America’s 60 Year-Old Nuclear Bomber Might Finally Get a New Engine

The Daily Beast ^ | October 27, 2014 | Bill Sweetman

[Rodamala]

I would hazard a guess that the B-52 engine upgrade never came because... the engines on the aircraft WORK. Like a 19074 Mack Cab Over, maybe they smoke a bit a LOT... but it gets the payload delivered on time.

[dennisw]

I did not know that. Thanks!!!

[Delta Dawn]

Wonder how the Bombay doors are holding up?

[yefragetuwrabrumuy]

Some of the advantages of the B-52 is relatively low and inexpensive maintenance compared to the modern bombers, some of which must even be stored in temperature and humidity controlled hangars.

It also consumed a heck of a lot of fuel, sometimes needing refueling as soon as it reached altitude.

So a modern design would likely have modular everything, so after a given length of time the entire aircraft would be replaced a piece at a time on a wear and tear depreciation schedule. Estimated price about $75m a plane.

Next would be significantly improved fuel efficiency, which is just normal engine evolution, nothing special.

[Neidermeyer]

Somehow, you have to make up for all of the longitudinal members that have been removed.
**************
Maybe you could load and drop bombs vertically instead of loading them horizontally,, have a whole lot of openings that don’t intrude on the structural members.. or have a mechanism that squirts them out a opening under the tail.

[zot]

Thanks for the ping. It is difficult to imagine where massive bombing by B-52’s could be used today.

[Oztrich Boy]

Wouldn’t a cargo plane with bomb bay doors cut in the fuselage have the same structural problem as a converted airliner

Don't cut. add on under

[Pecos]

Drag is the enemy of speed and range.

[SunkenCiv]

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3219992/posts