Serious question

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"

"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/pressc..._19950615.html

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

"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.

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

"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.

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

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"

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.

[alibi] Not having read previous posts in this thread [/alibi]
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)

(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.