Tech Log The very best in practical technical discussion on the web

B-52 design

Old 20th Dec 2011, 08:12
  #1 (permalink)  
"The INTRODUCER"
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: London
Posts: 437
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
B-52 design

Last of the B-52 design team passes away.

My question is: why was the B-52 high-wing?
Algy is offline  
Old 20th Dec 2011, 08:18
  #2 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: 51.50N 1W (ish)
Posts: 1,140
Received 29 Likes on 12 Posts
Not being part of the design team, I can merely hazard a guess.

The low-drag high aspect ratio wing was part of the performance envelope optimisation, but gave substantial wing flexing from the no-lift full fuel state to the max all-up weight flight condition. This needed wing-tip auxiliary undercarriage wheels to keep the tips from dragging on the ground; these would have needed to be much stronger for wings that were intially 20ft closer to the ground. They would also of course have relieved wing-root bending to some extent; so optimisation is an interesting exercise.
Fitter2 is offline  
Old 20th Dec 2011, 08:32
  #3 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: mobile
Posts: 241
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
To give a bigger bomb bay??
mtoroshanga is offline  
Old 20th Dec 2011, 09:13
  #4 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: right here
Posts: 342
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
maybe to lower the FOD risk to the engines
FCS Explorer is offline  
Old 20th Dec 2011, 10:19
  #5 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: away from home
Posts: 887
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
They say the mother of the last B-52 pilot is not born yet.

I have a question, according to Flight International, USAF is still operating 77 B-52. Are engines for them still being built, or are they overhauling old engines to keep the fleet running?

What happened to the programme to re-engine them (CFM56 as I recall)?

The youngest B-52 will turn 50 in 2012...
oceancrosser is offline  
Old 20th Dec 2011, 12:21
  #6 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Dorset UK
Age: 70
Posts: 1,886
Likes: 0
Received 14 Likes on 11 Posts
I read an article a few years ago that stated that there are enough spare engines to see the B52 through to about 2045 and a re-engine program would not be cost effective.

So 80+ year old bombers.

Also there are many engine types in service that have been out of production for years. You just keep overhauling them. The spare parts will still be made as long as there is a demand for them.

Mind you some of these engines could be like "Trigger's broom". Apart from 3 new heads and two new handles...........................
dixi188 is offline  
Old 20th Dec 2011, 16:32
  #7 (permalink)  
Green Guard
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
My question is: why was the B-52 high-wing?
what is wrong with that ? Looks too much CCCP designed aircraft ?

PS
Does any bird in the world sport "low wing" design ?
 
Old 20th Dec 2011, 16:39
  #8 (permalink)  
"The INTRODUCER"
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: London
Posts: 437
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
No, no bird is low wing. But no aircraft have muscles!
Algy is offline  
Old 20th Dec 2011, 17:01
  #9 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Mare Nostrum
Age: 41
Posts: 1,427
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I didnt design the buff but it seems that a high wing design reduces complexity where bomb bay and the wing box would interfere. Just a WAG
zondaracer is offline  
Old 20th Dec 2011, 21:51
  #10 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Dorset UK
Age: 70
Posts: 1,886
Likes: 0
Received 14 Likes on 11 Posts
Why high wing?

Because the B47 had a high wing and the B52 was scaled up.

So I suppose the question is why the B47?

As others have said, to get the biggest bomb bay.
dixi188 is offline  
Old 21st Dec 2011, 00:39
  #11 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Here, there, and everywhere
Posts: 1,119
Likes: 0
Received 12 Likes on 7 Posts
Why are the elevators and rudder so small(chord)?
punkalouver is offline  
Old 21st Dec 2011, 00:41
  #12 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Virginia
Posts: 2,058
Received 28 Likes on 22 Posts
Just looking at the profile, a low wing would have required higher gear to keep the engines off the ground. But I don't know if that would have been a major design consideration.
Chu Chu is offline  
Old 21st Dec 2011, 10:30
  #13 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 1998
Location: Ex-pat Aussie in the UK
Posts: 5,780
Received 106 Likes on 50 Posts
Setting the wing high, and keeping the body low also means that the aircraft can be serviced from the ground without extra equipment - stairs for the crew, and high loading scissor lifts for the load.

That's an important consideration for a battlefield aircraft which may have to operate from a remote base.
Checkboard is offline  
Old 21st Dec 2011, 11:01
  #14 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: South
Posts: 133
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Just to add another one-

The wings are very long and droop somewhat, hence the outriggers.

A low wing would not be able to droop as much, meaning more strength = more weight = less payload etc etc

Also, due to the wing length, even applying outriggers on a low wing would make the a/c very ungainly and difficult to land in crosswinds without losing engines etc.

These are secondary considerations, although all things would have been considered to end up with the best compromise of a design.

4015
4015 is offline  
Old 22nd Dec 2011, 02:29
  #15 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Ormond Beach
Age: 48
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
The remark about the mother of the last B-52 pilot not being born yet reminded me of a rumor I recently heard. It's been reported that there are guys at Delta who are not only flying their fathers' ex-Northwest DC-9s, but also doing their fathers' ex-Northwest flight attendants.
flyboyike is offline  
Old 22nd Dec 2011, 12:12
  #16 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Sheffield
Posts: 155
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes on 3 Posts
Wing tip undercarriage because main undercarriage is bicycle type?

N'est ce pas? Aircraft too difficult to handle at high speed on ground with narrow track main undercarriage - as with the Harrier?

Actually reason given also seems good, but even if tip droop (I sometimes suffer from this ) is a factor, controllability seems likely to be another.

Last edited by 911slf; 22nd Dec 2011 at 12:15. Reason: after thought
911slf is offline  
Old 22nd Dec 2011, 12:28
  #17 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: South
Posts: 133
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
911slf-

Yes, you're quite right. The outriggers are also for ground stability, if they had utilised a wing based main undercarriage then the outriggers would probably not be needed, but again the wings would need to be stiffer in order to hold the weight when on the ground without the fuselage scraping the ground, thicker in order to house the stowed u/c, etc etc.

As with most things in engineering, a solution is very very rarely the result of a single factor, it will always be the best compromise between all of the variables as you have elegantly pointed out
4015 is offline  
Old 22nd Dec 2011, 16:27
  #18 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: SoCalif
Posts: 896
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Definition:

"Aircraft: Thousands of compromises flying in close formation."
Graybeard is offline  
Old 16th Dec 2016, 00:48
  #19 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: nowhere
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Found an interesting quote about a B52 which I didn't want to disappear in time so I thought that I would post it here,

"This also reminds me of the issue with the B-52G. When going around and applying maximum thrust, fuel moved in the tanks displacing the CG aft of the aerodynamic center, making the aircraft statically unstable. Two B-52s and crews were lost. The solution adopted was a simple detent in the throttle quadrant which discouraged rapid thrust build-ups."
JammedStab is offline  
Old 16th Dec 2016, 01:20
  #20 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: A better place.
Posts: 2,318
Received 23 Likes on 15 Posts
So the main spar doesn't go through the middle of the bomb bay.
Simples.
tartare is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.