General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: 8thJinx on February 27, 2017, 08:25:36 PM
Title: B-52 landing
Post by: 8thJinx on February 27, 2017, 08:25:36 PM
Not sure if this has been posted or not, but here goes....
Title: Re: B-52 landing
Post by: PR3D4TOR on February 27, 2017, 10:53:55 PM
Awesome piece of airmanship. Back in the day when men were men.
Title: Re: B-52 landing
Post by: DubiousKB on February 28, 2017, 09:34:14 AM
wow. Talk about scary.... Brass B's.... Seriously large Brass B's....
Title: Re: B-52 landing
Post by: DaveBB on February 28, 2017, 04:02:21 PM
This pilot and co-pilot have upward firing ejection seats. What about the two crewman with downward firing ejection seats? At least two crewmembers were killed during the Gulf War when a B-52 lost hydraulics on final approach.
Title: Re: B-52 landing
Post by: Rich46yo on February 28, 2017, 07:27:24 PM
Im surprised they continued with the mission with a 62 knot west. Of course then things were very much for real as was training. We'd get Blytheville Buffs buzzing Little Rock AFB all the time down low. It was north of the city and not much around so they'd practice low runs coming right over the flight line. My God it was Loud!
Little Rock had no strategic Bomber mission when I got there but at one time it had B47s on the hot pads and then B58 Hustlers. There was a burned out Hustler on a training pad for the firemen to practice on and even as a shell it was beautiful.
The pilots used to tell me the B52 was just a terrific aircraft to fly. Just one of those great designs that was meant to be, but like any very large heavy aircraft with a lot of surface it was sensitive to turbulence. Most of all in heavy air NOE. They would never fly one like that now and now there is just no reason to with its stand off weapons.
Title: Re: B-52 landing
Post by: Ripsnort on March 01, 2017, 07:34:35 AM
Boeing engineers have always gotten flak from upper management for "over engineering" aircraft, putting them over advertised weight and what not. And typically they get their way on design approvals. This started with the B-17 and carries over into commercial aircraft today. Thankfully.
Title: Re: B-52 landing
Post by: colmbo on March 01, 2017, 10:27:22 AM
This started with the B-17 and carries over into commercial aircraft today. Thankfully.
The wing structure on the B-17 is amazing. All trusses -- ribs and spars. Then skinned first with corrugated metal (span wise) with the smooth skin on top of that. I've seen bridges with less substantial structure. :devil
Title: Re: B-52 landing
Post by: Zimme83 on March 01, 2017, 10:33:37 AM
A man that feels that he needs to prove that he is a man is a very fragile man. A real man have no need to tell other men if they are men or not.
Do you feel you need to prove you're a man? (If you are one that is.)
Title: Re: B-52 landing
Post by: Zimme83 on March 01, 2017, 05:24:35 PM
I have no need to prove anything to anyone and i find this Manly Men concept to be one of the stupidest things ever invented. The only thing it leads to is that it gets people killed, one way or another. I grew up with it, a real man where supposed to handle everything and any emotions was a sign of weakness. The result? an insane suicide rate. Because when manly men aren't allowed to talk about their feelings they struggle on until they cannot take it anymore, and then they take their rifle and blow their head off... (and trust me, you don't want to take care of a manly man that have taken it that far...)
So to be honest: it is just pathetic and stupid to talk about those day when "men where men".
Title: Re: B-52 landing
Post by: PR3D4TOR on March 01, 2017, 05:48:40 PM
Oh Gawd... Please stop whining. This is not the place to vent your... Whatever that is. At least PM me with your politically correct metrosexual BS instead of hijacking 8thJinx' thread.
Title: Re: B-52 landing
Post by: Zimme83 on March 01, 2017, 05:50:56 PM
:aok whatever you say honey.
Title: Re: B-52 landing
Post by: DaveBB on March 01, 2017, 07:22:45 PM
Oh Gawd... Please stop whining. This is not the place to vent your... Whatever that is. At least PM me with your politically correct metrosexual BS instead of hijacking 8thJinx' thread.
Lol, pretty easy to say when you're not sitting in a downward firing ejection seat.
Title: Re: B-52 landing
Post by: PR3D4TOR on March 01, 2017, 07:28:28 PM
What has that got to do with anything? When their tail was blown off they were at 14,000 feet. They could all have ejected safely. They chose not to.
Title: Re: B-52 landing
Post by: Traveler on March 04, 2017, 02:46:43 PM
What has that got to do with anything? When their tail was blown off they were at 14,000 feet. They could all have ejected safely. They chose not to.
Yea, who cares where the aircraft comes down, they should have all bailed at 14,000 feet. what an idiot. I don't believe it had anything to do with them being manly men. I think it had to do with the fact that they had positive control of the aircraft and enough time and help to work out things to ensure a safe return to earth without killing anyone on the ground.
Title: Re: B-52 landing
Post by: Serenity on March 04, 2017, 07:07:23 PM
Yea, who cares where the aircraft comes down, they should have all bailed at 14,000 feet. what an idiot. I don't believe it had anything to do with them being manly men. I think it had to do with the fact that they had positive control of the aircraft and enough time and help to work out things to ensure a safe return to earth without killing anyone on the ground.
It's absolutely impressive what they did. That being said, had that happened today, they would like lose their wings for choosing to land rather than eject. I have heard of just such a thing happening with a flamed-out T-45.
Title: Re: B-52 landing
Post by: PR3D4TOR on March 04, 2017, 07:08:24 PM
Yea, who cares where the aircraft comes down, they should have all bailed at 14,000 feet. what an idiot. I don't believe it had anything to do with them being manly men. I think it had to do with the fact that they had positive control of the aircraft and enough time and help to work out things to ensure a safe return to earth without killing anyone on the ground.
They were in a rather remote area. They were highly experienced test pilots from Boeing at a time were risking one's life was part of the job. They considered it their job to bring that bird home, and they did. To quote one of the greatest test pilots of that era, and of all time:
"You don't concentrate on risks. You concentrate on results. No risk is too great to prevent the necessary job from getting done." -Chuck Yeager.
Btw. you should refrain from making personal attacks.
Title: Re: B-52 landing
Post by: PR3D4TOR on March 04, 2017, 07:09:17 PM
Agreed, and clearly they made a fine choice at the end of the day. I'm just saying, I can cite an actual instance of an experience Strike Aviator flaming out at altitude, gliding down for a PERFECT ditching in a field (And by perfect I mean so freaking perfect that they only had to replace an antenna on the belly of the jet to get it back and flying) and had his wings stripped away because he chose to ditch rather than eject.
Title: Re: B-52 landing
Post by: PR3D4TOR on March 04, 2017, 07:23:55 PM
A clear symptom of the risk-aversion mentality that has poisoned just about every corner of both the military and corporate world these days. To say nothing of the school system. Or I may just be an old fart longing for the old days...
Title: Re: B-52 landing
Post by: Serenity on March 04, 2017, 07:55:57 PM
A clear symptom of the risk-aversion mentality that has poisoned just about every corner of both the military and corporate world these days. To say nothing of the school system. Or I may just be an old fart longing for the old days...
No, I'm with you. I can understand a reprimand for not following the procedures, but I too can't fault a perfect ditch that brought not only both pilots down safely, but saved the jet too.
Title: Re: B-52 landing
Post by: pembquist on March 04, 2017, 08:03:46 PM
I don't think it is risk aversion but more likely failure to follow standing policy and a basic cost benefit analysis. Maybe you want pilots who would rather buck orders and ditch but maybe you don't. There is probably more going on. Also don't forget that moron who flew a perfectly good B52 into the ground practicing for an airshow after repeated complaints about his poor judgment and behavior. I'm just saying it isn't as simple as we would like.
Title: Re: B-52 landing
Post by: Serenity on March 04, 2017, 09:44:21 PM
I don't think it is risk aversion but more likely failure to follow standing policy and a basic cost benefit analysis. Maybe you want pilots who would rather buck orders and ditch but maybe you don't. There is probably more going on. Also don't forget that moron who flew a perfectly good B52 into the ground practicing for an airshow after repeated complaints about his poor judgment and behavior. I'm just saying it isn't as simple as we would like.
It ISN'T, but there's something to be said about making decisions "on the fly" so to speak, in the strike community, and the people making the final decisions don't necessarily understand the real risk and environment.
Title: Re: B-52 landing
Post by: PR3D4TOR on March 05, 2017, 01:41:32 AM
If Normandy was invaded today...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tSpUqxewBdg
Title: Re: B-52 landing
Post by: pembquist on March 05, 2017, 01:51:15 AM
Yes you definitely need to have people backed up when they make decisions. It is very important for people to be able to have initiative and not sit around waiting for orders while things fall apart because they are afraid of being punished. I'm curious, is it a rule to eject if the engine won't restart end of sentence or are there more parameters?
I'm a little confused by your sentence, I assume that you mean that the people making the final decisions are not the pilots. Right? If that's the case, sounds like another iteration of the same old problem of the people in charge having the skills to get and keep the job but not necessarily the skills to DO it.
Title: Re: B-52 landing
Post by: Zimme83 on March 05, 2017, 03:31:34 AM
Yea, who cares where the aircraft comes down, they should have all bailed at 14,000 feet. what an idiot. I don't believe it had anything to do with them being manly men. I think it had to do with the fact that they had positive control of the aircraft and enough time and help to work out things to ensure a safe return to earth without killing anyone on the ground.
Most likely, they found out that the plane was controllable enough to perform a safe landing, otherwise they would have ejected. 14.000ft gives you some time to figure things out before Terra Firma becomes too close. But im pretty sure that they had a lowest altitude, at which they would have ejected if the plane was not under control.
Planes and pilots are so expensive and hard to replace that you do everything you can to avoid accidents. It means that a good safety culture is needed where you can admit your mistakes so the lessons can be learned. When it takes several years and millions of $ to train a pilot you dont allow him to be an irresponsible daredevil. You make sure that he flies within the rules and limits, that his training allows him to recognize when he is about to end up in a bad situation and what to do. And finally you add safety systems to the aircraft that can assist the pilot when things go bad. Like in this case:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WkZGL7RQBVw
Title: Re: B-52 landing
Post by: Traveler on March 05, 2017, 09:16:24 AM
The reality is that the invasion fleet would be nuked just after forming it's convoy.
Title: Re: B-52 landing
Post by: PR3D4TOR on March 05, 2017, 01:47:58 PM
Some people here seem to think of this B-52 as just another plane that couldn't possibly be worth risking lives for. This particular B-52 was on a test flight with Boeing test pilots and suffered a catastrophic structural failure in flight. With the B-52s forming the backbone of America's nuclear deterrent at the height of the Cold War (this incident happened a year or two after the Cuban missile crisis and just as American involvement in the Vietnam War started ramping up) getting that bird home so it could be studied was of the utmost importance. Clearly worth risking, or even willingly sacrificing lives for. There was a lot more at stake in those days than the lives of an air crew and potential civilian lives on the ground. Nations were at stake. The world was at stake. And that Boeing crew knew and understood that.
Title: Re: B-52 landing
Post by: PR3D4TOR on March 05, 2017, 01:53:11 PM
No, I'm with you. I can understand a reprimand for not following the procedures, but I too can't fault a perfect ditch that brought not only both pilots down safely, but saved the jet too.
Exactly. Clearly an overreaction brought on by risk-aversion mentality and silly politics, and a terrible waste of talent. The pilot should have been given a slap on the wrist... and a promotion.
Title: Re: B-52 landing
Post by: Zimme83 on March 05, 2017, 02:23:35 PM
Some people here seem to think of this B-52 as just another plane that couldn't possibly be worth risking lives for. This particular B-52 was on a test flight with Boeing test pilots and suffered a catastrophic structural failure in flight. With the B-52s forming the backbone of America's nuclear deterrent at the height of the Cold War (this incident happened a year or two after the Cuban missile crisis and just as American involvement in the Vietnam War started ramping up) getting that bird home so it could be studied was of the utmost importance. Clearly worth risking, or even willingly sacrificing lives for. There was a lot more at stake in those days than the lives of an air crew and potential civilian lives on the ground. Nations were at stake. The world was at stake. And that Boeing crew knew and understood that.
And there is very little so support that claim, While the B-52 was indeed an important project they land it simply because they felt that they had enough control over the aircraft to perform a safe landing. He even said in the video that they prepared to abandon the aircraft but soon realized that the plane was controllable enough. It gave them time to take action in order to increase the level of control and finally to land. Thats how its work, first question is "do I/we have control over the aircraft?" If yes then you can stay on board a little longer and try to sort things out. Based on what he said in the video, they would have bailed if they had not felt that they could fly the plane safely.
Title: Re: B-52 landing
Post by: PR3D4TOR on March 05, 2017, 02:46:23 PM
"Important project" ? ... That's the kind of historical ignorance I'm talking about. This was a USAF operational B-52 on loan to Boeing. One of hundreds of B-52s in service at the time. Hundreds of aircraft that were absolutely vital to the survival of the United States and were flying daily with live nuclear bombs on board 15 minutes away from Soviet airspace... All with a potentially fatal structural flaw. There was nothing safe about how they flew and landed that plane. It was a huge risk, but it was worth it, and it paid off. They would of course have abandoned the aircraft if it was uncontrollable. No good reason to sacrifice lives for nothing.
Title: Re: B-52 landing
Post by: Zimme83 on March 05, 2017, 02:49:53 PM
And also: the issues with structural fatigue seems to have been more of a concern for the expected life span of the B-52, not for the daily operation. in 1964 the B-52 had been fully operational for several years and the structural fatigue issues was not keeping the planes on the ground so its a bit overdramatic to claim that it was so important to save the plane that it was worth risking the lives of the crew and civilians. It was of course valuable to the engineers that they got the chance to study the plane but and a great achievement by the crew but there is no need to be a drama queen.
Title: Re: B-52 landing
Post by: PR3D4TOR on March 05, 2017, 02:53:39 PM
That structural failure and that test flight had nothing to do with structural fatigue.
Title: Re: B-52 landing
Post by: PR3D4TOR on March 05, 2017, 03:04:04 PM
I suggest you watch the video again. Especially this part: https://youtu.be/wclfY0Meruw?t=483
Title: Re: B-52 landing
Post by: Zimme83 on March 05, 2017, 03:13:41 PM
No, but the test was conducted due to the concerns over structural fatigue. There weren't a lot of B-52:s breaking apart and falling out of the sky. It was about planes being worn out faster than expected due to low level flights and that could affect their projected life span and increase the cost of maintenance. But flight operations wasn't affected and neither their capabilities to deliver a nuclear strike.
Title: Re: B-52 landing
Post by: Zimme83 on March 05, 2017, 03:26:19 PM
I suggest you watch the video again. Especially this part: https://youtu.be/wclfY0Meruw?t=483
I havent disputed that either, i disputed your exaggerations of the importance of the test. You makes it sound like the entire future of the US depended on them landing that plane, a bit overdramatic.
In the 50.s and 60.s there were several jets that had issues with structural fatigue and/or failures due to limited experience and knowledge among aircraft engineers. The deHavilland Comet just fell out of the sky for no apparent reason until they found out about metal fatigue and there are more examples.
Title: Re: B-52 landing
Post by: PR3D4TOR on March 05, 2017, 03:40:32 PM
No, but the test was conducted due to the concerns over structural fatigue.
Where do you get that from? The Boeing pilot tells us that their mission was to record the structural loads encountered on a low level sortie with special instruments installed to record the stresses exerted on various parts of the aircraft. This was unknown territory for Boeing and the USAF since the B-52 hadn't been designed for low level flying. To my knowledge the B-52 fleet was never grounded after 1957 right up to the end of the Cold War. It was too important and they kept it in the air no matter what. Like in this case where the whole fleet needed to have their tail structures strengthened. No wonder one out of seven B-52s produced were lost in accidents.
Title: Re: B-52 landing
Post by: PR3D4TOR on March 05, 2017, 03:44:16 PM
You makes it sound like the entire future of the US depended on them landing that plane, a bit overdramatic.
Only in your head. The B-52 fleet was that important, and if there was a chance this bird and its valuable data could be salvaged they would take it, and they did. Regardless of the fate of this aircraft and its crew the B-52s would have kept on flying.
Title: Re: B-52 landing
Post by: Oldman731 on March 05, 2017, 07:33:08 PM
This was unknown territory for Boeing and the USAF since the B-52 hadn't been designed for low level flying.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ND3Q2_9zwpY
- oldman
Title: Re: B-52 landing
Post by: DaveBB on March 05, 2017, 08:27:37 PM
B-52 tour given by actual B-52 flight crew. Interesting that the pilot said the maximum speed was 470 knots. He went on to say Mach .9. Max altitude was 47,000 feet, and unrefueled range is 4000 miles.
The B-52 had a highly accurate celestial navigation computer that was more accurate than the compass. It could even lock onto stars during the daytime. Once three stars were locked on, the computer gave the actual heading of the plane.
It also had an optical bombsite, but it wasn't as accurate as the radar bombsite. The optical bombsite could be used to watch the bombs hit the target, or used to check the landing gear of the plane.
The pilot giving the tour of the upper deck of the aircraft said missions from Guam to Vietnam and back were normally 9 hours. His longest mission was 26 hours.