|
|
Post by jonksy on Feb 21, 2023 19:42:42 GMT
So a reminder for Jonksy . . . a read on the matter: www.airandspaceforces.com/article/re-engining-the-b-52/ 'The Air Force has also considered replacing the B-52’s eight engines with four large turbofans, as is typical on commercial airliners. Engineering challenges made that approach nonviable. Potential interference with flaps and control surfaces, ground clearance issues, yaw effects, the need for extensive new flight testing and weapon separation evaluations, the need to replace large sections of the cockpit and throttles, and to redesign the rudder ruled out such a change. USAF has opted to stick with eight engines of the class that typically powers large business jets.' Ah bless you are lost whithout your trained trolls and red triangle......Anybody care to help st steve out....LOL |
|
|
|
Post by jonksy on Feb 21, 2023 20:00:08 GMT
From my FAA handbook and the same applies to the CAA.... Military Aircraft with modern Type Certificates are few and far between in many countries’ inventories, not the least of which, the USA and UK. Even if they have a full agreed TCB, the various national military aviation authorities often are procuring their aircraft from an Original Equipment Manufacturer where the National Military Aviation Authority (NMAA) is not the biggest customer and often cannot dictate terms to the Original Equipment Manufacturer (OEM), or the purchase has been agreed government-to-government with the terms fixed before the NMAAs get involved. This means that in many cases a particular aircraft’s Type Certification Basis (TCB) may be unclear, the TCB may not exactly be as desired by the NMAA, access to the Type Design data may be severely limited, and/or the certification basis may just be a list of somewhat vague specification requirements cross-referenced to type design data for which the NMAA can’t access anyway.
Do you still want a little help from your non existent friends help loser..?
|
|
|
|
Post by Steve on Feb 21, 2023 20:32:00 GMT
From my FAA handbook and the same applies to the CAA.... Military Aircraft with modern Type Certificates are few and far between in many countries’ inventories, not the least of which, the USA and UK. Even if they have a full agreed TCB, the various national military aviation authorities often are procuring their aircraft from an Original Equipment Manufacturer where the National Military Aviation Authority (NMAA) is not the biggest customer and often cannot dictate terms to the Original Equipment Manufacturer (OEM), or the purchase has been agreed government-to-government with the terms fixed before the NMAAs get involved. This means that in many cases a particular aircraft’s Type Certification Basis (TCB) may be unclear, the TCB may not exactly be as desired by the NMAA, access to the Type Design data may be severely limited, and/or the certification basis may just be a list of somewhat vague specification requirements cross-referenced to type design data for which the NMAA can’t access anyway.
Do you still want a little help from your non existent friends help loser..
So? All that says is they don't get an FAA cert IE they have to get a different cert. Similar has applied in the UK (used to be F100 in my day and now I believe RA 5103 although the MoD will accept CAA certs). One reason is bleeding obvious, analysing military systems, especially nuclear bombers data require higher security clearances and more specialist skills than FAA or CAA personnel are going to have. For a USA nuclear system (and the B-52 is one such) you have to do tons of design rigour, analysis, tests and demonstrations then send them all off to Sandia Labs and they send back a single message, usually 'not approved'. They may give a hint as to where there were issues, if they don't like you they won't, you just have to try again. As a Brit I never got to do any of that but I worked with people that did. The whole of the USA military industry works under what is called presidential immunity. That means if a government procured aircraft is faulty and causes a crash then the manufacturer cannot be sued or prosecuted IF and only IF they can show they complied with all relevant government standards. MIL-HDBK-516 will be just one of those and that calls up the whole plethora of other standards eg MIL-STD-1629 (Failure Modes Analysis aka FMECA) which have to be revisited for any design change. If you want to know more there a lot of consultancies and training courses available but they are expensive and in the USA But what do I know, I've only designed key parts of weapon systems for the USA, UK and others. Something I designed under contract to the USAF was used just this month to shoot down that balloon off South Carolina. Only a small part of the package but essential to make it work. Somewhere I've got an award certificate recognising some of that work. And in the interests of protecting my anonymity and others information rights that's all you get from me. |
|
|
|
Post by Steve on Feb 21, 2023 20:32:40 GMT
PS no one has backed your 'doesn't need certification' myth
|
|
|
|
Post by Vinny on Feb 21, 2023 21:26:32 GMT
Steve, the RB211-535 4 engined B52 proposal was rejected on cost grounds in the 1990s by the Clinton era government which pre 9/11 didn't see much justification for upgrading.
It's still the better option for fuel economy, the question is what it would do pitch power wise. Maybe bad experiences with the 737 and the Max variant in particular have had an influence on the decision to go with 8 F130s instead.
|
|
|
|
Post by Steve on Feb 21, 2023 22:18:16 GMT
Steve, the RB211-535 4 engined B52 proposal was rejected on cost grounds in the 1990s by the Clinton era government which pre 9/11 didn't see much justification for upgrading. It's still the better option for fuel economy, the question is what it would do pitch power wise. Maybe bad experiences with the 737 and the Max variant in particular have had an influence on the decision to go with 8 F130s instead. Did you watch that video I posted of how bomb releases can go horribly wrong? There'd have been more worries than just pitch power but yes it would have been an issue as the centre of power of one RB211 would be lower down than 2 tandem PW J57s. And then there's the engine intake being so much lower it'd have more FOD etc etc I'm sure it could have been made to work but at a huge cost which would have been all up front. Mind boggling to realise that an aircraft that first flew before I was born will still be going in 2050 when I likely won't |
|
|
|
Post by Toreador on Feb 21, 2023 22:21:26 GMT
Steve, the RB211-535 4 engined B52 proposal was rejected on cost grounds in the 1990s by the Clinton era government which pre 9/11 didn't see much justification for upgrading. It's still the better option for fuel economy, the question is what it would do pitch power wise. Maybe bad experiences with the 737 and the Max variant in particular have had an influence on the decision to go with 8 F130s instead. Did you watch that video I posted of how bomb releases can go horribly wrong? There'd have been more worries than just pitch power but yes it would have been an issue as the centre of power of one RB211 would be lower down than 2 tandem PW J57s. And then there's the engine intake being so much lower it'd have more FOD etc etc I'm sure it could have been made to work but at a huge cost which would have been all up front. Mind boggling to realise that an aircraft that first flew befor e I was born will still be going in 2050 when I likely won'tWorry not, I'll watch it for you. |
|
|
|
Post by Steve on Feb 21, 2023 22:31:09 GMT
Did you watch that video I posted of how bomb releases can go horribly wrong? There'd have been more worries than just pitch power but yes it would have been an issue as the centre of power of one RB211 would be lower down than 2 tandem PW J57s. And then there's the engine intake being so much lower it'd have more FOD etc etc I'm sure it could have been made to work but at a huge cost which would have been all up front. Mind boggling to realise that an aircraft that first flew befor e I was born will still be going in 2050 when I likely won'tWorry not, I'll watch it for you.  |
|
|
|
Post by jonksy on Feb 21, 2023 22:48:42 GMT
From my FAA handbook and the same applies to the CAA.... Military Aircraft with modern Type Certificates are few and far between in many countries’ inventories, not the least of which, the USA and UK. Even if they have a full agreed TCB, the various national military aviation authorities often are procuring their aircraft from an Original Equipment Manufacturer where the National Military Aviation Authority (NMAA) is not the biggest customer and often cannot dictate terms to the Original Equipment Manufacturer (OEM), or the purchase has been agreed government-to-government with the terms fixed before the NMAAs get involved. This means that in many cases a particular aircraft’s Type Certification Basis (TCB) may be unclear, the TCB may not exactly be as desired by the NMAA, access to the Type Design data may be severely limited, and/or the certification basis may just be a list of somewhat vague specification requirements cross-referenced to type design data for which the NMAA can’t access anyway.
Do you still want a little help from your non existent friends help loser..
All that says is they don't get an FAA cert IE they have to get a different cert. Similar has applied in the UK (used to be F100 in my day and now I believe RA 5103 although the MoD will accept CAA certs). One reason is bleeding obvious, analysing military systems, especially nuclear bombers data require higher security clearances and more specialist skills than FAA or CAA personnel are going to have. For a USA nuclear system (and the B-52 is one such) you have to do tons of design rigour, analysis, tests and demonstrations then send them all off to Sandia Labs and they send back a single message, usually 'not approved'. They may give a hint as to where there were issues, if they don't like you they won't, you just have to try again. As a Brit I never got to do any of that but I worked with people that did. The whole of the USA military industry works under what is called presidential immunity. That means if a government procured aircraft is faulty and causes a crash then the manufacturer cannot be sued or prosecuted IF and only IF they can show they complied with all relevant government standards. MIL-HDBK-516 will be just one of those and that calls up the whole plethora of other standards eg MIL-STD-1629 (Failure Modes Analysis aka FMECA) which have to be revisited for any design change. If you want to know more there a lot of consultancies and training courses available but they are expensive and in the USA But what do I know, I've only designed key parts of weapon systems for the USA, UK and others. Something I designed under contract to the USAF was used just this month to shoot down that balloon off South Carolina. Only a small part of the package but essential to make it work. Somewhere I've got an award certificate recognising some of that work. And in the interests of protecting my anonymity and others information rights that's all you get from me. What it means is that it does not need recertification and it can be filled up with so much gobbled de gook that ii is irelrvent even if they bother why devulge to a patential enemy of new concepts or designs?r...Oh big deal you got a certificate multiply that by 200 and you still would not have as many as me....And just to please you, the only good EASA did was to standardise certification as it was a total mish mass before...Now a Form 1 a QA34 and COC is in a standard format across the globe and used by ALL civil aviation agency's And very many of the military including the bahrain defence agency and Israel's IAI and BTW I licensed to sign off on those also...But hey why do I need to bum my load I understand what I am on about unlike you...Feel free to carry on as I have better things to do than try and educate pork. |
|
|
|
Post by Steve on Feb 21, 2023 23:31:45 GMT
No it means it needs Mil-HDBK-526 recertification
You know jack shit about military aircraft
|
|
|
|
Post by Vinny on Feb 22, 2023 0:17:34 GMT
Steve, the RB211-535 4 engined B52 proposal was rejected on cost grounds in the 1990s by the Clinton era government which pre 9/11 didn't see much justification for upgrading. It's still the better option for fuel economy, the question is what it would do pitch power wise. Maybe bad experiences with the 737 and the Max variant in particular have had an influence on the decision to go with 8 F130s instead. Did you watch that video I posted of how bomb releases can go horribly wrong? There'd have been more worries than just pitch power but yes it would have been an issue as the centre of power of one RB211 would be lower down than 2 tandem PW J57s. And then there's the engine intake being so much lower it'd have more FOD etc etc I'm sure it could have been made to work but at a huge cost which would have been all up front. Mind boggling to realise that an aircraft that first flew before I was born will still be going in 2050 when I likely won't I'll have a look another time, I have no speakers on my pc at work. I can imagine how bomb releases can go horribly wrong, the B52 has wing pylons. |
|
|
|
Post by jonksy on Feb 22, 2023 0:52:33 GMT
No it means it needs Mil-HDBK-526 recertificationYou know jack shit about military aircraft It means you know fuck all about aviation abd ceritifcation...Like I said I have better things to do than try and educate pork. You are foll of FOD. |
|
|
|
Post by Steve on Feb 22, 2023 9:42:44 GMT
No it means it needs Mil-HDBK-526 recertificationYou know jack shit about military aircraft It means you know fuck all about aviation abd ceritifcation... No one believes you Jonksy |
|
|
|
Post by jonksy on Feb 22, 2023 12:39:19 GMT
It means you know fuck all about aviation abd ceritifcation... No one believes you Jonksy You have nevere ever worked in aviation or held a stamp, because it is based on honesty and integrity. Who in their right mind would risk a level 1 or worse putting their stamp and signature to anything you have stated....You prove over and over you lack both...Just look at your BS on the rayner thread alone.....And that is just on this forum let alone all the others you infest. And as for no one beleiving me that is their perogative......Funny enough I haven't see anyone jump in and defend you on this thread that you have clearly show you know jack shit about. |
|
|
|
Post by Steve on Feb 22, 2023 19:04:58 GMT
No one believes you Jonksy You have nevere ever worked in aviation or held a stamp, because it is based on honesty and integrity. Who in their right mind would risk a level 1 or worse putting their stamp and signature to anything you have stated....You prove over and over you lack both...Just look at your BS on the rayner thread alone.....And that is just on this forum let alone all the others you infest. And as for no one beleiving me that is their perogative......Funny enough I haven't see anyone jump in and defend you on this thread that you have clearly show you know jack shit about.  doth protest too much |
|
