B-1B Reengine?

[Mark Schaeffer]

From the online Los Angeles Times, Oct. 8, 2003:

"The Air Force also is considering putting new engines on the B-1 to
double the speed of what is already one of the fastest bombers in the
world."

The link to the whole story follows, but the above sentence is all they
say about the Lancer.

"http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-upgrades8oct08,1,1385449.story?coll=la-headlines-business-manual"

Never heard this one before. I knew the B-1A was faster, and that
engine inlet changes were made to favor low radar cross section over
speed in the B-1B. Can they have speed and stealth nowadays, or will
the faster plane have a more B-1A-like cross section?

TIA.
Mark

[Mark Schaeffer]

Oops, there is other discussion about B-1, but the sentence I quoted is
the only one re the proposed re-engine.

[Greg Hennessy]

On Wed, 08 Oct 2003 18:08:00 GMT, Mark Schaeffer >
wrote:

> From the online Los Angeles Times, Oct. 8, 2003:
>
>"The Air Force also is considering putting new engines on the B-1 to
>double the speed of what is already one of the fastest bombers in the
>world."
>
>

I thought the speed of the B model was limited due to the inlet design ?
Changing the engines wont change that I would have thought. What did they
have in mind, 60000 lb Kutzenovs off the blackjack ? Or something clever
with inlet redesign and engines from the F22 ?



greg

--
$ReplyAddress =~ s#\@.*$##; # Delete everything after the '@'
The Following is a true story.....
Only the names have been changed to protect the guilty.

[Scott Ferrin]

On Wed, 08 Oct 2003 22:43:40 +0100, Greg Hennessy >
wrote:

>On Wed, 08 Oct 2003 18:08:00 GMT, Mark Schaeffer >
>wrote:
>
>> From the online Los Angeles Times, Oct. 8, 2003:
>>
>>"The Air Force also is considering putting new engines on the B-1 to
>>double the speed of what is already one of the fastest bombers in the
>>world."
>>
>>
>
>I thought the speed of the B model was limited due to the inlet design ?
>Changing the engines wont change that I would have thought. What did they
>have in mind, 60000 lb Kutzenovs off the blackjack ? Or something clever
>with inlet redesign and engines from the F22 ?



There are lots of possibilites but most of them have drawbacks. IIRC
the F101 in the B-1 has about a 2:1 bypass ratio making it more
efficient than members of the F100 and F110 family so it would seem to
eliminate those. They could redesign the intakes and use F119s but
from the AW&ST article a while back about DARPA's experimental
satellite launcher F119s are not in large supply and are expensive to
boot. They could do something like redesign the intakes AND use a
version of the F135 used on the X-32. The non VTOL version put out
about 52,000lbs of thrust in afterburner and then there's the RR claim
of the F136 putting out 56,000. But all of these options would cost
big $$$ and if they've talked about reengining the B-52s as long as
they have with no action I'm skeptical about them doing it with the
B-1, especially since they're reducing the numbers in service and
there are even those who would like to retire it altogether. Unless
they wanted to do a complete redesign of the engine nacelles there are
going to be problems simply because the possible engines are different
sizes and have varying airflow requirements. One possibility would be
taking say the 36k version of the F110, using extra fuel tanks in TWO
of the bays, filling the front bay with SDBs and/or a variety of
JDAMS, and redesigning the intakes for higher speed. Who knows?

[Peter Twydell]

In article >, Greg Hennessy
> writes
>On Wed, 08 Oct 2003 18:08:00 GMT, Mark Schaeffer >
>wrote:
>
>> From the online Los Angeles Times, Oct. 8, 2003:
>>
>>"The Air Force also is considering putting new engines on the B-1 to
>>double the speed of what is already one of the fastest bombers in the
>>world."
>>
>>
>
>I thought the speed of the B model was limited due to the inlet design ?
>Changing the engines wont change that I would have thought. What did they
>have in mind, 60000 lb Kutzenovs off the blackjack ? Or something clever
>with inlet redesign and engines from the F22 ?
>
>
>
>greg
>

They're going to use the design features that allowed the Me 262 to
exceed Mach 1. ;-)
--
Peter

Ying tong iddle-i po!

[Greg Hennessy]

On Thu, 9 Oct 2003 09:05:06 +0100, Peter Twydell >
wrote:


>>greg
>>
>
>They're going to use the design features that allowed the Me 262 to
>exceed Mach 1. ;-)

Deploy the 'arndt' device, made from pure unobtainium ;-).


greg

--
$ReplyAddress =~ s#\@.*$##; # Delete everything after the '@'
The Following is a true story.....
Only the names have been changed to protect the guilty.

[[email protected]]

Greg Hennessy > wrote:

>On Thu, 9 Oct 2003 09:05:06 +0100, Peter Twydell >
>wrote:
>
>
>>>greg
>>>
>>
>>They're going to use the design features that allowed the Me 262 to
>>exceed Mach 1. ;-)
>
>Deploy the 'arndt' device, made from pure unobtainium ;-).
>
>
>greg

yep...then just watch it break Mach 1 going straight up...
--

-Gord.

[Michael E. Kelly]

Scott Ferrin > wrote in message >...
> There are lots of possibilites but most of them have drawbacks. IIRC
> the F101 in the B-1 has about a 2:1 bypass ratio making it more
> efficient than members of the F100 and F110 family so it would seem to
> eliminate those. They could redesign the intakes and use F119s but
> from the AW&ST article a while back about DARPA's experimental
> satellite launcher F119s are not in large supply and are expensive to
> boot. They could do something like redesign the intakes AND use a
> version of the F135 used on the X-32. The non VTOL version put out
> about 52,000lbs of thrust in afterburner and then there's the RR claim
> of the F136 putting out 56,000. But all of these options would cost
> big $$$ and if they've talked about reengining the B-52s as long as
> they have with no action I'm skeptical about them doing it with the
> B-1, especially since they're reducing the numbers in service and
> there are even those who would like to retire it altogether. Unless
> they wanted to do a complete redesign of the engine nacelles there are
> going to be problems simply because the possible engines are different
> sizes and have varying airflow requirements. One possibility would be
> taking say the 36k version of the F110, using extra fuel tanks in TWO
> of the bays, filling the front bay with SDBs and/or a variety of
> JDAMS, and redesigning the intakes for higher speed. Who knows?

Scott,

I have seen this proposal from Pratt to reengine the Bone with F119's
it offers some pretty impressive performance increases. Other than
just the speed increase it offers a nice increase in operating
altitude and take off performance. Unfortunately, I can't discuss
specifics since everything was proprietary and not for public
distribution.

Cheers,
Michael Kelly, Bone Maintainer

[Greg Hennessy]

On Thu, 09 Oct 2003 14:52:45 GMT, "Gord Beaman" )
wrote:

>Greg Hennessy > wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 9 Oct 2003 09:05:06 +0100, Peter Twydell >
>>wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>greg
>>>>
>>>
>>>They're going to use the design features that allowed the Me 262 to
>>>exceed Mach 1. ;-)
>>
>>Deploy the 'arndt' device, made from pure unobtainium ;-).
>>
>>
>>greg
>
>yep...then just watch it break Mach 1 going straight up...

its own arse.....


greg
--
$ReplyAddress =~ s#\@.*$##; # Delete everything after the '@'
The Following is a true story.....
Only the names have been changed to protect the guilty.

[Scott Ferrin]

On 9 Oct 2003 09:35:52 -0700, (Michael E. Kelly)
wrote:

>Scott Ferrin > wrote in message >...
>> There are lots of possibilites but most of them have drawbacks. IIRC
>> the F101 in the B-1 has about a 2:1 bypass ratio making it more
>> efficient than members of the F100 and F110 family so it would seem to
>> eliminate those. They could redesign the intakes and use F119s but
>> from the AW&ST article a while back about DARPA's experimental
>> satellite launcher F119s are not in large supply and are expensive to
>> boot. They could do something like redesign the intakes AND use a
>> version of the F135 used on the X-32. The non VTOL version put out
>> about 52,000lbs of thrust in afterburner and then there's the RR claim
>> of the F136 putting out 56,000. But all of these options would cost
>> big $$$ and if they've talked about reengining the B-52s as long as
>> they have with no action I'm skeptical about them doing it with the
>> B-1, especially since they're reducing the numbers in service and
>> there are even those who would like to retire it altogether. Unless
>> they wanted to do a complete redesign of the engine nacelles there are
>> going to be problems simply because the possible engines are different
>> sizes and have varying airflow requirements. One possibility would be
>> taking say the 36k version of the F110, using extra fuel tanks in TWO
>> of the bays, filling the front bay with SDBs and/or a variety of
>> JDAMS, and redesigning the intakes for higher speed. Who knows?
>
>Scott,
>
>I have seen this proposal from Pratt to reengine the Bone with F119's
>it offers some pretty impressive performance increases. Other than
>just the speed increase it offers a nice increase in operating
>altitude and take off performance. Unfortunately, I can't discuss
>specifics since everything was proprietary and not for public
>distribution.
>
>Cheers,
>Michael Kelly, Bone Maintainer


I wonder how it would comepare to the original A. Mach 2.22 and
60.000 ft. But then there's the whole fuel efficency thing where the
F119 is design to be operated at the higher speeds for extended
periods of time. . .

[George R. Gonzalez]

"Greg Hennessy" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 09 Oct 2003 14:52:45 GMT, "Gord Beaman" )
> wrote:
wait... wai... wai... before we get into discussing the virtues of
circularly-anti-symettric-shock wave diffusers,
vs new plastic spoons in the galley, can anyone point to a future
REQUIREMENT for a faster B-1 flavored bomber?

Just as a by-stander, it looks like we could use more practical, dull, slow,
effective turban-surpressing style planes, not ones to win the Reno air
races.

[Guy Alcala]

"George R. Gonzalez" wrote:

> "Greg Hennessy" > wrote in message
> ...
> > On Thu, 09 Oct 2003 14:52:45 GMT, "Gord Beaman" )
> > wrote:
> wait... wai... wai... before we get into discussing the virtues of
> circularly-anti-symettric-shock wave diffusers,
> vs new plastic spoons in the galley, can anyone point to a future
> REQUIREMENT for a faster B-1 flavored bomber?
>
> Just as a by-stander, it looks like we could use more practical, dull, slow,
> effective turban-surpressing style planes, not ones to win the Reno air
> races.

In the case of the B-1B, it could really use a higher ceiling in military power
given current "stay above the AAA and MANPAD/SHORAD/MEAD" tactics. The B-1 has
less than 1/2 the thrust of the B-52 in military power (usual caveats: ISA, sea
level, static, uninstalled): 60,000 lb.* vs. 136,000 lb. What the relative
thrusts are at current operational altitudes and speeds I don't know; the two
engines concerned have different bypass ratios and were optimized for very
different flight regimes. If it uses max A/B then the B-1B's thrust (same
caveats as above) goes up to 120,000 lb., but that's both fuel inefficient and
marks the a/c's position at night.

It also has a considerably higher wing loading than the B-52H:

B-52H MTOW 488,000 lb. / 4,000 sq. ft. wing = wing loading of 122 lb./sq. ft.

B-1B T/O weight with max. internal load is probably in the region of 435,000 lb.
/ 1,950 sq. ft. wing = wing loading of 223 lb./ sq. ft. (it also develops
considerable lift from the fuselage, apparently up to 50% of the total when at
high q/low level, but I have no info on what the equivalent wing area might be
at altitude and typical bombing speed/Mach).

Bottom line, the B-1B has been operating at Flight Levels in the mid to high 20s
over Iraq and presumably Afghanistan, while the Buffs can comfortably go
probably 10,000 feet higher. Doubling the military power available should boost
their ceiling and/or available g considerably. The downside is that their range
may decrease, because the engines will be oversized for cruise. However, there
may be a positive range tradeoff if they use less fuel during combat (less/no
need for A/B) and loiter (higher altitude). It would probably depend on what
bypass ratio they chose.

Guy

*All sources I have state that the F101-GE-102s produce 17,000 lb. of thrust
each in mil. (usual conditions), but Jim Baker (who flew them) says the Dash -1
states 15,000 lb. It's possible this is a peacetime de-rating as is often done
for fighters, but he didn't think so.

[WaltBJ]

"George R. Gonzalez" > wrote in message news:<CpWhb.538167$Oz4.437079@rwcrnsc54point to a future
>SNIP
> Just as a by-stander, it looks like we could use more practical, dull, slow,
> effective turban-surpressing style planes, not ones to win the Reno air
> races.
SNIP:
>>>>>WOW! A Bone at Reno? I wanna see that race! The Sea Fury was
awesome, but a Bone in a 75 degree bank all the way around the course?
Stupendous!
Walt BJ