Serious question

[BackToNormal]

Is the following accurate?

"The U.S. Air Force's most expensive bomber is the B-2. It is a stealth
bomber built by Northrop Grumman. Its price tag was near $2 billion per
aircraft. This plane is capable of flying to any target in the world
from its base in the center of the United States and back without
stopping anywhere by means of midair refueling".

Costs for a start. AND, isn't a B52 also capable of flying non stop from
US to anywhere in world and return courtesy of midair refuelling. B1?
Others?

ronh

--
"People do not make decisions on facts, rather,
how they feel about the facts" Robert Consedine

[Bill Silvey]

"BackToNormal" > wrote in message
p.nnz
> Is the following accurate?
>
> "The U.S. Air Force's most expensive bomber is the B-2. It is a
> stealth bomber built by Northrop Grumman. Its price tag was near $2
> billion per aircraft. This plane is capable of flying to any target
> in the world from its base in the center of the United States and
> back without stopping anywhere by means of midair refueling".
>
> Costs for a start. AND, isn't a B52 also capable of flying non stop
> from US to anywhere in world and return courtesy of midair
> refuelling. B1? Others?
>
> ronh

All of those statements are correct. The original quote does not suggest
that the B1 and B52 cannot also do the same.

--
http://www.delversdungeon.dragonsfoot.org
Remove the X's in my email address to respond.
"Damn you Silvey, and your endless fortunes." - Stephen Weir
I hate furries.

[BackToNormal]

Bill Silvey > wrote:

> "BackToNormal" > wrote in message
> p.nnz
> > Is the following accurate?
> >
> > "The U.S. Air Force's most expensive bomber is the B-2. It is a
> > stealth bomber built by Northrop Grumman. Its price tag was near $2
> > billion per aircraft. This plane is capable of flying to any target
> > in the world from its base in the center of the United States and
> > back without stopping anywhere by means of midair refueling".
> >
> > Costs for a start. AND, isn't a B52 also capable of flying non stop
> > from US to anywhere in world and return courtesy of midair
> > refuelling. B1? Others?
> >
> > ronh
>
> All of those statements are correct. The original quote does not suggest
> that the B1 and B52 cannot also do the same.
>
True, and tks for response Bill. I agree it doesn't suggest B1 and B52
can't do the same, but SOME people might take the inference that the B-2
is the only a/c that can do so -- otherwise, why mention it?

Anyway, prob fixed. I'm suggesting adoption of a sentence from the B52
page which states "The use of aerial refueling gives the B-2 a range
limited only by crew endurance".

cheers

ronh
--
"People do not make decisions on facts, rather,
how they feel about the facts" Robert Consedine

[John A. Weeks III]

In article >, Bill
Silvey > wrote:

> "BackToNormal" > wrote in message
> p.nnz
> > Is the following accurate?
> >
> > "The U.S. Air Force's most expensive bomber is the B-2. It is a
> > stealth bomber built by Northrop Grumman. Its price tag was near $2
> > billion per aircraft. This plane is capable of flying to any target
> > in the world from its base in the center of the United States and
> > back without stopping anywhere by means of midair refueling".
> >
> > Costs for a start. AND, isn't a B52 also capable of flying non stop
> > from US to anywhere in world and return courtesy of midair
> > refuelling. B1? Others?
> >
> > ronh
>
> All of those statements are correct. The original quote does not suggest
> that the B1 and B52 cannot also do the same.

It might be less true of the B-1 and B-52 if you consider that
some targets might be defended. For example, during the recent
Iraq war, a B-52 might not have been capable of flying to Bahgdad
and back and surviving over the target during the early part of
the war, while a B-2 would likely have had no problems.

-john-

--
================================================== ==================
John A. Weeks III 952-432-2708
Newave Communications http://www.johnweeks.com
================================================== ==================

[Bill Silvey]

"John A. Weeks III" > wrote in message

> In article >, Bill
> Silvey > wrote:
>
>> "BackToNormal" > wrote in message
>> p.nnz
>>> Is the following accurate?
>>>
>>> "The U.S. Air Force's most expensive bomber is the B-2. It is a
>>> stealth bomber built by Northrop Grumman. Its price tag was near $2
>>> billion per aircraft. This plane is capable of flying to any target
>>> in the world from its base in the center of the United States and
>>> back without stopping anywhere by means of midair refueling".
>>>
>>> Costs for a start. AND, isn't a B52 also capable of flying non stop
>>> from US to anywhere in world and return courtesy of midair
>>> refuelling. B1? Others?
>>>
>>> ronh
>>
>> All of those statements are correct. The original quote does not
>> suggest that the B1 and B52 cannot also do the same.
>
> It might be less true of the B-1 and B-52 if you consider that
> some targets might be defended. For example, during the recent
> Iraq war, a B-52 might not have been capable of flying to Bahgdad
> and back and surviving over the target during the early part of
> the war, while a B-2 would likely have had no problems.
>
> -john-

Mm. Agreed. I think it largely (for the Buff at any rate) depends on how
much SEAD or degredation of the enemy air defense network has occurred
beforehand.

Hey, BUFDRVR, anyone take a (guided) potshot at you and yours during OAF?
Or can you talk about it or...?

--
http://www.delversdungeon.dragonsfoot.org
Remove the X's in my email address to respond.
"Damn you Silvey, and your endless fortunes." - Stephen Weir
I hate furries.

[Bill Silvey]

"BackToNormal" > wrote in message
.nnz
> Bill Silvey > wrote:
>
>> "BackToNormal" > wrote in message
>> p.nnz
>>> Is the following accurate?
>>>
>>> "The U.S. Air Force's most expensive bomber is the B-2. It is a
>>> stealth bomber built by Northrop Grumman. Its price tag was near $2
>>> billion per aircraft. This plane is capable of flying to any target
>>> in the world from its base in the center of the United States and
>>> back without stopping anywhere by means of midair refueling".
>>>
>>> Costs for a start. AND, isn't a B52 also capable of flying non stop
>>> from US to anywhere in world and return courtesy of midair
>>> refuelling. B1? Others?
>>>
>>> ronh
>>
>> All of those statements are correct. The original quote does not
>> suggest that the B1 and B52 cannot also do the same.
>>
> True, and tks for response Bill. I agree it doesn't suggest B1 and B52
> can't do the same, but SOME people might take the inference that the
> B-2 is the only a/c that can do so -- otherwise, why mention it?
>
> Anyway, prob fixed. I'm suggesting adoption of a sentence from the B52
> page which states "The use of aerial refueling gives the B-2 a range
> limited only by crew endurance".
>
> cheers
>
> ronh

You might consider:

"The B2, like it's non-stealthy counterparts B-1 and B-52, thanks to
in-flight refueling has a range limited only by crew endurance."

Hmm, that's a tad clunky, though...

--
http://www.delversdungeon.dragonsfoot.org
Remove the X's in my email address to respond.
"Damn you Silvey, and your endless fortunes." - Stephen Weir
I hate furries.

[[email protected]]

(BackToNormal) wrote:

>
>Anyway, prob fixed. I'm suggesting adoption of a sentence from the B52
>page which states "The use of aerial refueling gives the B-2 a range
>limited only by crew endurance".
>
>cheers
>
>ronh

But is 'that' statement correct? Doesn't the B-52 and the B-2
(all a/c actually) use lubricating oil? How does that consumption
stack up?
--

-Gord.

[Cub Driver]

> isn't a B52 also capable of flying non stop from
>US to anywhere in world and return courtesy of midair refuelling

Sure. So could a Piper Cub. (There was a sport in the 1930s whereby a
Cub driver would stay aloft for a week or two, picking up 5-gallon
fuel cans from a car below. In calm winds, a Cub could fly around the
world at the equator in two weeks. The major problem would be spotting
the cars :)

What's really remarkable is the Burt Rutan aircraft that can fly
nonstop around the world without refueling. The latest iteration is
the one he's building for Richard Branson, which will have only the
one pilot.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email:

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

[Mike Marron]

>Cub Driver > wrote:
(BackToNormal) wrote:

>> isn't a B52 also capable of flying non stop from
>>US to anywhere in world and return courtesy of midair refuelling

>Sure. So could a Piper Cub. (There was a sport in the 1930s whereby a
>Cub driver would stay aloft for a week or two, picking up 5-gallon
>fuel cans from a car below. In calm winds, a Cub could fly around the
>world at the equator in two weeks. The major problem would be spotting
>the cars :)

An Irishman named MacPail, a veteran of the bailing wire days of
aviation and Capt. John Donaldson, a WW1 pilot, remained
aloft for 13 days and 13 nights in 1930 via a primitive method of
air-to-air refueling. During their record-setting endurance flight,
the two men had to crawl outside the cabin in-flight to service
their single, 200 hp Lycoming radial engine out front.

Imagine changing plugs and lubricating the rocker arms at 2000 ft.
AGL while laying on your stomach out in the breeze with the prop
spinning a mere six inches away from your head!

Back in 1998, a Brit named Brian Milton flew a trike (a Pegasus
Quantum 912 exactly like mine) around the world in 80 flying days.
Although he landed to refuel numerous times during his epic journey,
it was still an amazing aeronautical achievement considering that
he flew nothing more than a tiny, open-air microlight at an average
speed of 57 mph for total distance of 23,130 statute miles.

He flew from Europe to Cyprus, outwitted a ****ed off Syrian MiG-21
around Damascus, continued on from Mandalay to Hong Kong,
crossed Siberia to Nome, then Alaska to San Francisco, San Francisco
to New York, New York over the Greenland Icecap and finally back to
London.

Incredible...gets my vote for the "Biggest Brass Balls of All" award!

>What's really remarkable is the Burt Rutan aircraft that can fly
>nonstop around the world without refueling. The latest iteration is
>the one he's building for Richard Branson, which will have only the
>one pilot.

And more importantly, only one engine (a fuel-efficient jet as
opposed to two recips that the original Voyager used) that
allegedly consumes less fuel per mile than a SUV does.

[Mark]

Costs.....

There are so many ways to parse the numbers (just like how many ways to
serve potatoes)....

If numbers are to be used, they all need to be based on same premise....
For example, total life cycle cost (your $2b figure????). Not to say the
B-2 program is cheap, but you can get some pretty 'flashy' numbers if you
look at total life cycle costs per aircraft/ship/tank (initial R&D,
procurement, O&M, system upgrades/enhancements, etc etc for ENTIRE life of
system -- divided by numbers procured). A single nuclear powered aircraft
carrier (sans aircraft) TRC is reported to run at $8b. Found numbers for
KC-135 fleet detailing a TRC of $76b. So whatever is used to compare costs
(acquisition, life cycle, etc ....) they all need to be off the same
accountants page. :)

Mark

"BackToNormal" > wrote in message
p.nnz...
> Is the following accurate?
>
> "The U.S. Air Force's most expensive bomber is the B-2. It is a stealth
> bomber built by Northrop Grumman. Its price tag was near $2 billion per
> aircraft. This plane is capable of flying to any target in the world
> from its base in the center of the United States and back without
> stopping anywhere by means of midair refueling".
>
> Costs for a start. AND, isn't a B52 also capable of flying non stop from
> US to anywhere in world and return courtesy of midair refuelling. B1?
> Others?
>
> ronh
>
> --
> "People do not make decisions on facts, rather,
> how they feel about the facts" Robert Consedine

[Spot]

Yes on both accounts--both the B-52 and the B-1 are capable of the same
range with mid-air refueling. Same goes for USAF fighers--F-15Es flew 15
hour+ sorties during OEF with air refueling, flying from bases in the
Persian Gulf to Afghanistan and back. This is not a new thing with the B-2.
The other thing to realize is that the $2 billion per aircraft price tag is
a bit misleading--that is the entire cost of the B-2 program, which includes
things such as construction at Whiteman for the jet, all of the R&D, etc,
etc, ,divided by the number of jets built. The original B-2 program was for
135 aircraft, which would have meant that the costs would have been
amortized by many more aircraft, and thus the "per jet" cost would have been
much less.

Spot

B-1 WSO


"BackToNormal" > wrote in message
p.nnz...
> Is the following accurate?
>
> "The U.S. Air Force's most expensive bomber is the B-2. It is a stealth
> bomber built by Northrop Grumman. Its price tag was near $2 billion per
> aircraft. This plane is capable of flying to any target in the world
> from its base in the center of the United States and back without
> stopping anywhere by means of midair refueling".
>
> Costs for a start. AND, isn't a B52 also capable of flying non stop from
> US to anywhere in world and return courtesy of midair refuelling. B1?
> Others?
>
> ronh
>
> --
> "People do not make decisions on facts, rather,
> how they feel about the facts" Robert Consedine

[Alan Minyard]

On Sat, 01 Nov 2003 05:35:15 GMT, "Gord Beaman" ) wrote:

(BackToNormal) wrote:
>
>>
>>Anyway, prob fixed. I'm suggesting adoption of a sentence from the B52
>>page which states "The use of aerial refueling gives the B-2 a range
>>limited only by crew endurance".
>>
>>cheers
>>
>>ronh
>
>But is 'that' statement correct? Doesn't the B-52 and the B-2
>(all a/c actually) use lubricating oil? How does that consumption
>stack up?

In a turbine engine you should consume almost no oil. It is not
burt in the combustion as it is in a recip, and the tolerances are
close enough (at least on US built engines) that leakage is
minimal.

Al Minyard

[John Mullen]

"Alan Minyard" > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 01 Nov 2003 05:35:15 GMT, "Gord Beaman" )
wrote:
>
> (BackToNormal) wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>Anyway, prob fixed. I'm suggesting adoption of a sentence from the B52
> >>page which states "The use of aerial refueling gives the B-2 a range
> >>limited only by crew endurance".
> >>
> >>cheers
> >>
> >>ronh
> >
> >But is 'that' statement correct? Doesn't the B-52 and the B-2
> >(all a/c actually) use lubricating oil? How does that consumption
> >stack up?
>
> In a turbine engine you should consume almost no oil. It is not
> burt in the combustion as it is in a recip, and the tolerances are
> close enough (at least on US built engines) that leakage is
> minimal.

Hmm. I still think the engines would need attention before crew endurance
became an issue. After all, with two pilots (hell, they could carry three or
four) and a place to sleep, you could otherwise go on for months?

John

[[email protected]]

Alan Minyard > wrote:

>On Sat, 01 Nov 2003 05:35:15 GMT, "Gord Beaman" ) wrote:
>
(BackToNormal) wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>Anyway, prob fixed. I'm suggesting adoption of a sentence from the B52
>>>page which states "The use of aerial refueling gives the B-2 a range
>>>limited only by crew endurance".
>>>
>>>cheers
>>>
>>>ronh
>>
>>But is 'that' statement correct? Doesn't the B-52 and the B-2
>>(all a/c actually) use lubricating oil? How does that consumption
>>stack up?
>
>In a turbine engine you should consume almost no oil. It is not
>burt in the combustion as it is in a recip, and the tolerances are
>close enough (at least on US built engines) that leakage is
>minimal.
>
>Al Minyard

I don't think so Al. While a turbine engine may not burn much it
has to burn some. The compressor rotates and therefore must have
lubricated bearings therefore there has to be some loss (however
small) across that bearing surface. Now, a turbine engine's
bearings use very much higher RPM than recips do plus the oil
itself is much thinner than recip oil both of which facts lead to
more loss. I realize that the loss is small (I flew a turboprop
a/c as a Flight Engineer for several years so I'm familiar with
them and what they use for oil).
--

-Gord.

[Jim Baker]

"Alan Minyard" > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 01 Nov 2003 05:35:15 GMT, "Gord Beaman" )
wrote:
>
> (BackToNormal) wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>Anyway, prob fixed. I'm suggesting adoption of a sentence from the B52
> >>page which states "The use of aerial refueling gives the B-2 a range
> >>limited only by crew endurance".
> >>
> >>cheers
> >>
> >>ronh
> >
> >But is 'that' statement correct? Doesn't the B-52 and the B-2
> >(all a/c actually) use lubricating oil? How does that consumption
> >stack up?
>
> In a turbine engine you should consume almost no oil. It is not
> burt in the combustion as it is in a recip, and the tolerances are
> close enough (at least on US built engines) that leakage is
> minimal.
>
> Al Minyard

In 1987 our squadron flight planned and proposed an around the world flight
for the B-1. We were turned down by SAC for lack of enough data on oil
burn. They were worried about running low on oil, not crew or fuel. Later,
with more data, the B-1B did complete an around the world flight.

JB

[Jim Battista]

(BackToNormal) wrote in
p.nnz:

> "The U.S. Air Force's most expensive bomber is the B-2. It is a
> stealth bomber built by Northrop Grumman. Its price tag was near
> $2 billion per aircraft.
>
> Costs for a start.

You can twiddle the costs around depending on what you count as part of
the B-2 program. ISTR that the $2G/plane figure includes more-or-less
all stealth research up to that point in addition to the actual cost of
the actual planes.

The marginal cost of an additional B-2 to the fleet would have been far
less than $2G, probably.

--
Jim Battista
A noble spirit embiggens the smallest man.

[B2431]

I seem to recall Air Force One can add oil in flight. I would think a greater
concern would be oil breaking down over a period of time. Then again food and
water would also be a limiting facor.

Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired

>From: "Gord Beaman" (
>Alan Minyard > wrote:
>

>>>>Anyway, prob fixed. I'm suggesting adoption of a sentence from the B52
>>>>page which states "The use of aerial refueling gives the B-2 a range
>>>>limited only by crew endurance".
>>>>cheersronh
>>>
>>>But is 'that' statement correct? Doesn't the B-52 and the B-2
>>>(all a/c actually) use lubricating oil? How does that consumption
>>>stack up?
>>
>>In a turbine engine you should consume almost no oil. It is not
>>burt in the combustion as it is in a recip, and the tolerances are
>>close enough (at least on US built engines) that leakage is
>>minimal.
>>
>>Al Minyard
>
>I don't think so Al. While a turbine engine may not burn much it
>has to burn some. The compressor rotates and therefore must have
>lubricated bearings therefore there has to be some loss (however
>small) across that bearing surface. Now, a turbine engine's
>bearings use very much higher RPM than recips do plus the oil
>itself is much thinner than recip oil both of which facts lead to
>more loss. I realize that the loss is small (I flew a turboprop
>a/c as a Flight Engineer for several years so I'm familiar with
>them and what they use for oil).
>--
>
>-Gord.
>
>
>
>
>
>

[Kulvinder Singh Matharu]

On Sat, 01 Nov 2003 15:56:20 GMT, Mike Marron >
wrote:

snip]
>Back in 1998, a Brit named Brian Milton flew a trike (a Pegasus
>Quantum 912 exactly like mine) around the world in 80 flying days.
[snip]
>Incredible...gets my vote for the "Biggest Brass Balls of All" award!

He's got a website...

http://www.brian-milton.com/

--
Kulvinder Singh Matharu
Contact details : http://www.metalvortex.com/form/form.htm
Website : http://www.metalvortex.com/

"It ain't Coca Cola, it's rice" - The Clash

[BUFDRVR]

>But is 'that' statement correct? Doesn't the B-52 and the B-2
>(all a/c actually) use lubricating oil? How does that consumption
>stack up?

The last B-52H around the world flight in '94 burned/leaked about half of its
useable oil (an average over 8 engines). On one occasion during the early days
of OEF, a B-2 had its engines running continuously for 3 days. It had flown a
40+ hour mission from CONUS, landed at the FOL, did an engine running crew swap
(they were concerned shutting down systems increased the chances something
would break upon restart) and flew 28+ hours back to Missouri. At the FOL, no
oil was required in any of the engines. I never heard about oil status upon
landing at Whiteman. A B-1B had an around the world flight around 96-97
timeframe but I never heard anything about their oil consumption.


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

[BUFDRVR]

> Then again food and
>water would also be a limiting facor.
>

And a place to put "recycled" food and water ;)


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

[BUFDRVR]

> I think it largely (for the Buff at any rate) depends on how
>much SEAD or degredation of the enemy air defense network has occurred
>beforehand.

Why single out just the BUFF? The BUFF is as surviveable, or even more in some
cases, as the B-1B. This myth has got to die sometime.

>Hey, BUFDRVR, anyone take a (guided) potshot at you and yours during OAF?

Not really. Intermitant looks every now and than, but not enough to guide a
missile. Although the Serbs were pretty good (acurate) at optical shots, the
Iraqis not so much.


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

[Jim Baker]

"BUFDRVR" > wrote in message
...
> >But is 'that' statement correct? Doesn't the B-52 and the B-2
> >(all a/c actually) use lubricating oil? How does that consumption
> >stack up?
>
> The last B-52H around the world flight in '94 burned/leaked about half of
its
> useable oil (an average over 8 engines). On one occasion during the early
days
> of OEF, a B-2 had its engines running continuously for 3 days. It had
flown a
> 40+ hour mission from CONUS, landed at the FOL, did an engine running crew
swap
> (they were concerned shutting down systems increased the chances something
> would break upon restart) and flew 28+ hours back to Missouri. At the
FOL, no
> oil was required in any of the engines. I never heard about oil status
upon
> landing at Whiteman. A B-1B had an around the world flight around 96-97
> timeframe but I never heard anything about their oil consumption.
>
>
> BUFDRVR
>
The B-1B around the world flight by the Dyess AFB, 9th Bomb Squadron,
aircraft was in June, 1995. No record or "buzz" about oil consumption
although it stands to reason there must have been some...just not
significantly so apparently.

JB
http://www.geae.com/aboutgeae/presscenter/military/military_19950615.html

[Alan Minyard]

On Sat, 01 Nov 2003 22:46:23 GMT, "Gord Beaman" ) wrote:

>Alan Minyard > wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 01 Nov 2003 05:35:15 GMT, "Gord Beaman" ) wrote:
>>
(BackToNormal) wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>Anyway, prob fixed. I'm suggesting adoption of a sentence from the B52
>>>>page which states "The use of aerial refueling gives the B-2 a range
>>>>limited only by crew endurance".
>>>>
>>>>cheers
>>>>
>>>>ronh
>>>
>>>But is 'that' statement correct? Doesn't the B-52 and the B-2
>>>(all a/c actually) use lubricating oil? How does that consumption
>>>stack up?
>>
>>In a turbine engine you should consume almost no oil. It is not
>>burt in the combustion as it is in a recip, and the tolerances are
>>close enough (at least on US built engines) that leakage is
>>minimal.
>>
>>Al Minyard
>
>I don't think so Al. While a turbine engine may not burn much it
>has to burn some. The compressor rotates and therefore must have
>lubricated bearings therefore there has to be some loss (however
>small) across that bearing surface. Now, a turbine engine's
>bearings use very much higher RPM than recips do plus the oil
>itself is much thinner than recip oil both of which facts lead to
>more loss. I realize that the loss is small (I flew a turboprop
>a/c as a Flight Engineer for several years so I'm familiar with
>them and what they use for oil).

I agree. Perhaps I should have said "small" vice "minimal"
but in my mind they are basically the same thing. If you have
sealed bearings (ball or roller vice sleeve) the loss will be er, uh,
quite small? :-))

Al Minyard

[[email protected]]

"John Mullen" > wrote:

>
>Hmm. I still think the engines would need attention before crew endurance
>became an issue. After all, with two pilots (hell, they could carry three or
>four) and a place to sleep, you could otherwise go on for months?
>
>John
>

While I agree with the first part of your post (the first
sentence) I want to address the second part. We tried that
scenario with the Argus. A 'very' long range patrol with the
essential parts of a double crew.

While the a/c is perfectly capable of a safe 30+ hour flight the
two crews landed completely exhausted. Remember now, it was a
flight specifically designed to test the feasibility of using a
double crew, with the 'other crew' sleeping etc while 'off duty'.

It doesn't work the way one would think, the off duty crew gets
just as tired as the 'working' one, even though all personnel are
well used to getting their proper rest when working in a normal
crew environment.
--

-Gord.

[WaltBJ]

If you want to point a finger at costs point it at Congress. The
agonizing stretch-out of the development and contruction periods we
have experinenced in the last 20-odd years just tots up billions as
everything is slowed down but the overhead costs just keep piling up.
Walt BJ

[[email protected]]

"Jim Baker" > wrote:

>> landing at Whiteman. A B-1B had an around the world flight around 96-97
>> timeframe but I never heard anything about their oil consumption.
>>
>>
>> BUFDRVR
>>
>The B-1B around the world flight by the Dyess AFB, 9th Bomb Squadron,
>aircraft was in June, 1995. No record or "buzz" about oil consumption
>although it stands to reason there must have been some...just not
>significantly so apparently.
>
>JB

Ok guys, thanks, I guess that takes care of that then...the oil
consumption issue is a non-issue...Now, lessee...what about the
waste disposal (as someone mentioned upstream) ...clothespins?

:)

--

-Gord.

[Ron]

>If you want to point a finger at costs point it at Congress. The
>agonizing stretch-out of the development and contruction periods we
>have experinenced in the last 20-odd years just tots up billions as
>everything is slowed down but the overhead costs just keep piling up.
>Walt BJ
>

In which case, production and unit numbers, get reduced. Which then drives the
unit cost up, which then results in even more cuts. They you arrive at a
situation where you get so few of something, like the B-2, where the bulk of
the costs were already paid for, but when spread out among such a small
production run, the planes become extremely expensive.


Ron
Pilot/Wildland Firefighter

[BUFDRVR]

>Now, lessee...what about the
>waste disposal (as someone mentioned upstream) ...clothespins?
>

Another good long endurance flight story. That same B-2 who had its engines
turning for 3 days, suffered an "internal waste spill" during the flight. They
had their normal waste disposal (a chemical toilet) and carried piddle packs in
the event the chem toilet filled. Well, after 30+ hours the toilet filled and
piddle packs began to be used. A few hours out of the FOL, clean up was
undertaken by one of the crew. Apparently the used piddle packs were being
collected in a large trash bag behind the mission commander seat. The
crewmember "tiddying up" accidently tore, not only the trash bag containing the
piddle packs, but some of the packs themselves. I'm told it wasn't the smell of
urine that was so bad, but the chemical stuff that they put inside the piddle
pack to absorb the urine. The crew did their best to clean it up, as did a few
crew chiefs during the crew swap, but the crew that had to ferry the jet back
to North America wound up with their oxygen masks up for most of the 28+ hour
sortie due to the smell.

Here's one, first hand. I had never, in over 2500 B-52 hours, ever checked to
make sure there was a "jerry can" connected to the urinal but I do now. Ten
minutes after leveling off on a planned 19+ hour OEF mission I cleared off for
relief I went downstairs. I was extremely lucky to notice the can was missing
before I began using the urinal and avoided "shining my shoes". The biggest
question became what do we do now? After a quick inventory of all crew gear, we
came up with a Hefty (TM) garbage bag and some duct tape. Being the aircraft
commander, not to mention the guy who discovered the problem and *in immediate
need of relief*, I undertook the job of duct taping the garbage bag to the hose
in a secure enough manner as to avoid any leaks. Being a former plummers
assistant in High School, I was successful. The best part was at the 12+ hour
mark when the bag began to take on a life of its own, ebbing and flowing,
rolling and shifting with the aircraft movements.


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

[Juvat]

After an exhausting session with Victoria's Secret Police, BUFDRVR
blurted out:


>Another good long endurance flight story. That same B-2 who had its engines
>turning for 3 days, suffered an "internal waste spill" during the flight.

Not having read previous posts in this thread
I have a hilarious aduio file of a fellow "un-named" Viper guy
downloading all over the RCP of a D model...then sheepishly advising
Lead they must RTB.

>Here's one, first hand. I had never, in over 2500 B-52 hours, ever checked to
>make sure there was a "jerry can" connected to the urinal but I do now.

Well with 7500+ in MD-80s and 3000+ in B-757s, I just go farther aft
if the FC Lav is occupied.

Juvat (and I let the other guy eat the cheesecake)

[[email protected]]

(BUFDRVR) wrote:


> The best part was at the 12+ hour
>mark when the bag began to take on a life of its own, ebbing and flowing,
>rolling and shifting with the aircraft movements.
>
>
>BUFDRVR
>

Another little 'urinal' story...I don't know what your urinals
look like but ours on the Argus (unpressurized) were just quite
rugged black funnels about 3 - 4 inches wide at the opening
connected to what looks like surgical rubber tubing going down
through the upper floor and connected to a black plastic (nylon?)
heated venturi on the underside of the belly. This funnel is
secured (when not in use) by hanging in it's hanger on the a/c
wall.

The fun starts when you have a shiny new crewmember who needs to
be lowered a peg or two. The procedure is to go into the space
between the floors where the tube is and clamp it off with a
small set of vicegrips, then break off one of the plastic arms of
the funnel hanger and just lay the funnel on the floor there.

Usually several crewmembers know the drill and keep an eye on
proceedings waiting for said mbr to take a leak. Lots of fun
watching the his concern as the level rises alarmingly, then
comes the 'clamp expression' closely followed by desperate
handwaves of a poor lost soul desperately trying to get his gear
stowed and his hangar door zipped with one hand while trying to
prevent disaster with the other.

This is a great time for a little judicious rudder work (just to
see that they're operating ok of course) nice and slow
applications first one way then the other. It's amazing how
skillful a human with no practice can be at preventing spillage
from a level full funnel.

I guess 'consequence of error' plays a part in that skill
probably.

:)

--

-Gord.

[Peter Twydell]

In article >, BUFDRVR
> writes
>>Now, lessee...what about the
>>waste disposal (as someone mentioned upstream) ...clothespins?
>>
>
<snip story I wish I hadn't read just before breakfast)
>
>
>BUFDRVR
>
>"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
>everyone on Bear Creek"

And there was me thinking you blokes became jet pilots because of the
glamour and excitement!
--
Peter

Ying tong iddle-i po!

[B2431]

>From: "Gord Beaman"

<snip>

>Another little 'urinal' story...I don't know what your urinals
>look like but ours on the Argus (unpressurized) were just quite
>rugged black funnels about 3 - 4 inches wide at the opening
>connected to what looks like surgical rubber tubing going down
>through the upper floor and connected to a black plastic (nylon?)
>heated venturi on the underside of the belly. This funnel is
>secured (when not in use) by hanging in it's hanger on the a/c
>wall.
>
>The fun starts when you have a shiny new crewmember who needs to
>be lowered a peg or two.

<snip>

On H-3 and H-53 we would tell the curious it was a back up intercom. There are
stories of newbies asked to test it.

Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired

[BUFDRVR]

>And there was me thinking you blokes became jet pilots because of the
>glamour and excitement!
>--
>Peter

What, you didn't think those stories embodied the charm and excitement of
military aviation?


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

[Alan Minyard]

On Sun, 02 Nov 2003 20:07:52 GMT, "Gord Beaman" ) wrote:

>"Jim Baker" > wrote:
>
>>> landing at Whiteman. A B-1B had an around the world flight around 96-97
>>> timeframe but I never heard anything about their oil consumption.
>>>
>>>
>>> BUFDRVR
>>>
>>The B-1B around the world flight by the Dyess AFB, 9th Bomb Squadron,
>>aircraft was in June, 1995. No record or "buzz" about oil consumption
>>although it stands to reason there must have been some...just not
>>significantly so apparently.
>>
>>JB
>
>Ok guys, thanks, I guess that takes care of that then...the oil
>consumption issue is a non-issue...Now, lessee...what about the
>waste disposal (as someone mentioned upstream) ...clothespins?
>
>:)

Not for the female crew members :-)))

Al Minyard