In service until 2050, and the first flight was in 1952, almost 100 years in active duty... just wow.

@saintdarthcoder

7 жыл бұрын

It is quite possible to think that the last B52 will be flying longer than any human will have been alive at the time.

@Seanthefox

7 жыл бұрын

saintdarthcoder It's amazing

@RainbowManification

7 жыл бұрын

The current inventory is all H models, produced from 1961 to 1963

@KiwisCassie

7 жыл бұрын

Pollux Pavonis I know! It’s just amazing to think about.

@SteinErikDahle

7 жыл бұрын

saintdarthcoder, in 2050, a pilot on the B52 could fly the same exact aircraft as his grandfather did, a hundred years earlier! Wow...

With the current engines the BUFF does not take off, it simply scares the earth away.

Wow, defence lobbying takes to KZread. What a time to be alive

Childlike elementary illustrations and narration. Perfect for congress.

B-52, C-130, A-10, all just about perfect aircraft for their roles.

@thewaywardwind548

7 жыл бұрын

Please don't forget the KC-135 which made the B-52 program viable. With these four airplanes -- B-52, KC-135, A-10 and C-130 -- the taxpayer has really gotten his money's worth.

@BoarVessel-BCEtruscanCer-xy7et

7 жыл бұрын

They were back in the 60s & 70s. Less so now.

@colonelstriker2519

7 жыл бұрын

Alan Fox A-10, B-52, C-130 You see something?

This idea, of re-engining the B-52s goes all the way back to the 1970s, and has been rejected several times in the past. Back in the 1980s, when I was a B-52 pilot, we were told the big issue was the fact that not only would the engines need to be replaced but many other systems as well, making the project much more than a simple engine replacement. To understand the issue one needs to look at the hydraulic, pneumatic and electrical systems on the B-52. The B-52 has 8 engines but only 4 of them have alternators, 6 have hydraulic systems, and then there is a very complex bleed air system that allows certain engines to supply certain portions of the bleed air system. Since all the proposed re-engining programs involve replacing the 8 ancient engines (turbofan versions of the J-57 developed in the 40s and 50s) presently on the B-52 with 4 modern turbofans, as used on modern airliners. But having only 4 engines would require some of those engines to power two hydraulic systems, meaning a single engine failure could effect both the primary and backup system for a particular control surface or other hydraulic powered system. So the re-engining program would probably also require 1 or more APUs, operable at all altitudes, to provide a backup in case of certain engine failure scenarios. These APUs would have to be mounted somewhere there is presently empty space, then hydraulic, fuel and bleed air system would have to be rerouted to connect to the APUs. All this is possible but would likely make the initial redesign and actual re-engining a much bigger project than it would seem at first blush. Another issue that is not obvious is that your typical B-52 flies far far fewer hours than an airliner. Back in 1986 the typical B-52 I flew was over 25 years old but had less than 10,000 hours of flying time. An airliner in service for 25 years might have from 5-10 times that number of flight hours. So fuel and engine maintenance costs per flight hour on a B-52 relative to the total cost per hour (or per year) are much lower on a B-52 than an airliner. Also, since they waited so long to actually do this re-engining program, instead of the 500 or so B-52s that would have been re-engined back in the 80s, now we are down to well below 100, so the engineering costs are spread over a very small number of airframes. I would have loved to have seen this program done in 1975 but today I think it would make more sense to simply replace the B-52 with an airliner with a bomb bay and B-52 ECM and radar/bomb/nav systems, than it would to sink even more money into an antique airframe.

Only Boeing can make a plane in 1952 and still use it today.

The video makes excellent points, but what really jumped out at me is that these airframes will, in some cases, be a century old before they're retired. That's awesome and terrifying at the time.

The P&W T33 in use today are capable of 75.6kN of thrust, a total of 604.8 kN for 8 engines. It means that the B-52 is capable of flying with only TWO GEnx 70 series from the 787-9 for a total of 620+ kN of thrust!! Just imagine the the ammount of less spare parts that is required for only 2 engines than 8!!

The video repeats itself halfway through...

Amazing that the B-52 is already 65 years old! I hope to see the aircraft live to see 100!

Nice! environment friendly plane with nuclear bombs

Noise reduction for those that live near the base Lol I live in bossier city right next to Barksdale. They have been there so long we don't even notice it.

It's amazing how after 5+ minutes of useless information, nothing about which engine would replace the current ones, would they go with 4 new engines, instead of 8 smaller engines?

Awwww, but the sound the B-52 engines make is one of the best things about it

@danielgreen5803

7 жыл бұрын

It's the sound of money being burned

@janebook294

7 жыл бұрын

They sang me to sleep every night of the cold war in my childhood years

@QiuyuanChenRyan916

7 жыл бұрын

8XBR700?

@WootTootZoot

7 жыл бұрын

MrDemonicDan D and G models had a far better sound than the fan jets the H model does now

They did this with the KC-135 and it worked wonderfully. While there was one unseen problem with the fuel tanks, the tanks had never been filled to full capacity before and new found cracks leaked. It was probably the best buy the Air Force made. This has been talked about for years but the thing that keeps killing it is the age of the airframe.

That;s a real testament to the original design that enables the B52 to remain in service for 90+ years. One question would it be possible to replace the current 8 engines with 4 modern high bypass turbofans or would ground clearance be an issue?

This is like telemarketing. They're repeating the same stuff twice.

I used to work for Boeing and this has been in the works for more than 25 years. The last I heard was to use the 757 engines, 4 instead of 8.

@stupidburp

7 жыл бұрын

B-52 should have been retired 25 years ago.

@needledrop421

7 жыл бұрын

That would be awesome! 4 RB211 or PW2000 engines, though most likely PW2000 (F117).

Surely with today's engine technology, 4 High Bypass Fans and outperform the 8 relics that are hanging from those pylons. Why not?

Updated engines is a no-brainer.

@KB4QAA

7 жыл бұрын

It's a no-brain error filled solution. Incredibly expensive for very little gain and not net savings. Very little. Economically it just isn't worth it. Other presentations on YT explain this well.

@stupidburp

7 жыл бұрын

Brainless is more like it. For not much more we could have an all new high efficiency bomber that is far more advanced and more valuable.

@SilverStarHeggisist

7 жыл бұрын

Stu Bur or keep the B52s and get the new bombers and have double the blowy uppy ability

We just need to strap falcon 9 rockets to the wings and call it a day

My father was responsible for every b-52 flying today. He was in the Air Force and then Boeing and he re-skinned and re-engined every B-52 over a period of 15 years. He also re-engined and re-boomed the KC-135 tankers too. It save the DOD and the government 100's of millions of dollars.

No offence, but, who was this intended for? My six year old would quite enjoy the graphics! Is this the level that "dumbing down" presentations has descended too?

@MsMsmak

7 жыл бұрын

It was done to convince trump.

@AvGeekLucky

7 жыл бұрын

Underrated.

@deldia

7 жыл бұрын

Mark Davis the military needs to win hearts and minds. That's why the military are happy to help make Hollywood movies.

@johnfjeldberg7717

7 жыл бұрын

It mentions things like 'carbon footprint', so it's obviously fake news...

@cmcbunch

7 жыл бұрын

A lot of big corp media looks like this when trying to get a military contract.

KC135's been re-engined. I've wondered why the B-52 hasn't. Is it a ground clearance issue strapping turbofans under the BUFFs wings? Would the new configuration still be eight engines or four?

Notably absent from the video is the price. DefenseNews reports that it would be between $5 and $7 billion. So this should be subtracted from the projected "billions in future savings". I wish there was more information here or on the Boeing website. Can't really form an opinion based on what's presented.

@pipercub123456

7 жыл бұрын

What does knowledge of cost have to do with keeping this most valuable A/C ready for war..no cost is too high...this is a force multiplier.without parallel..

@JAKB2002

7 жыл бұрын

They can't keep using the current 1950s era J57, parts are becoming harder to find. Almost every other plane that used this engine has been out of service for decades. The J57 isn't up to standards anymore.

@rotorheadv8

7 жыл бұрын

Upgrading its engines is a no-brainer. Turbo fan engines that virtually every commercial airliner uses would be the most obvious choice. They are quieter, more fuel efficient and produce as much if not more thrust.

@SillyPuddy2012

7 жыл бұрын

Hans Krebs - Except no operational B52 runs on the J57 and hasn't for over twenty years man. These are TF33's which are derived from the P&W JT3D, a perfectly good engine. No less relevant than the entire KC135 fleet which are "just" a bunch of old 707's.

@bc1969214

7 жыл бұрын

Video states $10 Billion in savings over say $7 Billion in costs, not sure if that also includes other improvements like more range so less tanker supports needed.

New B-52 engines have been proposed for a long time: decades. This proposal seemingly differs from some others by retaining eight specialized military engines.

I was a newborn when the '52 was being designed while my father worked at Boeing in Seattle....

All I wanna know is why the B17 is Americas special unit in Civ V instead of the B52?

I like how they don't draw the massive smoke trails the plane leaves behind.

@yann9378

7 жыл бұрын

EpicClone5082 the smoke trails from takeoff is mostly steam because the engines use water injection so the aircraft can have a heavier load on takeoff.

I would had suggested showing a drawing of the bomber with the new engines. I would assume it would utilize only 4 high-bypass turbofans?? Keep up the great work Boeing!! The USA loves ya and is very proud of you!!

But, what will be the total cost to complete the re-engine program? And, how long will it take?

I am surprised the modernization proposed remains an eight engine configuration. Why not use four larger engines?

So what is the additional life expectancy of the airframe? No mention of any analysis of stress and metal fatigue in the airframe and wings in the video. Also the proposed replacement cost needs to be factored into the projections and it seems notably absent.

So what type of engine are you thinking of? You must consider the maximum outside diameter because of the ground clearance. There's not much room between engine and the ground.

Use the engines used for the Super Galaxy. Only need 4 engines instead 8. One less engine type in the usaf inventory. Simpler and cheaper logistics.

How come no mention on thrust reversers?

Regarding the footprint and the regulations it is a wonder that this aircraft is still allowed to fly, even in the military

how much is The cost for reengine program for all HIS in the us army?

So it would still have 8 engines? I've heard that a 4-jumbo engine scenario wouldn't work because in an engine-out contingency, there would not be enough rudder authority with that relatively small rudder. Would 8 newer but still small diameter engines really give useful cost savings?

In case of a re-engine, whitch machine should be used?

What about airframe issues?

I heard that one engine on the 747-8 has more thrust than all 8 engines on the b-52, so if they used GE Engines wouldn't they get rid of the 8 engines and replace them with 2 or, would they just make 8 more fuel efficient engines? Or would they use 1 GE Engine?

Boeing your choice in music while talking about nuclear capabilities is questionable

Makes complete sense to me and I'm surprised that it's taken this long to happen. Are they still running on the original design engines after all these years?!?!?

I saw nothing about increased speed or ceiling- since this was not covered I assume it is not a factor?

So what kind of engines are under consideration? Would it be a completely new engine or an "off the shelf" product.

This type of plane is the best air support option in a fight against a Rock Lobster.

@nicholaskeggan

7 жыл бұрын

HostilePancakes, The Milennial Warrior on Planet Claire

@lioraselby5328

7 жыл бұрын

HostilePancakes, The Milennial Warrior A great plane for a direct flight to the Love Shack

What type of engine will be used? Obviously hi-bypass engines are out of the question, so which low-bypass, non-afterburning engines can be used?

Re-engine of the B52 is a no-brainer.

What engine will be used? It would be nice if it was based around the new 777 engine..

How much is it going to cost to re-engine each aircraft?

Will it still have the classic 8-engine design though?

Very cool. What is current thinking? 4 engines or 8 engines? What engines are under consideration?

I though it was determined that the B-52 could not be re-engined due to VMCA issues. In other words the B-52 does not have enough rudder authority to counteract the loss of an outboard engine on takeoff if the aircraft was re-engined from 8 to 4 engines. Please explain if or how this issue has been solved.

"Not overhauled, ever." I am sold.

can we put jet engines on the b-17?

Soo, it is a B52neo, if I may use this choice of words from your competitor?

So..what engines are these "re-engined" aircraft going to use?

will you cut down to 4 engines rather than 8?

will it become 8 or just 4 engines ?

Any artist impression of the re-engined Buff?

Seventy six B-52's in service today. I remember a time when there were more than one hundred.

CFM-56? V2500? P&W geared turbofan?

Not sure as to when the last new B-52 was made - will these current airframes last another 30 years? Will the newer high-bypass fan jets have enough ground clearance? I know that there is nothing equivalent to a B-52 for carrying a massive amount of iron bombs. I remember seeing them operating from Utapao in Thailand during the summer of 1968. Very impressive.

Interesting but vague. What engines is Boeing considering using and what other aircraft are they in service with?

This is a great idea!!

As a former B52 mechanic and A&P holder. I couldn't be happier if this happens.

Waiting to hear about the function and functionality of new engines

Can 3D printing solve the problem of replacing spare parts for old engines?

Four CFM56-7s would be good if a little more thrust can be squeezed out. Plenty of parts and commonality.

Before the 757/767 were built - their engines were tested on a B-52 -- So some of the savings has already been had.

Boeing carefully omits identifying which engine(s) are actually suitable for this program.

What is the investment to re-Engine?

So are we looking at a B-52 with 4 engines in the future if they do get re-engined?

Price and performance were not mentioned. I would think that would be more important than milage

Where is the drawing of the B-52 with the new engines?

it bothers me that they dont use many numbers, i want to see numbers

Nice video

Wow they made a video, this is kind of a big deal. I thought the previous study concluded that the vertical stabilizer wasn't big enough to compensate for a 1 of 4 engine out and that was the reason why a re-engine was declined? Are they thinking of 8 smaller engines?

Who's building the engine?

That is a nice idea of putting new engines on all the aircraft, and the maintenance personnel will love that idea.

This is the sort of presentation design you use when you need to convince grade school students that equipping B-52s with new engines is the right choice.

@markfryer9880

7 жыл бұрын

Well they will be the ones working to pay the taxes to keep the B-52 flying to 2050.

@MsMsmak

7 жыл бұрын

Or just if you want to convince trump.

Is the majority of the fuselage pressurized during flights? Probably the reason the airframe has lasted so long is due to it not going to so many pressure cycles as commercial airliners.

Respect! Absolutely perfect marketing.

So....what kind of engine would be used?

How about the B-2 and B-1

Nice to see that the B52 is expected to serve for a long time yet! I didnt really understand from the video, are the engines proposed going to be 4 more powerful engines or 8 more powerful engines? Thanks in advance.

@garyodle5663

7 жыл бұрын

Four engines would replace eight.

@fredferd965

7 жыл бұрын

The original engines, I think they were J-57's, or something, were rather low thrust engines - very low compared to modern engines. They would be replaced by 4 new engines, each engine replacing TWO old ones, and producing MUCH more thrust as well. In many ways, it makes sense, but it's going to be difficult! -- Old Man Bob

@whoareyou1034

7 жыл бұрын

Ryan White they are replacing the current old 8 engiens with 4 new engiens that are more powerful, cheaper and more reliable and easy to keep.

@firstcynic92

7 жыл бұрын

4. There isn't enough space for modern turbo fans unless you reduce the number of engines.

@ElonMuckX

7 жыл бұрын

They will throw a few on the tail, make her look like a MD-11........

Great video but not once did you mention how much it would cost to refit all 76 bombers with new engines. . .

What engine would Boeing suggest for the BUFF?

The Military-industrial complex hard at work.

Modernized TF34s? The old versions don't provide enough thrust.

CFM56?

Some peace wouldn't do harm.

kudos Boeing for your B52 engine replacement info-mercial. If it's accurate that USAC has decided to keep the B52 arsenal to 2050, then engine replacement vs refurbishment costs is a good argument to have!

Surely a large enough already exists to require only 4 and not 8 engines. After all the suggested program requires new nacelles. Is there any reason it must be 8.

@yann9378

7 жыл бұрын

binaway simple explanation from the military if they shoot one engine or it fails we still got 7 left

I doubt that I'm going to get a reply from Boeing but here it goes: Are the new engines going to to be four high bypass turbofans per plane,or are they going to be eight more efficient versions of the dual pod set up? Also this is Boeing's plane but who's engine? Has there been a contract issued to General Electric and Pratt & Whitney? Rolls Royce and others perhaps?

I think Boeing should look back into the 747-CMCA concept, the B-52 needs a supplemental airframe to help the BUFF make her 100th birthday. Given that the B-52 fleet was originally 700 airframes...we 'somehow' lost 624, and it is a stretch to think 76 aircraft can survive another 30 years with that 90% attrition rate So, 747-CMCA...look towards parts commonality (at least the engines.) Try and bundle an E-4B replacement and YAL-1 if possible. Maximize commonality with the B-52 refurbishment & re-engine, push the cost spread savings.

I wonder why they can't put four of the large new style engines on the B-52, instead of replacing the eight old engines with eight new ones, especially if they're replacing the engine pylons anyway, unless its some operational requirement or ground clearance issues or something?

I think it's great to keep the B-52 in service by modernizing it. But what about the air frame? Isn't there a limit to the number of times the plane can pressurize and depressurize? In the past I remember a commercial plane failing because the airframe had gone past the number of pressurization and depressurization cycles.

@SilverStarHeggisist

7 жыл бұрын

FrankZ06 I'm not sure, but it may be that they aren't pressurising the whole plane, just the crew compartments.