Looks like a hasty cut and paste. Every time I do something like that, I kick my own ass! ;~}

refers to an incident where an engine fell off...

They don't produce nearly the smoke they did back in the 80s and early 90s. Watch the KI Sawyer MITO launch on Youtube as they black out the sun. :) They've already been re-fueled and re-engineered so much to make the ecodweebs happy that it has hamstrung performance significantly. Not to mention - now that we have only 76 remaining - instead of the 706 we once had (and should have) - we can afford for the few to make a little smoke.

Leon, increased efficiency of modern engines does not come from size. It comes from better materials allowing higher temperatures and pressures inside the "hot end" of the engine. Two engines have a lower vertical profile and runway FOD has been an issue for the B-52 from day one, so two engines per nacelle will likely "always" be the solution for this airframe.

This is called "reporting ain't what it used to be".

It would still be 8 engines if the ones mentioned are used.
Proposed engines are the same as those on the newer B737s / A320s etc., high bypass fans in the same thrust range as the current B-52s engines.

I was wondering the same thing... It already has incredible range... Just imagine how much range it could have if it got twice the gas mileage...:)

I would love to see them build more B-52's even if they used old technology... It has worked great for decades and still cooking... Be nice to see a Century old plane some day! Right now, I see no reason to park them... If nothing else, they are proven technology... It has a proven history and more versatile than any plane that I can think of. There is no load it cannot handle and most in high quantities, any time the demand for it changes, it changes to fit... It is almost the Tinker Toy of the Air Force... It can turn into any request of the military into a quick response... What more could you ask for!

I help escort (watched the left wing) the B-52 that visited EAA Airventure at OSH a couple of years ago, so got a good up-close look at the plane. The construction is very simple and rugged. The geometry of the fuselage is geometrically simple, so it's most just big sheets of metal riveted to a basic frame.

And, as a bomber, most of the plane isn't pressurized, light skin materials and no pressure cycles to stress the material. It's funny, the the skin doesn't look like it even sits very smooth.

These planes will last as long as they keep updating the panels, overhaul/replacing the engines, and keep on top of the corrosion. I'm sure that there are also some wear-points (often where the wing or control surfaces mount). These can be the most expensive to stay on top of.

This is true of just about any aircraft that gets re-engined.

Well if you put a 350 in a VW, some changes apply.

Sooo.... You are saying you want too further weaken our already gutted military....

Actually, drones are more likely to subsume more of the mission requirements the Buff now fills, than either expendables or hi-dollar piloted assets.

It's cheaper to keep these going than to try to make new ones. Especially since no one else is building new ones either.

n9341c, nothing particularly magic. It was pretty much the right plane at the right time. Right size, right amount of cleverness (bicycle gear + barn-door flaps & low frontal area fuselage) and assorted tech excellence, right aerodynamic fit for the missions it faced combined with pylon mounded engines allowing "easy" retrofits, plus the luck of existing at a time when avionics could outpace new demands, all backed by a firm that (solely based on it's history) was destined to become the aero darling of the military-industrial complex.