[Lady Jane]

Lockheed R6V Constitution

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_R6V_Constitution

[M-technik-3]

Originally Posted by Jbrown7403

I won’t fit at 6’3” so someone out there needs to do this and report back.

Friend of mine makes the turrets, he does restorations and fabrications in Mopar and Pre-Vietnam aircraft.

[Lady Jane]

Saunders-Roe Princess

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saunders-Roe_Princess

[cliverman]

.

[M-technik-3]

Originally Posted by cliverman

.

Got an incentive ride in one, back in 1987 when I was a A1C at Osan AB Korea.

Lets just say it was awesome.

[flybigjet]

Originally Posted by cliverman

.

America's proof that if you put big enough engines on a brick, you can get it to fly.

[Jbrown7403]

Excuse me if this monster had already been mentioned but this mini documentary is pretty interesting. Amazing build for 1930!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dornier_Do_X

Once carried 169 people which was a record for 20 years. Passengers moved from one side to the other when turning…. Yikes!

[Llarry]

The U.S. Air Force's newest combat search and rescue helicopter, the HH-60W Jolly Green II; currently in testing and hopefully to be in service next year.

The number of H-60 variants used by all the U.S. military branches is staggering, although I sense that the hands of time are overtaking the H-60. As I've said before, the U.S. Navy will face a crisis in attempting to replace the H-60 on surface combatants; perhaps the H-60 will become another one of those aircraft flown by grandfathers and their grandsons/granddaughters...

And I should also mention the Air Force's CV-22B Osprey in the search and rescue scenario; the CV-22B plays an important role in special operations but I suspect will be quite valuable in combat search and rescue.

[Llarry]

A pretty cool photo of a Barksdale Air Force Base, Louisiana, Air Force Reserve Command B-52H BUFF. Now THIS is an aircraft flown by generations of Air Force pilots!

The serial number on the tail is 60-045. That means this B-52 was purchased in Fiscal Year 1960!

[Llarry]

Speaking of generations of Air Force pilots flying the B-52, the Air Force has already awarded Rolls-Royce a contract to replace the current TF33 engines on the B-52H with new F130 engines. The first two aircraft will begin testing in 2025 and 76 B-52Hs will be modified by 2035. The modified B-52s are projected to serve until the year 2050.

[Lady Jane]

Originally Posted by Llarry

Speaking of generations of Air Force pilots flying the B-52, the Air Force has already awarded Rolls-Royce a contract to replace the current TF33 engines on the B-52H with new F130 engines. The first two aircraft will begin testing in 2025 and 76 B-52Hs will be modified by 2035. The modified B-52s are projected to serve until the year 2050.

Makes sense. Better fuel economy = Longer range and less tanker time. And since the engine has already been flying commercially for nearly 30 million flight hours, it has proven itself.

[ezaircon4jc]

Originally Posted by Llarry

...

And I should also mention the Air Force's CV-22B Osprey in the search and rescue scenario; the CV-22B plays an important role in special operations but I suspect will be quite valuable in combat search and rescue.

Question of the hour... Is the Osprey classified as a rotor-wing (helicopter) or fixed-wing (airplane)?

[Llarry]

Originally Posted by ezaircon4jc

Question of the hour... Is the Osprey classified as a rotor-wing (helicopter) or fixed-wing (airplane)?

I think the Navy & Marine Corps classify it as something else -- it's own category.

For instance, student Naval Aviator helicopter pilots fly about 90 hours in the fixed-wing T-6B, then go to helos for 100 hours.

Tilt-rotor student pilots, on the other hand, do their 90 hours in the T-6B, then do 60 hours in helos, then 65 hours in the fixed-wing TC-12 King Air.

Since Lady Jane likes pictures, here are some pictures...

[chassis]

Originally Posted by Lady Jane

Makes sense. Better fuel economy = Longer range and less tanker time. And since the engine has already been flying commercially for nearly 30 million flight hours, it has proven itself.

Why doesn't the next (or current RR) B-52 engine upgrade program use 4 larger engines vs 8 smaller units? The wing structure doesn't care if there are 2 engines per attachment point, or a single unit. What is the real reason?

[Lady Jane]

Originally Posted by chassis

Why doesn't the next (or current RR) B-52 engine upgrade program use 4 larger engines vs 8 smaller units? The wing structure doesn't care if there are 2 engines per attachment point, or a single unit. What is the real reason?

Probably ground clearance especially on the outboard pods or a need to completely re-design the tail with its tiny rudder (In case of engine failure and crabbing situation) and maybe the landing gear. A new set of avionics would be needed as well. Trying to retrofit modern components on a plane that was designed in the late '40s and first flew in 1952 is not always obvious. Big engines that we see today were not available then. So all those factors were entered as part of the equation. A completely new design would have to be hatched at a very high manufacturing cost.

[3798j]

.

[ezaircon4jc]

Originally Posted by Llarry

I think the Navy & Marine Corps classify it as something else -- it's own category.

For instance, student Naval Aviator helicopter pilots fly about 90 hours in the fixed-wing T-6B, then go to helos for 100 hours.

Tilt-rotor student pilots, on the other hand, do their 90 hours in the T-6B, then do 60 hours in helos, then 65 hours in the fixed-wing TC-12 King Air.

Since Lady Jane likes pictures, here are some pictures...

It's actually a rotor-wing because it can't land with the pods forward.

[chassis]

Does the B-1 Lancer have an approved upgrade program in the near future?

[flybigjet]

Originally Posted by chassis

Does the B-1 Lancer have an approved upgrade program in the near future?

Yes, it's called "flying them to the Boneyard".

17 removed from flying status. 45 still operational. Slated to be replaced with the B-21.

They've always been problematic from a maintenance/operational standpoint. They're programmed to be fully retired by 2036.

R.

[chassis]

Thanks. B-21 won't be supersonic, will it? What about MTOW? Likely less than B-1?

Aren't bombers obsolete given drones and cruise missiles?

[flybigjet]

Originally Posted by chassis

Thanks. B-21 won't be supersonic, will it? What about MTOW? Likely less than B-1?

Aren't bombers obsolete given drones and cruise missiles?

No idea on the B-21. No tech specs have been released on it for obvious reasons.

You'll have to wait like the rest of us until the Chinese steal the plans and technology to find out.

Bombers are.... more of a visible threat than a useful threat-- especially old tech like the B-52/B-1B. Today's radar systems can see them coming from about a continent away.

Realistically, they're mostly a stand-off weapon platform now-- park them in orbit beyond fighter range and launch ALCM's (air launched cruise missiles) from either underwing pylons or rotary launchers in the bomb bay.

Or, use them in a limited conventional role (e.g. bombing the Republican Guard).

Fun fact about today's bomber force. Our main "nuclear deterrent" bomber is the B-52. The nuke-capable ones live in Louisiana.

The nukes? They're stored in the Dakota's.

So, if the balloon actually went up, they'd have to get the bombers to the nukes or the nukes to the bombers. And with missiles flying over the pole? That just won't happen. In other words, a good third of our nuclear triad is completely useless if the fur starts flying. And now, the Chinese have Hypersonics, which makes killing the missile silo's probable.

That takes out the second leg of the nuclear tripod.

Which means that realistically? We're down to a limited number of subs. And taking out their comm systems (ELF, TACAMO, NCA, etc.) isn't that hard, and who knows what detection capabilities the Chinese have regarding finding the subs?

As far as the B-2 and/or B-21? How can ANYBODY justify an aircraft that costs at least a BILLION DOLLARS a copy?

Other than glassing a city, what possible target can you justify being worth the potential loss of a billion dollar asset? Every time you launch a sortie, you have to calculate that there's a possibility of it not coming back.

Example: You take your stealthy (and EXPENSIVE) B-2 and drop some bombs on the Taliban. You flatten a few pickup trucks, but Haji gets lucky with his shoulder-mounted SAM and blows the B-2 out of the sky (or, the bomber simply has a mechanical issue and crashes, like the B-1 that crashed going into Diego Garcia).

Who really won the engagement? The American's blew up a bunch of pickup trucks, but at the cost of losing Billion (with a B) dollar asset.

I'm not great at math, but even I can figure out that's not exactly a reasonable trade.

R.

[M-technik-3]

Originally Posted by chassis

Does the B-1 Lancer have an approved upgrade program in the near future?

No it will be retired soon I don't for see them in service beyond 2028.