B-1 Lancer vs. B-52 Stratofortress

Discussion on World War 2 in general.

B-1 Lancer vs. B-52 Stratofortress

Postby Blaster » Fri Aug 08, 2008 8:16 am

How is it that the B1 Lancer, a plane smaller than the B52 Stratofortress, possibly be heavier and carry more ordnance?
  • 0

Blaster
General
General
 
Posts: 1599
Joined: Tue Jan 29, 2008 7:35 pm
Reputation: 0

Re: B-1 Lancer vs. B-52 Stratofortress

Postby Hubsu » Fri Aug 08, 2008 8:43 am

It's made of lead?
  • 0

Hubsu
First Lieutenant
First Lieutenant
 
Posts: 415
Joined: Fri Feb 15, 2008 3:55 pm
Reputation: 0

Re: B-1 Lancer vs. B-52 Stratofortress

Postby Blaster » Fri Aug 08, 2008 10:02 am

Hubsu wrote:It's made of lead?


Lead? Who makes planes out of lead these days? It's all carbon fibers, titanium and the like, with a little bit of stainless steel. Well, that's what it should be.
  • 0

Blaster
General
General
 
Posts: 1599
Joined: Tue Jan 29, 2008 7:35 pm
Reputation: 0

Re: B-1 Lancer vs. B-52 Stratofortress

Postby Hubsu » Fri Aug 08, 2008 10:31 am

"...these days..." when did they ever do planes out of lead? :P

The reason with the weight and size differences is the designed mission of which the plane was designed to do. The other is a high speed low level penetrator while the other is a high altitude "we'll get there when we get there"ator.

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 (and fuel inefficient).
  • 0

Hubsu
First Lieutenant
First Lieutenant
 
Posts: 415
Joined: Fri Feb 15, 2008 3:55 pm
Reputation: 0

Re: B-1 Lancer vs. B-52 Stratofortress

Postby Ricky » Fri Aug 08, 2008 10:43 am

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.
  • 0

"Study the past, if you would divine the future"
-Confucius

"I am pedantic, I'm just being overshadowed by Ricky so it isn't as noticable as it would else have been"
-Skua
Ricky
Quartermaster
Quartermaster
 
Posts: 8217
Joined: Sun Jan 27, 2008 3:42 pm
Location: Luton, UK
Reputation: 7

Re: B-1 Lancer vs. B-52 Stratofortress

Postby Blaster » Fri Aug 08, 2008 10:50 am

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.


If I knew, I would have asked.

But even if the B1 was designed with different attributes, I still find it a bit difficult to believe that it is heavier and carries more bombs than the B52. It's a high speed low level penetrator, and I would have guessed these types of planes needed to be light, while (relatively) slow-moving heavy bombers like the B52s can carry large amounts of ordnance.
  • 0

Blaster
General
General
 
Posts: 1599
Joined: Tue Jan 29, 2008 7:35 pm
Reputation: 0

Re: B-1 Lancer vs. B-52 Stratofortress

Postby Ricky » Fri Aug 08, 2008 11:00 am

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.
  • 0

"Study the past, if you would divine the future"
-Confucius

"I am pedantic, I'm just being overshadowed by Ricky so it isn't as noticable as it would else have been"
-Skua
Ricky
Quartermaster
Quartermaster
 
Posts: 8217
Joined: Sun Jan 27, 2008 3:42 pm
Location: Luton, UK
Reputation: 7

Re: B-1 Lancer vs. B-52 Stratofortress

Postby Hubsu » Fri Aug 08, 2008 11:09 am

Oh yeah, that's true Ricky. Nice catch :)

The cramping up of the newer planes has actually caused some difficulties. Every plane gains weight during its career and it was easier to look up for the space for the new equipment in the older planes. In a B-52, you simply shovel the stuff in, wire it and you're good to go. One of the first military planes ever to have been built from the get go as a "as little free space as possible" plane is the F-16. That's the reason why there's now such abominations as F-16 block 60.
  • 0

Hubsu
First Lieutenant
First Lieutenant
 
Posts: 415
Joined: Fri Feb 15, 2008 3:55 pm
Reputation: 0

Re: B-1 Lancer vs. B-52 Stratofortress

Postby Hubsu » Fri Aug 08, 2008 8:12 pm

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.


And here's the reason: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=clo8_wbEw-0

Wing loading (and aspect ratio) is directly correlated to at how bad windshears and turbulence will affect the ride. Notice the clear skies? The more cumulonimbus, the more turbulence there will be. They delibirately chose a good day for the record breaking...

In that video, you'll see a constant little jitter when the bomber flies. That's turbulence affecting to the plane. Imagine a few tens of times more sewere turbulence close to the ground, and you'll understand why low level interdictors have always been heavy wing loaded. Poor ride comfortability = loads of fallen teeth :)
  • 0

Hubsu
First Lieutenant
First Lieutenant
 
Posts: 415
Joined: Fri Feb 15, 2008 3:55 pm
Reputation: 0

Re: B-1 Lancer vs. B-52 Stratofortress

Postby Blaster » Sat Aug 09, 2008 2:12 am

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.


Empty space? Why not fill up everything and carry more bombs?
  • 0

Blaster
General
General
 
Posts: 1599
Joined: Tue Jan 29, 2008 7:35 pm
Reputation: 0

Re: B-1 Lancer vs. B-52 Stratofortress

Postby Ricky » Sat Aug 09, 2008 6:38 pm

Because if all the space was full the aircraft would weigh too much to do anything more exiting than taxi along the ground.
  • 0

"Study the past, if you would divine the future"
-Confucius

"I am pedantic, I'm just being overshadowed by Ricky so it isn't as noticable as it would else have been"
-Skua
Ricky
Quartermaster
Quartermaster
 
Posts: 8217
Joined: Sun Jan 27, 2008 3:42 pm
Location: Luton, UK
Reputation: 7

Re: B-1 Lancer vs. B-52 Stratofortress

Postby Blaster » Sun Aug 10, 2008 2:05 am

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.


Okay...they couldn't fill the B52 up to it's full potential because then it would be too heavy to fly. What about the Tu-160 Blackjack? It's bigger than the B52, and carries way more bombs. But not only can the Blackjack fly, it can go to Mach 2. Why?
  • 0

Blaster
General
General
 
Posts: 1599
Joined: Tue Jan 29, 2008 7:35 pm
Reputation: 0

Re: B-1 Lancer vs. B-52 Stratofortress

Postby Ricky » Mon Aug 11, 2008 7:48 am

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.
  • 0

"Study the past, if you would divine the future"
-Confucius

"I am pedantic, I'm just being overshadowed by Ricky so it isn't as noticable as it would else have been"
-Skua
Ricky
Quartermaster
Quartermaster
 
Posts: 8217
Joined: Sun Jan 27, 2008 3:42 pm
Location: Luton, UK
Reputation: 7

Re: B-1 Lancer vs. B-52 Stratofortress

Postby Blaster » Tue Aug 12, 2008 1:08 am

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.


So what was the B52 designed to do?
  • 0

Blaster
General
General
 
Posts: 1599
Joined: Tue Jan 29, 2008 7:35 pm
Reputation: 0

Re: B-1 Lancer vs. B-52 Stratofortress

Postby Ricky » Tue Aug 12, 2008 7:48 am

The B-52 was designed to fly a long, long, long way at high altitude carrying a nuclear bomb.
  • 0

"Study the past, if you would divine the future"
-Confucius

"I am pedantic, I'm just being overshadowed by Ricky so it isn't as noticable as it would else have been"
-Skua
Ricky
Quartermaster
Quartermaster
 
Posts: 8217
Joined: Sun Jan 27, 2008 3:42 pm
Location: Luton, UK
Reputation: 7

Next

Return to World War 2 in General



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 0 guests

cron
Reputation System ©'