BUFF Engine Start
John Kunkel
When the B-52's are scrambled from alert status how are the eight eng-
ines started so quickly? Is there a system to start them simultaneously
or is one started by external power and the others cross-bleed started
on the roll? Always wondered.
John
Mike Thompson
John, the B52s and many other mid-60s designs used a removable cartridge
(something like a solid propellant rocket motor) that burned quickly
providing exhaust gases that turned a turbine. That started the engine
spinning. If you watch some newsreel footage of say a Canberra,F-4, or
KC-135, you might see some black smoke pouring out of them. This is the
gases from this cartridge. Later on a small jet was used to provide bleed
air that also started the engine.
Mike
Marcus Gustafsson
--------------8F060A9A1F40F48E5A7E2070
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
The engines are normally started one at a time but all eight engines
could be started at the same time. This places a heavier workload on the
crew and the chance that something will go wrong is greater.
Marcus Gustafsson
Mike Thompson wrote:
--------------8F060A9A1F40F48E5A7E2070
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
<HTML>
<TT>The engines are normally started one at a time but all eight engines
could be started at the same time. This places a heavier workload on the
crew and the chance that something will go wrong is greater.</TT><TT></TT>
<P><TT>Marcus Gustafsson</TT>
<BR>Mike Thompson wrote:
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>John, the B52s and many other mid-60s designs used
a removable cartridge
<BR>(something like a solid propellant rocket motor) that burned quickly
<BR>providing exhaust gases that turned a turbine. That started the
engine
<BR>spinning. If you watch some newsreel footage of say a Canberra,F-4,
or
<BR>KC-135, you might see some black smoke pouring out of them. This
is the
<BR>gases from this cartridge. Later on a small jet was used to provide
bleed
<BR>air that also started the engine.
<P>Mike
<P>John Kunkel wrote:
<P>> When the B-52's are scrambled from alert status how are the eight
eng-
<BR>> ines started so quickly? Is there a system to start them simultaneously
<BR>> or is one started by external power and the others cross-bleed started
<BR>> on the roll? Always wondered.
<BR>> John</BLOCKQUOTE>
</HTML>
--------------8F060A9A1F40F48E5A7E2070--
Mike Bandor
John Kunkel <JohnL...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>When the B-52's are scrambled from alert status how are the eight eng-
>ines started so quickly? Is there a system to start them simultaneously
>or is one started by external power and the others cross-bleed started
>on the roll? Always wondered.
> John
They can be started by APU or starter cartridges.
Mike
------------------------------------------------------
- Mike Bandor (ban...@jcave.com)
-
- Computer programmer: Ada/C++/Windows/Winhelp/JOVIAL/MASM
-
- "Trying to manage programmers is like trying to herd cats!"
-
- Speaking for myself! Standard disclaimer applies.
------------------------------------------------------
- Author of MEGATERMS: Military Terms and Acronyms
- http://www.jcave.com/~bandorm/megaterm/megaterm.htm
- ftp://jcave.com/usr/b/bandorm/m-term.zip
------------------------------------------------------
Darrell Schmidt
> John Kunkel <JohnL...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
> >When the B-52's are scrambled from alert status how are the eight eng-
> >ines started so quickly? Is there a system to start them simultaneously
> >or is one started by external power and the others cross-bleed started
> >on the roll? Always wondered.
> > John
>
I'm not sure how they do it these days, John, but when I was a B-52H
Aircraft Commander in the early 60s, we had black powder cartridges on 2
engines (believe it was #2 & #6). After each day's preflight inspection we
would "cock" the aircraft for alert starting. When the horn went off, we'd
whip out to the aircraft and hit start on the two engines with cartridges
and place those two throttles straight up and turn on the start fuel levers
for those two engines. During start as the RPM came through about 70%
(guess), we placed the other 6 engines in ground start, using the air from
the first 2 engines. We'd advance each fuel lever when the respective RPM
went through starting RPM. It was quite a handfull but it sure got 8
engines running quickly.--
My automatic return address may have X in it to stop SPAM.
-If so, delete the X so it reads: sch...@pacbell.net
-Or... simply click on: mailto:sch...@pacbell.net
Edward C. Stalker
---
As of 1991, when I left SAC, all J-57 engines had provisions for
cartridge start. Normally, only two engines were rigged for cart start -
the other two were started by bleed air crossover. On the other hand,
if you went to the "Quick Start" mode, all 4 engines on the -135 and 4
engines on the Buff were rigged for carts.
It was pretty impressive, but it was pretty dangerous for the ground
crews. In the QS mode, the crew chiefs had to have respirator packs to
get the alert birds out. Also, it has not been unknown for a cartridge
to explode and trash the engine. Only seen it happen once, in many
hundreds of cart starts, but it was frightening. Also, a cart could
"hang fire" another situation to give you some major pucker factor. I
was helping one of my guys pull a hung cartridge out of an engine when
it decided to go off and launch itself into the tarmac, bounce about 30
feet in the air, then it landed in a cornfield, starting a large
fire....
Under normal conditions, the B52H and KC-135 A/E are started either by
their APU or by a ground air source.
For alert starts, the B-1 and KC-135R have a toggle on the crew entry
ladder that starts the APU, which starts the engines by the time the
crew hits the seats. A much safer way to do business, and a change I
heartily approved of....
Ed
BUFDRVR
>All this talk about B-52 engine starts brings to mind the proposal to
reengine remaining BUFFs with four Rolls-Royce RB-111 high bypass turbofans
(the same type that power all L-1011s and some 747s.) Has anybody got any
updated info. on this possible program??
Apparently the USAF only wanted to do the re-engining if it was "free".
Alison/RR and Boeing both assured the USAF that over the term of the
lease(the engines would be leased and not bought) the USAF would save X
amount of money on fuel. The USAF then said OK we'll pay you over the lease
period X amount. Then trouble happened when USAF bean counters used there
own numbers for yearly inflation of fuel prices(Boeing used the same
figures the airlines used to predict future fuel costs) and determined that
over the life of the lease(30 years-2000 till 2030) it would cost the USAF
$1 millon. A paltry sum by defense standards but too much for the fighter
crazy USAF. Boeing said they couldn't lower their bid one dime. The USAF
said OK see ya' and thats where we sit today
.>While there would be the obvious improments in fuel burn, emmisions,
range, power, etc., what other aspects (good and bad) would there be?
The only bad aspect of the proposal was that Alison/RR would provide the
day to day maintenance and back shop maintenance. This would mean civilian
crew cheifs and maintenance personel, a direction the USAF is headed any
way, but something I see as a problem if a conflict arises thats going to
require an extended deployment or a deployment to a war zone with
civilians( what if they got there heard one air raid alarm and then just
said "send me home I quit !").
The positives were overwhelming. Increased range by 75%, thats an
unrefueled range of almost 18,000 miles. Imagine a military aircraft flying
almost 3/4 of the way around the world with no tanker support. New glass
cockpit which would include a moving map and the ability to have real time
threat info data linked into the mapping system from a JSTARS or AWACS.
There were other great bells and whistles, but its all DEAD now. I thought
the most amazing part was that 4 engines would replace 8 and we would have
an INCREASE in thrust with a DECREASE in fuel burn !
Ohh... now you've done it... I'm crying in my beer again.....too choked
up....cant go on.......
BUFDRVR
Mike Tighe
On Thu, 04 Sep 1997 19:28:35 GMT, gtwi...@wku.campus.mci.net (George
Gumbert III ) wrote:
>The RB-111 has it's unique aspects when starting. When the engine
>lights up, it produces a loud, low-pitch rumbling sound for about 15
>seconds. In addition, oil that has settled into the combustion
>chambers is burned during the start producing a plume of white smoke.
>I was at St. Louis when a TWA machine smoked and an observer panicked
>thinking it was a fire. Before I got a chance, an airport worker who
>happened to be by reassured the man that this was very normal for an
>L-1011 and that if it did not smoke, that ment there *was* a problem!
>
It might be an urban legend, but about a year ago, at least one UK
national newspaper reported a mistakenly ordered emergency evacuation
of a Tristar during a routine startup.
Mike Tighe -
Striving steadily towards a 4,000 hour
mean time between sense of humour failures!
David E. Oakley
BUFDRVR wrote:
>
>
> In todays training enviornment thats how we do it also except the carts
> are placed in 4 and 5. If it was real old fashioned alert there would be
> carts in all 8 engines. I got to do an 8 engine cart start for the ACC Nuc
> office about a year ago, you want to talk about cool ! Smoke every where,
> all 8 engines spooling up at once, pretty entertaing from outside the
> aircraft also I was told .
>
> BUFDRVR
BUFDRVR
If your fresh out of tech school, first day on the flight line, and no
one has told you about "shotgun start", it isn't enertaining at all.
Several A/C that had just been fueled, all starting up... I called in a
fire! Fortunatly someone else on the freq. explaine d what was going on
and the fire trucks didn't have to roll. Everyone else thought it was
funny. I failed to see the humour at the time. i always found it
exciting.
David
George Gumbert III
On 5 Sep 1997 00:26:46 GMT, buf...@aol.com (BUFDRVR) wrote:
>The positives were overwhelming. Increased range by 75%, thats an
>unrefueled range of almost 18,000 miles. Imagine a military aircraft flying
>almost 3/4 of the way around the world with no tanker support. New glass
>cockpit which would include a moving map and the ability to have real time
>threat info data linked into the mapping system from a JSTARS or AWACS.
>There were other great bells and whistles, but its all DEAD now. I thought
>the most amazing part was that 4 engines would replace 8 and we would have
>an INCREASE in thrust with a DECREASE in fuel burn !
It's interesting to note that Rolls Royce rivals Pratt & Whitney and
GE seperately tested their counterparts to the RB-111 on B-52s!
(the P&W JT9D powers early 747s, some DC-10s and many early A300s and
A310s, the General Electric CF6 powers other early 747s, most DC-10s
and early A300/A310s). It's interesting to wonder if the performance
of the new high by-pass powerplants on their B-52s gave the Air Force
any serious ideas then of reengining their BUFFs.
One photo shows a B-52 flyby with smoke pouring from all of the
engines except for the one test powerplant which replaced a pair of
the original P & W engines.
Rolls Royce tested the RB-111 on a VC-10. The VC-10 was the British
counterpart to the 707 and DC-8 and looked like a very large 4 engine
BAC-111 or DC-9 with two engines on either side. The test RB-111
engine took the place of two of the original RR Conway engines.
>
>Ohh... now you've done it... I'm crying in my beer again.....too choked
>up....cant go on.......
>
>BUFDRVR
>
>
I suppose that one can at least say that the B-52, if it really is
retired in 2030 or so, will have literally outlived it's critics who
said the B-52 was obsolete decades before!
Regards,
George
\/ \/ \/ \/ \/ \/ \/ \/ \/
"Gigantic wedge tornado!... multiple vortex!...
couldn't ask for anything
else!! Beautiful tornado!!!"
Videographer/stormchaser Bob Prentice
April 26, 1991 Red Rock, Oklahoma
Remove +NOSPAM+ to reply via email
BUFDRVR
>It's interesting to note that Rolls Royce rivals Pratt & Whitney and GE
seperately tested their counterparts to the RB-111 on B-52s!
I've seen the pictures, I think its a G model.
>I suppose that one can at least say that the B-52, if it really is
>retired in 2030 or so, will have literally outlived it's critics who
>said the B-52 was obsolete decades before!
Yeah, I can't imagine retiring near 20 years(hopefully) and still having
BUFFs on Active Duty.
BUFDRVR
BUFDRVR
>If your fresh out of tech school, first day on the flight line, and no
one has told you about "shotgun start", it isn't enertaining at all.
(snip)
> I called in a fire!
Have talked to many a young crew chief who relate the same story. They all
said the same thing " I was warned there would be alot of smoke but they
didn't tell me there would be THAT much smoke"
BUFDRVR
barger edward james
George Gumbert III wrote:>
> All this talk about B-52 engine starts brings to mind the proposal to
> reengine remaining BUFFs with four Rolls-Royce RB-111 high bypass
> <snip>
Hi I was just wondering shouldnt that read Rolls-Royce RB-211. AFAIK the
only Rolls engines on 747's are RB-211's, i think Qantas runs RB-211G's
on their 747. Please correct me if i'm wrong.
Edward Barger
2nd year Aero Engineering Student
University of sydney, Australia
Geoff Miller
barger edward james <barg...@lab.eng.usyd.edu.au> writes:
> Hi I was just wondering shouldnt that read Rolls-Royce RB-211.
That's "RB.211" -- with a decimal, not a hyphen.
Geoff
-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-
Geoff Miller + + + + + + + + Sun Microsystems
geo...@purplehaze.Eng.Sun.COM + + + + + + + + Mountain View, California
-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-
Trevor Fenn
Actually I believe the proposal was for RB211-535's, the Rolls Royce
engine that is available on the 757's
Trevor Fenn
trev...@erols.com
George Gumbert III
On 15 Sep 1997 18:53:08 GMT, geo...@purplehaze.Eng.Sun.COM (Geoff
Miller) wrote:
>
>
>barger edward james <barg...@lab.eng.usyd.edu.au> writes:
>
>> Hi I was just wondering shouldnt that read Rolls-Royce RB-211.
>
>
>That's "RB.211" -- with a decimal, not a hyphen.
>
>
>
>Geoff
>
>
>-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-
>Geoff Miller + + + + + + + + Sun Microsystems
>geo...@purplehaze.Eng.Sun.COM + + + + + + + + Mountain View, California
>-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-
>
>
Perhaps I was subconciously thinking of the BAC-111 which made me
think RB.111! At any rate, you are correct.
Mike Tighe
>barger edward james <barg...@lab.eng.usyd.edu.au> writes:
>
>> Hi I was just wondering shouldnt that read Rolls-Royce RB-211.
>
>That's "RB.211" -- with a decimal, not a hyphen.
>
Pedantic Mike says that's RB211 without anything in the middle. Just
like the rest of the 'RB' designated engines. (But I think the dot is
more acceptable than the dash <g>)
Mike Tighe
Speaking from the bottom left
hand corner of the big picture.
CriKkeR
no APU's on BUFF's
Scott (Davis) Strang
In article <19970919075...@ladder02.news.aol.com> cri...@aol.com (CriKkeR) writes:
>From: cri...@aol.com (CriKkeR)
>Subject: Re: BUFF Engine Start
>Date: 19 Sep 1997 07:50:33 GMT
>no APU's on BUFF's
I think they use something simular to a shot gun cartridge to start the P&W's.
A few years ago I talked to friend of mine that was in the USAF as an engine
mechanic and I think he said something to that effect.
Scott
John P. Tomany
Scott (Davis) Strang wrote:
>
> >no APU's on BUFF's
>
> I think they use something simular to a shot gun cartridge to start the P&W's.
The starter cartridge used on most bombers and fighters made prior
to the 80s only resembled a shotgun cartridge in shape. They had
an eight-inch or so diameter, and were slightly larger than a
gallon can of house paint. ( On fighters, the start carts were
used as a primary means of engine start only on jets standing
quick-reaction alert. Most often, a pneumatic start was used,
given from a trailer-mounted turbine ground-power unit. )
CriKkeR
The "shot gun cartridge" is actually called a "cart start." It's used to
make the engine starter basically it's own engine. The cart lights off and
turns the starter which turns the engine (in the long run). It's a very
effective and fast (and dirty) way to start the engine. Still it's not an
APU. On the BONE the APU can supply all needed electrical and hydraulics
in a self contained unit on the aircraft. Land anywhere and the aircraft
can start using APU's without the use or need of a eletrical/bleed air cart
like the BUFF.
Rod Don
In article <y106fmnospam...@iamerica.net>,
y106fm...@iamerica.net (Scott (Davis) Strang) wrote:
> In article <19970919075...@ladder02.news.aol.com>
cri...@aol.com (CriKkeR) writes:
> >From: cri...@aol.com (CriKkeR)
> >Subject: Re: BUFF Engine Start
> >Date: 19 Sep 1997 07:50:33 GMT
>
> >no APU's on BUFF's
>
> I think they use something simular to a shot gun cartridge to start the
P&W's.
>
> A few years ago I talked to friend of mine that was in the USAF as an engine
> mechanic and I think he said something to that effect.
> Scott
The cartridge is more like an oversized coffee can. It's ignited by the
aircraft battery, and generates gas (and *lots* o' smoke) to spin the
engine via its starter. The starter is normally powered by a piece of
ground support equipment which is hooked up to the engine with a big hose,
and blows bleed air from the compressor of a small jet engine.
Ahhh, the Dash-60: seemingly limitless power in the hands of a crew chief
to dry jackets and warm hands.....
--
R.C. Don
University of Delaware
Center for Composite Materials
302-831-8352
AMA 446054
IMAA 21341
John Kunkel
> >
> > >no APU's on BUFF's
> >
> > I think they use something simular to a shot gun cartridge to start the
> P&W's.
> >
> > A few years ago I talked to friend of mine that was in the USAF as an engine
> > mechanic and I think he said something to that effect.
> > Scott
>
> The cartridge is more like an oversized coffee can. It's ignited by the
> aircraft battery, and generates gas (and *lots* o' smoke) to spin the
> engine via its starter. The starter is normally powered by a piece of
> ground support equipment which is hooked up to the engine with a big hose,
> and blows bleed air from the compressor of a small jet engine.
>
> Ahhh, the Dash-60: seemingly limitless power in the hands of a crew chief
> to dry jackets and warm hands.....
Also great for turning JP-4 into noise.
David E. Oakley
John P. Tomany wrote:
> The starter cartridge used on most bombers and fighters made prior
> to the 80s only resembled a shotgun cartridge in shape. They had
> an eight-inch or so diameter, and were slightly larger than a
> gallon can of house paint. ( On fighters, the start carts were
> used as a primary means of engine start only on jets standing
> quick-reaction alert. Most often, a pneumatic start was used,
> given from a trailer-mounted turbine ground-power unit. )
John
I wonder if you might have been in the Navy. As I recall, most of thier
AGE(Aerospace Ground Equipment) was turbine powered. In the 60's, most Air Force AGE
was powered by gasoline engines. A few types used either turbines, motors, or
diesel. Older A/C such as the T-33 used electric power for starting. One such AGE
unit was the MD-3. It was engine driven and had three large DC generators in
parrallel. The newer A/C such as the F-102 and F-106 used high pressure, low volume
air. An example of this type of AGE was the MC-11. It was engine driven and had a
four stage air compressor. A few A/C such as the RB-66 used low pressure, high
volume air. This was provided by a gas turbine. For some reason I can't recall the
designation. Before the build up in SEA, TAC had tugs that also included the
generators, air compressors, etc. ADC on the other hand used standalone AGE
equipment. During the build up TAC went to the standalone equipment.
David
Michael Anselmo
> I wonder if you might have been in the Navy. As I recall, most of thier
> AGE(Aerospace Ground Equipment) was turbine powered. In the 60's, most Air Force AGE
> was powered by gasoline engines. A few types used either turbines, motors, or
> diesel. Older A/C such as the T-33 used electric power for starting. One such AGE
> unit was the MD-3. It was engine driven and had three large DC generators in
> parrallel.
It also had an AC 400 cycle generator.
> The newer A/C such as the F-102 and F-106 used high pressure, low volume
> air. An example of this type of AGE was the MC-11. It was engine driven and had a
> four stage air compressor. A few A/C such as the RB-66 used low pressure, high
> volume air. This was provided by a gas turbine. For some reason I can't recall the
> designation.
This was a MA-1 gas turbine. The F-105s used it also.
> Before the build up in SEA, TAC had tugs that also included the
> generators, air compressors, etc. ADC on the other hand used standalone AGE
> equipment. During the build up TAC went to the standalone equipment.
>
> David
On Guam in '62 they had a few MA-1s but they were never used and were in storage. When
SAC wanted to test the Anderson runways and taxi ways for sustained B-52 operation, they
were pulled out a readied for use. This was Operation Glass Brick. (What an imagination
the namers had.) There was a typhoon in Nov of 62 and Guam was off line as a SAC base
for a few months. I left Guam in July of 63 and never saw a B-52 come for a test. We did
however, see many F-105s that used the MA-1.
Mike
Tarver Engineering
>
>
>John P. Tomany wrote:
>
>> The starter cartridge used on most bombers and fighters made prior
>> to the 80s only resembled a shotgun cartridge in shape. They had
>> an eight-inch or so diameter, and were slightly larger than a
>> gallon can of house paint. ( On fighters, the start carts were
>> used as a primary means of engine start only on jets standing
>> quick-reaction alert. Most often, a pneumatic start was used,
>> given from a trailer-mounted turbine ground-power unit. )
>
>John
>
>I wonder if you might have been in the Navy. As I recall, most of thier
>AGE(Aerospace Ground Equipment) was turbine powered. In the 60's, most Air Force AGE
>was powered by gasoline engines. A few types used either turbines, motors, or
>diesel. Older A/C such as the T-33 used electric power for starting. One such AGE
>unit was the MD-3. It was engine driven and had three large DC generators in
>parrallel. The newer A/C such as the F-102 and F-106 used high pressure, low volume
>air. An example of this type of AGE was the MC-11. It was engine driven and had a
>four stage air compressor. A few A/C such as the RB-66 used low pressure, high
>volume air. This was provided by a gas turbine. For some reason I can't recall the
>designation. Before the build up in SEA, TAC had tugs that also included the
>generators, air compressors, etc. ADC on the other hand used standalone AGE
>equipment. During the build up TAC went to the standalone equipment.
The shotgun starter and the air starter were a flange change to the
starter inlet. Our 106s came with shotgun start, but were retrofitted
for air. The shotgun start is dirty.
John
Catherine t. Tomany
David E. Oakley wrote:
>
> John P. Tomany wrote:
>
> > The starter cartridge used on most bombers and fighters made prior
> > to the 80s only resembled a shotgun cartridge in shape. They had
> > an eight-inch or so diameter, and were slightly larger than a
> > gallon can of house paint.
>
> AGE(Aerospace Ground Equipment) was turbine powered. In the 60's, most Air Force AGE
> was powered by gasoline engines.
My time started in 1968; by then, the -60 turbine-driven
generator/pneumatic
cart had all but replaced the MD-3. ( By that time, the MD-3 was only
used
on T-33s and some prop planes, due to it's lousy regulation of
electrical
power. ) The -60 had a bleed off the turbine for high-volume hot air;
this
was used instead of start carts on almost all fighters. It also was
used
to drive the ground-powered air conditioners which were required for
ground
runs of the fighter electronics systems. The -60 provided 40 Kva of
3-phase.
( TAC and PACAF, anyway.)
John T.
Charles Holzer
I worked on the F-100, F-101, F-105, F-4, B-52, KC-135, etc., for many
years and no one to my knowledge ever called the start system a 'shotgun'
starter. We called it a 'cartridge' starter, which it was. Shotgun
starters were used on recips and were signifcantly smaller. As long as
the cartridge breech cap was installed, the start could be either by an
external air source, or by cartridge. The cartridge burn was of a long
enough duration to get the engine up to about 19% N2 RPM. If the engine
wasn't self sustaining and accelerating toward idle RPM by then, you shut
down and tried again. That is, after the starter cooling off period
elapsed. Chuck.
Rick Simon
In article <344215...@bellsouth.net>, tom...@bellsouth.net wrote:
>My time started in 1968; by then, the -60 turbine-driven
>generator/pneumatic
>cart had all but replaced the MD-3. ( By that time, the MD-3 was only
>( TAC and PACAF, anyway.)
In SAC, I didn't see a -60 until the mid 70's. We still used MD-3's and
MA1A's for power and air. To tell the truth, while MD-3's tended to be
cantankerous old beasts that didn't like to start, I tended to prefer them to
listening to the -60 turbine when working on the line. Of course, even a -60
was preferable to working next door to a Buff running engines! <<grin>>
Rick Simon
aka
rsi...@voyager.net