Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1     9/27/83; site hplabsc.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!sdcsvax!sdcrdcf!hplabs!hplabsc!dsmith
From: dsmith@hplabsc.UUCP (David Smith)
Newsgroups: net.aviation
Subject: Re: Re: More on B-1 vs B-52
Message-ID: <2190@hplabsc.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 15-Oct-84 13:19:05 EDT
Article-I.D.: hplabsc.2190
Posted: Mon Oct 15 13:19:05 1984
Date-Received: Wed, 17-Oct-84 06:17:39 EDT
References: <3220@rabbit.UUCP>
Organization: Hewlett Packard Labs, Palo Alto CA
Lines: 44


>> The B-1B while intended to be used in a subsonic mode can fly supersonic.
>
>The B-1 was *ORIGINALLY* designed to be a supersonic bomber.  Hence my
>comparisons with the B-58 and the B-70.  However, as you agree, the
>"B" version is intended to be subsonic.  So what if it *CAN* fly
>faster; obviously it can't do it very well or for very long.  Lots of
>WWII fighters could fly around Mach 1 just before the wings came off;
>that doesn't make them supersonic planes.


The B-1 was originally designed to fly up to Mach 2.  Most of the structure
is still the same.  The difference is in the air intakes.  To get the
Mach 2 capability required movable intakes, which were more expensive
and heavier.  The intakes were made fixed to save money, after the Air
Force decided (or admitted, or whatever) that Mach 2 was not essential.
(It couldn't fly Mach 2 in the low level penetration phase, anyway.)
Fixing the intakes also made it possible to considerably reduce the
radar cross section.


>> ... Castle Air Force Base.  Its the place where the 93rd
>> SAC Bomb wing lives.  They do all B-52G&H training there.  They have
>> lost several aircraft and crews in the past years.  Thats because
>> the things are literally falling apart.
>
>Not according to the USAF, who plan to keep the B-52 around for quite
>a few more years.

About a year ago I read an article in the Pittsburgh Press about the B-52.
It said the design lifetime of the B-52 airframe was 5000 hours (I think;
it may have been 4000 or 6000).  The low-time B-52 had over 14000 hours
at the time the article was printed.  The USAF does plan to keep the B-52
around for a while.  The planes have been reskinned, refurbished, and
reoutfitted several times, and why not a few more times?  It is easier
to get funding to rebuild the existing fleet than to replace it.

If the B-52 is to soldier on for another 30 years, P&W has an
interesting proposal to replace the eight engines with four 2037's.
The new engines would be more reliable, produce much less infrared,
and greatly increase range.

		David Smith
		Hewlett-Packard Labs