|
I was in the wheel well of a B-52 with engines at 80% a few days ago and even with earplugs and earmuff it physically hurt a little bit. The wind down also wild since I lost all relativity of sound levels and started taking my stuff off while the engines were still on just at idle because I thought there was nothing. edit: I guess I should clarify it was a ground test if thats what you are whatting about. Xenoborg fucked around with this message at 23:43 on Jul 1, 2017 |
#
¿
Jul 1, 2017 23:28
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 12, 2024 00:13 |
|
|
MikeCrotch posted:I was trying to make an old timey joke about going deaf I couldn't even hear the whoosh of it going over my head.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 2, 2017 15:37
|
|
|
um excuse me posted:You know that discussion that comes up about how we should re-engine the B-52? Turns out survivability has nothing to to with it. Nor does cost. If Pratt inclined to re-engine the B-52, the military opens up the contract to other companies to bid on. Need that contract exclusivity. Not sure what you mean by this. Pratt inst who decides if the B-52 gets re-engine and they aren't the ones that pick which engine it would use. Are you saying that Pratt used backdoor influence to try and stop re-engine so they don't lose their support contract on the TF33s?
|
|
#
¿
Jul 28, 2017 19:31
|
|
|
The only involvement Pratt would have in a decision to re-engine or not would be giving the Air Force and the integrator quotes and information about what engines Pratt could sell them. The choice of engine and engine manufacturer is up to the Air Force and the integrator.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 28, 2017 20:13
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:The best part is the most recent article I can find on them restarting the line is P&W emphasizing they have ZERO CAD drawings of the TF33, its all paper drafts, so they'd have to digitize it all. This is more or less true of the whole B-52 minus stuff that been reworked in the last 10 years. The digitizing process isn't great so you have to more or less just trace the old drawings.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 29, 2017 04:32
|
|
|
The Ferret King posted:What's the system/interface that handles that? Is it automated or some sort of setting or control? On the B-52 its just a big knob that hydraulically rotates the gear, doesn't even need electrical power if you have enough pressure in the lines. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TCUHQ_-l6Qg
|
|
#
¿
Oct 7, 2017 14:42
|
|
|
Its a shame the SR-71 was always in a hanger, those things leaked like crazy.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 16, 2017 01:45
|
|
|
Plinkey posted:That B1 is probably for parts, not sure about the others maybe future museam pieces? The B1 is a test plane for future B1 mods. Edwards also has 2 B52s for the same reason. Its also the only B1 that didn't have all its nuclear arming stuff removed and welded over as part of the START treaties, so it shows up in Clancy-esque books doing stupid stuff a lot.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 28, 2017 05:12
|
|
|
I'm on the B52 side, so I don't know the particulars of the B1 neutering. As part of NEW START there were a few LRUs that we removed from half the B52 fleet, and I thought a similar thing happened to B1 minus the Edwards one. Edit: also both Edwards b52s are POSs because they don’t keep them in configuration, do mods without telling us, and just don’t do some tctos. Xenoborg fucked around with this message at 08:25 on Dec 28, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Dec 28, 2017 08:04
|
|
|
There is a reason we are still flying U-2s. There is a whole lof of "satellite imagery" that is just U-2 photos.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 8, 2018 03:33
|
|
|
I've always hated that picture since a regular plane with a fuselage is closer to bird shaped anyway.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 14, 2018 00:47
|
|
|
Finger Prince posted:That's not the right question to be asking. What you should be asking is "is the An-225 still operating?". The answer is another question: "are there still operationally ready B-52s?" There are dozens of B-52 sorties a week, so sounds like a yes!
|
|
#
¿
Sep 11, 2018 18:11
|
|
|
david_a posted:Yes, but the B-52s can’t carry as much payload as when they were new due to fatigue, right? They’re also part of a military supply chain that can practically ignore maintenance/running costs. They carry more now than originally, mostly due to in the 1940s when they were first being designed our modeling was a lot more basic and we know the true limits now. The maintenance and operating costs are actually pretty comparative to other bombers since a lot of the high failure stuff has been replaced with modern equivalents, but there is still the occasional thing where no only does no one make that particular part, but the entire industry that made and used them went extinct 30 years ago, like vacuum tubes for example. Xenoborg fucked around with this message at 20:37 on Sep 11, 2018 |
|
#
¿
Sep 11, 2018 20:32
|
|
|
The B-52s that are still in service, the H models, spent most of the 60s-90s sitting on the alert pad, while the Ds dropped bombs on Vietnam and G dropped bombs in desert storm, so they actually have pretty low flight hours on them. A 10 year old 737 probably has more flight time and a lot more takeoffs/landings than most remaining B-52Hs.
Xenoborg fucked around with this message at 21:18 on Sep 11, 2018 |
|
#
¿
Sep 11, 2018 21:15
|
|
|
The biggest downside to actually knowing stuff is not getting to speculate anymore.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 21, 2018 02:57
|
|
|
MRC48B posted:Question: For the B-52 I don't see why not. Bleed air from another jet engine is the main way their engines are started when they arn't doing some fancy like cart start. The normal start carts are basically just another jet engine on wheels. Enough compressed air at the right pressure and duration should be pretty comparable.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 30, 2018 00:38
|
|
|
Wingnut Ninja posted:There was some cold war bomber that ejected some of the crew positions downward. I want to say B-52 or B-58 and they changed it on later models to eject up. On B-52s 2 of 6 crew stations still eject down. They dont have a great reputation. But its still better than the other 1-4 people who don't have a seat and get to try and jump out!
|
|
#
¿
Jul 16, 2019 00:06
|
|
|
drgitlin posted:The other four seats all eject through the top of the B-52. Are you confused and thinking of an Avro Vulcan or something? I was just saying that whichever plane he was thinking of that used to but no longer had downward seats wasn’t the B-52. The Other 1-4 didn’t refer to the the people in the upper ejection seats. For the usual crew of 6-10, there are only 6 ejection seats. Anyone without a seat in a bailing situation gets to just jump out.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 16, 2019 05:00
|
|
|
The B-52 downward ejection seat’s post ejection hole in the aircraft is also used to evacuate crew members 7-10 who are not in an ejection seat as well as injured people who would be at more risk in one. That’s only relevant for high altitude bailing though. The downward ejection seats say they should work at 500 ft, but you want have bailing time for anyone else.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 29, 2020 15:19
|
|
|
MRC48B posted:the projects were called Have Drill and Have Doughnut. edit: and also "Constant Peg" Anyone know the background on where these names come from? They sound like random garbage meant to mean nothing, but then they go and use the same words over and over like they do mean something. Like if I hear "Have <blank>", I immediately think, oh thats a USAF black project.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 17, 2020 00:32
|
|
|
Carth Dookie posted:It's not a g force thing. Apparently guys who ride AWACs all the time skew toward girl kids so supposedly it's RADAR that causes it, but it's never been studied or proven. I’ve heard the same from B52 crew.
|
|
#
¿
May 7, 2020 06:07
|
|
|
Spaced God posted:Aircraft down in Accomack County, VA. They're saying all 4 people parachuted out. If it's military, the gently caress airplane has 4 seats you can chute out of? If it's not, how often do people actually chute out of civvie aircraft? Sounds like its navy and they are based no where near, but B-52s have 6 ejection seats, and can have 4+ more people manually jump out of hole the seats make when they leave. 4 crew wouldn't be crazy for a ferry flight though (other than missed opportunity for training hours).
|
|
#
¿
Aug 31, 2020 22:48
|
|
|
david_a posted:I would think a B-52 crashing in a civilian area would be a bit bigger news than “oh hey some people bailed out of a plane” Unless there were bombs on, I would think it would be about the same level.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 1, 2020 02:23
|
|
|
I would blow Dane Cook posted:Which one of you was flying a jetpack at LAX? This is why I follow the ATC channel.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 3, 2020 03:24
|
|
|
Boeing's own announcements are already saying its the its the 737-8 and 737-9 returning to service with no mention of the word "Max".
|
|
#
¿
Nov 18, 2020 19:20
|
|
|
Lightbulb Out posted:How have they hosed it up this bad after having two other successful tankers? The mind boggles. 40 and 65 years ago. Thats plenty of time to forget how to build an airplane.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 3, 2021 17:30
|
|
|
Murgos posted:There's an A1C who got done polishing the nose cones on the bombs and was like, "gently caress it, I got time." I'm sure the others do this to, but this is several conflicting loads. You can't have both a rotatory launcher (big guy in the middle) and JDAMs both in the bay at the same time. Or both an ALCM pylon ( on the cars under the wings) and a Heavy Stores beam (on the wings)
|
|
#
¿
Feb 9, 2021 22:34
|
|
|
azflyboy posted:It's a bit of both. Its also worth mentioning that the only reason the current B-52 fleet average is so low at 19k hours (only like ~7 years by commercial aircraft flight hours) is that only the H models are still flying. They (with the Gs), where the newest and fanciest so they sat on ready alert during most of the cold war while the other models, mostly Ds, did air alert and bombing in Vietnam and other conflicts. By the first Gulf War, they brought out the Gs to active service, but still left the Hs on alert. By GWOT, all of the Ds are gone, many of the Gs are on the way out, and ready alert is also gone. So now the Hs are used actively. The airframes themselves are still 60 years old and it shows, but they don't really have a commensurate amount of cycles on them. Edit: Balls 8 aka Mothership is on the public site of the gate at Edwards AFB. It has "kill" decals for all the things it dropped. The gate planes along with the Skunkworks air park is a good day trip if you are in LA. There is a NASA museumon base that I've heard is good, but I've had the timing work out to go.   
Xenoborg fucked around with this message at 04:36 on Apr 3, 2021 |
|
#
¿
Apr 3, 2021 04:25
|
|
|
The “live” numbers at the top are probably just interpolating from the few measurements. Since it’s orbiting it will go from its max to min distance every ~45 mins so those will change fast. Those max and min are decaying though per the graphs of them at the bottom so at the current rate it will hit sometime in the next month or so. That’s 100s of orbits and the rate of loss isn’t super reliable so it’s too soon to call anywhere or any when.
|
|
#
¿
May 4, 2021 05:42
|
|
|
Ola posted:You say folding, but we all know there's only one plane that can swing the kerosene-sooty, swashbuckling joie de guerre of the X-Wing. You would think an article about a how a cool picture and article inspired a movie would include that picture, but you would be wrong. I went looking so here's the original article http://www.topgunbio.com/top-guns-by-ehud-yonay/
|
|
#
¿
Nov 18, 2021 23:31
|
|
|
Speaking of old planes, it was mentioned at a staff meeting this week that the B-52's 70th anniversary of first flight is coming up in about a month. Even the youngest B-52's were built in 1962 and will be turning 60.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 27, 2022 07:02
|
|
|
Love that they call planes on alert status "Cocked" (like a gun). Had a good laugh one day when I was looking through a flight manual and found the "Cocking and De-Cocking" procedures.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 20, 2022 04:48
|
|
|
There are some that still don’t and have very few plans ever do.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 5, 2022 01:09
|
|
|
I wonder if they want that line space and talent for something else. Has there been any news on who is making NGAD? I assume its one of if not a mix of Boeing/Lockheed/Northrop, but a casual googling makes it sound like it still not known.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 23, 2023 21:27
|
|
|
Zero One posted:There were 449 Boeing 747 aircraft in active airline service as of February 2023, comprising 4 747-100s, 19 747-200s, 4 747-300s, 268 747-400s, and 154 747-8s. Spare parts for old planes is still a very lucrative business. The manufacturing line I sit above is still making classic hornet control surface spaces and when that plane's line ended over 20 years ago.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 4, 2023 15:21
|
|
|
Spending your fuel budget of vodka and not flying.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 15, 2023 02:48
|
|
|
Previa_fun posted:I thought the USAF had piles of TF33s. Maybe that's old information and things have changed. They have lots of them (spares from 100s of decommissioned B-52s), but PW is charging and arm and a leg for maintenance and refurb. Engine maintainence costs was one the main drivers cited in re-engining the B-52Hs away from TF33.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 15, 2023 15:32
|
|
|
vessbot posted:I've seen many of these as jokes, but I'm pretty sure I've actually seen the Space Shuttle on a billboard for real? And the F-15. Don't quite remember Certainly for Boeing claiming ownership of the F-15 and F/A-18.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 12, 2023 01:23
|
|
|
I think I already know the answer to this, but I'm going to Dayton next week for a work thing and was going to go to the Air Force Museum. If the government shuts down, they close too right?
|
|
#
¿
Sep 28, 2023 17:08
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 12, 2024 00:13 |
|
|
Plastic_Gargoyle posted:Speaking of which: The text of the bill explicitly calls out geoengineering, which is a topic of real debate, but the article only talks about chemtrails.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 26, 2024 15:43
|
|