Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!usc!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!newstop!sun!amdcad!amdcad!military From: swilliam@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Steve Williams) Newsgroups: sci.military Subject: Re: B-1 Message-ID: <1991Jun7.072208.8163@amd.com> Date: 4 Jun 91 11:12:46 GMT References: <1991Jun1.013131.28649@amd.com> <1991Jun4.040303.9273@amd.com> Sender: military@amd.com Organization: David Taylor Research Center, Bethesda, MD Lines: 63 Approved: military@amd.com From: swilliam@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Steve Williams) >> Times, as well as information broadcast by ABC news stated that the >> *ENTIRE* B-1 fleet was grounded for engine problems. If the *ENTIRE* B-1 fleet was grounded, then what was it that I saw doing a low flyby during the air show at Andrews AFB on May 11? It looked a lot like a B-1, the program said B-1, and the public announcement said B-1. For an airplane that was supposed to be ground, it sure is alive and flying! [The grounding under discussion was in the January timeframe. --CDR] >> Additionally, the B-1 has _never been certified_ for conventional munitions! >This is true. There is no reason to spend money working on outfitting >the B-1 for conventional bombing when the US currently has 200+ B-52 >that are perfectly able to carry iron bombs. Actually, they have been outfitting the B-1 for conventional bombing. The problem is that electronic equipment used in aiming and dropping the conv. bombs hasn't been satisfactory so far, and also that the conv. bombs kept hitting each other after they were dropped. The ABC broadcast mentioned that the Air Force was still trying to correct these problems. >> The B-1 has had a very poor history of reliability - so much so that >> SAC has been searching for years to find an answer. I don't think that the B-1 has a poor history of reliability. It is an unusual plane, pushed to the maximum limit of performance. One example is the unusual design of its fuel tanks which has to be incorporated into its swing wing design. Its leaking fuel problem is nothing unusual. The SR-71A had the same problem because of its unusual fuel tank design which has to allow for the expansion and contraction of the fuel tank due to high temperature associated with high supersonic speed. Its fuel tank was not like a complete sealed box; rather it was more like two halves of a box, with one half inside the other, with very close tolerances. This allows the whole box to slide apart or together as temperature rises or decreases. Hence, you will have to expect some fuel to leak. The SR-71A uses a very thick jet fuel which helps minimize fuel leaking. >Much noise was made in the media about the fuel tank leaks in the B-1B. >But the B-1B was not the only plane to ever have fuel tank leaks... See above. >If you get a chance, get out to an airshow this summer and look for the >B-1. It is truely amazing--it is huge, yet looks small from a >distance. It hauls more than the B-52, yet performs like a fighter. Yeah, at the air show at Andrews AFB, the B-52 had to maneuver slowly as not to exceed its structural strength. I understand that B-52 pilots have to be careful when they fly the B-52, for this reason. By comparison, the B-1 flew just like a fighter plane. Beautiful. >And when you look up the word 'sexy' in the dictionary, you will find a >picture of the B-1. That's a good one!