B-1B Reengine?

"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.

"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.

"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