Aviation Week had a short piece lobbying for a B-52 re engine project. From a technical standpoint, this might make sense, it would certainly give a nicer B-52 with more range, better takeoff power, and lower maintenance. Especially if a modern engine with enough power were selected that would allow the B-52 to fly on four engines instead of the current eight. As an old flight line maintenance officer, I can tell you, that maintaining four engines is a helova lot easier than maintaining eight engines.
But, speaking as a taxpayer, is it worth it ? Engines are the most expensive part of an aircraft. For a new airliner, the engines are a quarter to a third of the overall flyaway cost. The Aviation Week article didn't breathe a word about cost. The B-52's are old, so old that we ought to replace them all, right now, on general principles. Does it make sense to plow serious money into a plane that ought to be retired, and probably will get retired in the foreseeable future? Especially as the engines on the B-52 work, are reliable, and are efficient enough to give the old B-52 better range than any other USAF bomber, either in service or on the drawing boards.
2 comments:
Considering the current TF-33 engine pool is shrinking and the remaining engines are 1950s technology, GE's proposal to re-engine the -52 Hotels with CF34-10s makes a lot of sense: lowers aircraft empty weight by 7,240 lbs, produces equal or greater thrust with a 17% lower SFC and a FADEC engine that would reduce maintenance cost. It would require minimal engineering costs due to the fact the CF34-10 is slightly wider(54" verses 57") and shorter (90" verses 142.3 inches) than the TF-33s.
No doubt about it, new engines would give us a nicer B-52. But is it worth it considering the age of the B-52?
Post a Comment