USAF to try fuel from coal in B52

[cp1969]

Two 30,000 lb thrust engines wouldn't get a 777 off the ground. It's engines must be closer to 80,000 lb thrust.

Judging from the exhaust, the original B-52s lokked like they burned coal...Period.

The airplanes are old but don't have all that many hours on them for their age.

An environmentally-friendly nuclear bomber...anyone see the contradiction?

 

[bbse]

Yeah,

J57 turbo jets were notorious for smoking but it looked worse on a b-52 at take off because they had water injection and that really made the black smoke roll. I am not sure how long the injection lasted on the D models but the G's had about enough to last 120 seconds. I cannot remember now if it was 10,000 or 12,000 lbs of water. Something that used to make me so mad was if the temperature was below...like 43 degrees or so they would stop at the end of the runway and dump all that water. What's the big deal you might ask? I had just spent an hour waiting on a water truck, climbing a ladder stand and breaking my wrist for 20 minutes pumping all that water into the blasted thing.

 

[Big_Charlie]

Two 30,000 lb thrust engines wouldn't get a 777 off the ground. It's engines must be closer to 80,000 lb thrust.

You're so right. I must have been out to lunch when I wrote that. The 777 in its ER configuration with the GE powerplants carries two 93,700lb thrust engines. Strap 4 of those on a B-52 and you've got some serious load capacity. They may be too large though. The nacelle for one of those is about as big around as the cabin of a 737. The 63,000lb models from the 767 would be more likely. All that to say that a little modernization will take our strategic bomber fleet well into the middle of this century.

Now what does this have to do with tractors, you say? Well how many 5000lb South Korean tractors could we drop on Pyongyang with one of these things?

 

[dmccarty]

Now what does this have to do with tractors, you say? Well how many 5000lb South Korean tractors could we drop on Pyongyang with one of these things?

Exactly 7.65 ROK tractors. Give or Take.

51x750/5000=7.65. 51 750 pound bombs.

I think it can drop more the 7.65 tractors though. I'm sure it can.

Later,
Dan

 

[Egon]

http://http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/systems/b-52h.htm

B52 data.

http://http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal

Information on coal and its derivatives. Please note the Tar sands are a completly different substance.

 

[bbse]

I could not get that first link to work, try this one

B-52 Stratofortress - United States Nuclear Forces

Some things they don't tell you, it can carry 312,000 lbs of JP4 jet fuel, that is 52,000 gallons but it can't take off with that much. Too much weight. What was really fun was flying low level for 4-5 hours at a time and getting your teeth rattled at 500 feet and 575 mph . I never lost my cookies but I came close a few times. Weak stomach.

 

[dmccarty]

http://http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/systems/b-52h.htm

That where I got my info on the bomb load.

Later,
Dan

 

[ccsial]

Strap 4 of those on a B-52 and you've got some serious load capacity.

I'd start to get nervous about wing loading, especially in turbulance.

 

[Steve_Miller]

Syncrude Canada Ltd. - Welcome to Syncrude

Steve