66°Clear

Home > General Discussion > I was sure someone would comment on this from yesterday – but nobody did!

I was sure someone would comment on this from yesterday – but nobody did!
  • Lauren May 29, 2012 - 2:12 pm #50160 Reply

    A B-52 flew right over my house at about 3:30 pm.  It was flying so low that the windows of my house shook and the shadow of the plane completely covered my yard.  The light coming through the windows in the house changed as it flew overhead.  The worse was the sound - roaring engines coming out of nowhere.  Thoughts of 9-11 popped in my head immediately.

    I happened to be right by a window and saw it fly by – the wings were very distinctive as was the color – dark grey.  My neighbors saw the same thing and remarked on the long and thin body of the plane .  Here it is  – Boeing B-52, model 462.

     

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F…..tion_1.png

    Surprised

    Swag May 29, 2012 - 2:20 pm #50161 Reply

    This being Arlington, anything less than a full squadron is rarely worth mention.

    novasteve May 29, 2012 - 2:21 pm #50162 Reply

    Nothing makes me feel safer than an aiplane over 50 years old overflying heavily civilian areas at low altitude. Scratch that, ask me in another 50 years when they expect to be flying then 100 year old airplane over civilian areas at low altitude

    Swag May 29, 2012 - 2:25 pm #50163 Reply

    Would rather have a plane that's worked great for 50 years than a brand new one that they can't go three months without grounding. They truly don't build 'em like they used to.

    meatrocket May 29, 2012 - 2:25 pm #50164 Reply

    F?

    KalashniKEV May 29, 2012 - 2:30 pm #50165 Reply

    LET FREEDOM RING!

    novasteve May 29, 2012 - 2:32 pm #50166 Reply

    Swag said:

    Would rather have a plane that’s worked great for 50 years than a brand new one that they can’t go three months without grounding. They truly don’t build ‘em like they used to.

    They only still fly B-52s because they're too cheap to replace them. They cannibalize other B-52s to get parts to “repair” the few flyable ones left. It's also very expensive to fly them because you need complete and total air superiority, which means you need sophisticated ground attrack planes to destroy SAMs and you need stealthy jet fighters to take out other fighters, otherwise the B-52 is a giant sitting duck.

    yequalsy May 29, 2012 - 2:48 pm #50167 Reply

    I got an alert yesterday about the fly over. What was awesome about the alert was it's ending, “Please take precaution.”  What sort of precaution should I take from low flying aircraft? Don't stand too tall? Refrain from flying kites?

    novasteve May 29, 2012 - 2:54 pm #50168 Reply

    yequalsy said:

    I got an alert yesterday about the fly over. What was awesome about the alert was it’s ending, “Please take precaution.”  What sort of precaution should I take from low flying aircraft? Don’t stand too tall? Refrain from flying kites?

    Well, at least it wasn't a Boeing 777 with GE engines breaking apart over Canada.  A nice umbrella perhaps?

    CW May 29, 2012 - 2:58 pm #50169 Reply

    Yeah, I was out and saw it too, headed towards Andrews I'd assumed at the time (not sure if they can actually land them there; makes more sense that it was a flyover). Was super cool, all eight engines roaring away at a couple thousand feet.

    Bluemontsince1961 May 29, 2012 - 3:06 pm #50170 Reply

    It may have been part of a flyover of Arlington National Cemetery as part of the Memorial Day ceremonies before or after the President visited and spoke.

    CrystalMikey May 29, 2012 - 3:21 pm #50171 Reply

    I was going to say, it was Memorial Day yesterday.  Not just a day for cookouts….

    Swag May 29, 2012 - 4:09 pm #50172 Reply

    novasteve said:

    Swag said:

    Would rather have a plane that's worked great for 50 years than a brand new one that they can't go three months without grounding. They truly don't build 'em like they used to.

    It's also very expensive to fly them because you need complete and total air superiority, which means you need sophisticated ground attrack planes to destroy SAMs and you need stealthy jet fighters to take out other fighters

    Or you can just bomb places like Afghanistan.

     

    The Next Generation Bomber keeps getting tossed around the Pentagon and Congress like a hot potato, so it'll probably be another 20 years before we see a B-52 replacement.

    novasteve May 29, 2012 - 4:39 pm #50173 Reply

    Swag said:

    novasteve said:

    Swag said:

    Would rather have a plane that’s worked great for 50 years than a brand new one that they can’t go three months without grounding. They truly don’t build ‘em like they used to.

    It’s also very expensive to fly them because you need complete and total air superiority, which means you need sophisticated ground attrack planes to destroy SAMs and you need stealthy jet fighters to take out other fighters

    Or you can just bomb places like Afghanistan.

     

    The Next Generation Bomber keeps getting tossed around the Pentagon and Congress like a hot potato, so it’ll probably be another 20 years before we see a B-52 replacement.

    They expect, and have expected for some time for the B-52 to still be flying by the time it is 100 years old.

     

    I think the Russians have similar plans for the TU-95.

    ARLwahoo May 29, 2012 - 5:13 pm #50174 Reply

    CW said:

    Yeah, I was out and saw it too, headed towards Andrews I'd assumed at the time (not sure if they can actually land them there; makes more sense that it was a flyover). Was super cool, all eight engines roaring away at a couple thousand feet.

    B-52s have landed in as little as 8000ft runways, but that was light on fuel and used every inch.  Most require min 9,000 but full (using outrigger gear on the wings due to max fuel, payload full) land ~11,000ft runways.  The reason they still use them is they're dependable (combat readiness is higher than both the B-1 and B-2 @ approx 80%), effective in their job, and are very long-range due to the extra tanks on the wings.  Updated engines have made them a bit more efficient as well, although I'm sure they're gas hogs.  Since they built so many during the Cold War, spare parts are plentiful, except for the ones that were chopped up (literally) to make Russia happy during our arms reduction treaty.  There's probably lots of politics mixed in, but in the end, it's a very capable aircraft.  

     

    Interesting history behind them too.  The big blips in its history was the vertical stableizer issues, including one that was sheered off during flight, but the crew was able to land.  Another was a an airshow in the early 1990s when one was taken to its roll limits and rolled over on itself and crashed.

     

    If you want a fun flyover, wait for a C-5 Galaxy, or even a C-17 Globemaster.  Those will grow some hair on you…

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

×

Subscribe to our mailing list