# B-52 bombers **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [June 10, 2012, 4:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/b-52-bombers/624685 "2012-06-10T04:03:54Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Rick](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/9f8e36/32.png) [@Rick](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rick)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2012, 11:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/b-52-bombers/624685/21 "2012-06-11T11:23:53Z")
> [@](#): > > Which got me wondering what the lowest number of engines that have not been used on an airplane would be. 1,2, 3, and 4 are easy. I found pictures of a B-17 modified with a fifth engine in the nose. There are a couple with 6 engines. 7, and 8 we’ve already discussed in this thread. (I know of at least one 10 and one 12.) I’m going with 9, unless someone can tell me about a nine-engined airplane somewhere. In your odd ball plane file I saw a picture of a 3 engined B777 once. Belonged to United Airlines. They were transporting the engine to Africa to replace a blown engine on another 777. The engine was not hooked up and running but it was on its own pylon. ---
**Author:** ![gravitycrash](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/977dab/32.png) [@gravitycrash](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gravitycrash)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2012, 11:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/b-52-bombers/624685/22 "2012-06-11T11:53:51Z")
I read somewhere, although I can’t find a cite, that the Air force still has hundreds of unused engines in storage for the B-52. That might be another reason for them not wanting to go through the bother and expense of using a newer engine. ---
**Author:** ![md2000](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/73ab20/32.png) [@md2000](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/md2000)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2012, 12:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/b-52-bombers/624685/23 "2012-06-11T12:50:18Z")
I read once that Boeing and Lockheed were funded to develop plans for a large cargo carrier for the USAF. Lockheed won with the Galaxy C5-A. While Lockheed’s assembly line was tied up for years building the first wave of Galaxies, Boeing went on to repurpose their cargo candidate as an oversized passenger plane - the 747. One made a lot more money than the other, but the US taxpayer paid for the initial design of both. ---
**Author:** ![Fuzzy\_Dunlop](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/848f3c/32.png) [@Fuzzy\_Dunlop](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fuzzy_Dunlop)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2012, 1:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/b-52-bombers/624685/24 "2012-06-11T13:09:32Z")
> [@Elendil\_s\_Heir](#): > > They’re special because they’ve been used for decades, and they’re a proven and very reliable design. This may be a stupid question but when people say we’ve been using them for decades do they mean: 1. We’re flying the exact same planes that were constructed 50 years ago, and have been in service all that time 2. We’re flying planes of virtually identical design to those constructed years ago, but were recently constructed and don’t literally have 50 years of flight time Or both? ---
**Author:** ![Francis\_Vaughan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/francis_vaughan/32/3093_2.png) [@Francis\_Vaughan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Francis_Vaughan)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2012, 1:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/b-52-bombers/624685/25 "2012-06-11T13:18:02Z")
> [@md2000](#): > > I read once that Boeing and Lockheed were funded to develop plans for a large cargo carrier for the USAF. Lockheed won with the Galaxy C5-A. While Lockheed’s assembly line was tied up for years building the first wave of Galaxies, Boeing went on to repurpose their cargo candidate as an oversized passenger plane - the 747. One made a lot more money than the other, but the US taxpayer paid for the initial design of both. Not sure where that idea for the 747 came from , but that isn’t the history. The 747 was a scratch start civilian aircraft whose genesis was a partnership between Pan Am and Boeing. The cargo version was built into the spec from the start, with the (in retrospect seriously flawed) idea that when the SST came on stream and all passenger traffic was supersonic the now obsolete 747 fleets could be easily converted to cargo. It is however true that there was some significant technical design work done for the military carrier project, but there isn’t any direct carry over in the 747 design. Previously Boeing had a habit of repurposing military aircraft as passenger craft, something that made them a less favoured supplier than Douglas. It was the 707 that was their first design primarily for the civilian market that allowed them to break into the market. (The KC-135 is almost, but not quite the same plane - the width of the fuselage being an apparently tiny, but actually big difference when it came to the 707’s utility as a passenger aircraft.) ---
**Author:** ![Francis\_Vaughan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/francis_vaughan/32/3093_2.png) [@Francis\_Vaughan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Francis_Vaughan)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2012, 1:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/b-52-bombers/624685/26 "2012-06-11T13:20:18Z")
> [@Fuzzy\_Dunlop](#): > > This may be a stupid question but when people say we’ve been using them for decades do they mean: > > 1. We’re flying the exact same planes that were constructed 50 years ago, and have been in service all that time > 2. We’re flying planes of virtually identical design to those constructed years ago, but were recently constructed and don’t literally have 50 years of flight time > > Or both? 1. The avionics and weapon systems have been changed a number of times, but the airframe, engines, and basically all the bits that do the flying are all that old. ---
**Author:** ![Machine\_Elf](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/82dd89/32.png) [@Machine\_Elf](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Machine_Elf)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2012, 1:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/b-52-bombers/624685/27 "2012-06-11T13:20:23Z")
> [@Fuzzy\_Dunlop](#): > > This may be a stupid question but when people say we’ve been using them for decades do they mean: > > 1. We’re flying the exact same planes that were constructed 50 years ago, and have been in service all that time > 2. We’re flying planes of virtually identical design to those constructed years ago, but were recently constructed and don’t literally have 50 years of flight time > > Or both? [The last B-52 was manufactured in 1962.](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B-52#Production_and_improvements) That means that every individual B-52 aircraft currently in existence is at least 50 years old. ---
**Author:** ![Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/7cd45c/32.png) [@Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Elendil_s_Heir)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2012, 1:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/b-52-bombers/624685/28 "2012-06-11T13:23:45Z")
> [@Fuzzy\_Dunlop](#): > > This may be a stupid question but when people say we’ve been using them for decades do they mean: > > 1. We’re flying the exact same planes that were constructed 50 years ago, and have been in service all that time > 2. We’re flying planes of virtually identical design to those constructed years ago, but were recently constructed and don’t literally have 50 years of flight time > > Or both? The first. The B-52H is the only variant now in use, and the last one was completed in October 1962. They’ve all been refurbished, but not totally rebuilt, since then. > **[CNET: Product reviews, advice, how-tos and the latest news](https://www.cnet.com/?tag=nl.e703)** > > Get full-length product reviews, the latest news, tech coverage, daily deals, and category deep dives from CNET experts worldwide. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2012, 1:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/b-52-bombers/624685/29 "2012-06-11T13:28:14Z")
[QUOTE=gravitycrash] I read somewhere, although I can’t find a cite, that the Air force still has hundreds of unused engines in storage for the B-52. [/QUOTE] They have whole planes and tons of parts squirreled away in boneyards in the south west. I remember going out to one of those boneyards when I was a kid and seeing row after row of the things lined up in the desert. > [@](#): > > That might be another reason for them not wanting to go through the bother and expense of using a newer engine. Certainly that’s part of it, though because it’s not been in production so long they are constantly drawing down on spare parts. [QUOTE=Fuzzy Dunlop] This may be a stupid question but when people say we’ve been using them for decades do they mean: 1. We’re flying the exact same planes that were constructed 50 years ago, and have been in service all that time 2. We’re flying planes of virtually identical design to those constructed years ago, but were recently constructed and don’t literally have 50 years of flight time Or both? [/QUOTE] Well…some of the planes have certainly been in service for a lot of that time. Others were sent out to the bone yard, and then later reactivated…or the parts from them were used to keep the planes flying. IIRC, no new B-52s have been built since the 60’s, but they don’t all fly constantly. The air fleet has been shrinking over time as planes are retired and used for parts and eventually scrapped. I remember that some time ago a bunch of planes put in the bone yard decades ago were rebuilt and brought back into service as they were still relatively low flying time (and thus had less structural wear on the air frame). -XT ---
**Author:** ![Paul\_in\_Qatar](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ccd318/32.png) [@Paul\_in\_Qatar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Paul_in_Qatar)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2012, 3:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/b-52-bombers/624685/30 "2012-06-11T15:28:36Z")
Well, another thing is the B-52 have very low hours on them. That seems odd to say, but look at the plane you flew in on from London. They gas up that puppy and its back in the air in an hour or two. Airlines fly airplanes as much as possible to make back the money they cost. B-52 are old, but they do not fly as much in a year as an average airliner. Further, the plane is designed to carry tons of explosives. Most of the time, they fly empty. So although the airframes are old, they are not as old as you may think. ---
**Author:** ![carnivorousplant](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnivorousplant/32/3563_2.png) [@carnivorousplant](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/carnivorousplant)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2012, 3:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/b-52-bombers/624685/31 "2012-06-11T15:35:57Z")
> [@Paul\_in\_Qatar](#): > > Well, another thing is the B-52 have very low hours on them. Did SAC keep some airborne all the time, or just warmed up and ready to go? ---
**Author:** ![Duckster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/duckster/32/1244_2.png) [@Duckster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Duckster)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2012, 4:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/b-52-bombers/624685/32 "2012-06-11T16:22:02Z")
> [@carnivorousplant](#): > > Did SAC keep some airborne all the time, or just warmed up and ready to go? Yes. ---
**Author:** ![Raguleader](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/258eb7/32.png) [@Raguleader](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Raguleader)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2012, 4:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/b-52-bombers/624685/33 "2012-06-11T16:50:52Z")
> [@carnivorousplant](#): > > Did SAC keep some airborne all the time, or just warmed up and ready to go? Depended on various things, like what the current technology and strategies were. Once they had early-warning radar and Inter Continental Ballistic Missiles, there was no longer any useful deterrent in keeping bombers in holding patterns all the time, along with the associated risks from crew fatigue and having to tank up in he air so often. There were one or two infamous mid-air collisions between nuclear bombers and their refueling jets. One in particular resulted in nuclear warheads landing in Spain and the US government trying to discretely recover hem. Caused some tensions between the two countries. ---
**Author:** ![Dissonance](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/85f322/32.png) [@Dissonance](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dissonance)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2012, 5:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/b-52-bombers/624685/34 "2012-06-11T17:50:52Z")
> [@Raguleader](#): > > Once they had early-warning radar and Inter Continental Ballistic Missiles, there was no longer any useful deterrent in keeping bombers in holding patterns all the time, along with the associated risks from crew fatigue and having to tank up in he air so often. Not only that, the Russians might jam the [Fail-Safe](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fail-Safe_(1964_film)) signal and accidently give the bombers the go code, and President Fonda would have to nuke New York to prove it wasn’t a first strike.😉 ---
**Author:** ![Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/7cd45c/32.png) [@Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Elendil_s_Heir)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2012, 5:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/b-52-bombers/624685/35 "2012-06-11T17:52:57Z")
> [@Dissonance](#): > > Not only that, the Russians might jam the [Fail-Safe](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fail-Safe_(1964_film)) signal and accidently give the bombers the go code, and President Fonda would have to nuke New York to prove it wasn’t a first strike.😉 I hate it when that happens! ---
**Author:** ![Rick](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/9f8e36/32.png) [@Rick](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rick)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2012, 6:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/b-52-bombers/624685/36 "2012-06-11T18:00:31Z")
> [@Paul\_in\_Qatar](#): > > Well, another thing is the B-52 have very low hours on them. That seems odd to say, but look at the plane you flew in on from London. They gas up that puppy and its back in the air in an hour or two. Airlines fly airplanes as much as possible to make back the money they cost. > > B-52 are old, but they do not fly as much in a year as an average airliner. Further, the plane is designed to carry tons of explosives. Most of the time, they fly empty. So although the airframes are old, they are not as old as you may think. I would not be so sure about that. I went to college in Central California near Castle AFB a SAC base. You could set your watch by the B-52s flying overhead. I recall every morning at 10:15 a flight would take off to the north. Those airframes have lots of hours. Also a number of of the early planes have been destroyed as part of the SALT and other treaties. ---
**Author:** ![Machine\_Elf](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/82dd89/32.png) [@Machine\_Elf](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Machine_Elf)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2012, 6:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/b-52-bombers/624685/37 "2012-06-11T18:49:18Z")
> [@Rick](#): > > You could set your watch by the B-52s flying overhead. I recall every morning at 10:15 a flight would take off to the north. OK, that’s one flight per day. How many hours per flight though? If they’re only airborne for an hour or two each day, that’s not a lot, especially if they’re rotated out of service from time to time. That’s different from a commercial aircraft, where the goal is to maximize profit by minimizing the time on the ground. ---
**Author:** ![blondebear](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/blondebear/32/1022_2.png) [@blondebear](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/blondebear)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2012, 6:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/b-52-bombers/624685/38 "2012-06-11T18:54:37Z")
> [@Dissonance](#): > > Not only that, the Russians might jam the [Fail-Safe](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fail-Safe_(1964_film)) signal and accidently give the bombers the go code, and President Fonda would have to nuke New York to prove it wasn’t a first strike.😉 Slight nitpick: the bombers in that movie were B-58 Hustlers. ---
**Author:** ![Rick](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/9f8e36/32.png) [@Rick](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rick)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2012, 6:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/b-52-bombers/624685/39 "2012-06-11T18:54:56Z")
There was a flight that landed a bit before that, but my AM class always got out at 10 so I would see the take off not the prior landing. ---
**Author:** ![Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/7cd45c/32.png) [@Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Elendil_s_Heir)\ **Post date:** [June 12, 2012, 1:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/b-52-bombers/624685/40 "2012-06-12T01:37:29Z")
Footage of a notorious B-52 crash in 1994 at Fairchild AFB: [B-52 Crash at Fairchild Air Force Base - YouTube](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FUEhNKBi4DY) Wiki article about it: [1994 Fairchild Air Force Base B-52 crash - Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1994_Fairchild_Air_Force_Base_B-52_crash) [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/b-52-bombers/624685.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/b-52-bombers/624685.md?page=3)