HalH

My Feedback: (12)

I have never in my 30 yrs of airline experience seen your voluminous runway analysis manual. MAXATOG ( maximum aircraft takeoff gross weight ) is calculated for a particular runway considering the airport elevation, temperature, runway slope, runway condition (dry, wet etc ) climbout terrain , and aircraft configuration ( flap setting ). One must be able to accelerate to V1 and if the critical engine fails at V1 the aircraft should be able to stop on the runway or contiue the takeoff. With an engine failure above V1 the takeoff should be continued. V1=critical engine failure speed VR = rotate speed V2= climbout speed with an engine out

Jimmbbo

Hi, Hal,

In the MD80s I fly daily for a FAR 121 carrier, we have a three volume ATOG manual onboard. Each volume contains 200+ pages... Need to have multiple volumes because the data for our destination and designated alternate airports won't fit in a single binder... F'rinstance, Las Vegas alone has some 20 double sided pages of data for its eight runways, different intersections and various flap settings......

Some airlines have this data computerized either onboard or at a central location and transmitted to the crew via data link (ACARS or equivalent), but rest assured those manuals DO exist in many airliners...

Cheers!

Jim

flyinrazrback

My Feedback: (69)

We almost always use partial thrust takeoffs in the B-52 except when grossed out to 488K. This is for engine life, airframe life, and noise abatement.

Jimmbbo

Yep, wanna keep those TF-33s healthy to avoid the dreaded "7 engine approach" if you lose one...

Heard on the Military Channel the other night that the AF is considering re-engining the BUFF to keep it running to 2040.. 80+ years in service!!! Any news on that?? If true, that'll make THREE, almost FOUR generations of B52 crews!!?? I can hear the recruiting ads now - "Join the Air Force and fly the Stratofortress - It ain't your great-grandaddy's bomber!"

Cheers!

Jim

flyinrazrback

My Feedback: (69)

Yep, the plan to re-engine them is 2008 I believe, will also include a major avionics overhaul as well, glass cockpit, etc. I am not sure which engines they plan on using, I think it may be 4 of the 757 engines. Right now I know of one 3rd generation Buff pilot, so I dont think a 4th one would be far fetched.

William Robison

My Feedback: (3)

Well, let's see.

There was the B-29. A maintenance nightmare, and not in the least a forgiving plane. A nightmare to hand fly when the autopilot went belly up.

The Convair B-36 was the ultimate piston heavy, but it was obsolete before it went into service. Convair redid it and made the C-99, one of the early huge (for its day) capacity transports. The C-99 was never put in production.

The B-45 was a failure, then the B-47 was a good interim plane with a minor weakness - the main spar had a nasty tendency to break - ruined your whole day.

The B-48 could have been "The" plane, but technology wasn't up to making it a plane that was easy to master. Bill Northrop was later vindicated though, with the B-2 aircraft.

The B-50 was an attempt to make the B-29 last longer than it should have. But it was developed into the C-97/Lockheed Globemaster, a pretty good piston transport.

Then the B-52. We'll come back to that one.

The B-57 and the B-66 were both excellent planes, but neither was a "Heavy" bomber.

The B-58 could be considered a heavy if you look at the projected mission, but it was ridiculously expensive to operate, and if you limit it to conventional weapons it was more a tactical plane than strategic. Without nuclear arms it didn't have a lot of "Throw weight."

Then came the B-70. If it had not been for a showboating driver in an F-104 the second prototype might not have been lost, It should have been more fully developed. If the engine problems had been worked out it could have been given the C-97/C-99 treatment. With a reworked fuselage and a passenger compartment we would have had a much better SST than the Concorde, Not only twice as fast but probably a lower fuel rate as well using the droop wings to "Surf" on its own shock wave.

The B-1 and B-2 I''ll lump together for purposes of this discussion. Both good planes, but much too expensive for "CongressCritters" to like. They wont let us buy a reasonable number of either.

Back to the B-52 variants. An antique design, a lumbering old dray horse. Not fast, but it will carry anything you put on/in it, and carry it a long way. Being an antique it is easy to maintain, and repairs are simple to do with inexpensive supplies.

Its major problem is that it is effectively defenseless against anything but radar missiles. Even there it's questionable. Consider the loss rate in Viet Nam to ground based missiles.

For a strike where we have complete air superiority it is a good weapon, otherwise it is a large slow target unless there is a heavy SEAD mission flown to accompany the plane along with strong fighter cover.

Now if someone takes a "Dale Brown" hint and mounts anti-air missiles on the B-52 things could become somewhat different. The plane has enough hard points to mount six or eight Sparrow (or similar) missiles with no effective loss in its main weaponry.

To make it truly an effective weapon on the next years I think something of this sort will be necessary. New engines alone aren't enough.

Other opinions?

Bill.

flyinrazrback

My Feedback: (69)

Well, Bill, tactics have changed since Vietnam. Without going into much detail the only ground to air systems we fear are 10s and 20s, and those will be taken out long before we get there, and when was the last time someone actually flew a fighter up against the US not to have their fate sealed by the 8 ship walls of F-15Cs? The days of going downtown in night one are long gone, with JASM this is not necessary, and still the CALCM mission is there too. There will be no air to air missles on a BUFF. This will not happen because of F-15s. The B-52 will be around a long time for various reasons. We still have the nuke mission, we can do CAS, AI, you name it. We can carry a lot of hardware and hang out for a long time, which is what the war fighting commander wants. I cannot comment on Vietnam, I wasnt there, but I can comment on how we do business today.

William Robison

My Feedback: (3)

Razr:

Quote:

...unless there is a heavy SEAD mission flown to accompany the plane along with strong fighter cover.

You have said what I said, but in different words. The problem is the fighters and "Weasels" don't have the legs of the "Big Ugly," and flying tankers along just makes that many more targets. On a deep penetration the KCs can't orbit outside the zone, the fighters would get to the Buffs and immediately have to go back to tank again.

I really think on-board air defense will be needed.

Bill.

flyinrazrback

My Feedback: (69)

I can pretty much gurantee you that will never happen. I can tell you after seeing the ground picture now and working with the army, there is nothing they would rather have overhead than a BUFF. Like I said, this is not Vietnam, we do not send B-52s alone and unafraid agains sam systems. SEAD is done well before B-52s show up in the air picture. We blow the snot out of C2 systems, and EAD systems long range via JASM, CALCMs, and other assets such as tomahawks, etc. Our warfighting is not done "downtown" as it used to be, everything is standoff for us, and we only go downtown after all the defenses are down pretty much (not including light SAMs, AAA, etc). I would not knock our EW fighting capabilities, its pretty impressive what the guy in the back can do. Things have changed a lot in recent years, and if you want to know how the war is fought, ask the guy flying the jet now

William Robison

My Feedback: (3)

Razr:

Many planes can toss SOW weapons, we don't need the B-52 for that.

Where the StratoFortress really shines is in carpet bombing. It is the only plane in our inventory that can do that, and it has to go "Downtown" to do it.

There is no more formidable air weapon than hundreds of medium weight conventional bombs to turn a military or industrial area into a freshly plowed field, precision weapons just don't do the job. All you have to do is see the result of such a raid to become a believer. And the Buff is the only bird we have that can do the job.

Bill.

flyinrazrback

My Feedback: (69)

The B-52 offers flexibility in delivering standoff weapons, we can loiter for long times just waiting for the call for a SOW. The days of carpet bombing cities or industrial areas are over. We strap on 12 JDAM and can knockout anything we want without killing everyone, and do the job a lot more effectively than using a bunch of dumb bombs. We can keep 27 mk 82s in the bay to use on dump targets, ie troops in the open. With the accuracy of precision munitions, that is what the war fighting commander wants. However, if you want us to make an entire country a quiet neighboorhood for about 10,000 years, we can do that too .