Why does the B2 have a shorter range than the B52 despite the fact that It's a flying wing? I thought that one of the main advantages of the flying wing design was that there was no "dead weight", thus the plane would have higher lift + more room for fuel = having longer range because of this
Presumably it's high priority on stealth characteristics take something away from the aerodynamics and engine efficiency. It is probably not possible to fully optimize all three aspects simultaneously.
sorry for hijacking the thread, but I have a related question
the B-21 is supposed to be smaller than the B-2, right?
the NGAD is supposed to be considerably larger than previous fighters, and go along with loyal wingman drones that can carry ordnance
so what exactly is the point of both a smaller bomber and a larger fighter? seems a bit redundant
Tactical versus strategic bombing.
but what's the point of a small strategic bomber? will it even have the same range as the B-2?
iirc its only slightly smaller and 4 times cheaper
they plan to start with a fleet of 100 b21s which completely dwarfs the b2 fleet
Bomber can be purely subsonic and much stealthier then the fighter, more bomb payload, etc. There is a lot that goes into aircraft design anon not just "size".
IIRC it's going to have half the payload of the B-2
the real advantage is cost and maintenance - and so far Northrup-Grumman appears to be fricking UNDER BUDGET AND AHEAD OF SCHEDULE. so they've presumably worked out the kinks of the Area 51 alien tech
>IIRC it's going to have half the payload of the B-2
Yeah? Other anon was comparing it to fighters not the B-2.
B-52 carries more than double the fuel of a B-2 (~152,000kg vs 75000kg) for ~20% more range.
now if they spent the money of re-engine-ing and re-winging the B-52, they'd extend the life of the airframe and increase rangen444xx
Imagine being in the Korean war and see that literal UFO fly by
you wouldnt see it
Its right fricking there just look up.
they fly too high for you to see them mate, they're 50,000 feet up. they also tend to use them at night
similar tech (well, similar design at least) already existed at the time
the guy who made this got to see the design of the B-2 just before he died I believe
Jack Northrup died in 1981, I wonder if the prototype was built by then?
>By the late 1970s a variety of illnesses left him unable to walk or speak. Shortly before his death, he was given clearance to see designs and hold a scale model of the Northrop Grumman B-2 Spirit stealth bomber, which shared design features of his YB-35 and YB-49.[13][14] The B-2, for example, has the same 172-foot wingspan as the jet-powered flying wing, YB-49.[14] Northrop reportedly wrote on a sheet of paper "Now I know why God has kept me alive for 25 years".[14] B-2 project designer John Cashen said, "As he held this model in his shaking hands, it was as if you could see his entire history with the flying wing passing through his mind."[15] He died 10 months later.
I'm not crying, you're crying
It's a nice story, but the part about him being in a wheelchair and unable to talk is not true, see 28 minutes in:
Thanks for the research anon. A lot of these stories seem overdramatized but I’m too lazy to search myself.
Sadly his plane kept crashing because they didn't have Fly-by-wire tech at the time: https://youtu.be/dByvPIyIbZE
The B-52 carries about twice as much fuel, so proportionately the B-2's range is better.
>B-2: Length 69', Height 17', Wingspan 172'
>Fuel: 167000 lbs, range 6900 mi
>B-52: Length 159', Height 40', Wingspan 185'
>Fuel: 312000 lbs, range 8800 mi
ITT op learns that there are 3 dimensions not just one, that raw fuel quantity does matter even if used less efficiently, and also continues his endless sucking of wieners.
It's range is kinda irrelevant because it can mid-air refuel.