What's new
By:
Filters

30 years ago today.

I thought they were practicing for an upcoming airshow and their family was watching. Fucking dumbass.
 
the conservative atheist said:
One guy tried to eject. There is a still photo somewhere showing the canopy blown off a second before impact.
Click to expand...
I also know that that plane (and seats) were not designed to operate at 103' and 90* to the ground, so even if they got out, I would imagine they would need time to arrest correctly
 
Well, that was disappointing. I was expecting loops, or rolls...or something more impressive than turning hard.

Dumb way to die. Even dumber way for an irreplaceable plane to die.
 
the conservative atheist said:
One guy tried to eject. There is a still photo somewhere showing the canopy blown off a second before impact.
Click to expand...
1719255978733.png
 
^ didn't make it, BTW.
Screenshot 2024-06-24 at 11-36-25 1994 Fairchild Air Force Base B-52 crash - Wikipedia.png


en.wikipedia.org

1994 Fairchild Air Force Base B-52 crash - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org

Wolff was present as a safety observer.
...
The flight was also Wolff's "finis flight" – a common tradition in which a retiring USAF aircrew member is met shortly after landing on his or her final flight at the airfield by relatives, friends and coworkers, and doused with water. Thus, Wolff's wife and many of his close friends were at the airfield to watch the flight...
Click to expand...
:eek:

Retirony - TV Tropes
 
arse_sidewards said:
Still better than being in the plane. Weren't most seats capable of ejection at any angle by the 90s?
Click to expand...

Did some reading on that this morning. I knew of zero altitude and zero airspeed seats. I did not know that self righting seats are a thing. There are seats capable of saving you with a minimum 140 foot AGL altitude while inverted!

From what I gathered though the B-52 doesn’t have anything nearly that fancy. The seats are not 0/0 rated. They have a much more limited operating envelope compared to the fighter seats. Some/all of the seats in the B-52 use a “catapult “system. Essentially an explosive charge at the base compared to a rocket motor on the seat. That means the seats are slower to deploy. The G-forces placed on the body limit them.
 
Bacho said:
From what I gathered though the B-52 doesn’t have anything nearly that fancy. The seats are not 0/0 rated. They have a much more limited operating envelope compared to the fighter seats. Some/all of the seats in the B-52 use a “catapult “system. Essentially an explosive charge at the base compared to a rocket motor on the seat. That means the seats are slower to deploy. The G-forces placed on the body limit them.
Click to expand...
Not exactly surprising that an old AF bomber that they want people to not beat the shit out of (i.e. don't do treetop shit or high G maneuvers) to extend airframe life is one of the last in the fleet to get the new hotness. :laughing:
 
the conservative atheist said:
Some damn impressive flying in such a massive plane, up until control was lost. RIP to the 4 crewmembers killed.

Click to expand...



That guy was a shit pilot and an asshole. Fuck him.


Not exactly surprising that an old AF bomber that they want people to not beat the shit out of (i.e. don't do treetop shit or high G maneuvers) to extend airframe life is one of the last in the fleet to get the new hotness. :laughing:
Click to expand...

It has nothing to so with "not wanting to beat the shit out of it" :shaking:

Planes have operational limits. From the manufacturer.

You don't exceed them, unless there's a reason. Gravity always wins.
 
Pt_Ranger_v8 said:
It has nothing to so with "not wanting to beat the shit out of it" :shaking:

Planes have operational limits. From the manufacturer.
Click to expand...
Don't be a dumb twat.

Yes, planes have operational limits, yes they were exceed here, obviously. The AF absolutely does manage things in order to extend the life and reduce the maintenance cost and rate at which shit need to be replaced. I have no doubt this includes shit like avoiding "high but within limit" shit in old stuff like B52s and that even absent safety considerations one would get chewed out for making a habit of shit like that today (not sure if that was the case in the 90s).

Limiting air-frame stress and wear and tear in normal operation (I'm not sure exactly how, something to do with the rudder) is a not inconsequential part of why they didn't go to four more modern engines on the J model and I have this on good authority from someone who worked for an engine manufacturers that didn't get the contract.
 
arse_sidewards said:
Don't be a dumb twat.

Yes, planes have operational limits, yes they were exceed here, obviously. The AF absolutely does manage things in order to extend the life and reduce the maintenance cost and rate at which shit need to be replaced. I have no doubt this includes shit like avoiding "high but within limit" shit in old stuff like B52s and that even absent safety considerations one would get chewed out for making a habit of shit like that today (not sure if that was the case in the 90s).
Click to expand...

That's not entirely true, but close enough for someone not in the business. Trust me, planes are operated in high stress situations all the time - even within manufacturer and Air Force limits.

Maintenance cycles are elastic and adjustable based on what you do with the airframe. I could go in to much greater detail, but it wouldn't change your mind because you have to be right.

arse_sidewards said:
Limiting air-frame stress and wear and tear in normal operation (I'm not sure exactly how, something to do with the rudder) is a not inconsequential part of why they didn't go to four more modern engines on the J model and I have this on good authority from someone who worked for an engine manufacturers that didn't get the contract.
Click to expand...

The engineering required to go to a 4 engine mount, as well as beefing up mounting points and possibly wing mount boxes is the largest problem.

The rudder not having enough authority (and probably required more area) is the other reason. The e3 (awacs) which is a 707 has the same issue.

It's hard to derate a modern engine enough to mimic the original engines and keep the flight control stresses in check.


All that goes back to Holland was an asshole and was pushing the aircraft well beyond it's operational limits. I don't care about the plane, but it's a shame he murdered 3 other people when he crashed.
 
Pt_Ranger_v8 said:
Trust me, planes are operated in high stress situations all the time - even within manufacturer and Air Force limits.
Click to expand...
I'm well aware. Some of it is planned training. Some of it "well this is sure not gonna be my best landing" type shit they'd rather not do but just comes with the territory of operating aircraft 24/7.

Pt_Ranger_v8 said:
Maintenance cycles are elastic and adjustable based on what you do with the airframe.
Click to expand...
Hence why the air-force doesn't want people driving things hard except to further some sort of training or operational goal.
Pt_Ranger_v8 said:
I could go in to much greater detail but I don't want to because you were basically right to begin with and I don't wanna admit it.
Click to expand...
Fixed. :flipoff2:
Pt_Ranger_v8 said:
The engineering required to go to a 4 engine mount, as well as beefing up mounting points and possibly wing mount boxes is the largest problem.
Click to expand...
I never heard any complaints about those costs but I wasn't exactly grilling the guy on the subject.

Pt_Ranger_v8 said:
The rudder not having enough authority (and probably required more area) is the other reason.
Click to expand...
I was told verbatim "the existing one is not big enough" with some follow on bits about how just slapping a bigger rudder on it wasn't gonna be cheap because of all the added stress everything back there would see.

Pt_Ranger_v8 said:
All that goes back to Holland was an asshole and was pushing the aircraft well beyond it's operational limits. I don't care about the plane, but it's a shame he murdered 3 other people when he crashed.
Click to expand...
Of course, but the shit Holland was doing when he wasn't crashing was shit that the AF (or anyone who owns and operates a bunch of planes) doesn't want people doing on a whim in big planes even in "safe" situations because it causes needless wear and tear. Ain't no different than UPS not wanting people doing burnouts in the company trucks.
 
87manche said:
You are aware that for 25 years the b52 attack plan was 500 feet and as fast as it goes right?
Click to expand...
What changed around 2000 to prompt that? The B1 was still in service at that time.

My understanding is that they more or less swore off the low level stuff after 'nam for a variety of reasons (maintenance being a secondary consideration to results, as with all things .mil related) though I could see how they'd still plan to do that for strategic missions against peer-ish adversaries.

Regardless, they spent most of the last 25 years flying in circles over desert shitholes dropping various guided munitions on things they were told to from "higher than MANPAD" altitude with the B2 reserved for strategic nuclear stuff and the B1 for low level stuff.
 
arse_sidewards said:
What changed around 2000 to prompt that? The B1 was still in service at that time.

My understanding is that they more or less swore off the low level stuff after 'nam for a variety of reasons (maintenance being a secondary consideration to results, as with all things .mil related) though I could see how they'd still plan to do that for strategic missions against peer-ish adversaries.

Regardless, they spent most of the last 25 years flying in circles over desert shitholes dropping various guided munitions on things they were told to from "higher than MANPAD" altitude with the B2 reserved for strategic nuclear stuff and the B1 for low level stuff.
Click to expand...

Not the last 25 years dummy.
The first 25 years.
The plan was to fly as fast as it would go and drop a nuclear bomb at 400ft.
Then we got better things to do that job.
yes it wore quite a few of those airframes out, but if you think b52s weren't doing hot dog shit at low level and that the air force isn't still at least doing some of that training I got news for you it did and they are.
 
87manche said:
Not the last 25 years dummy.
The first 25 years.
The plan was to fly as fast as it would go and drop a nuclear bomb at 400ft.
Click to expand...

Sorry, that makes sense now. :laughing:

Yeah they were planning on flying fast and low into the USSR. The realities of low level bombing in 'nam, MANPADS and the fighter and air to air missile landscape put a real damper on that hence the B1 and B2 coming along and the B52 being reserved for economically conscious bombing of sand people.

87manche said:
Then we got better things to do that job.
yes it wore quite a few of those airframes out, but if you think b52s weren't doing hot dog shit at low level and that the air force isn't still at least doing some of that training I got news for you it did and they are.
Click to expand...
I'm well aware that they did it from their introduction through 'nam. But those days were long over by the time they crashed that one in the 90s.
 
arse_sidewards said:
Sorry, that makes sense now. :laughing:

Yeah they were planning on flying fast and low into the USSR. The realities of low level bombing in 'nam, MANPADS and the fighter and air to air missile landscape put a real damper on that hence the B1 and B2 coming along and the B52 being reserved for economically conscious bombing of sand people.


I'm well aware that they did it from their introduction through 'nam. But those days were long over by the time they crashed that one in the 90s.
Click to expand...
Long over?
Was there still not a Soviet Union just 3 years prior?
You think b52s pilots weren't training low level intruder in the 80s?
 
87manche said:
Long over?
Was there still not a Soviet Union just 3 years prior?
Click to expand...

As in they had stopped expecting to survive that mission in the 70s and stopped expecting to perform that mission with the introduction of the B1
87manche said:
You think b52s pilots weren't training low level intruder in the 80s?
Click to expand...
I think it's a coin toss because .mil shit is weird. They could have been training for it because they always had been or in the name of preparedness and redundancy. Or they could have been not because "that's not your job anymore" and other political considerations in addition to being fairly suicidal of a mission at the time.

In any case I don't think it was a priority for them. The platform didn't really have a bright future in the 80s. They thought they were gonna manufacture a fuckton of B1s and B2s and retire the B52 in the 90s. So in that vein I can kinda see where the temptation for leadership to turn a blind eye to some hotshot dumbass trying to play B1 with the thing comes from.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Back Refresh