Aging B-52 Fleet

Was it the G or H that had the chin mounted low light TV pod? What use was that supposed to have had? Or was that an actual FLIR?
 
35 AoA said:
Was it the G or H that had the chin mounted low light TV pod? What use was that supposed to have had? Or was that an actual FLIR?
Click to expand...

Yes, both G and H had both, STV and FLIR.
The bombing crosshairs or offset aim point could be tied to the camera for updates or to confirm your radar crosshair placement.

They could also be locked to fuselage "level" and provide a reference to the outside world.
 
BillTIZ said:
Yes, both G and H had both, STV and FLIR.
The bombing crosshairs or offset aim point could be tied to the camera for updates or to confirm your radar crosshair placement.

They could also be locked to fuselage "level" and provide a reference to the outside world.
Click to expand...

Gotcha. I remember watching the discovery wings program on the BUFF from the 1980's many times as a kid during that time (I had all the episodes taped on VHS and archived in a little flip book, I was that much of a dork :) )……and I recall that being the "current" day footage, and some talk about it turning night into day. It would be many years before I would ever use a FLIR pod, and given my early career experience with the Nighthawk pod of early 1990's vintage (completely awful waste of taxpayer money IMHO), I'd be interested to hear what you got from a presumably late 70's/early 80's era device. My guess is that a radar designation was probably still the going in game plan.
 
Brig Gen James R. McCarthy wrote the "authorized" version of what Omaha claims happened. The truth was written by many who served in the real war.
 
35 AoA said:
Sounds awful…….I could stomach doing that in my steed, with the ability to maneuver against (and see) the threat. Doing that straight and level in a pit with no windows…..I can't even imagine.
Click to expand...


Agreed!
 
flyingron said:
Note that the B-52 hasn't been a static design over the years. There aren't (or are very few) of the early versions of it still in use.

The B-52 is remarkable in that it's a versatile platform that is pretty much paid for, which is why it continues in light of the specialized replacements that were designed to put it out of business.

It's sort of like the U-2 which continues to outlive all the platforms that were supposed to replace it.
Click to expand...

Or the C-130.
 
Pretty much every military aircraft has evolved from its original design. They may look similar to the prototype or even the early "A" models but under the skin they're worlds away. You take a simple, lightweight airframe and over the years pack a bunch of crap in it and in some cases have it fulfilling roles it wasn't originally intended for.
 
35 AoA said:
Gotcha. I remember watching the discovery wings program on the BUFF from the 1980's many times as a kid during that time (I had all the episodes taped on VHS and archived in a little flip book, I was that much of a dork :) )……and I recall that being the "current" day footage, and some talk about it turning night into day. It would be many years before I would ever use a FLIR pod, and given my early career experience with the Nighthawk pod of early 1990's vintage (completely awful waste of taxpayer money IMHO), I'd be interested to hear what you got from a presumably late 70's/early 80's era device. My guess is that a radar designation was probably still the going in game plan.
Click to expand...

It worked, aiming was not the best, but you could see what you had the radar crosshairs on most of the time. Was good low altitude, had to deal with moisture and other junk in the air at high altitude.

Radar offset aim points were primary means of delivering weapons.
 
flyingron said:
Note that the B-52 hasn't been a static design over the years. There aren't (or are very few) of the early versions of it still in use.
Click to expand...

The unconverted G models were scrapped to conform to treaty obligations IIRC.

I don't remember much detail after the passage of years, but I had many conversations about the B-29 and B-52 with an elderly friend. He was a command pilot in both aircraft.

Some of his stories included tales about picking up his new B-29 at the Martin factory in Omaha and hopping it to Saipan. This was three months after his 20th birthday.
 
Last edited:
JimNtexas said:
320 knots at low level would be excruciatingly slow in an F-111.
Click to expand...

Yeah…or just about any other TACAIR asset……..nobody wanting to live long spends much time on a LL route below corner, or really much below 450-500 knots
 
JimNtexas said:
320 knots at low level would be excruciatingly slow in an F-111.
Click to expand...

You have to remember, 210 is about the fastest I've done that low.
 
35 AoA said:
Yeah…or just about any other TACAIR asset……..nobody wanting to live long spends much time on a LL route below corner, or really much below 450-500 knots
Click to expand...

What is this "route" you speak of? I've never seen you striker guys flying along one of those, normally it's at least 6-9 miles away and in the red air block locking your escort. ;) :rofl:
 
The "aging" B-52 was taking a beating in the GOP debate. I was starting to get irritated. BUFF's going to fly for a long time.
 
EvilEagle said:
What is this "route" you speak of? I've never seen you striker guys flying along one of those, normally it's at least 6-9 miles away and in the red air block locking your escort. ;) :rofl:
Click to expand...

IR numbered routes. Those gray/black lines on the sectional charts, also VR numbered routes. B-1B plans the route at 540KGS.

IR = Instrument Route, can be flown in instrument conditions and has ATC IFR seperation from other IFR traffic. Normally a set route width, minimum altitudes of 200-400-500ft AGL, and a maximum safe IFR altitude that may be 1500-2000 ft above the highest obstruction in each route segment.

VR = Visual Route, must be flown in visual flight rules conditions. Normally no set route width.
 
nddons said:
The "aging" B-52 was taking a beating in the GOP debate. I was starting to get irritated. BUFF's going to fly for a long time.
Click to expand...

Nothing's inherently wrong with the airframe. I would update the engines for fuel efficiency and range, keep the avionics/e-warfare stuff up to date, and its good to go. This plane depends on air supremacy, and as long as we to maintain the ability to establish air supremacy over a theater of operation, it will continue to be effective in its role.
 
Last edited:
35 AoA said:
Yeah…or just about any other TACAIR asset……..nobody wanting to live long spends much time on a LL route below corner, or really much below 450-500 knots
Click to expand...
Speed = life but it ain't everything.

I flew the B-52 in Air Combat Command's first Bomb/Nav Comp in 1994. First time we had Buffs, Bones, Beagles, and Varks in the competition.. The Red Air Viper driver remarked at the symposium that the only tactic the fast movers used was to push it up. The Buffs maneuvered and "Flaunted the fact they had boxcar loads of chaff and flares". IIRC TheB-52 was the only airframe that suffered no air to air losses in the competition.
 
The B-52's are still flying. Are the F-111's?
 
BillTIZ said:
B-52 speeds.
Click to expand...

Copy, nav.


PPC1052 said:
Nothing's inherently wrong with the airframe. I would update the engines for fuel efficiency and range, keep the avionics/e-warfare stuff up to date, and its good to go. This plane depends on air supremacy, and as long as we to maintain the ability to establish air supremacy over a theater of operation, it will continue to be effective in its role.
Click to expand...

You mean other than the shooting, how was the play Mrs. Lincoln?:rolleyes2:


I only flew that B-17 replica for 1100 hours (last flight 2011), but they gotta put 'ol glory in the glass case already. It did its job; now it's just watching Micheal Jordan play baseball. Unbecoming and embarrassing. I know grandpa is nostalgic but your grandson deserves better. Now if I can get a T-X rolling my way, I'd end my AF so-called career on a worthwhile note...:lol:
 
Nice to see a few flying the Old Buff. Or had flown it in the past.

I flew SAC Bomb Comp in Buffs and Bones. By the time ACC was doing Bomb Comp I was off into the test world.

Met a Bone Driver this weekend at the soaring club. He's now piloting Predators.
We talked a little on developments with the Bone and I told him what my test contributions had been. He told me what they where working on now, glass cockpit etc. I mentioned we did not even have GPS on my last Bone flight. He was shocked? Surprised?

Then it dawned on me, I had already retired before he even got his 2nd LT commission.!!
 
hindsight2020 said:
Now if I can get a T-X rolling my way, I'd end my AF so-called career on a worthwhile note...:lol:
Click to expand...

You'll finish your 20+ and be retired before that gets to the training bases.

Now, if you could work yourself into test and acquisition, you just might be able to work the program through the contract selection process. And then retire.

How many more for 20?
 
Nothing like a MITO takeoff! :yes:

Worked in the tower at Columbus AFB where Blytheville AFB would disperse a few BUFFs. Almost went from clear and a million to IFR when they took off! :rofl:
 
mscard88 said:
Nothing like a MITO takeoff! :yes:

Worked in the tower at Columbus AFB where Blytheville AFB would disperse a few BUFFs. Almost went from clear and a million to IFR when they took off! :rofl:
Click to expand...

Try being #9 in a 21 ship MITO.
BTDT
 
BillTIZ said:
IR numbered routes. Those gray/black lines on the sectional charts, also VR numbered routes. B-1B plans the route at 540KGS.

IR = Instrument Route, can be flown in instrument conditions and has ATC IFR seperation from other IFR traffic. Normally a set route width, minimum altitudes of 200-400-500ft AGL, and a maximum safe IFR altitude that may be 1500-2000 ft above the highest obstruction in each route segment.

VR = Visual Route, must be flown in visual flight rules conditions. Normally no set route width.
Click to expand...

Guess I should've put that in green? I have flown a number of those routes in my day. My point was that strikers in a LFE rarely follow that line they slave over so much in planning...
 
hindsight2020 said:
You mean other than the shooting, how was the play Mrs. Lincoln?:rolleyes2:
Click to expand...

What's the point of developing a new airframe? What benefits would you get, and would it be justified by the cost of development?
 
PPC1052 said:
What's the point of developing a new airframe? What benefits would you get, and would it be justified by the cost of development?
Click to expand...

Consider life-cycle costs. Wings, structures, engines don't last forever.

Have wing design, metallurgy, engine technology advanced to allow more efficient airframes? If so, there could be cost advantages to replacing the old design components with new rather than making more of the old design parts. iow - phase out the B-52s if life-cycle costs justify it.
 
BillTIZ said:
Try being #9 in a 21 ship MITO.
BTDT
Click to expand...

I can only imagine. Big time huh. Have you ever been rolling when the one ahead of you aborts, or know of any? That must have happened. Go Air Force!
 
mscard88 said:
I can only imagine. Big time huh. Have you ever been rolling when the one ahead of you aborts, or know of any? That must have happened. Go Air Force!
Click to expand...

An ex-parter of mine was a boomer in KC-135's and KC-10's. They rarely (never?) practiced at the weights they were supposed to fly at if the poop hit the fan. The dark humor was that if the bell rang, the first airplane to take-off would run off the end of the runway, explode, and create a fireball so all of the others could use the thermal to get out of ground effect.
 
kyleb said:
An ex-parter of mine was a boomer in KC-135's and KC-10's. They rarely (never?) practiced at the weights they were supposed to fly at if the poop hit the fan. The dark humor was that if the bell rang, the first airplane to take-off would run off the end of the runway, explode, and create a fireball so all of the others could use the thermal to get out of ground effect.
Click to expand...


Ha ha, sounds about right.
 
kyleb said:
An ex-parter of mine was a boomer in KC-135's and KC-10's. They rarely (never?) practiced at the weights they were supposed to fly at if the poop hit the fan. The dark humor was that if the bell rang, the first airplane to take-off would run off the end of the runway, explode, and create a fireball so all of the others could use the thermal to get out of ground effect.
Click to expand...

That's why BUFF guys called tanker dudes TOODs (pronounced "toads") - Take Off Or Die (either way it helped them - extra fuel or extra lift)
 
kyleb said:
An ex-parter of mine was a boomer in KC-135's and KC-10's. They rarely (never?) practiced at the weights they were supposed to fly at if the poop hit the fan. The dark humor was that if the bell rang, the first airplane to take-off would run off the end of the runway, explode, and create a fireball so all of the others could use the thermal to get out of ground effect.
Click to expand...

Took off at close to Max Takeoff Weight on most missions. Weapons were a small part of the weight computations. Granted, did not fly much with 12 ALCMs on the wings.
 
Saw a KC135 takeoff on runway 19 at Eglin, which was 10,000'. Crew requested the MA1A barriers (4' high @ departure end of runway) be lowered. That thing used just about every foot of that 10,000' runway and would have snagged that barrier if it had been up. Must be a hell of a pucker factor. I'm sure the 135 had the old engines, was in the early 80s.
 
EvilEagle said:
Guess I should've put that in green? I have flown a number of those routes in my day. My point was that strikers in a LFE rarely follow that line they slave over so much in planning...
Click to expand...

Depends on the mission being practiced. For special missions, you needed to be on time and on the black line or there was a good chance you were going to experience a sun burn no lotion would soothe.
 
mscard88 said:
Saw a KC135 takeoff on runway 19 at Eglin, which was 10,000'. Crew requested the MA1A barriers (4' high @ departure end of runway) be lowered. That thing used just about every foot of that 10,000' runway and would have snagged that barrier if it had been up. Must be a hell of a pucker factor. I'm sure the 135 had the old engines, was in the early 80s.
Click to expand...

When they upgraded to the CFM-56/F108 engines they had to put in an auto rudder since if you lost an outboard engine, you couldn't react fast enough to maintain directional control.

Cheers
 
mscard88 said:
Saw a KC135 takeoff on runway 19 at Eglin, which was 10,000'. Crew requested the MA1A barriers (4' high @ departure end of runway) be lowered. That thing used just about every foot of that 10,000' runway and would have snagged that barrier if it had been up. Must be a hell of a pucker factor. I'm sure the 135 had the old engines, was in the early 80s.
Click to expand...
That's what my brother attributed his silver hair to. He flew KC-135's and KC-10's before becoming a test pilot.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top