User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 11/25/2022 2:16:13 PM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I agree. All the bumps and protrusions the B-52 picked up over the years as new systems were added actually made it look more sinister. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Those nose bumps kinda made them look mean I thought. The slick nose isn’t as cool. I agree. All the bumps and protrusions the B-52 picked up over the years as new systems were added actually made it look more sinister. That actually a great way to put it. I fully admit is a cosmetic like 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/25/2022 2:18:16 PM EDT
[#2]
Needs new AGM-129 ACMs.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/25/2022 2:24:13 PM EDT
[#3]
I live on the flight path for Fairchild. When it was a SAC base several few right over my house every day.
Now that Fairchild has become a refueling base it's just not the same. Every once in a while one lands there for an airshow or some other special reason. I always go out and watch them, awesome aircraft. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/25/2022 2:39:37 PM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted: As I always say in these threads. We should put some effort into building a straight B-52 replacement made with a maximum of off the shelf airliner parts. No stealth, no supersonic capability. Just something built to drop tons of bombs on people that can be maintained by the existing infrastructure for airliners. I am NOT talking about the 747 cruise missile carrier! That would be a moot point anyway as the 747 production line is shutting down. That said, I'm told by credible authorities that Boeing doesn't have people on staff who could design that fuselage. In any case, Boeing as it is right now couldn't be trusted with such a job. So perhaps it could be farmed out to some combination of Northrop-Grumman and Airbus? Something to compliment the B-21 and replace the B-1. We could use cheap, easily produced ships and subs as well. It could be done, it needs to be done, but it isn't being done. A huge bomb truck will always be useful. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/25/2022 2:39:47 PM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted: There were lifespan mods done over the years, but as a rule B-52s spent their early life sitting on alert and not racking up tons of hours. And every five years or so they go in for depot maintenance to get inspected and overhauled as needed. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: How long does the actual airframe last before needing replaced? There were lifespan mods done over the years, but as a rule B-52s spent their early life sitting on alert and not racking up tons of hours. And every five years or so they go in for depot maintenance to get inspected and overhauled as needed. I'm thinking of all those airframes that are sitting in the desert. All the B-52s, C-5s, C-130s. I know some are beyond salvage, however with modern advances, a lot of these could be resurrected. If nothing more than a modified role. Bypass the normal DoD mindset that airframes/missions have to grow and expand. For the C-130s, create a class/type that has no strategic role: just trainers and ass-n-trash haulers. The E/H models must still have millions upon millions of parts out there. There are hundreds of these out in AZ. These could be contractor maintained and operated. The older C-5s for nothing more than there are no other good alternatives that do what they do: carry over-sized cargo. The B-52 are in a similar situation. Not an unusual concept: Jane's |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/25/2022 2:42:26 PM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted: It all went to hell for the B-52 when they replaced the J57s. We weren't even allowed to do four engine water runs on the KC-135A, maintenance was restricted to two engines...ops had to send out a pilot and copilot to bang water on all four because of the likelihood of jumping chocks. I stood ground, once, for one, at the end of a 150 foot ground cord we kept just for that check. I can't even imagine being the dope-on-a-rope for an eight engine water run. Kind of curious if they ever even did them... Interesting post. I wish I understood. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/25/2022 2:51:13 PM EDT
[#7]
As a former A&P I would love to see a picture and weight figures for all the junk that is going to be pulled out from these airframe.
The revamping of the weight and balance charts should be interesting, I bet there's dead wiring riding around in that airframe from the original build date. That glass cockpit upgrade will seem so strange after decades of rows of dials. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/25/2022 2:55:34 PM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Interesting post. I wish I understood. Jumping chocks was a possibility with a full engine/full power 'run' (ground engine test). Usually a few ground personnel around the outside for the test doing various things: safety, adjustments, etc. One person in 'comms' with whomever is inside using a long communication cord, or 'comm cord' and standing in front of the aircraft. If the aircraft jumped the chocks, it could do so quite rapidly and go a ways before the cockpit person reacted. Dangerous to the ground crew. Airbus 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/25/2022 2:58:51 PM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Interesting post. I wish I understood. The early engines used on the B-52 and KC-135 were a bit underpowered. A fully loaded bomber or tanker needed a lot of runway to get airborne. In certain weather conditions they would struggle to get airborne before running out of runway, even from lengthy runways. So to alleviate this problem, they came up with water injection. The aircraft actually carried tanks of water onboard and this was injected into the engines during takeoff runs. It gave them considerably more thrust and helped get these heavily loaded beasts into the air faster and more safely. It had much the same effect nitrous oxide does on a race car. This practice is no longer necessary, as the B-52s that used the older J57 engine have all been retired. The B-52H used a newer turbofan that didn't need water injection. And the KC-135s remaining in service have also been re-engined with newer turbofans. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/25/2022 3:10:40 PM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted: As a former A&P I would love to see a picture and weight figures for all the junk that is going to be pulled out from these airframe. The revamping of the weight and balance charts should be interesting, I bet there's dead wiring riding around in that airframe from the original build date. That glass cockpit upgrade will seem so strange after decades of rows of dials. When they brought back ghost rider, or may have been wise guy, there was a member here working on part of the project and posted. The poundage of pulled wiring was 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/25/2022 3:11:46 PM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted: No V-tail No printed nose. (But they should be able to track tic-tacs and gimbals now) And no fiber steel reskin Dale Brown fan eh? |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/25/2022 3:13:56 PM EDT
[#12]
Aircraft lover and fan novice here only, but anyhoo, it's always tickled me that they have eight engines.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/25/2022 3:15:02 PM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Jumping chocks was a possibility with a full engine/full power 'run' (ground engine test). Usually a few ground personnel around the outside for the test doing various things: safety, adjustments, etc. One person in 'comms' with whomever is inside using a long communication cord, or 'comm cord' and standing in front of the aircraft. If the aircraft jumped the chocks, it could do so quite rapidly and go a ways before the cockpit person reacted. Dangerous to the ground crew. Airbus https://hosting.photobucket.com/images/q94/junker46/Screenshot_2022-11-25_12.59.04_PM.png Oof! That looks expensive. I would consider myself lucky if I walked away looking like this.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/25/2022 3:53:36 PM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I’m curious if there is a 3 generation Air Force family who have all flown the same air frame. That would be very cool. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/25/2022 4:09:48 PM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Dale Brown fan eh? He's still smiling over this anyway. He was right, again. (Flight of the Old Dog for those who haven't read it.) |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/25/2022 4:09:54 PM EDT
[#16]
Not an aeronautical engineer here.
But are 8 smallish engines, better than 4 larger engines? Or would large engines scrape the tarmac? |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/25/2022 4:37:36 PM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Not an aeronautical engineer here. But are 8 smallish engines, better than 4 larger engines? Or would large engines scrape the tarmac? Back in the 1940s when the B-52 concept was being hammered out, there were no large jet engines in existence. It first was planned to be a six engine propeller powered bomber with straight wings. Fast forward to today, Boeing or whoever would be doing the modification would have to redesign the wing and internals structure and wind tunnel test the wing , then with the engine nacelles, then further test it with the fuselage, redo all the fuel tanks, hydraulics, pumps, piping, cabling and electronics, then if it all works out, build up all the assembly jigs, to make a prototype, then if it actually gets constructed, do airworthiness flight testing to see of it can fly with four large engines instead of eight. How much do you think all that would cost for a plane that's older than Jesus? After all that time and effort, might as well make a brand new plane, and it definitely won't look like the B-52.  Back in the 60s his was the closest it came to having a large engine:  |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/25/2022 4:54:09 PM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted: When they brought back ghost rider, or may have been wise guy, there was a member here working on part of the project and posted. The poundage of pulled wiring was Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: As a former A&P I would love to see a picture and weight figures for all the junk that is going to be pulled out from these airframe. The revamping of the weight and balance charts should be interesting, I bet there's dead wiring riding around in that airframe from the original build date. That glass cockpit upgrade will seem so strange after decades of rows of dials. When they brought back ghost rider, or may have been wise guy, there was a member here working on part of the project and posted. The poundage of pulled wiring was I'm helping a friend update a former German military BO105 avionics wise. The difference between Dynon flat panels along with their radios should pull out over 100lbs just on a small helicopter. I had forgotten how heavy 70-80's mil spec equipment was. BTW...for all the nanny state asshats that say "You can't do that !!! Dynon isn't certified" the BO105 will be registered in the experimental category. Best guess is that after we pull out all the non-essential military stuff, we might be down 500lbs. I'd bet with modern electronics you could replace all that with something under 100lbs...as a guess.... |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/25/2022 5:05:11 PM EDT
[#19]
I have nothing to add except that after I drank a few gallons of coffee and went pee for the 20th time my dad turned to me and said, “Geez kid, I flew in a B-52 for 29 hours straight and only went pee, like, twice.”
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/25/2022 5:10:01 PM EDT
[#20]
If you don't need all those bumps on the nose, go retro back to the badass clean nose and cockpit of the XB-52.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/25/2022 5:15:51 PM EDT
[#21]
The tandem cockpit setup looked really nice and clean.
I seem to recall hearing that a major reason why they went with side by side seating on the 52 was because Curtis Lemay hated the tandem seating on the B-47. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/25/2022 5:31:47 PM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted: 747 would have never worked out as a missile carrier. The wing attach point on the B-52 is at the top of the fuselage, that's what allows it to have such a cavernous bomb bay. The 747, and the rest of the Boeing commercial aircraft wing attach points are at the bottom of the fuselage, and you'll never have the ability to fully utilize the volume inside the aircraft for munitions. Yea is this at all doable or worthwhile? I never really thought about the difference between a B52 and an airliner until I climbed under the one at Wright Patterson. Its basically built like a Sky Crane which duh makes sense. But we don't build anything high wing like that commercially. It would probably need some sort of complex rotary magazine and would limit bomb size a lot. But I am sure there is a way. I guess if I see a new high wing airliner I should start digging a bunker. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/25/2022 6:13:34 PM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted: We could use cheap, easily produced ships and subs as well. It could be done, it needs to be done, but it isn't being done. A huge bomb truck will always be useful. VLS barges/Arsenal ships using ACS equipped ships/P-8/E-2/E-3/E-8/F-35 for their fire control... |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/25/2022 6:17:55 PM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Yea is this at all doable or worthwhile? I never really thought about the difference between a B52 and an airliner until I climbed under the one at Wright Patterson. Its basically built like a Sky Crane which duh makes sense. But we don't build anything high wing like that commercially. It would probably need some sort of complex rotary magazine and would limit bomb size a lot. But I am sure there is a way. I guess if I see a new high wing airliner I should start digging a bunker. I believe that many airliner parts could be adapted to use in this theoretical bomber, engines at the very least. But it would be a very different airframe made to do a very different job. The high mounted wing would be something rather different than any of the 700 series airliners. I'm not sure how well airfoil designs would translate between aircraft. I still think it would be a worthwhile investment and a very versatile aircraft. Perhaps the Japanese, British and Australian governments could be cajoled into tossing in some cash? Said aircraft would have a sensor suite similar to what's in the F-35. Only much, MUCH bigger and more powerful with much more airframe to support much more computing power than what you could ever shove into an F-35. With the ability to loiter over a battlefield. Kinda like a JSTARS with the capability to self escort and neutralize ground targets with a Small Diameter Bomb or something similar. Crew comfort would also be a priority. A B-52 cockpit does not look like a pleasant place to be for 29 hours straight. I would hope that the cost per flight hour would come in below the F-15E and EX models. Those are nice aircraft. It's a shame to see them used to blow up Iron Age goat herders who don't have better air defenses than heavy machine guns or maybe a few soviet era missiles. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/25/2022 6:36:17 PM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Jumping chocks was a possibility with a full engine/full power 'run' (ground engine test). Usually a few ground personnel around the outside for the test doing various things: safety, adjustments, etc. One person in 'comms' with whomever is inside using a long communication cord, or 'comm cord' and standing in front of the aircraft. If the aircraft jumped the chocks, it could do so quite rapidly and go a ways before the cockpit person reacted. Dangerous to the ground crew. Airbus https://hosting.photobucket.com/images/q94/junker46/Screenshot_2022-11-25_12.59.04_PM.png  Arabs are good at that. Though I did see a challenger do it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/25/2022 6:38:18 PM EDT
[#26]
how many miles of unused cabling and tubing is still in the airframe? Is it still wired for the hound dog missiles?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/25/2022 6:41:13 PM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I have nothing to add except that after I drank a few gallons of coffee and went pee for the 20th time my dad turned to me and said, “Geez kid, I flew in a B-52 for 29 hours straight and only went pee, like, twice.” Quite unlikely you drank gallons of coffee. Get your prostate checked. Seriously. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/25/2022 6:43:51 PM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted: We are already working on the B-21. B-21 rolls out next week |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/25/2022 6:44:03 PM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted: https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/131934/33D1DF47-EF9E-4490-BB5D-96213E2B7361-2613609.jpg Arabs are good at that. Though I did see a challenger do it. Actually I watched a Sovereign nearly taxi into a tug the other day. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/25/2022 6:44:16 PM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted: As I always say in these threads. We should put some effort into building a straight B-52 replacement made with a maximum of off the shelf airliner parts. No stealth, no supersonic capability. Just something built to drop tons of bombs on people that can be maintained by the existing infrastructure for airliners. I am NOT talking about the 747 cruise missile carrier! That would be a moot point anyway as the 747 production line is shutting down. That said, I'm told by credible authorities that Boeing doesn't have people on staff who could design that fuselage. In any case, Boeing as it is right now couldn't be trusted with such a job. So perhaps it could be farmed out to some combination of Northrop-Grumman and Airbus? Something to compliment the B-21 and replace the B-1. Use the 767 airframe for cruise missiles |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/25/2022 6:44:22 PM EDT
[#31]
I’m fascinated with the history of this aircraft.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/25/2022 6:45:55 PM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted: 747 would have never worked out as a missile carrier. The wing attach point on the B-52 is at the top of the fuselage, that's what allows it to have such a cavernous bomb bay. The 747, and the rest of the Boeing commercial aircraft wing attach points are at the bottom of the fuselage, and you'll never have the ability to fully utilize the volume inside the aircraft for munitions. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: As I always say in these threads. We should put some effort into building a straight B-52 replacement made with a maximum of off the shelf airliner parts. No stealth, no supersonic capability. Just something built to drop tons of bombs on people that can be maintained by the existing infrastructure for airliners. I am NOT talking about the 747 cruise missile carrier! That would be a moot point anyway as the 747 production line is shutting down. That said, I'm told by credible authorities that Boeing doesn't have people on staff who could design that fuselage. In any case, Boeing as it is right now couldn't be trusted with such a job. So perhaps it could be farmed out to some combination of Northrop-Grumman and Airbus? Something to compliment the B-21 and replace the B-1. 747 would have never worked out as a missile carrier. The wing attach point on the B-52 is at the top of the fuselage, that's what allows it to have such a cavernous bomb bay. The 747, and the rest of the Boeing commercial aircraft wing attach points are at the bottom of the fuselage, and you'll never have the ability to fully utilize the volume inside the aircraft for munitions. You have a rotary launcher that throws them out behind the wings from hatches |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/25/2022 6:50:38 PM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted: You have a rotary launcher that throws them out behind the wings from hatches And the large pylons that sit next to the fuselage abd carry multiple cruise missiles. B-1 has hardpoints on the belly that will carry nearly as much ordnance as fits internally. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/25/2022 6:51:54 PM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Went to Davis Monthan in 1995 and there were rows and rows of those B52’s they where destroying by dropping a large slab of steel on them like a guillotine. I think that was RINO Dick Lugar’ s baby. Signed a deal to cull our nuclear forces and the Russians kept a lot of stuff. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/25/2022 6:52:49 PM EDT
[#35]
Would these bombers stand a chance trying to fly deep into enemy territory and drop conventional bombs?
This would be if the enemy had a good ground-to-air missile defense system and not some goat herders. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/25/2022 6:55:59 PM EDT
[#36]
Was working with the B-52 Program Office ~2000. At the time, they were in the middle of designing/testing a new mission computer to replace the original magnetic core memory model. They called that the "Mid-life Upgrade Program".
I wonder what they've been calling all the recent changes? |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/25/2022 6:59:12 PM EDT
[#37]
After reading this thread last night I had a dream the AF put leds on the underside of B52s and made them display rainbow flags for LGBTQRPxyz pride.
 Is probably not that far from reality some day. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/25/2022 7:08:11 PM EDT
[#38]
That plane just flat out looks like American freedom. I’m buzzed lol.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/25/2022 7:15:50 PM EDT
[#39]
Ye olde B-52 tribute video. Love the footage in here of someone trying to get a missile lock on one.
 B-52 Tribute - 50 years of Air Power |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/25/2022 7:27:30 PM EDT
[#40]
319 Bomb Wing 1972-1976 Grand Forks AFB
We never slept.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/25/2022 7:27:41 PM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I think that was RINO Dick Lugar’ s baby. Signed a deal to cull our nuclear forces and the Russians kept a lot of stuff. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Went to Davis Monthan in 1995 and there were rows and rows of those B52’s they where destroying by dropping a large slab of steel on them like a guillotine. I think that was RINO Dick Lugar’ s baby. Signed a deal to cull our nuclear forces and the Russians kept a lot of stuff. What an asshole |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/25/2022 7:35:34 PM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Would these bombers stand a chance trying to fly deep into enemy territory and drop conventional bombs? This would be if the enemy had a good ground-to-air missile defense system and not some goat herders. That would probably depend on a number of factors. I would think that if B-52s are flying into Russian airspace instead of launching stand-off weapons like ALCMs from beyond her borders, then Russian sensors and AD systems are probably seriously degraded from an initial exchange. I could be wrong though. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/25/2022 7:54:08 PM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted: how many miles of unused cabling and tubing is still in the airframe? Is it still wired for the hound dog missiles? Literally tons |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/25/2022 8:27:59 PM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Would these bombers stand a chance trying to fly deep into enemy territory and drop conventional bombs? This would be if the enemy had a good ground-to-air missile defense system and not some goat herders. On Day 1? I'd say no. B2/B21 are the Day 1 deep penetration intercontinental bombers. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/25/2022 8:35:13 PM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I’m pretty sure I read an article years ago that had at least grandfather/grandson flying the same airframe. It wouldn’t surprise me that there has been 3 generations all flying the same bird. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: I’m curious if there is a 3 generation Air Force family who have all flown the same air frame. I’m pretty sure I read an article years ago that had at least grandfather/grandson flying the same airframe. It wouldn’t surprise me that there has been 3 generations all flying the same bird. Yes. https://www.minot.af.mil/News/Article-Display/Article/264580/three-generations-of-b-52-airmen/ |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/25/2022 8:52:56 PM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted: On Day 1? I'd say no. B2/B21 are the Day 1 deep penetration intercontinental bombers. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Would these bombers stand a chance trying to fly deep into enemy territory and drop conventional bombs? This would be if the enemy had a good ground-to-air missile defense system and not some goat herders. On Day 1? I'd say no. B2/B21 are the Day 1 deep penetration intercontinental bombers. My understanding is that you send in the stealth and high speed assets. Especially the F-22 to kick in the door. Kill their fighters. Find and annihilate their surface to air missile sites, radars and other infrastructure. Then you send in the rest to... Finish the job. And hopefully the job gets finished instead of turning into a decades long boondoggle. B-52 or my paper airplane. That's not the kind of asset you use against mainland China or even Russia on day one unless it is using standoff weapons. Perhaps mine laying or launching long range drones. The B-52 had the Quail countermeasure back during the Cold War. I think we can do a bit better than that nowadays.  Tip of the Spear: The B-2 Spirit — Official Trailer |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/25/2022 9:07:58 PM EDT
[#47]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/25/2022 9:16:29 PM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I’m fascinated with the history of this aircraft. So am I. Is there a definitive book on the development and history of this aircraft? |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/25/2022 9:17:42 PM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryI'm reminded of a scene from Tremors 2. Fred Ward screaming, "he's going under it!" |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/25/2022 9:25:59 PM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted: It all went to hell for the B-52 when they replaced the J57s. We weren't even allowed to do four engine water runs on the KC-135A, maintenance was restricted to two engines...ops had to send out a pilot and copilot to bang water on all four because of the likelihood of jumping chocks. I stood ground, once, for one, at the end of a 150 foot ground cord we kept just for that check. I can't even imagine being the dope-on-a-rope for an eight engine water run. Kind of curious if they ever even did them... 
|
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
