Sponsor Message:
Military Aviation & Space Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
50 Years Ago Last B-52 Built Delivered To Air Forc  
User currently offlineavnut43 From United States of America, joined Apr 2012, 20 posts, RR: 0
Posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 11005 times:

On Friday October 26th, the last B-52 built (tail #61-040) was delivered to the Air Force to Minot Air Force Base, N.D. 50 years ago! It is currently assigned to Minot. The plane came of the production on 22 June 1962.

Last B-52 ever made: MAFB has last B-52 to roll off assembly line, part of 69th Bomb Squadron
http://www.minotdailynews.com/page/content.detail/id/566188.html

Last B-52 marks 50th birthday
http://www.shreveporttimes.com/artic...y=tab%7Ctopnews%7Ctext%7CFRONTPAGE

29 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12142 posts, RR: 51
Reply 1, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 10866 times:

She Joins all her elderly sisters at, or over 50, and most of her Boeing brothers the KC-135.

User currently offlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8840 posts, RR: 24
Reply 2, posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 10344 times:

Quoting avnut43 (Thread starter):
Last B-52 marks 50th birthday

And they are expected to remain in service until 2040. Imagine that - an aircraft in constant service for 80 years!

Here was the pinnacle of aircraft technology 80 years ago.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e3/Bundesarchiv_Bild_102-12963%2C_Flugboot_%22Do_X%22.jpg



Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently offlinetommytoyz From Tonga, joined Jan 2007, 1353 posts, RR: 6
Reply 3, posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 10299 times:

The most advances aircraft to ever fly was the SR-71 and that one first flew about 40 years ago. Show me a manned aircraft that has equaled it since. Even today, it would be almost impossible to shoot it down. Not even a F-22 could do it. You'd need rockets going faster than Mach 5 with a good range to catch it and fired at just the right moment to have even the smallest chance.

No fighter A2A missile can go that fast - even today.

The experience with the C-5, C-130, KC-135, B-52 and others, show that age is not measured in years, rather measured in flight hours.

A basic truck doesn't need to be replaced with another basic truck, if it still works perfectly well and safely. Same for the KC-135 and the other subsonic carriers. That's why the KC-46 is a total waste of money. There has to be a better justification than the simple fact that they're old, to replace an old frame, IMHO.

The USAF can continue for decades more on all those frames without any issue. Matter of fact the entire KC-135 fleet has one of the highest readiness rates of all USAF types. Year of manufacture has almost nothing to do with capability, effectiveness and readiness.


User currently offlineflyingturtle From Switzerland, joined Oct 2011, 2402 posts, RR: 13
Reply 4, posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 10272 times:

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 3):
The most advances aircraft to ever fly was the SR-71 and that one first flew about 40 years ago. Show me a manned aircraft that has equaled it since.

Easy. Our database is full of photographs of such manned aircraft.  

But it's good that you mention your yardstick:

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 3):
No fighter A2A missile can go that fast - even today.

David



Keeping calm is terrorism against those who want to live in fear.
User currently offlineHaveBlue From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 2107 posts, RR: 1
Reply 5, posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 10130 times:

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 3):
The most advances aircraft to ever fly was the SR-71 and that one first flew about 40 years ago.

Make that about 50 years ago. A-12 first flight 1962, YF-12 1963 and SR-71 1964. That's how I remember them, easy peasy. Very impressive group of aircraft, and mind blowingly innovative and revelutionary too. And all that done in just a couple of years from conception to first flight, before the use of computers, while our much more benign aircraft today take forever to get into service. And look at how dated automobiles and just about everything else is from the late 50's, early 60's, yet the Blackbirds still look space age futuristic even today.

I've seen all 3 incarnations of them (except an M-21 mothership to the D-21) but sadly, never got to see one fly. Bummer.



Here Here for Severe Clear!
User currently offlinetommytoyz From Tonga, joined Jan 2007, 1353 posts, RR: 6
Reply 6, posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 10090 times:

I did get to see them fly several times and heard their sonic boom frequently.

No plane in service has equaled her speed since. Hundreds of missiles were fired at her since she was plainly visible on radar. But the speed and altitude provided perfect protection.

Even today, an AIM-120 has a top speed of only Mach 4, which is way too slow to catch a Mach 3.2+ bird flying miles overhead. An F-35 shooting of an AIM-120D from it's designed cruising altitude of 25,000 feet would make that missile climb almost 10 miles straight up, just to reach the same altitude wheil accelerating and laterally tracking. By the time it could have caught up, it's 100 mile range would probably have been long exhausted. The SR-71 meanwhile could go on for thousands of miles at those speeds and a defensive turn put hundreds of miles between it and anything quickly.

Quoting flyingturtle (Reply 4):
Our database is full of photographs of such manned aircraft.

What plane in your data base achieved what the SR-71 did?

ON stealth, we should not forget what we already learned:
"For all this effort, Kelly Johnson later conceded that Russian radar technology advanced faster than the stealth technology employed against it." (SR-71).

We will have to relearn this again I am afraid.

[Edited 2012-10-30 15:37:29]

User currently offlineNewark727 From United States of America, joined Dec 2009, 1355 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks 5 days ago) and read 10017 times:

Kind of interesting to compare it to the B-52. The SR-71 did a couple of things incredibly well, whereas the B-52 never flew its original mission of nuclear strike but handled all kinds of other things that it's been adapted to.

User currently offlineHaveBlue From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 2107 posts, RR: 1
Reply 8, posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 10009 times:

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 6):
I did get to see them fly several times and heard their sonic boom frequently.

I only had one chance, and it didn't work out. As a teenager we were visiting Ohio in the mid 80's during the same weekend they had the Dayton, OH airshow. I begged & pleaded with my dad (a Huey pilot and fellow aviation enthusiast) to take me across state for this, as the SR-71 was scheduled for flybys. Weather was poor that day and they cancelled the Blackbird, unfortunately. Glad you got to see/hear it though  



Here Here for Severe Clear!
User currently offlineC46 From United States of America, joined Feb 2011, 43 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 9975 times:

One question I had was regarding the amount of average flying hours amassed for these aircraft. I found this and hope it’s valid – if not please discount/correct.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/systems/b-52-life.htm

Obviously a bomber isn’t utilized like a civilian airliner, but still to me it’s incredible that these aircraft are really only middle-aged.

What’s interesting (I’m not an aircraft engineer) is the projected life for the vertical stabilizer vs. the rest of the aircraft. Is this typical in aircraft design? Also, I was just looking through Walter Boyne’s book on the B-52 where it stated it originally had a projected life of only about 5000 hours. The change in lifespan is simply amazing, especially given how the role has varied over time, i.e., high-altitude vs. low-altitude bombing. Quite an amazing aircraft.


User currently offlinetommytoyz From Tonga, joined Jan 2007, 1353 posts, RR: 6
Reply 10, posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 9974 times:

The B-52 is also a good machine even today. The USAF missed a great opportunity and did not re engine her. The reasoning is so dumb, I seems deliberate.

They said the savings in gas would not make a reasonable return on the capital investment to re engine the B-52. The "error" was that they used the price of gas on the ground, not factoring in the fact that aerial tankers deliver a gallon for a lot more cost. The USAF failed to include the fact that the B-52 would take on a lot less airborne fuel and the cost savings associated with that. Maybe they were afraid to reduce - the already very low - utilization of the KC-135 fleet. Whicj is why they're good till 2040.

Others, factoring the cost savings of reduced aerial gas delivery, calculated the USAF would have made a massive return on a re-engine investment of the B-52. not to speak of the capability improvements.

I wouldn't be surprised if tanker interests didn't play a role.


User currently offlineflyingturtle From Switzerland, joined Oct 2011, 2402 posts, RR: 13
Reply 11, posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 9938 times:

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 6):
What plane in your data base achieved what the SR-71 did?

None.

But it wholly depends on the yardstick you apply. A toad is always extremely advanced and world-class at the stuff a toad normally does.

I just find it unfair to other one-of-a-kind aircraft like the Concorde, the RB-57... 


David



Keeping calm is terrorism against those who want to live in fear.
User currently offlineCadet985 From United States of America, joined Mar 2002, 1554 posts, RR: 4
Reply 12, posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 9609 times:

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 3):
Even today, it would be almost impossible to shoot it down. Not even a F-22 could do it. You'd need rockets going faster than Mach 5 with a good range to catch it and fired at just the right moment to have even the smallest chance.

All it takes is one lucky shot. Think back to Francis Gary Powers and Rudolf Anderson. That's all it took.

Marc


User currently onlineFlighty From United States of America, joined Apr 2007, 8525 posts, RR: 2
Reply 13, posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 9411 times:

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 3):
That's why the KC-46 is a total waste of money. There has to be a better justification than the simple fact that they're old, to replace an old frame, IMHO.

Thank you!!

The KC-46 never had to do with military needs. It came from my area -- corporate greed. So I am always glad when people know the truth.

Quoting HaveBlue (Reply 5):
And all that done in just a couple of years from conception to first flight, before the use of computers, while our much more benign aircraft today take forever to get into service.

So important to realize this. Modern "project management" separates everything out into years instead of weeks. If you get key players into a room for 1 month, shut the doors, and give them pen & paper, they can accomplish nearly anything. But this rarely happens in our "cubicle modern world."

You see Elon Musk's Tesla S sedan also... thanks to quick organizational design, they leapfrogged the car industry. It is Automobile Magazine's car of the year.


User currently offlineKC135Hydraulics From United States of America, joined Nov 2012, 305 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 9311 times:

I think I can speak about the KC-135 from a maintenance standpoint. It's a piece of junk to work on and I hate it. I'll be glad when they're all gone and we're working on an aircraft with modern systems and modern design philosophies. True, the KC-135 has persevered for many years and could conceivably continue to do so for a while longer, but the amount of work and expensive that goes into maintaining a 50 year old airframe is extreme. The B-52 maintainers could likely tell you a similar story.

On the other side of that, I also work on C-17s and it's a complete dream to work on because it was designed well, where parts are easy to get to with high reliability. Even if the C-17 were to fly for 30 more years, it'll still be a physically easier aircraft to maintain. That's why I am excited for the KC-46.


User currently offlineprebennorholm From Denmark, joined Mar 2000, 6447 posts, RR: 54
Reply 15, posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks ago) and read 9281 times:

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 10):
The USAF missed a great opportunity and did not re engine her. The reasoning is so dumb, I seems deliberate.

They said the savings in gas would not make a reasonable return on the capital investment to re engine the B-52. The "error" was that they used the price of gas on the ground, not factoring in the fact that aerial tankers deliver a gallon for a lot more cost.

Unless you have a war all aerial refuelings of the Buff are practice refuelings. You wouldn't make less practice refuelings just because it had more fuel efficient engines.

BTW, many practice refuelings, if not most, are dry runs. And when not dry, then it is to test that fuel really flows as it should rather than to stretch the flight.

In reality, reengining the Buff with modern engines would be an economic advantage if the US of A counts on using them over the next couple of decades to convert the opposite side of planet Earth into Moon landscape, otherwise not so much.



Always keep your number of landings equal to your number of take-offs, Preben Norholm
User currently offline135mech From United States of America, joined Oct 2006, 412 posts, RR: 4
Reply 16, posted (1 year 10 months 1 week 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 9240 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting KC135Hydraulics (Reply 14):
the KC-135 has persevered for many years and could conceivably continue to do so for a while longer, but the amount of work and expensive that goes into maintaining a 50 year old airframe is extreme. The B-52 maintainers could likely tell you a similar story.

People forget that as the frame gets older it gets harder to maintain. Spare parts are harder and harder to get and the heavy maintenance and scheduled maintance checks get longer and harder to do.

Yes, the AF bought a bunch of retired 707's and stored them for spares... but a lot of people don't know that the 707 and KC-135 are completely different airframes between the cockpit door and tail pressure/bulkhead. The main reason for the "spares" are for the tail sections. Those are mainly the only components they share. Different body width, wings, flaps, wheels, tires, brakes, gear etc...

Regards,
135Mech


User currently offlineKC135Hydraulics From United States of America, joined Nov 2012, 305 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (1 year 10 months 1 week 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 9240 times:

Quoting 135mech (Reply 16):
People forget that as the frame gets older it gets harder to maintain. Spare parts are harder and harder to get and the heavy maintenance and scheduled maintance checks get longer and harder to do.

I don't forget... I am reminded daily! The day I'm done working on the 135 I'll say good riddance. I've got no love for this plane. Of course I'm not blaming the engineers that designed it 60 years ago though, they didn't know better. This was an expendible airframe that journeyed on way longer than they originally intended.


User currently offline135mech From United States of America, joined Oct 2006, 412 posts, RR: 4
Reply 18, posted (1 year 10 months 1 week 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 9239 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting KC135Hydraulics (Reply 17):
The day I'm done working on the 135 I'll say good riddance. I've got no love for this plane. Of course I'm not blaming the engineers that designed it 60 years ago though, they didn't know better. This was an expendible airframe that journeyed on way longer than they originally intended

LOL... well once you get to another airframe (like this god-forsaken B-1) you will truly miss the "ease" of the KC-135! No joke! My office co-worker is Hydro and is still baffled by this P.O.S... we miss our "flying EVERY day tankers!" LOL

The tanker and the Buff were NEVER originally expected to carry on for so long... and they have done it well. But, it's amazing that some threads on here, people say that the KC-46 is a waste and we don't need them... Just let the 135 keep working... eventually age takes it's toll on even the old (don't build them like they used to) planes!

Btw... love that museum you guys have there! I know the guy (retired Chief now) that used to crew that tanker!

135mech


User currently offlineKC135Hydraulics From United States of America, joined Nov 2012, 305 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (1 year 10 months 1 week 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 9239 times:

Quoting 135mech (Reply 18):
LOL... well once you get to another airframe (like this god-forsaken B-1) you will truly miss the "ease" of the KC-135! No joke! My office co-worker is Hydro and is still baffled by this P.O.S... we miss our "flying EVERY day tankers!" LOL

I'm currently deployed to Al Udeid AB and we have B-1s here. I got to take a tour of one the other day and it is a complete hydraulic disaster. They keep drip pans and buckets under the jet to catch the fluid leaking out. The concrete underneath their jets is permanently stained black from the hydraulic leaks. I couldn't even imagine what it's like to be a hydro troop on that nightmare. KC-135s suck because they're old, B-1s suck because they're pigs.


User currently offline135mech From United States of America, joined Oct 2006, 412 posts, RR: 4
Reply 20, posted (1 year 10 months 1 week 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 9239 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting KC135Hydraulics (Reply 19):
I'm currently deployed to Al Udeid AB and we have B-1s here. I got to take a tour of one the other day and it is a complete hydraulic disaster. They keep drip pans and buckets under the jet to catch the fluid leaking out. The concrete underneath their jets is permanently stained black from the hydraulic leaks. I couldn't even imagine what it's like to be a hydro troop on that nightmare. KC-135s suck because they're old, B-1s suck because they're pigs.

So very true! They "brag" about 40% MC rates here (our unit is there now)... hahahahaha... Told them that if a Tanker unit dropped to 50%...wing commanders get fired... they just stared at me!

Stay safe over there!

135Mech


User currently offlineDTWPurserBoy From United States of America, joined Feb 2010, 1627 posts, RR: 6
Reply 21, posted (1 year 8 months 2 weeks 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 7856 times:

A non-military friend of mine once asked why the USAF decided to retire the SR-71 andI couldn't help but smile and say "That's because they have something to replace it."


Qualified on Concorde/B707/B720/B727/B737/B747/B757/B767/B777/DC-8/DC-9/DC-10/A319/A320/A330/MD-88-90
User currently offlinejetstar From United States of America, joined May 2003, 1645 posts, RR: 10
Reply 22, posted (1 year 8 months 1 week 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 7130 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting 135mech (Reply 16):
People forget that as the frame gets older it gets harder to maintain. Spare parts are harder and harder to get and the heavy maintenance and scheduled maintance checks get longer and harder to do.

Yes, the AF bought a bunch of retired 707's and stored them for spares... but a lot of people don't know that the 707 and KC-135 are completely different airframes between the cockpit door and tail pressure/bulkhead. The main reason for the "spares" are for the tail sections. Those are mainly the only components they share. Different body width, wings, flaps, wheels, tires, brakes, gear etc...

Regards,
135Mech

Besides all those other parts, they also used the low by-pass fan engines from the 707’s the USAF bought up to re-engine those KC-135’s that did not receive the newer CFM engines.

JetStar


User currently offlinejetstar From United States of America, joined May 2003, 1645 posts, RR: 10
Reply 23, posted (1 year 8 months 1 week 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 7124 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 3):
A basic truck doesn't need to be replaced with another basic truck, if it still works perfectly well and safely. Same for the KC-135 and the other subsonic carriers. That's why the KC-46 is a total waste of money. There has to be a better justification than the simple fact that they're old, to replace an old frame, IMHO.

The USAF can continue for decades more on all those frames without any issue. Matter of fact the entire KC-135 fleet has one of the highest readiness rates of all USAF types. Year of manufacture has almost nothing to do with capability, effectiveness and readiness.

I read in an aviation magazine recently one of the problems with both the KC-135’s and the B-52 is both corrosion and metal fatigue.

The article quoted an engineer and he said that today’s aluminum alloys are a lot better in preventing corrosion and resisting metal fatigue that the aluminum they had available 50 years ago.

The Boeing 707 was originally designed with an airframe life of 30,000 hours because that was the airframe life of the piston powered airliners all the manufacturers were building. When the airlines realized they could fly these jets far more often than the previous operated piston airliners, they started to reach the airframe life limits much sooner than expected and Boeing had to come up with life extension programs to increase the airframe life, one of them that comes to mind on the B-707 was the crown section above the wings, I believe they had to either reinforce or replace these sections because of fatigue cracking.

I do not agree they should scrap the KC-46 program and just keep on flying the KC-135’s, no matter how much maintenance you do on the KC-135, you can’t stop metal fatigue or internal metal corrosion without jacking up the fuel caps and replacing the entire airplane with a new build KC-135. It just reaches a point when where you have to start replacing major airframe sections like the wing boxes or the wings or even the fuselage because of fatigue or corrosion then you have now reached the economic point as to whether it is cheaper to replace than to continue repairing the airplane.

JetStar


User currently offlineSSTeve From United States of America, joined Dec 2011, 706 posts, RR: 1
Reply 24, posted (1 year 8 months 1 week 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 7038 times:

Quoting DTWPurserBoy (Reply 21):
A non-military friend of mine once asked why the USAF decided to retire the SR-71 andI couldn't help but smile and say "That's because they have something to replace it."

Satellites.


User currently offline135mech From United States of America, joined Oct 2006, 412 posts, RR: 4
Reply 25, posted (1 year 8 months 1 week 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 6801 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting jetstar (Reply 23):
I read in an aviation magazine recently one of the problems with both the KC-135’s and the B-52 is both corrosion and metal fatigue.

The article quoted an engineer and he said that today’s aluminum alloys are a lot better in preventing corrosion and resisting metal fatigue that the aluminum they had available 50 years ago.

The Boeing 707 was originally designed with an airframe life of 30,000 hours because that was the airframe life of the piston powered airliners all the manufacturers were building. When the airlines realized they could fly these jets far more often than the previous operated piston airliners, they started to reach the airframe life limits much sooner than expected and Boeing had to come up with life extension programs to increase the airframe life, one of them that comes to mind on the B-707 was the crown section above the wings, I believe they had to either reinforce or replace these sections because of fatigue cracking.

I do not agree they should scrap the KC-46 program and just keep on flying the KC-135’s, no matter how much maintenance you do on the KC-135, you can’t stop metal fatigue or internal metal corrosion without jacking up the fuel caps and replacing the entire airplane with a new build KC-135. It just reaches a point when where you have to start replacing major airframe sections like the wing boxes or the wings or even the fuselage because of fatigue or corrosion then you have now reached the economic point as to whether it is cheaper to replace than to continue repairing the airplane.

JetStar



The corrosion part is true! When the KC-135 was built, due to it's most advanced (at the time) aluminum alloy metals, it was deemed/given a 100 year shelf life for fatigue (somewhere I have the original PDF converted report)...the unknown was the "corrosion" possibilities/effects; as they did not have "sufficient time" or "methods" to truly test corrosion effects on the new alloys.

In the late 80's Boeing and the AF were finding unbelievable amounts of corrosion and actually retired and dismantled some higher hour/cycle heavily corroded airframes to find out why/where the corrosion was. Come to find out it was mostly internal corrosion from being stationed in places like Okinawa, Guam, Lajes, etc where the salt air was getting into the frame and the normal washes/cleaning were NOT caring for the jets as they had hoped. After they dismantled some airframes (including my first plane) they had to establish new and fairly urgent procedures for placement of tails worldwide. From then on, places that have high salt air are restricted to a standard 2 year maximum (unless waived) assignment at those locations and must be reassigned to low corrosion places like Grand Forks (no longer has Tankers as of Dec 2010), McConnell, and Fairchild AFB's.

The fatigue was not due to the skin and the aluminum alloy metals, it was [because in the early to mid-90's] the ramping up of using the "cargo" capability of the aircraft. We had never really (regularly) used them specifically for "cargo" missions because of the many other cargo planes. The C-141 started to have it's wing issues and became restricted and then later retired, and the C-17's were still being built and we didn't have enough yet. So, the AF said "Hey... those are cargo planes...use them as such"...and did not realize the consequences. The result ended up being that the "stringer ties" that held the body together around the center wing box, were strained heavily to breaking and quickly becoming a huge safety/structure issue. So, in the Phase/Isochronal inspections, we started having to peel back insulation and removing seats for every inspection to identify and fix these problems, which led to severely cutting back the "use" of them specifically as cargo planes.

The photo was my first plane, that was specifically sent to be dismantled for this corrosion investigation as it had spent 14 years in England and stuck in Lajes for months at a time on "alert" duties. A different tail, had been sent to Depot 2 years prior for it's "normal" 4 year inspection and was so horrific that it never flew again and helped start the massive inspections/investigations per se.

Regards,
135Mech

Mildenhall Air Fete EC-135H Demonstration Crew 1991


User currently offlineplanesofthepast From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 26, posted (1 year 8 months 1 week 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 6752 times:

The B-52 has truly been an amazingly successful aircraft. I'm still in awe when I watch them lumber in on their long approaches to Barksdale Air Force Base in Bossier City, Louisiana.

I'm currently on a project to photograph as many of the B-52 "survivors" that I can, i.e., those not in active service. My initial results are posted at ...

http://www.planesofthepast.com/b52-stratofortress.htm


User currently offline135mech From United States of America, joined Oct 2006, 412 posts, RR: 4
Reply 27, posted (1 year 8 months 1 week 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 6775 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting planesofthepast (Reply 26):
I'm currently on a project to photograph as many of the B-52 "survivors" that I can, i.e., those not in active service. My initial results are posted at ...

http://www.planesofthepast.com/b52-s...s.htm

Nice collection so far! Edwards AFB, if you can make it there, has two on display... the one at the "North Gate" is the infamous "Balls 8" aka 0008. The flying launch bed for NASA and Edwards' test program for more than 40 years!

135Mech


User currently offlineL-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 29799 posts, RR: 58
Reply 28, posted (1 year 8 months 1 week 23 hours ago) and read 6746 times:

Still one has to imagine the difference that could be had by swapping over the TF-33's to say JD8-200's like they are doing on the E-3


OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
User currently offlinebustin From Spain, joined May 2005, 288 posts, RR: 0
Reply 29, posted (1 year 7 months 3 weeks 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 5867 times:

Anyone know where I can find a database of all the B-52's? Where they are the serials and history of each aircraft?

I'm looking for information on the B-52's (Or any SAC aircraft) that operated from Morón AFB, Spain since the Cold War to the present.

Best Regards

Bustin


Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic 50 Years Ago Last B-52 Built Delivered To Air Forc
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • Military aviation related posts only!
  • Not military related? Use the other forums
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
  • DETAILED RULES
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)


Similar topics:More similar topics...
Big E Turns 50 Years Old! posted Wed Nov 30 2011 12:30:29 by 747400sp
20 Years Ago: Operation Solomon posted Wed May 25 2011 14:09:43 by fn1001
P-8 Air To Air Capability posted Mon Feb 7 2011 14:53:22 by Bureaucromancer
Columbia - 8 Years Ago Today posted Mon Jan 31 2011 20:48:29 by UATulipfan
1st Production E-2D Delivered To USN posted Tue Aug 3 2010 14:36:17 by LMP737
For First Time In 50 Years, No US Manned Space Flt posted Fri Jan 29 2010 08:53:24 by Dreadnought
Third C-5M Delivered To Dover AFB posted Tue Sep 8 2009 15:20:14 by Galaxy5007
42 Years Ago Today- USS Forrestal posted Wed Jul 29 2009 17:39:11 by DeltaGuy
Rafale - Full Air-to-air Missile Load posted Sun Jul 12 2009 16:14:18 by EBJ1248650
40 Years Ago - Apollo 10 posted Sun May 24 2009 10:39:59 by GDB

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format