How big is a B52 compared to a 747?

[Plantman]

I was reading in B's post about alternate fuel that a B52 bomber has 8 engines. Those suckers must be huge.

Anyone know how big it is compared to the largest commercial aircraft?

How about one of those C-130 cargo planes?

Gracias!

[420SEL]

B-52 DIMENSIONS:
Length 160.92 ft (49.05 m)
Wingspan 185.00 ft (56.39 m)
Height 40.67 ft (12.40 m)
Wing Area 4,000 ft2 (371.6 m2)

WEIGHTS:
Empty 195,000 lb (88,450 kg)
Normal Takeoff unknown
Max Takeoff (B-52A-F) 452,000 lb (205,025 kg)
(B-52G/H) 488,000 lb (219,600 kg)
Fuel Capacity internal: unknown
external: unknown
Max Payload

70,000 lb (31,500 kg)


PROPULSION:
Powerplant eight Pratt & Whitney TF33-P-3/103 turbofans
Thrust 136,000 lb (605.0 kN)


PERFORMANCE:
Max Level Speed at altitude: 595 mph (955 km/h) [B-52H]
at sea level: 405 mph (650 km/h), Mach 0.53
cruise speed: 510 mph (820 km/h)
Initial Climb Rate unknown



Technical Specifications -- 747 Classics
747-100

Engines
maximum thrust Pratt & Whitney JT9D-7A
46,500 lb (20,925 kg)

Rolls-Royce RB211-524B2
50,100 lb (22,545 kg)

GE CF6-45A2
46,500 lb (20,925 kg)
Maximum Fuel Capacity 48,445 U.S. gal (183,380 L)
Maximum Takeoff Weight 735,000 lb (333,400 kg)
Maximum Range 6,100 statute miles (9,800 km)
Typical city pairs:
New York-Madrid,
Los Angeles-Honolulu,
Seattle-Tokyo
Typical Cruise Speed
at 35,000 feet Mach 0.84
555 mph (895 km/h)
Basic Dimensions
Wing Span 195 ft 8 in (59.6 m)
Overall Length 231 ft 10.2 in (70.6 m)
Tail Height 63 ft 5 in (19.3 m)
Interior Cabin Width 20 ft (6.1 m)

[Wodnek]

The B52 is some plane though. Designed over 50 years ago still no replacement in sight. They can stay in the air for weeks (with refueling) They have mechanical backups for everthing so an emp blast wont take em down. They can land with only 3 functioning engines. Tight quarters on the inside. They have sleeping quarters for one crew, and the cabin for the crew thats on duty.

[R Leo]

Originally Posted by Wodnek

The B52 is some plane though. Designed over 50 years ago still no replacement in sight. They can stay in the air for weeks (with refueling) They have mechanical backups for everthing so an emp blast wont take em down. They can land with only 3 functioning engines. Tight quarters on the inside. They have sleeping quarters for one crew, and the cabin for the crew thats on duty.

My folks had an acquaintenance in the mid-60s who was an B-52 pilot. It took so much paper to fly a B-52, used to joke that if we ever went to war with the Russians, they could load the bomb bay with paperwork and drop it on the Rooskies instead of nukes.

[WVOtoGO]

Originally Posted by Wodnek

The B52 is some plane though. Designed over 50 years ago still no replacement in sight.

There have been proposals to re-engine them with 4ea. RB211 (ref. Boeing 757) engines. If that ever went through, I imagine they may be in use another decade or two...or three...or....

If you look at the time lines and years in use of the B52, it's use today is kind of like using the Wright Flyer during WWII. Heck of an airplane.

[cmac2012]

Originally Posted by Wodnek

The B52 is some plane though. Designed over 50 years ago still no replacement in sight. They can stay in the air for weeks (with refueling) They have mechanical backups for everthing so an emp blast wont take em down. They can land with only 3 functioning engines. Tight quarters on the inside. They have sleeping quarters for one crew, and the cabin for the crew thats on duty.

I grew up in Roswell, N.M. (dee-dee-dee-dee) and Walker Air Force Base was maybe 5-10 miles outside of town. Every year, they'd have an open house and I went to most of them with buddies whose dads were stationed there. I've been all over the insides of more B-52s than I can remember. It was a trip -- all that no-nonsense accomodations.

I read somewhere where a B-52 mechanic said that if they came up to a plane and there wasn't fresh oil under the engines, that's when they got worried cause that meant it was out of oil.

[PC Dave]

Originally Posted by Wodnek

The B52 is some plane though. Designed over 50 years ago still no replacement in sight.

And the last ones were built around 40 years ago. I think there are very few, if any, B-52 crewmembers who were born when their planes were built. Amazing.

[R Leo]

There's a story about the military pilot calling for a priority landing because his single-engine jet fighter was running "a bit peaked."

Air Traffic Control told the fighter jock that he was number two, behind a B-52 that had one engine shut down.

"Ah," the fighter pilot remarked, "The dreaded seven-engine approach."

[Kuan]

Originally Posted by cmac2012

I grew up in Roswell, N.M. (dee-dee-dee-dee)

Hey cool! Do you know the Mayor of Roswell Bill Owen?

[JCE]

There was a special on the History channel last week on the surplus military aircraft facility in AZ - lots of old planes there, including old B-52s there providing parts for remanufacture to 'as new' condition to keep the operational B52's flying. The planes just keep getting more modernized, and they plan to keep it flying until 2040 according to the show. Latest armament system showed dual rotary cradles holding 11 cruise missiles in each cradle, and enough fancy computer equipment to earn a Maximum PC 'kickass' award!

[Skippy]

The B-52 was designed a few years after WWII and entered service shortly after the Korean War. The father of one of my college roomates was a B-52 pilot in Vietnam, and it looks like these planes will still be in service after I've reached military retirement age.

I figure I can also bring up the M1911 pistol. Adopted in 1911, continued as the primary sidearm until 1985, and I heard customized versions are still in use by some units authorized non-standard arms.

[sixto]

How does the C5 compare to the 747 sizewise? What about the Russian 6-engine Antonov that carries the Buran? Has a train of 14 wheels in each main gear set.

On a trip back from Asia on a 747-400, they had a GPS type display going. With the tailwind the display read 704 mph max. I dare say that's the fastest I've gone relative to the surface of the earth. Not sure how accurate that is since my wife managed to record a max speed of 350 mph in our portable GPS nav unit in a lowly minivan

Sixto

[krs]

Sixto, isn't it the case that the earth rotates in the same direction that you were going on a flight from asia? That would mean that your speed in relation to the surface of the earth was much less than 704 mph - in fact, you may have been going backward!



The C5 is bigger, but the 747 weighs a little more. Keep in mind that there are now several reiterations of 747 which is continually being modified to fend off the market intrusion of competitors, notably the Airbus A380 which is another big boy.

All of them are too tubby to fly - defies logic and basic rules of physics. They must come down. Save yourself by staying well away from such monstrosities!!

[H-townbenzoboy]

Originally Posted by cmac2012

I read somewhere where a B-52 mechanic said that if they came up to a plane and there wasn't fresh oil under the engines, that's when they got worried cause that meant it was out of oil.

It's the same thing with old diesel MBs.

Originally Posted by sixto

What about the Russian 6-engine Antonov that carries the Buran? Has a train of 14 wheels in each main gear set.

That's the AN-225. That beast is no stranger to Houston Intercontinental Airport. I've seen it on one occassion, but never in flight. I even have one downloaded for Microsoft Flight Simulator. It's definately bigger than the latest 747 variant.

From airliners.net

AN-225
Powerplants

6x Progress-D-18T

Performance

Max. speed - 528mph (850km/h), range with max payload - 2425nm (4500km), range with no cargo - 8310nm (15400km).

Weights

Max. take off weight -- 600000kg

Dimensions

Wingspan 290 ft (88.4m), lenght -- 84,00m, height -- 18,10.

Capacity

Maximum load: 551150lbs (250000kg)

Production

Only one was built since 1989, but a second one is now being built

747-400
Four 252.4kN (56,750lb) Pratt & Whitney PW-4056 turbofans or 266.9kN (60,000lb) PW-4060s, or 275.8kN (62,000lb) PW-4062s, 252.4kN (56,750lb) General Electric CF6-80-C2B1Fs or 273.6kN (61,500lb) CF6-80-C2B1F1s or -80-C2B7Fs, or 258.0kN (58,000lb) RollsRoyce RB-211-524G or -524Hs, or 262.4 to 266.9kN (59 to 60,000lb) RB-211-524G/H-Ts.

Performance

747-400 - Max cruising speed 939km/h (507kt), long range cruising speed 907km/h (490kt). Design range with 420 three class pax at 396,895kg (875,000lb) MTOW 13,491km (7284nm) with PW-4000s, 13,444km (7259nm) with GEs, 13,214km (7135nm) with RB-211s.
747-400ER - Range at MTOW 14,205km (7670nm).
747-400ERF - Range at MTOW 9200km (4970nm).

Weights

747-400 - Standard operating empty with PW-4056s 180,985kg (399,000lb), with CF6-80-C2B1Fs 180,755kg (398,500lb), with RB-211s 181,755kg (400,700lb); operating weights at optional MTOW with PW-4056s 181,485kg (400,100lb), with CF6-80-C2B1Fs 181,255kg (399,600lb), with RB-211s 182,255kg (401,800lb). Max takeoff 362,875kg (800,000lb), or optionally 377,845kg (833,000lb), or 385,555kg (850,000lb), or 396,895kg (875,000lb).
747-400ER/ERF - MTOW 412,770kg (910,000lb).

Dimensions

Wing span 64.44m (211ft 5in), length 70.67m (231ft 10in), height 19.41m (63ft 8in). Wing area 541.2m2 (5825sq ft).

Capacity

747-400 - Flightcrew of two. Typical three class seating for 416 (23 first, 78 business and 315 economy class pax). Cargo hold 170.5m3 (6025cuft) or 151m3 (5332cuft).
747-400 Domestic - Two class seating for 568 (24 first and 544 economy).
747-400 Combi - Typical arrangement for six or seven pallets and 266 three class passengers.
747-400ER - Same as -400, but cargo hold 158.6m3 (5599cuft) or 137m3 (4837cuft).
747-400F - 30 pallets on the main deck and 32 LD1 containers in the lower hold.

Production

Orders for the 747-400 as of August 2002 stood at 632 (of which 17 ER/ERF), of which 585 had been delivered. Total 747 sales stood at 1356.

[Jim H]

Originally Posted by krs

...isn't it the case that the earth rotates in the same direction that you were going on a flight from asia?

Yes.

Originally Posted by krs

...That would mean that your speed in relation to the surface of the earth was much less than 704 mph

No, speed in relationship to the earth's surface has nothing to do with the earth's rotation. I could be rotating either way, or not rotating. 704 mph ground speed is a speed of 704 mph over ground...

Originally Posted by krs

...in fact, you may have been going backward!

No, not unless he was in fact going backwards.