How to fly a B52

[gigabyte]

This is just too cool, I found it in my iGoogle feed - it's a little long but really interesting.

http://gizmodo.com/5920895/watch-an-entire-b+52-stratofortress-mission-in-ten-minutes

[Skyhawk_310R]

I have to say I got a chuckle out of the first blog responder's post. He expressed shock that the USAF had not upgraded the "old" control system. I suppose he meant "upgrading" it to a fly-by-wire system. It made me laugh because too many people think there is somehow something wrong or less effective about control cables, pulleys, and control rods to use to fly aircraft by. In fact, nothing could be further from the truth.

The only significant advantage one gains with fly-by-wire, which is really just linking control surfaces to control sticks and rudders via electric wires connected to servos, is that the control inputs can be greatly accelerated. But, you only need that when you are piloting an airframe that is basically unstable. The B-52 is not an inherently unstable airframe. In fact, it is just the opposite. If anything, the prime challenge to piloting a B-52 is that it is inherently very stable due to its harmonized airframe combined with significant mass. This is why it takes so long from control input to control response. Fly-by-wire wouldn't help that situation one bit.

I guess it is the same kind of prejudice that can cause so many lay people to regard anything powered by a propeller as technologically inferior to anything powered by a jet engine. People who believe this don't understand that at slow speeds a propeller is actually far more efficient at achieving thrust than a jet engine, and at lower speeds is able to translate that thrust far faster. The problem of a propeller is that is has a finite speed limit due to the loss of thrust efficiency as the tips of the blades approach speed of sound.

In fact, the control systems on the B-52 were the most advanced in the world when Boeing first designed them. They used highly effective hydraulic boosters that allowed one pilot to effectively control such a huge aircraft. There is nothing at all low tech about it! The reason the B-52 remains a highly effective bomber today is that when it was designed there was nothing else in the world like it, and there are few things in the world like it even to this day. It was a huge leap forward in aviation design and technology.

To this day, if you want an aerial platform that can take a very large load of munitions a very long range in a fairly fast velocity, there really is not a more effective platform nor design. The B-2 doesn't really beat the B-52 in these areas, and in fact is actually sub-standard in these measures! The B-2 simply is less sub-standard than other platforms but has the stealth technology to avoid detection.

The USAF under Curtiss LeMay went through a lot of bomber designs in rather short time after World War II. It started with the B-29, which during World War II was the pinnacle of bomber technology and nothing else came close. But, then the B-36 was a truly theater range bomber with a lot more payload and made the B-29 old. Then, a series of jet bombers came off the line including the immortal B-47 Stratojet. And while the B-47 can win a lot of beauty contests, the simple truth is that it did not have sufficient range and payload capability. It was missing what it needed to be an ideal strategic bomber for the Cold War. The B-58 Hustler had extreme speed, but it also lacked range and payload, and besides, General LeMay doomed it with one catch phrase, "It didn't fit my arse!" LOL!!

The XB-70 Valkyrie seemed like an ideal combination, but it was so complex that it was doubtful enough could ever be built to field a large enough force. And the Cold War demanded a large fleet of bombers. By that time, it was recognized that it was doubtful that any bomber could fly faster and higher than radar-guided SAM systems, and so the entire basis of the XB-70 was underminned.

The B-1A and then B-1B was an effort to bridge the speed and payload with an airframe able to fly low-level. And in this regard was a success, but awfully expensive and did not match the raw payload and range of the B-52.

Many people think the prime reason we still have a fleet of B-52's is because they were paid for. This factored some, but little. In truth, it is because the bomber remains an extremely effective platform for the kinds of weapons it employs. Even in Afghanistan, and if needed in Iraq, the B-52 remains an incredible bomb truck -- a jet that can go a very long distance, with a very large loadout of weapons, and remain in the air for a very long time if needed. Its onboard systems allows the aircrew to deliver those weapons very accurately using a myriad of tactical options, which also allows the B-52 to employ pretty much any and all weapons the USAF has developed over the last six plus decades.

I never flew a B-52, so this isn't some emotional attachment argument. Instead, you just have to give the old lady her due! Boeing designed one hell of a fine airplane, and one that remains technologically viable over six decades later!

Ken

[Ian Warren]

Ken , I have an uncle that serviced B-52s , now lives in New Zealand but would not hesitate to put this Boeing on a pedestal , how to fly em .I go to the FSX CS-B52 and simply enjoy it , the workings ... leave that to the USAF :cool:<input id="gwProxy" type="hidden"><!--Session data--><input jscode="leoInternalChangeDone()" onclick="if(typeof(jsCall)=='function'){jsCall();}else{setT imeout('jsCall()',500);}" id="jsProxy" type="hidden">

[gigabyte]

Ken, I have no where near your knowledge of aircraft or their history, aside from what I read and playing around in flight sim's. I have long been of the opinion that the B52 is still in service mainly because it meets the operational requirements and there has not been a great need to develop something newer - it ain't broke so don't fix it. I do think some had the impression (I know I did at one time) that aircraft like the B1 & B2 were supposed to replace the B52, that has clearly not been the case. The B52 has to be considered on of the all time great airframe designs IMHO, any design that can remain in service and meet operational requirements for 60 years is best of class for sure.

It would be very interesting to talk to some of the folks involved in the original development, I wonder if they they thought it would still be in front line action for anywhere near this length of time?

What a plane there are at least 3 generations of pilots rotated through that aircraft, I wonder if that has happened with a military aircraft before?

[PRB]

Great video! I noticed that for the first half of the video, the pilots have thier gloves hanging on the upper hand grab handle thing. Not sure what the official rule is on this for the USAF and/or B-52s. Is it a "real" rule that they should be worn at all times? Or is it sort of like the rules about using turn signals in your car, or, if you're in Missouri, stopping at stop signs: optional, as long as you don't get run in to, or in this case, there's no fire...?

[kilo delta]

One of the reasons for the B-52 remaining in the current arsenal has to be the advances made in "smart" weapons that are carried on board. The days of carpet bombing are long gone with the requirements,these days, for precision targeting.

[aircav1970]

There is a guy on You Tube who has compiled a bunch of the old US Military training films that I found really entertaining,"How to Fly The B-26" or the "P-47",great stuff....just do a search for "AirBoydTV" on youtube and it should bring all his posts up.

[Skyhawk_310R]

Ken, I have no where near your knowledge of aircraft or their history, aside from what I read and playing around in flight sim's. I have long been of the opinion that the B52 is still in service mainly because it meets the operational requirements and there has not been a great need to develop something newer - it ain't broke so don't fix it. I do think some had the impression (I know I did at one time) that aircraft like the B1 & B2 were supposed to replace the B52, that has clearly not been the case. The B52 has to be considered on of the all time great airframe designs IMHO, any design that can remain in service and meet operational requirements for 60 years is best of class for sure.

It would be very interesting to talk to some of the folks involved in the original development, I wonder if they they thought it would still be in front line action for anywhere near this length of time?

What a plane there are at least 3 generations of pilots rotated through that aircraft, I wonder if that has happened with a military aircraft before?

Did you know that the immortal B-52 was sketched out in concept by a three-man team of Boeing engineers in a Dayton, Ohio hotel room (just outside Wright-Patterson AFB) in one weekend! While two of the engineers sketched out the three-view drawings and wrote a 33-page spec, the other man took a knife to a hunk of balsa wood to carve out a 3-D model! The speed of the work, and its location, gave the team one hurdle they had to overcome. In their haste, they ended up without a Model number officially sourced from Boeing headquarters! Well, they knew that the conventional winged forerunner to the B-52 was the rejected Model 462. So, to avoid any risk of inadvertantly creating a duplicate model number, the engineers decided to skip Model 463 and go straight to Model 464 on their own! The 33-page spec sheet named the immortal jet "Boeing Model 464-49!" Boeing later used the Model 463 for a planned jet transport that eventually morphed into the legendary Boeing 707, but to confuse its competition, Boeing switched to calling the 707 the "Model 367-80" hoping it might make their rivals believe the 707 was really just an "upgrade" to a Boeing prop-engine transport!

Boeing felt the heat to rush the design proposal on what became the B-52 due to Convair putting in a spec of their own, and since Convair had the B-36 Peacemaker, Boeing believed it had to "drop first with the most!" The first Boeing contender was the Model 462, which was a six-engine turbo-prop design which looked surprisingly similar to the Russian Tu-95 Bear which was designed many years later! With the Model 462 already rejected by the USAF as being "little more than a six-engine B-29," the team took the USAF's admonition to heart and dug deeper for something more revolutionary. So, the three-man team huddled in their hotel room to put pen to paper and knife to balsa wood!

They returned a weekend later with a design featuring that immortal swept wing mounting eight Pratt & Whitney J-57 jet engines. The Air Force loved it and offered the idea about changing the seating to the side-by-side configuration favored by LeMay. Boeing was in such a hot speed process to beat Convair that they fielded the tandem seating on the first YB-52 with the idea all along of retrofitting the side-by-side pilot seating.

Meanwhile, Convair produced its own eight jet engine bomber, which had a fuselage bearing a strong similarity to their B-36. The Convair engineers also used a very similar wing to the B-36 and this doomed them as the thicker wing chord created excessive induced drag which slowed down their design. Ultimately, it wasn't much of a contest as the Boeing design went a lot faster, and with less drag, also went a lot further.

The truly amazing fact is that this initial sketching, design proposal, and balsa wood model for the Model 464 was created in a hotel room in a single weekend way back in 1946! In truth, the legendary B-52 is even older than most folks realize!

Ken