Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => The Roundtable => Topic started by: just Warren on February 12, 2018, 11:13:11 PM
-
How does the B-52 have better parts availability? (https://www.yahoo.com/news/why-air-force-dumping-b-011000223.html)
Given what was spent on these stealth aircraft why don't they just suck it up and pay the money for the spare parts?
How are the air-frames of the B-52s still going? The youngest one is like 55-56 years old!
Not that I'm dissing the B-52 mind you, if it can still do the job keep it going.
-
I'm not sure about parts availability, but maybe it is because the B-52 uses mostly off-the-shelf parts and hardware while the B-2 uses custom parts and hardware. AFAIK, the BUFF doesn't have any life-limited parts. The B-2 might, but I don't know.
The B-52 is old tech, which might mean it can be easily maintained and fixed with normal tools. The B-2 probably has special materials and coatings that are harder to maintain.
-
The B 52's airframe is like that of the DC 3... The design is such that airframe stress is minimized to such a degree that, with proper care, they can last virtually indefinitely.
I've seen some articles that say that it's not a stretch to think that DC-3s will still be in regular air service when their airframes are pushing 200 years old.
-
I'm not sure about parts availability, but maybe it is because the B-52 uses mostly off-the-shelf parts and hardware while the B-2 uses custom parts and hardware. AFAIK, the BUFF doesn't have any life-limited parts. The B-2 might, but I don't know.
The B-52 is old tech, which might mean it can be easily maintained and fixed with normal tools. The B-2 probably has special materials and coatings that are harder to maintain.
I think that is a lot of it. Also there were 744 of B52s built of which only a small portion are still flying. Some are at Davis-Monthan AFB just sitting there while others that were there were destroyed in accordance with various treaties. Before they were cut into pieces I am sure every removable part was taken off and stored so there is still a decent supply of some parts.
I was able to quickly pick out 11 stored B52s and a few dismantled ones looking here. Once dismantled they sit there for 30 days so the Russian satellites can see that it has been destroyed IAW whatever treaty they are using these days.
There are also 100 or so P3s there awaiting their fate. :(
That is another airframe that will be flying long into the future, if not for the US then for various foreign governments.
https://goo.gl/maps/UtJJ3w4xuWU2
bob
-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CFM_International_CFM56 The current engines in the B52 are commercial. I'd imagine just this difference alone makes the B2 untenable.
-
There are also 100 or so P3s there awaiting their fate. :(
bob
Look closely and you can spot an RB-57F, the "long-wing" Canberra built under license by Martin. If Wiki is correct, they only made 21.
https://goo.gl/maps/EAzVeFLpicL2
Brad
-
Look closely and you can spot an RB-57F, the "long-wing" Canberra built under license by Martin. If Wiki is correct, they only made 21.
https://goo.gl/maps/EAzVeFLpicL2
Brad
NASA still flies a couple. WB57's. Based out of CA and TX.
https://jsc-aircraft-ops.jsc.nasa.gov/wb57/
I worked them out of Ellington field when I was there.
-
The boneyard is a big deal in the supply chain, lots of reclaimed parts. Then add in a cold war supply chain that was going to support the original number.
Then with the B-2 the number built over time is not much more than low rate initial production. Never really a tooled up assembly line, more like one off manufacturing. And I can only imagine the specs are highly complex.
-
That is a sad image... so many aircraft sitting, dead. Waiting to be picked apart. A-10s. F-15, F-16, I think I spotted a few F-18s. The C-130s. How many rides did I catch in those back in the day? Caught a ride in a P-3 once. My cousin was a P-3 pilot, and I caught a ride when he was stationed in Hawaii. It was like a flying Radio Shack, with all of the gear they had for sub catching.
-
I think I read recently that the B-52s that are still flying have all be re-winged.
Yes? No?
-
Got curious about that on account of the wing flex I've observed between sitting on the gound and taking off. Figure a flex up and down for every takoff, landing,and refueling. (I have not seen data on forward-back flex due to engine thrust.)
https://www.pprune.org/archive/index.php/t-218693.html
FearlessFreep
28th Mar 2006, 03:40
USAF maintenance training for my AFSC (job code) was on the B-52. It was stated that normal wing flex at the tips on the BUFF was +/- 7 feet. So that's a total flex of 14' (I have not seen data on forward-back flex due to engine thrust.)
The B-52 is a high wing aircraft with an anhedral There are outrigger gear on the wingtips of the BUFF to prevent wingtip strikes. When they were heavily laden both outriggers could be in ground contact but normally they would not be touching the ground. Also there was some differences on the tip tanks that were mounted on the different models that may have had a definite effect on wing flex. One of the other interesting things about the BUFF is that during climbout you would actually have a negative deck angle. It was pretty wild to see them climb out with the nose down!
The 747 is a low wing with a dihedral Two very different design concepts, between the two different aircraft. I would have to say that the wing flex would be very different as well.
Not that I can get all that good of a look at but by observing 74's during takeoff but the wing flex on a 742 does not even come close to that. Have no idea what the normal flex would be on a 74.
"Oh, and Fig Newtons are named after a town in New England, not the scientist. That's all I know."
Terry
-
Yes, a 747's wings flex. Probably more than 14 feet, considering how long the 747 wing is.
Here are some videos of airline wings flexing: https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=747+wing+flex+test
-
Yes, a 747's wings flex. Probably more than 14 feet, considering how long the 747 wing is.
I'm sure they flex, but a 747's wing span is only 11' wider than a B-52's. Given the differences in fuselage width, a B-52's wings might be longer.
I'm trying to find a number on 747 wing flex right now.
-
I can't find any definitive numbers, but I found a couple of sites saying that a 747's wings have been destruction tested to 28 feet of flex.
-
I cannot recall all the media sources, but about five miles from my office, at the Paine Field Boeing plant, they test the wings to failure of the airframes built there. The local paper ran a picture of the 767 wing test rig, and the amount of bending of the (still-intact) wing was amazing.