Here's that cool video on the B52 that broke the vertical stabilizer while testing flight loads. Nine seconds of turbulence. https://youtu.be/WJuEAQbxWRo
I have no way of knowing because I never got to see an F-105 fly (much to my regret) but I doubt that there was anything to match 4 or 8 J-57's running at 100% with water injection. I heard both when they were flying out of Boeing Field and also at Larsen. The high velocity of the gases produced destructive shock waves that actually damaged the Section 46 skins on the KC-135 and eventually required fatigue stopper belly band straps on the outer fuselage. When they ran all eight at 100% thrust tests on the XB-52 two of the trailing edge flaps fell off because the flap supports failed from supersonic frequencies. When that big bird took off with everything at full bore you could feel it in your chest and the noise and crackling (flow slowing down from supersonic to subsonic) was painful without lead ear muffs. I did the assembly drawings in reverse (from the bottom looking up instead of the standard plan looking down) of some of the trailing edge skins that were hot -bonded to the doublers. The assembly people had trouble getting everything right when the drawings at first were looking the "wrong way". The panels were riveted in spots to hold the position of the doublers. Some of them eventually crystalized during engine tests and fell out but the bonded parts stayed just fine. I guess that I'm digressing to boring stuff but I have many memories of the trials and tribulations of the XB and YB-52's. I'll never forget the blustery winter day when a test pilot PLANTED a B-52 on the front gear and broke some hydraulic lines . It was all over the field until he got it stopped with a very big fire in the forward wheel well and I believe that one of the forward oleos had failed that produced a decided lean in the stance. Enough of my rambling.
Not enough 'cause I thought of one more. At the south end on the east side of the runway they had set up a firing butt to test the tail weapons system on the XB-52. It was a mix of a 20mm cannon and four cal.50 machine guns, if I remember correctly. If you can go back to circa 1953-54 you might be able to comprehend the attitude of the company and the population that saw no problem having a firing butt just off the shoulder and next to Airport Rd. where many vehicles drove by. Well, Boeing was doing big stuff and there was a cold war in progress so never mind that something could go wrong when they were firing and vehicles were driving by behind the butt. The XB was backed up to the test area and a test was conducted that fired all weapons at the same time. The B-52's tail gunner was in an isolated pressurized capsule back in the tai and if the airplane was going down, the gunner could trigger 4 explosive bolts and the capsule would break free of the airplane so the gunner could bail out. During the firing test the engineers found out that the gunner didn't have to fire the explosive bolts because the vibrations of all those guns did it for them and the capsule ended up on the tarmac. Okay, I'll quit.
Bob- Maybe that explains why the production versions had either 4 x 50 cals or one 20 mm. In the early models, where the gunner sat in back (later versions were radar guided with the gunner behind the EWO), pilots would yaw back and forth with the rudder if they could not get a response from the gunner. Then someone would have to make the trip back there if they still did not have contact. Lost at least one gunner back there from hypoxia.
I always look forward to you comments and memories, they may be the best thing on this site, maybe the whole web!
Bob, I used to be very involved in competitive shooting and the National Championships are held at Camp Perry Ohio. It is now a reserve or NG base but used to be a weapons repair center. Well about half the firing range uses Lake Erie as the impact zone. No problem most of the year but as I understand that area ices over in winter. One winter they were testing a 20 or 30mm cannon and it was being shot north with a flat enough trajectory the rounds were skipping on the ice clear over to the Canadian shore where a number of people were ice fishing. Also heard a great story about test firing an 18 incher at Norfolk during the investigation of the turret explosion of the Wisconsin? I knew a guy that worked there and he went out to watch. Had not fired an 18 incher from their test stand in so long no one really expected that big a fireball and it caused a bit of a forrest fire. After that they were firing up the Chesapeake Bay and had patrol boats out to keep the impact area safe. He said the shells hit flat enough they skipped like a rock a couple of times before sinking. As I recall the B25 with all the guns in the nose had some issues from the concentrated vibration/recoil. I think very early in the project it was found to need some structural redesign.
I read somewhere that a B-25 pilot felt like the plane came to a full stop in mid-air when they fired the big nose guns.
I wonder what it was like to be quietly sitting in the fishing hut and have a 20mm come popping through the wall. Really a crazy story! I have seen footage of P-38 strafing during the war and I was amazed at the long range that they had...and the damage they could do. I was fortunate to be on a river boat one night returning to Langley Field via Fort Monroe and as we approached the Dahlgren Proving Ground where the river had to turn east, we were treated to an 18 inch rifle being tested. Before the boat made its turn they fired the gun and the ball of fire that came out of it was shocking. Then we could see the red hot 2200 pound shell going down range away from us. An hour and a half later where the river turned west at the south end of the range we could see the shells coming in and exploding. The thing that amazed me was the extended period of the burning gases after the explosion. I would not be happy on the receiving end of anything like that. It was fortunate that I was standing at the rail with a Naval Ordinance officer who explained not only what was happening but knew what was being tested. Interesting evening, just like yours.
There's a visual I won't get out of my head for a while! "Those damn crazy Yanks!" (Spoken with a true Canuck accent of course.) Epic! A 'bit of a fire'?... Is that like being a "bit pregnant?" +1 It'd get your attention, for sure!.... +1 Great stuff guys, thanks! Cheers, Ian
Did any of you notice the 3 or 4 degree downward angle of the B-52 fuselage while it was flying straight and " level". The wing was almost level but not quite. The inboard wing has an angle of incidence of something like 7 degrees and then twists down to minus 2 at the tip.
Drogue chutes were needed on the B-47 and B-52 because the high degree of incidence in the wings kept lifting on rollout and prohibited full weight on the landing gear to produce effective brake friction. That's why you don't see tandem landing gear configurations on Boeing airplanes anymore...or tandem cockpits.
Interesting. Likely contributes to it flying just fine without a tail…flying wings use that same feature to reduce/eliminate adverse yaw.
