Engine drops from B-52 bomber in rural North Dakota - Page 2 - M14 Forum

M14 Forum


Engine drops from B-52 bomber in rural North Dakota

This is a discussion on Engine drops from B-52 bomber in rural North Dakota within the Air Force forums, part of the Armed Services category; Originally Posted by Defiant001 "What's that button for???" ....


Go Back   M14 Forum > Armed Services > Air Force

26Thanks
Reply
 
LinkBack Moderator Tools Display Modes

Old January 6th, 2017, 08:30 PM   #16
Squad Leader
 
Samuel Seeley's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Texas
Posts: 227
Quote:
Originally Posted by Defiant001 View Post
"What's that button for???"

.

Samuel Seeley is offline  
Remove Ads
Old January 6th, 2017, 10:37 PM   #17
Site Sponsor
 
ShootingSight's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Cincinnati, OH
Posts: 2,805
Quote:
Originally Posted by XXIV Corps View Post
No weapons were on board, according to the military.
WTF? It's a B52. It IS a weapon.

ShootingSight is offline  
Old January 7th, 2017, 07:18 AM   #18
Grunt
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: OK
Posts: 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by lysander View Post
The airframes are 50+ years old, the last B-52H (B-52H-175-BW, 61-0040) rolled out at Boeing's Wichita factory on 26 Oct 1962.
It's a bit of "the ship of Thesus", though, almost all the parts in them are newer.
The TF-33 has been in production longer than 1961

Instead of re-engineing the BUFF, the AF decided to keep the TF33 and save money by using the TF33s from the C-141 Program.

pawnee bill is offline  
 
Old January 7th, 2017, 07:34 AM   #19
Site Sponsor
 
ShootingSight's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Cincinnati, OH
Posts: 2,805
It would be good if they could just make new aircraft with zero re-engineering. Just do it, use the same blueprints and go. It would be a way low cost aircraft by today's standards.

Trouble is, there are small changes that are oh so tempting to make. We have better alloys, better processes, with Finite Element, we know the parts that are stressed better than they did in the 1950's, we can just swap out analog controllers for much more sophisticated digital ones ..... unfortunately, the guys being paid for the engineering don't exercise proper control, and the re-engineering effort runs away.

Thanks from tomdokulil
ShootingSight is offline  
Old January 7th, 2017, 08:59 AM   #20
Old Salt
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: south dakota
Posts: 1,185
"...re-engineering effort runs away." You mean like the F35??

boomerpusher is offline  
Old January 7th, 2017, 10:27 AM   #21
Lifer
 
Dave P's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: North Woods of Florida
Posts: 3,329
As I recall it, the nacelles are designed to rotate down and back, if something catastrophic happens to an engine. Separates from the wing, and most of the plane should still be intact and operational.

No expert, but I spent a couple years at Boeing/Wichita.

Dave P is offline  
Old January 7th, 2017, 11:58 AM   #22
Old Salt
 
nSquid's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: eastern Iowa
Posts: 1,782
Quote:
Originally Posted by ShootingSight View Post
It would be good if they could just make new aircraft with zero re-engineering. Just do it, use the same blueprints and go. It would be a way low cost aircraft by today's standards.

Trouble is, there are small changes that are oh so tempting to make. We have better alloys, better processes, with Finite Element, we know the parts that are stressed better than they did in the 1950's, we can just swap out analog controllers for much more sophisticated digital ones ..... unfortunately, the guys being paid for the engineering don't exercise proper control, and the re-engineering effort runs away.
Actually, it would not be low cost. Everything would have to be converted to CNC, the original manufacturing lathes, presses, dies, all that stuff was mostly hand made. 1962 - IBM 360 mainframes ruled. Bill Gates was still trying to figure out what he should do with his first woodie.

nSquid is offline  
Old January 7th, 2017, 01:56 PM   #23
Squad Leader
 
Samuel Seeley's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Texas
Posts: 227
Quote:
Originally Posted by nSquid View Post
Bill Gates was still trying to figure out what he should do with his first woodie.
Melinda said to Bill on their wedding night: "Now I know why you call it Microsoft."

Thanks from 1100 tac and Dougboffl
Samuel Seeley is offline  
Old January 7th, 2017, 04:21 PM   #24
VinnAY
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
I know the intial assessment was a maint issue as in bolts shearing, not torqued, etc etc that lead to the engine separating from the aircraft but now it's moved toward catastrophic uncontained failure. Most of the maint guys are going to be drug over the coals, regardless, I'm sure the piss bottles are being filled day and night while the aircrew will get Airmedals, the poor enlisted troops are going to get the big blue wienie.

 
Old January 7th, 2017, 05:54 PM   #25
Old Salt
 
lysander's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 1,597
Quote:
Originally Posted by ShootingSight View Post
It would be good if they could just make new aircraft with zero re-engineering. Just do it, use the same blueprints and go. It would be a way low cost aircraft by today's standards.

Trouble is, there are small changes that are oh so tempting to make. We have better alloys, better processes, with Finite Element, we know the parts that are stressed better than they did in the 1950's, we can just swap out analog controllers for much more sophisticated digital ones ..... unfortunately, the guys being paid for the engineering don't exercise proper control, and the re-engineering effort runs away.
The problem with that is many airframe parts don't have "blueprints".

They have tooling.

You can define a complex 3-dimensional shape, but how do you convert that shape into a real part? You have tooling. And, many piece of tooling never had drawings to totally define them, just drawing that defined inspection points.

That tooling is big, and storing it is expensive, so it is reprocessed after production shuts down if no further orders are forthcoming. The B-52 tooling is long gone. In fact, the plant where all the B-52Hs were made is gone. The building may remain, but the stuff that made the b-52 is long gone.

Very rarely does an aircraft that is out of production get a new lease on life.

Did you know that in 1968, after half the the F-105 fleet was gone, mostly from combat losses, Republic proposed to the USAF they would restart F-105 production for the bargain price of 3 million a copy.

An F4E cost about 4.5 million

Thanks from hurryinhoosier
lysander is offline  
Old January 7th, 2017, 09:10 PM   #26
Platoon Sergeant
 
alseides's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Nebraska
Posts: 368
Quote:
Originally Posted by High Hat View Post
The planes are 40-60 years old. How old was this engine I wonder?
Plus, I've never seen a Chinese bomber this old!
Red China uses the Xian H-6 series of bombers which are reverse-engineered Tupolev Tu-16 "Badgers". Badgers were originally designed in the early 1960s. The Chinese variants have been upgraded over the decades and the last new builds are only 10-20 years old. The newest variants are far more capable than the originals but still lacking compared to designs like the Rockwell B-1B or Tupolev Tu-22M.

alseides is offline  
Old January 7th, 2017, 09:15 PM   #27
Platoon Sergeant
 
alseides's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Nebraska
Posts: 368
I work with a guy who is a BUFF driver. He knows the fellow designated as the head for the safety investigation. This mishap took place while SecAF was visiting Minot. Long day for the Wing CC and staff. My co-worker speculated on the causes but still far too early to tell.

alseides is offline  
Old January 7th, 2017, 10:19 PM   #28
Grunt
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Texas
Posts: 101
OH NO, the dreaded 7 engine approach to minimums!

HvyJet is offline  
Old January 8th, 2017, 06:57 AM   #29
Old Salt
 
lysander's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 1,597
Quote:
Originally Posted by HvyJet View Post
OH NO, the dreaded 7 engine approach to minimums!
Under the "Press-On" rules, in effect during most of Arc Light and Linebacker (I and II), a single engine failure was not grounds to abort the mission.

lysander is offline  
Old January 8th, 2017, 07:31 AM   #30
Cranky Old Vietnam Vet
 
CAVman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: WYoming
Posts: 10,665

Awards Showcase

Quote:
Originally Posted by CAVman View Post
That's why they build them with EIGHT Engines !!!

Duh !



CAVman in WYoming
Quote:
Originally Posted by lysander View Post
Under the "Press-On" rules, in effect during most of Arc Light and Linebacker (I and II), a single engine failure was not grounds to abort the mission.
'Redundancies' come in handy in Combat!



CAVman in WYoming

CAVman is offline  
Reply

  M14 Forum > Armed Services > Air Force

Moderator Tools
Display Modes




Top Gun Sites Top Sites List