B-52 Age Legacy

I went to work for Boeing in 1950 and worked on the XB-52 , YB-52, and the B-52A. I worked for Being a total of 48 years and hung it up in 2001. That darn B-52 is still working. I am too but I don't think as effectively as that airplane. Really amazing and thanks for bringing it up.

 

I'm sure that never in your wildest dreams did you think it would still be flying 60 years later. If you count backwards 60 years from the B-52's first flight in 1952, the Wright Brothers' first flight was still 11 years in the future. Amazing!

 

I suspect the B-17 would be a lot more cost effective for a lot of missions in Afghanistan.

 

I know that several times there have been proposals to replace the engines with four modern high-bypass turbofans, but so far nothing has been done.

 

I have thought of that too but I think that the Air Force is happy with the performance and stockpile of spare engines to outweigh the cost of replacement. It would incur a lot of systems and structural mods that would be too expensive I'll bet.

 

I worked on trying to sell the RB211 re-engine-ing program.. There were obvious advantages in range and takeoff distance, fuel savings, maintenance costs and down time, but in the end it just wasn't a high enough priority. Modern airline engines are amazingly reliable and require minimal maintenance. With new engines, we were saying that at the present utilization rate the engines would never come off of the wing. There was also a big improvement in mission readiness, and reduction in mission scrubs.

There is also a difference in the color of money that the AF has.. They have a bucket of money that is marked for procurement, and money that is marked for operations and maintenance. You can't change the color of the money... Even though you would save a lot in operational costs, they can't book the savings and use the money for procurement. Congress would have to do that and if they don't it doesn't happen.

We had boxes of powerpoint transparencies (remember those) detailing all the advantages and Boeing was on board, but it just didn't happen. Remember there were parties with vested interest in keeping the TF33 maintenance where it was, and politics also enter into those things.

 

I once chatted to a senior guy at UTC - he loved the B52 and the constant cashflow it generated for their subsidiary P&W

 

I wonder how close that B-17 is to it's top speed, and how close that B-52 is to it's stall speed???

 

I find it funny that Curtis Lemay said, in the '60's, something to the effect of "The B-52's will fall apart before we get a new bomber" and the Air Force isn't going to decommission the airplane until almost 2050. Amazing airplane!

 

On the outside it looks pretty much like it did in 1953 but the insides are far different now. A lot of material changes and new systems.

 

Probably not that close, the top speed of the B17 is almost 290 mph (cruise c. 180).

Couldn't find the stall speed of the B52 but it's way less than 290 mph.

 

Absolutely correct. No way of calculating the stall speed of the B-52 when you don't know what the weight is. Most of these formation flights between an old and a new airplane HAVE TO BE FILMED WHEN THE JET IS PASSING due to the disparity in speed.
I never flew in a B-17 that was going any faster than 165 and know that that speed might be pinching a B-52 at normal weight.

 

I'm sure that B52 is no where near it's stall speed. He has no flaps and relatively little AoA at a low throttle setting, hes just cruising along.

 

My B-52 story, When I was in my early teens, our Explorer Scout troop took a field trip to the Grand Forks AFB (in January!!) for a tour. We got to talk to two fighter pilots, take a tour of a KC-135 tanker (we were promised a ride, but there was a blizzard at the time so the planes were grounded!) and we were given access to the hanger where a B-52 was parked. What an enormous plane to see as a 13 yr old kid. I remember the wing tips were close enough to touch (we were told NOT to hang on the wing tips!). We got to see several missiles also stored in the building (this was circa 1963) so I'm not sure what the missiles were, maybe a Bomarc? Although it was freezing cold we had a blast. I remember how cramped the tanker was. We didn't get to go inside the B-52, however, they probably didn't want a bunch of teenage boys inside touching everything in sight!

 

I worked on B-52Hs and KC-135As right out of high school, I'll tell you there is something immensely cool about sitting in the cockpit and eating your lunch when the aircraft power is on. It's a little like the line from Pearl Harbor, Theres so many buttons and switches and things and they all light up.
The reason they didn't let a troop of 13 year olds in the B-52 is twofold. First is safety. It is VERY cramped in there, there is no room to move, it isn't like DR. Strangelove, where you can go a couple rounds. In fact by comparison the flight deck on a KC 135 is positively huge. There are also ejection seats just waiting for some funny kid to pull a handle and pop himself into either the floor or ceiling. KC 135 doesn't have ejection seats. The other reason is that there are, and were even then classified bits and gadgets in there. In 63, all of the electronic counter measures would have been classified as well as at least one of the flight controls. I don't know if that flight control is still classified or not, so I will assume it is and leave it at that, in 90 it was, but it was the worst kept secret around even so, in '12 I'm not gonna be the guy to post it on the internet.

I also worked on Minuteman III ICBMs. there is honestly no feeling like standing over an open missile silo lowering a 100 LBS bag of tools down to the guys downstairs, look up and see a dozen M-16s pointing at you and being told to "get away from the hole NOW." Arms feeling like rubber as you are hefting 100LBS back up, legs feeling like rubber cause this guy seems serious, guys downstairs yelling at you, guy with the guns yelling at you. . .ah to be 19 again, I'd show them who the boss is.

 

I've been in a B-52...

Armed Forces Day about 10 years ago at the old Lowry AFB (Denver) "Wings Over the Rockies" museum, they used to allow people into the 52 they have on outdoor display there.

We were required to wear construction hard hats and sign a waiver. That had saved me from probably 20 cuts/bumps on my noggin. It's VERY, VERY tight quarters in there. Got to sit in all seats... just amazing.




They cannot do that any longer. First came the 'taggers' ... grafitti all over the bottom of the plane.

Then came the damage. People trying to pull off panels, hydraulic lines in wheelwells, etc.

Now it's up on pedestals, surrounded by a security fence. Not even touchable.

 

Losers have to ruin it for everyone.

 

how much of the hyd lines,wiring,and any other things or original?,,probabuly not very many,,if anybody gets by ''rantoul il.'',theres a museam at chaute ar force base,they have a b-52 cockpit you can go in,and a missle silo trainer too,stop if you can and leave them a few dollars as it really needs help

 

All of them, I'm sure... 'ARE' original. Not sure what you're asking...



Engines have been removed and the guns.

No bombs, either. Ha...

 

My first sight of the B-52 was in Feb. of 1951 when I had to do some work from the mockup. I couldn't believe the immensity of the machine and then to see the horribly cramped interior was another jolt. When I entered the 46 Sect. ( aft fuselage) I was dumbfounded by a huge loop in a 9 inch duct that served as a fuel vent for the fuselage fuel tanks. It came from the center of the fuselage between the wings and followed the upper centerline of the fuselage and then made a 360 deg. loop before it continued to the tail outlet. All because of the flexing of the fuselage in flight. Without the loop the vent line would have broken. Then the alternator deck, below the huge fuel tanks in the center fuselage contained a battery of alternators that were driven by bleed air from the engines. This led to several explosions in flight when the alternator turbines threw hot blades up into the tanks that contained almost 3400 gallons of fuel. The airplane had other teething problems that would take up a lot of space to recount here.

 

Bob, is the flexing the reason for the 'wrinkled' skin on the B-52?

I know the one at the old Lowry AFB has wrinkled skin (static display), and I've seen close-ups of them in flight and it's still wrinkled.

I can't think of another plane like this offhand.

 

Yes, you are correct. The airplane was designed around the bomb bay and landing gear that ere designed to carry huge heavy nuclear weapons. It was like putting a nose and tail on a freight car. Fuselage bending loads are carried by four "I" beam longerons separated by extruded section frames. There are no stringers under the machine tapered skins that take the shear, therefore that job can be seen in the wrinkled skins. Somewhere I have a head-on photo of a B-52 banking to turn and the wings and forward half of the fuselage are banked almost three degrees more than the horizontal stabilizer. This effect can also be detected in the long skinny fuselage in the DC-8-60's .The B-52 was born with wrinkles.

 

sorry if i wasent clearer,i bet every wire,switch,fitting,and most of the structure of any b52 has been fixed/replaced/reworked,i don't think there are any orginal parts left on these,so they could with maintenance fly forever,as long as they could get/make parts