"The U.S. Air Force Could Get a New Version of the Iconic " Topic
6 Posts
All members in good standing are free to post here. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the posters, and have not been cleared with nor are they endorsed by The Miniatures Page.
Please use the Complaint button (!) to report problems on the forums.
For more information, see the TMP FAQ.
Back to the Ultramodern Warfare (2014-present) Message Board
Areas of InterestModern
Featured Hobby News Article
Featured Link
Top-Rated Ruleset
Featured Showcase Article It's probably too late already this season to snatch these bargains up...
Featured Profile Article First of a series – scenario starters!
Current Poll
Featured Book Review
|
| Tango01 | 25 Jun 2019 10:04 p.m. PST |
…B-52 Bomber "The "B-52J" designation might supersede the current "B-52H" moniker that the flying branch has applied to the eight-engine bombers since they entered service in the early 1960s. The U.S. Air Force could get a new version of the iconic B-52 bomber. The "B-52J" designation might supersede the current "B-52H" moniker that the flying branch has applied to the eight-engine bombers since they entered service in the early 1960s…."
Main page
link
Amicalement
Armand |
| SBminisguy | 26 Jun 2019 8:54 a.m. PST |
Lazy writer, doesn't even know the basic history of he B-52!! The U.S. Air Force could get a new version of the iconic B-52 bomber. The "B-52J" designation might supersede the current "B-52H" moniker that the flying branch has applied to the eight-engine bombers since they entered service in the early 1960s. Nope. The B-52's maiden flight was in 1952, and the bomber entered into operational service in 1955 -- not the "early 1960s." |
| Garand | 26 Jun 2019 11:13 a.m. PST |
The B-52H variant entered service in the early '60s. The author is referring to SPECIFICALLY the -H variant & that comment is accurate when speaking specifically about the -H variant, not the design in general. Damon. |
| 14th NJ Vol | 26 Jun 2019 11:14 a.m. PST |
I think the H model was 1962. |
| Lion in the Stars | 26 Jun 2019 3:06 p.m. PST |
They're still going to keep 8 engines? Hrm… The 'easy' refit would probably be CFM56-2 or -3s, as used on KC135R or 737s. But those are pretty old engines, design-wise. I'd want to install the same engines as used on the P8 Poseidon, a CFM56-7B, which are more efficient than the -2s or -3s and in mass use on 737-700, -800, and -900s. No, not the engines used on 737MAX. That's going to give about 50% more installed power, with far less fuel burn. The -7B burns half as much fuel per minute at takeoff power than the TF33 does at cruise! So, how does increased speed and range with much less maintenance grab you? |
| Garand | 27 Jun 2019 9:03 a.m. PST |
So, how does increased speed and range with much less maintenance grab you? Grabs me just fine. IIRC there was an effort a couple decades ago (?) to re-engine the BUFF with modern oversized turbofans from the airline industry, but it got axed due to budgetary concerns… Damon. |
|
