Hubsu wrote:It's made of lead?
Ricky wrote:The B-52 is very long and wide, but the bits of it that are that long & wide are (relatively) slender.
The B-1 is dimensionally smaller, but (relatively) fatter and more compacted.
Plus, the B-1 is much much more recent, thus designed in a different way, with different attributes in mind.
You might as well ask how the Panavia Tornado could be heavier and carry more bombload than the Bristol Blenhiem.
Hubsu wrote:You don't want to fly a plane with low wing loading close to the ground close to mach. It's bad for the teeth.
Ricky wrote:Another issue to remember is that older planes (and particularly the larger ones) tend to be filled with empty space, whereas more modern planes have pretty much every square inch filled with something. Take a look at cutaway diagrams of the B-1 and B-52.
Ricky wrote:Because if all the space was full the aircraft would weigh too much to do anything more exiting than taxi along the ground.
Ricky wrote:Again, it is much newer, and it was designed to do this. It has the advantage of new materials, new discoveries in aerodynamics, and more powerful engines.
Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot], Yahoo [Bot] and 0 guests