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