than the TF33s since that would require major modifications to the entire back third of the aircraft in order to put a bigger rudder in. As it stands, the BR725 already makes 17,000 pounds of thrust, the same as the TF33. This is why they were selected, they're basically direct replacements controls-wise to the TF33.The engines are 50 years newer than the TF33s, so yeah they're massively more efficient already. Something like 30% more fuel efficient, so that's going to massively improve range. They're also going to have massively longer service intervals and part lifespans since it isn't 1950s technology. I'll also point out that the new engine program's offical name is B-52J Commercial Engine Replacement Program. Pulling an existing engine and putting it in without changing a bunch of things is the whole idae of the program. None of those things you mentioned are done on other big military engines and don't exist on the TF33 either. Here's a TF33 on a B-52H. Do you see any of that stuff you listed under the cowling on this?
>>65244800Yes. If payload+plane+fuel required is more than MTOW, then they take off with less fuel and top off in the air. This is common practice. Why do you think the Strategic Air Command operated over 600 dedicated KC-135 tankers?Also, the B-52 can't have powerful engines because of it's tiny rudder.
>>65244485Crashing on takeoff is not conducive to survival.
>>65244848>tiny 3 story rudderLol.
>>65244848I'm just a dumb grunt but this seems stupid. Bring back RATO.
>>65244735Getting involved in Vietnam was a lost cause to begin with. Korea kinda worked out, eventually, but Vietnam was only going to go one way, which is why the U.S shouldn't have joined that war.Stomping was, however, fucking sordid though, that's for sure.
>>65244136Pro tip the engine is already used across platforms in multiple airforces including the USAF.If there was any security concerns with engines it would of been figured out before they started putting them on SIGINT planes.
>>65244660The B-52 does more CAS then the A-10 thanks to JDAMs
>>65244938Three stories tall and as wide as your thumb. The landing gear on the B-52 is designed to swivel because the rudder is too small to decrab the plane in a crosswind. They set the runway heading into the landing gear control and it then uses a compass reading to automatically keep the gear on the runway heading. Seriously, watch this landing. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nhVD3E0-0Wc>inb4 why don't they sideslip if they can't crabwings are too low to the ground. A few degrees of roll would cause the wing tip to strike the ground and then cartwheel the whole plane into the dirt. The B-52 *has* to land level and crabbed in a crosswind.
>>65243934>same thing as the JT3D*WRONG*.was debunked on a desuarchive /k/ thread two months ago and (You) are likely the same fucking Retard saying the J57 is same as JT3>"mounting pod"18 years is the minimum age to post on this site.Internet was a mistake
>>65245036>umm acshullyI very specifically used a picture of an early 720B, which used JT3D-1 turbofans making 17,000 pounds of thrust just the same as the JT3D-2 (P&W's model name for the TF33-P-3) that made 17,000 pounds of thrust on the B-52. It had the same everything, just a different label because Uncle Sam is a very special customer. Yes, the normal 720 used JT3C engines, but I didn't post a 720, I posted a 720B. The one in the picture are the same as the TF33 on the B-52.It's literally the same engine. So get out of my face, you stupid cuck, with your inadequate pedantry. I'm better at this than you.
They're like the ship of Theseus, probably every single part has been replaced at least once.
>>65243934>>65244771>>65244830>>65245084^all of this. the af has been replacing the engines for the last few decades with engines from graveyards. being 50yrs old, the engines are not only outdated and I maintainable, but also getting very scarce for ones that can be repurposed and maintained.
>>65245307>and unmaintainable FML
>>65245084>'literally'Get off of this site and stay off. 18 years is minimum age to post here, nogunz
>>65245307>for the last few decadesThey've been trying to replace the TF33s for a long, long time. Over half a century, since the first serious proposal was made in 1971 (pic related). That started to compete for Congresses attention on the B-1A. There's been a serious study about every decade since, but they've always been derailed.>>65245310lmao, like a trailer park wife, you just have to try to get the last word in after being slapped around.
>>6524543118 years is the minimum age to post on 4chan, video gamer larptardTry installing a JT3 into a B-52 or WB-57 let us know how that goes.
>>65242548Lost
>>65245436>Try installing a JT3 into a B-52Ok, here it is: >>65244830. The TF33s on the B-52H are JT3D-2s. Feel free to keep crying though.
>>65241532there was a Colonel, 2 Lt. Colonels, and 3 Majors on the plane that just crashed
>>65246957>here it is>itwhat
