US is Testing Brand New Engines to Fly Its B-52s for a Full Century 

Probably not by accident.

Entirely possible if the grandfather flew an H Model as the G's were 'retired' in 1994. My Dad flew the G in the late 50's and early 60;s. My kid the H in 2001. By the time my son got into the left seat the G's were a memory.

@@denali9449 Quite and with its projected service life it's also possible his son or daughter could end up crewing the same airframe.

Admitted? You mean bragged .....

You mean he " claimed"

Well, you've got some things right. The BUFFs in service today are all turbo fan powered and were from the get go. They are also capable of being cartridge-started on all 8 engines, while the "D" only had 2 cartridge starters on engine 2 and 8. None of the current airframes have "hundreds of thousands of hours" as you claim. When I retired my "D" model (55-0095) it only had 15,000 hours on it's second set of wings. My "H" model (60-0061), when I left the Air Force in 1984, was well shy of 10,000 hours. My Bomb Wing, in Fort Worth, had the Buff (1023)that lost it's vertical to Clear Air Turbulence while stationed in Arkansas and it had less than 4000 hours after being put back in service. As for the BUFFs on airborne alert, they were "F" models and all worn out although a handful saw service in Vietnam. Someone else commented about generators, the "H" model has alternators on only the odd engines. The rest have hydraulic pumps except #2 and 8 engines.

Another correction, the cartridge exhaust gas is used to turn the engine starter , not the engine itself.

@@williamhudson4938 I was at Carswell during the same time. Never hear from anyone from back then. Was on AC 662 (You remember that one) and later aircraft 1038 The .38 Special. Visited the Pima air and space museum and saw Cimino's D model. 067 The Lone Star Lady.

@@williamhudson4938 They aren't going to turbofan engines since the size and weight of such engines would put stress on the wings which it was not designed to take, also 8 is better than four for redundancy. Turbofans would also cause more drag which would change the flight characteristics and handling which would mean more training for the crews. Just swapping out the current engines for newer ones is the best option, otherwise, they would have to redesign the wings to fit turbofan engines. This isn't a commercial jet that is designed for efficiency, they are updating the engines only to save fuel and maintenance costs to extend the life of the B52. They don't want to have to resign large parts of the B52 which could take years to accomplish. What they are doing is the most cost-effective option.

Early model B-52's had a habit of the aft fuselage breaking in half just before the tail. This happened in 1966 when a B-52 was refueling near the town of Palomares Spain. 4 Hydrogen bombs were lost.

Makes me wonder if that's one of the reasons that the aircraft didn't crash when Boeing was flight testing near that mountain range. A gust hit it and the vertical stabilizer decided to depart on its own... so with landing gear down and engine adjustments they set it on the ground with most everybody ready to bail if it started spinning. There's one of many Air Force films about it uploaded here on youtube.

There was also a later incident with an E model in early '60's that had a vertical stabilizer collapse and it did crash in northern New Mexico. Word was that they hit a super hard cross wind and that it was a corroded bolt that had given away, causing the tail section to break off due to the stabilizer creating such twisting motion. All models were grounded for a period of time until it could be determined exactly what happened.@@LGTheOneFreeMan

The new BMW F130 engines look fantastic on the B-52.

First time saw B-52's was in 1970 flying out of 3 Michigan AF Bases and are the same "H" Models currently Flying today

@@firstsgt279 k.i. sawyer?

@@briancooper2112 Yes, last time I was on Base at K.I.Sawyer was in early 90's about 20ft from the Bombers. Then Kincheloe Air Force Base was where my Uncle flew out of 1967-1972, except when they went to Vietnam. Stayed there with Uncle/Aunt on Base few times as a Kid. Also watched B-52's fly over us out of Wurtsmith 1970s-90, though last few yrs they were the "G" Models

@@WilhelmKarsten BMW only only the car brand not the engine company

There's some pictures out there showing a B-52 flying lower than the deck of an aircraft carrier much to the shock of the crew. It flew around again so the Navy guys could see it again.

Because Germany: A colleague told us tha he was talking outside with a neighbour in the Allgaü, where the alps begin, when a B-52 came over them ultra-low, where it absolutely did not belong. And two minutes after that, it began to rain black rain. Unburnt kerosene full of soot. Just a 100 meter wide strip. They complained at the nearest US airbase, all they got was a "Noooo, there never was a B-52 anywhere near this place. And regarding low: We always flew with our RC gliders on a table mountain, the highest elevation in more or les a plane, visible over dozens of kms. And therefore also the military pilots liked it, used it as aiming point. I remember once getting out of my car, hearing a whistle, looked up and above me was an F-4 Phantom, inverted. I looked up and he looked down at me. It felt as if he was maybe 200 meters over the mountain. With our RC gliders we can soar much higher, so whenever I heard something, I made it a habit do dive down under the ridge to play safe. And one day, I heard a whistle again, down down, down, then look around for the jet - and the jet is passing BELOW me, in the valley, practically right above the city there.

i watched B-52's fly 30 feet off the ocean. come in very low below the enemy's radar. 80,000 feet is no longer needed.

B-52s.

​@@tommanseau6277There is a video of a B52 flown by Bud Holland clearing a ridge by 3 feet.

yes - an hour to warm up a jet engine? - what a load of nonsense - so what else was wrong in the video?

@@Bobby-fj8mk Takes that long for the EW to get the coffee warmed up without a Gunner to help...

He said "shotgun shell like," not "shotgun shell sized."

@@ShawnD1027 shot gun shells explode instantly. Started cartridges use slow burning power, to create exhaust gases to rotate the starter just like bleed air does.

@@robertheinkel6225, I'm well aware of that. I was simply correcting you on what he said.

They are the very definition, of getting it right the first time!

Nice to see 'Sam' getting his money's worth. They help keep the Huns out of North America, they're worth every cent!

@@joeyjamison5772 If only there were some way for it to keep the communists out of our grade schools, Universities, politics...but we are infested with the enemy within: Democrats. No B-52 yet has tangled with this threat.

I was on B-52's in the '70s, D models, which were old even back then (1955 tail numbers). I've now been retired for 20 years and the H models (soon to become J's) are not only still flying, they'll likely be around long after I'm gone. I remember telling a friend of mine back then that I had gotten my orders and was going to B-52's, and he said "You're going to a plane with one foot in the grave". The talk at that time was that the B-1 was going to replace the BUFFs. It didn't happen.

They will retire. THat's certain.

Airplane fatigue is mostly based on cycles, so if they don't fly much and they store them in a good location the airframe should be fine for 100 years. Commercial airliners fly for 20+ years and they fly multiple times every day (most of them).

@BB-xx3dv The current H model fleet has never been stored since built in 1961-62. A few of them have been reactivated from storage to replace aircraft that can no longer fly/are lost. There are about 76 out of the original 102 H models still flying, I think only two of the 76 currently flying Hs have ever been stored and returned to service.

Easy money using antique planes, hypersonics make school bus bombers a easy targets.

There's a company here in Wichita that designed the process to replace their cracking wing boxes. They were not designed to be flying this long. They've just been rebuilt over and over.

@@jonwalter6317 There is H's in storage, might be currently 9. Seen them here in AZ. They reactivated one just couple yrs ago after one of the AF's had a Fire. Sad was all the ones that they intentionally Destroyed, most before they hit there Flight Mile limit. That said My Uncle and Grandpa flew a few these H's in the 60's when were first built and stationed in Michigan. Starting in early 60's MI had 3 AF Bases that flew this Model, same ones in air today. I first touched one at 5 yrs old in 1970 there at Kincheloe, watched them fly over me in 70's at Wurtsmith and last time was up close was 1994 while on K I Sawyer, all in Michigan. Interesting is in 7 Decades there has been at least 104 B-52's of all Versions lost to Accidents or less reason Shot Down. Most lease losses happened from 50s-80s

Thanks!!!

The small rudder was the result of, not the reason for eight engines. The 1950's engines only produced about 10,000 pounds of thrust, and it took eight to get the plane airborne.

@@lawrencegore6647 Not what I was talking about. I said the small rudder is why they're stuck with 8 engines.

@@kwlkid85 Yes, that was part of it. Other considerations may have been ground clearance, wing attachment, wing strength, flutter, controllability.

Who's rudder are you calling tiny?

At least they are staying away from Briggs and Stratton!!

And I believe they will be manufactured in the USA.

@@joeyjamison5772 Indeed. American made, British designed. Manufactured and assembled in the Rolls Royce North America’s Indianapolis plant. The F130 is the US military designation for the well-established commercial BR725 engine by Rolls Royce (Holdings) PLC.

​@@dWFnZWVrSince it belongs to the BR700 engine family it was actually designed in Germany by BMW/Rolls-Royce, now Rolls-Royce Germany.

@@wanderschlosser1857 Incorrect. It’s owned by Rolls Royce Holdings. Rolls Royce Germany is a subsidiary of that. It is British. BMW only owns the motors wing. It is entirely separate and not at all involved in aircraft engines or defence contracts. BMW sold their shares in all aerospace works, they only own Rolls Royce Motors today - entirely separate.

But Rolls Roy's Engine is overall much better what I read: Far less noise, good thing U don't advertise Ur enemy Ur coming 2 them, 2) much better fuel economy meaning go deeper n strike n still comeback not forced to land in Russia's Siberia Military AirPort where Russians stole 3-of our B-29, and copy down 2 nuts n bolts and make outside bomber look like totally new bomber, not hard thing to do, but engine is all based on B-29 Russians reversed engineer to learn n made some improvements I guess. The Twisted body here there over there looks like a new bomber, again NOT so difficult to do when U have an excellent 3-real one to copy! Russia NEVER had a bomber NOT until they stole our 3-bombers and refused 2 give us stolen 3-B29 back. Russians say, "it was a gift from God" I can understand why they said that, since they had NO clue how 2 make a bomber! Naive 4 us to donate trucks and all that during WW-2, Russians, copycat everything we gave to them, and later started cold war and EVEN today, STILL buy US n western weapon from black market, copycat from internet n reverse engineer JUST LIKE Chinese does. At least China does not behave nuclear black mailing to Japan n S Korea (though China gives indirect clues telling S Korea staying close to US, S Korea will regret the comment made by China's ambassador to S Korea n such totally unacceptable remark made S Korea outraged N S Korea demanded to China's govt. explanation; China's economy WILL easily suffer so badly *if US, UK, EU sanctions {{*Poland hold key to stopping China's European market access why WE MUST have big military base to Poland that wants and will STOP China's rail road to Europe!}}, for supplying *lethal weapons to evil mafia gangster war criminal regime with Russian devil army, and WHY China is refraining NOT supplying lethal weapons to Russia, NOT because they, China, wants to be on the right side of history! So, China is basically acting as a spectator n NOT condemning Russia as China needs and wants KEEP buying Russia's rich natural resources, *water, gas, oil, timber, to feed her, China's, life blood economy to feed 1.4 billion people!

Nothing wonderful about machines of death

@@porkpie2884 And yet here you are, not only clicking on videos about them, but reading the comments and posting faux edgy, shallow, overcompensating inanities to make yourself feel superior. A deeper thinker would say the opposite is true, they are actually machines of life. Peace is achieved and maintained through strength. Weakness is provacative and promotes violence. Si vis pacem para bellum.

@@TS-ef2gv Someone who actually thinks for themselves knows that the phrase "Peace is achieved and maintained through strength." is propaganda put out by the industry of death, in order to justify its genocides in foreign lands for profit and hegemony.

@@TS-ef2gv”Weakness is provocative” … to sociopaths, perhaps.

the new ones is likely(?) more silent due to less friction

The soaring noise is immeasurable what an awesome sound nothing but pure thrust. Used to watch them take off here at Griffiss AFB back in day when their home was here. They would just clear the fence And use every single foot of runway.2 miles long. I love this machine

At low altitude, that would blacken out the sky

They did try 747 engine. Plus no money.

@@briancooper2112 I didn’t know that. Thanks for the info.

@PatrickSBellSr H models are on since 1960's.

My grandfather was a high level manager and he worked the re engine program for Boeing on the kc 135.l remember him telling me that they tried to sell a re engine upgrade back then for the b-52 as well ,but the air force declined as they believed the airplane would be retired and replaced soon

@BobHoover-kl6zm that was early 80's. The SAC commander back then was a idiot

But Rolls Roy's Engine is overall much better what I read: Far less noise, good thing U don't advertise Ur enemy Ur coming 2 them, 2) much better fuel economy meaning go deeper n strike n still comeback not forced to land in Russia's Siberia Military AirPort where Russians stole 3-of our B-29, and copy down 2 nuts n bolts and make outside bomber look like totally new bomber, not hard thing to do, but engine is all based on B-29 Russians reversed engineer to learn n made some improvements I guess. The Twisted body here there over there looks like a new bomber, again NOT so difficult to do when U have an excellent 3-real one to copy! Russia NEVER had a bomber NOT until they stole our 3-bombers and refused 2 give us stolen 3-B29 back. Russians say, "it was a gift from God" I can understand why they said that, since they had NO clue how 2 make a bomber! Naive 4 us to donate trucks and all that during WW-2, Russians, copycat everything we gave to them, and later started cold war and EVEN today, STILL buy US n western weapon from black market, copycat from internet n reverse engineer JUST LIKE Chinese does. At least China does not behave nuclear black mailing to Japan n S Korea (though China gives indirect clues telling S Korea staying close to US, S Korea will regret the comment made by China's ambassador to S Korea n such totally unacceptable remark made S Korea outraged N S Korea demanded to China's govt. explanation; China's economy WILL easily suffer so badly *if US, UK, EU sanctions {{*Poland hold key to stopping China's European market access why WE MUST have big military base to Poland that wants and will STOP China's rail road to Europe!}}, for supplying *lethal weapons to evil mafia gangster war criminal regime with Russian devil army, and WHY China is refraining NOT supplying lethal weapons to Russia, NOT because they, China, wants to be on the right side of history! So, China is basically acting as a spectator n NOT condemning Russia as China needs and wants KEEP buying Russia's rich natural resources, *water, gas, oil, timber, to feed her, China's, life blood economy to feed 1.4 billion people!

I grew up in Ohio within a few miles of Wright Patterson AFB. The Buffs from the wing there used to cycle over our house a few thousand feet off the ground with gear down and flaps out as they shot landings, sometimes for hours. The whine of those engines overhead just became a part of life. I remember on pleasant days laying in the grass in the backyard and just watching them fly over one after another.

For sheer ear-splitting noise power my favorite has always been the original TF39s of the C5s.

That's true. I never needed my alarm clock at Barksdale AFB.

The "new" TF33s that the H models left the factory with were the new hotness at the time, and were considered a significant upgrade over the J57's that were on the A-G models. More powerful, cleaner, less smoky, more reliable, didn't require water injection, and they were quieter than the previous turbojets. If you think the H models are "super loud", you obviously never heard the unearthly howl of one (or several doing MITOs) of the old J57 A-G model "water wagons" at full TRT.

How many people can say they shook a B-52?

There are 3 B-52's at Pima. A B-52G, B-52D and one of the original A/C that tested the X-15.

When I was there they had three B-52s , a D, a G, and a NB which was used by NASA for the X15.

When I went to BUFFs in the '70s, the conventional wisdom at the time was that B-1s were going to replace the B-52s, so new engines were a moot point. Spoiler alert: it didn't happen. If they had re-engined the H's back then with what was available in the late '70s, they wouldn't have gained much over the TF33's and they'd be about due for new ones again. The G's probably would have gotten new engines before the H's, if not instead of them, and they ended up in the boneyard in the '90s. They wouldn't have wasted their time re-engining the D's for the same reason they cancelled the D's upgrade to DBNS in the late '70s. The AF knew the D's were headed for D-M in the early '80s well before it was officially announced.

It won't be retained for long. It's just a matter of time before they get retired.

I bet people said that thirty years ago... Why upgrade the engines if they're going to soon retire it?

@@zaco-km3su The bomber meant to replace it isn't coming till 2030

@@Squidgy55When the B-757 was new there were proposals to install one of the engine types used onto the B-52 on a one for two basis. How long ago was that?

When Captain Kirk and Mr. Spock dump the Enterprise at the Boneyard, they will Fly Out on a Buff.

Nope

​@@daleeasternbrat816... and being refueled by the awesome KC-135, not a KC-10 or KC-46.

​@@Colorado_Nativea good system is a good system. One advantage is most of the bugs and teething problems were worked out a long time ago. Another is the Culture that supports the maintenance and operation of these flying machines is at a very high knowledge and experience level. The people that make this stuff fly are the Key. Without them they're just a bunch of impressive looking junk. The People make it work.

@@daleeasternbrat816 Thanks for the kind reply. I retired from the USAF in 1996 and did flight training in the RF-4C and the KC-135. I was there during the transition from the J57-P-59W water-injection engines to the CFM56 engines on the tankers. The newer engines were so much quieter and powerful. The older ones were 10,000 pound thrust dry and 13,000 wet. The new ones were 22,500. Because of their larger diameter we had to remind pilots to corner slower than before while on the ramp. You could drag number 1 and 4 engines if you weren't careful. One of the advantages of re-engining is they were able to use the crew seats from the retired airliners. They were much more comfortable. Some of our tankers had 'kerosene' stoves in the aft section near the boomer's station. You never know when you'll get stuck in a cold climate.

Kick up Daisy's what?

When I was studying in England, I traveled to Doncaster to see the Vulcan they keep parked in a hangar inside the airport. The stories they tell about how she was developed and the challenges they had to overcome when she was operational are truly inspiring. We need to praise the hard work of the people that keep these airplanes still working after so many years.

The saying is "pushing up daisies". It means the daisies growing in the grass that covers your coffin six feet below.@@bootstrapperwilson7687

Other nations have missile trucks, but not as many.

I was able to see them up close while they were still stationed at Fairchild AFB, very impressive machines.

You can see a B-52 up close for free at the Museum of Aviation in Robins, Georgia.

i've been aboard the C5, the c10, B52, KC-135 and C130. They are interesting, but far more interesting to fly on and repair. One of my newbie tasks when learning to fix stuff was a c5's brake assembly, I accidentally dropped it on my foot. That was the day I learned that the mandate of wearing those horribly designed steel toe boots had reasons for existing, the brake assembly weighed 70 pounds.

I have seen low passes twice; they have a very menacing appearance.

​@@Enonymouse_did R&O work on aircraft wheels and brakes, went to pick up a aircraft rotor expecting it to weigh 50lbs and I about threw it across the shop it weighed less than 3lbs , it was some sort of magnesium and titanium mix. I can't remember what aircraft it was from but Fokker keeps coming to mind

B-1B is simlar, there is a button on the nosewheel that the crew activate before climbing into the aircraft.

@@Hattonbankthe Vulcan has a rapid button the Vulcan would be in the air with 4 min

Losing eight engine redundancy on a combat aircraft is important, but the biggest reason for keeping the eight engine layout is that the BUFF's tail is designed for it. With a four engine layout, it would lack rudder authority plus a sufficient margin of error to compensate for an outboard engine out situation under all wind conditions. The empennage would have to be redesigned, which by itself makes a four engine layout a non starter. Also, with the BUFF's flexy, droopy wings, going to four larger fans would create ground clearance issues and likely require extensive wing redesign. The eight F130s do not present any of those issues.

International cooperation!

@@jonwalter6317 Debatable. The F130 is the US military designation for the well-known BR725 commercial engine by Rolls Royce Holdings PLC. Originally a joint venture with BMW before they sold all remaining shares back to Rolls Royce Holdings PLC in 2006. The company and its subsidiaries are entirely British owned (including both Rolls Royce North America and Rolls Royce Deutschland). Many people confuse Rolls Royce Motors - the car brand now owned by BMW Group - and Rolls Royce Holdings PLC. The former is the motors branch and entirely separate. The latter and its subsidiaries are solely British owned and they develop aerospace technology, aircraft engines, the f-35 lift fan, and remain one of the leading defence contractors worldwide; headquartered in London.

I agree. The jt3d engine doesn’t have many sources for parts. It has basically aged out, so you have to come up with plan B, while trying to field the B21 in numbers that can replace. The overlap doesn’t mesh with the boneyarding of the B1 which is aged out structurally and the minimal B2 airframes. Hence, the reengining. This is necessity revealed.

These bombers are now just missiles platforms to which if SHTF they will never get off the ground; not from British bases, Diego Garcia, Incirlik Turkey and the US due to hypersonic missiles from ships and submarines.

@@richardkroll2269 They are no longer strategic assets. They haven't been in a long time. B52's have been used tactically full time since gulf War I

@@MIRV888 they’re absolutely still strategic assets

Huh? What "experts here"? You got your panties in a twist because random, anonymous RU-vid commenters "never mentioned" water injection? You're correct, you really don't need to present your resume on a freaking RU-vid comment thread. No one cares. 😄

water tank? what water tank? isnt this where we put fuel in for, you know, afterburner or something?

G models, and the Fs also I believe.

They are German BMW engines. RR just bought the aviation engine line from BMW and slapped their name on them. They will be built in the US.

@@SCscoutguy The engines were designed by BMW ROLLS ROYCE AeroEngines GmbH, a joint venture that BMW subsequently sold out of. They feature developed elements of previous Rolls Royce engines and some components are still manufactured in the UK and assembled at Oberursel. Although, as you say the F13O will be built at Rolls Royce's North American facility.

@@SCscoutguy BMW has not had any part in the aerospace industry since 2006. The F130 is the US military designation for the BR725 commercial engines which the F130 derives. The BR725 was originally a joint venture between Rolls Royce (Holdings) PLC and BMW before the latter sold their shares. BMW now only owns the name of Rolls Royce Motors - an entirely separate branch of Rolls Royce. Everything else such as aircraft engines, the F-35 lift fan, aerospace tech, and defence contracts falls under Rolls Royce (Holdings) PLC; which is entirely British owned. Rolls Royce Deutschland is owned by Rolls Royce (Holdings) PLC, as is Rolls Royce North America. German companies have no ownership or shares in Rolls Royce PLC or its subsidiaries.

The C141 had TF33-P7 engines with a larger fan up front and bypass ducted cowlings; the extra thrust was from the fan.

They'll be a little over 80 years old when they are retired. They won't be kept in service to 100 years old

But inefficient and with no easy parts availability.

Yes they do starting each engine from a cart due to lack of APU and cross bleed facility. 707 had an APU.

@@nathd1748 A lot, if not most, 707s did not have an APU but I get your point about cross bleed start. It possibly takes and hour to prepare and start a B52 but that is not the same as an hour for the engines to warm up! How will the new engines be any different in that detail? Will they have cross bleed start?

@@davidkavanagh189 They are fitting an APU to the BUFFs.

According to other commentors, they say that's not true. It apparently does not take one hour to warm them up.

Yeah, I had a hard time believing that too.

It certainly can't. If the aircraft is on the alert pad there are only a few minutes to get started and airborne in an alert situation.

@@coldblue9mm well anybody that worked on it knows better.

@@joeyjamison5772 I wonder where they get their information sometimes.

I was going to make the same comment about the engines. The TF-33 didn't come on them until the H models which entered service in 1961. The video also said it has 2 bombays. 🤦‍♂

Dated info but: The B-52's $72,000 cost per hour of flight is more than the B-1B's US$63,000 cost per hour, but less than the B-2's US$135,000 per hour.

I wonder if the high bypass engines can be used as part of the A-10 upgrade program and save in the long run since the AF would only need one type of engine for both airframes. Having a little extra umph from those Rolls Royce engines would be welcome, though 12k per engine would be a bit much, they would have to dial it back a bit, or restrict full throttle to only situations where they need to get to start coordinating with the JTAC (or FAC) pronto from either a primitive forward "airstrip" or FARP to reduce hours at full throttle.

@@anydaynow01 I just saw a news article stating that the A-10s are all headed for the bone yard in Arizona. Why put new engines on a plane that's retiring?

Have seen that same article. Also heard that there was a battle over weather or not to keep them going@@rebel-yell9453

i'm surprised they didn't buy them from china.

RR really messed up with the engines for the 787 . GE is way better

@eyegotta begone true. Cheapskate yanks. They've gone for the best this time though!

@@rhamsesacosta4745 1 miss, 1000 hits

@@procatprocat9647 you're right because the ones on the A350 are great

RR by name, they’re actually built by the Allison engine company that RR bought about 15 years ago

​@@trevormccarthy9019That's like saying Kit Kat is American just because Hershey make them for the American market.

@@B-A-L well the actual engines are German designed by BMW. RR just joined them to help market them and then later bought the BMW aviation engine line. The engines in the C-130 and MV-22 Osprey are both Allison designed and built engines but RR bought Allison and slapped their name on them as well.

@@SCscoutguy The engines were designed by BMW Rolls Royce AeroEngines GmbH, a joint venture that BMW subsequently sold out of. At no point was the BR700 series the product of a business solely owned by BMW.

Fritzwrangle is correct. Originally a joint venture, BMW sold all their remaining shares to Rolls Royce Holdings PLC in 2006. They have not had any part of the aerospace industry since. Rolls Royce Holdings PLC and its subsidiaries are entirely British owned to this day. The Rolls Royce Motors name- the car brand - is now owned by BMW Group, but it is entirely separate and has nothing to do with Rolls Royce PLC. The latter develop aerospace tech, aircraft engines, the f-35 lift fan, and remain one of the world’s largest defence contractors; headquartered in London.

Marher AFB, California B-52G.

93d BW - B,C,D,E and F. 91st BW - D. Kadena and U-Tapao - D. 92d BW - G. 410th BW - G.

I for one was sure I was gonna die when we were coming in for a landing sideways, The aircraft can literally land sideways, the crab controls align the wheels to the runway if necessary.

@@misterserious3522 It's called "Crosswind Crab"....

319 BW, 46th BS, 71-74.

Rolls Royce beat them in the re-engine contest

Tell that to the commercial airline customers currently having to ground fleets of aircraft due to problems with their brand new P&W engines.

RR run with less vibration - therefore reducing maintenance and fatigue.

These engines are going to make this ole buff into a hot rod that climbs like a homesick angel

Perhaps the oldies had non-synthetic lubricant - But an hour?

Considering the cost of designing a new aircraft and all of the legal hoops and political dirt and fights between companies wanting the contracts, it is just hugely cheaper and easier and faster to completely rebuild a run-out B-52 than start from scratch. Look at the difficulty we've had just trying to get a new relatively simple fuel-tanker built. The B-52 is just a weapons platform in the sky. It doesn't have to be fancy. New engines will give it new life and there are well-proven off the shelf engines readily available.

@@williampotter2098 ......I have every respect for the B-52, but don't kid myself it's a sitting duck.

@@williampotter2098 The fuel tanker was such a pain because the contract had to go to Boeing, no matter what.

@@Stephen-cr3sc Its a Sitting duck that is only flown into places where nobody is going to shoot at it, where it can just be a flying dump-truck for weapons.

@@mlmmt ......Are there places where nobody will shoot at it while dumping its weapons?

Also, the carts on B-52s aren't like "shotgun shells", and BUFFS don't take "an hour to warm up". I don't even know what that was supposed to mean.

Maybe, but all aircraft have a limited lifespan, and unless you ate planning on a complete rebuild of the airframe, not feasible.

It's possible. Even in US Military we were still using Vacuum Tubes on some equipment and was still taught at Service Schools into the 90's

Grumman had proposed a couple of major upgrades to the F-14 Tomcat that would have been cheaper for the Navy than the F-35B.

@@PatrickSBellSr new radar new seats ecm gear apu,etc.

Skin of B-52 can be replaced only at 1 airbase in Oklahoma.

​@@PatrickSBellSr The BMW F-130 was the perfect choice to re-engine the B-52

@@WilhelmKarsten Hello Sandyboy, yes the *ROLLS ROYCE* BR 725 is an excellent choice. It's a shame that BMW wasn't up to the opportunity that Rolls Royce gave them and copped out, but fortunately Rolls Royce kept the workforce on.

@@WilhelmKarsten As you know Sandyboy, the F130 will be built by Allison in Indianapolis, Indiana. Allison is of course as you know owned by Rolls Royce.

I think it made perfect sense. The story is about the upgrades to the B-52 and why other planes are needed for missions it can’t accomplish, and why these others can. The military doesn’t just need one plane after all.

I don't know about that. But if you don't get the President of the United States on the phone, you'll have to answer to the Coca Cola Company.

@@jonwalter6317 there is only a handful of us with a sense of humor left on the interweb. and you tube is not one of them. glad to meet you.

If not for the small rudder they could just slap some GE9x on it but the rudder doesn’t have enough surface area to compensate if one goes out. When there’s 8 engines if one goes out (same total amount of thrust) the rudder barely has to compensate at all.

@@jamesyt5856 The small rudder was probably not the only reason to keep the same size engines. Other factors included ground clearance, wing strength, and flutter.