------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Most of the B-52's sent to the 'graveyard' have been demolished/scrapped/recycled due to arms control agreements w/ the USSR/Russia.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On Wed, 4/20/16, Greg Chalik <xxxxxx@gmail.com> wrote:
Subject: Re: [TML] Off-topic but incredible!
To: xxxxxx@simplelists.com
Date: Wednesday, April 20, 2016, 1:37 PM
Some parts of aircraft
experience more stress and wear than others of course, and
its not like airframe components present manufacturing
challenges. Greatest challenge was converting analog flight
controls to digital. Most of the fleet was retired due to
cost of that even if the airframes were still good. This was
in the post-Vietnam budget cuts. Nothing to do with
technology or capability.
Most of that fleet is still in the 'graveyard'.
Greg
On 21/04/2016 6:16 AM,
"Phil Pugliese (via tml list)" <xxxxxx@simplelists.com>
wrote:
This
email was sent from yahoo.com which
does not allow forwarding of emails via email lists.
Therefore the sender's email address (xxxxxx@yahoo.com)
has been replaced with a dummy one. The original message
follows:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
But still the airframes, esp the wings, have been subjected
to a lot more stress than they were designed for.
My dad flew B-52's (SAC) for about a year (ended when he
got 'grounded' due to chronic ear problems) in
1958.
he later told me about how they practiced 'toss
bombing' where they would come in very, very low (like
riding a roller-coaster, he said), pull up sharply (you
should've seen the wings bend, he said), release the, in
this case, dummy nuclear bomb so it would arc over
intervening terrain, & execute a 180 degree
escape-maneuver turn to get away.
He said more than once that he didn't know how the a/c
could take it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On Wed, 4/20/16, Greg Chalik <xxxxxx@gmail.com>
wrote:
Subject: Re: [TML] Off-topic but incredible!
To: xxxxxx@simplelists.com
Date: Wednesday, April 20, 2016, 12:45 PM
Bruce, strictly
speaking they would only be same airframes. The
cockpits
have been fully redesigned and of course digitised. The
bomb
bays are reconfigured to also accomodate cruise
missiles.
Neither the father and certainly not the grandfather
would
know how to operate today's B-52.
Aside the engine maintenance cycle, there is also a
rebuild
cycle. The engines are pulled completely appart and all
parts scruitinised the way that wasn't possible even
in
the 80s.
However, B-52s have a unique mission profile to other
AF
aircraft. The airframe is not exposed to the same
forces
that smaller lower altitude designs are. And, they
don't
get as many flight hours as the lift aircraft like C-5s
which date from same period and are being retired.
Greg
On 21/04/2016 4:07 AM,
"Bruce Johnson" <xxxxxx@pharmacy.arizona.edu>
wrote:
> On Apr 20, 2016, at 10:10 AM, Phil Pugliese (via
tml
list) <xxxxxx@simplelists.com>
wrote:
>
> This email was sent from yahoo.com which
does not allow forwarding of emails via email lists.
Therefore the sender's email address (xxxxxx@yahoo.com)
has been replaced with a dummy one. The original
message
follows:
>
>
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Now here's something from the 'Defense
Industry
Daily' n/l that almost sounds impossible!
>
> "Pratt and Whitney has maintained that they
can
develop a TF33 upgrade package that will keep
Boeing's
B-52 bomber flying until the 2040s. The eight engine
bomber
has kept the same TF33 engine since its induction in
1952,
but high fuel consumption had the USAF looking at
potential
re-engine options. With oil prices dropping
dramatically,
the program was dropped; but P&W are still looking
at
improvements for the TF33 that will keep it on-wing,
and
allow the air force to reduce their maintenance
costs."
>
> These planes have been in service so long
('H"
models were built about '60-'64) that the
authors
seem unaware that only the 'H" models had the
TF33
turbofan. Earlier models had turbojets. The
'fanjets' gave the 'H' a much greater
range
than the earlier versions & were more powerful.
> Still, I find it amazing that those planes could
still
be flying past the age of 75 years old!
Sometime in 2033...Pilot walks up to ‘his’ B52, turns
to
his friends and smiles. “The same plane my grandfather
and
my father flew”.
His friends nod and murmur, “Amazing. How long have
they
been making B52’s?”
The pilot shakes his head. “They stopped making ‘em
in
1963, 70 years ago. You don’t get it. It’s the SAME
PLANE. C’mere, I’ll show you where they carved
their
initials…."
true fact, this has, already happened, at least to two
generations. Father flew the Buff in Vietnam, Son in
Gulf
II. (or maybe it was I, I’d have to go dig up the issue
of
'Air and Space' with the story…)
--
Bruce Johnson
University of Arizona
College of Pharmacy
Information Technology Group
Institutions do not have opinions, merely customs
-----
The Traveller Mailing List
Archives at http://archives.simplelists.com/tml
Report problems to xxxxxx@simplelists.com
To unsubscribe from this list please goto
http://archives.simplelists.com
-----
The Traveller Mailing List
Archives at http://archives.simplelists.com/tml
Report problems to xxxxxx@simplelists.com
To unsubscribe from this list please goto
http://archives.simplelists.com
-----
The Traveller Mailing List
Archives at http://archives.simplelists.com/tml
Report problems to xxxxxx@simplelists.com
To unsubscribe from this list please goto
http://archives.simplelists.com
-----
The Traveller Mailing List
Archives at http://archives.simplelists.com/tml
Report problems to xxxxxx@simplelists.com
To unsubscribe from this list please goto
http://www.simplelists.com/confirm.php?u=EwREIRgLK8vaUEhNlnoNdSGKwnjoID8a
