Odd if you read link supplied by Scruloose & St_Ides there were only 17 total B 52 lost during the entire war. Their cite lists dates and crewmen by name, and no losses were listed for 12/29/72. The link shows one loss for 12/28/72.
Since that link shows dates, and names of the crew and their outcome (KIA POW etc) I am gong to have to believe that the link provided by Scruloose & St_Ides is correct and your link is not.
I lived in Ft. Worth for several years. I saw them taking off and landing lots of times, and it is an impressive sight. They have almost no angle-of-attack, so it looks like the nose is pointing down. I was actually inside one, too, and it is incredible to think that it was built before I was born. They look kind of wrinkly and old up close.
Particular memory: being on the hill at Lake Benbrook at a full moon, getting 4:20 with my buddies and laying on my back watching dozens of Buffers coming in to land at Carswell. On several occasions.
I was actually inside one in 1965. My first husband (then boyfriend) was a fuel cell mechanic. I was a medical corpsman at Amarillo AFB, which was half ACT and Half SAC.
I can’t even remember what it looked like inside, I just remember I had to climb a ladder while the “boys” were able to look up my shirt from the ground. :rolleyes:
I always thought they looked like some sort of malevolent insect.
They leaked JP4 alot.
Interesting, but what about the planes? 
I saw an 117 fly over at the time of the air show last year, but the air show at LRAFB was the first week this month.
Interesting. This site (Global Security) also says 15 B-52’s were lost. So does Wiki and this site, too…
Mother, there’s an airplane up in the sky . . .
One of my co-workers was an EWO (electronic warfare officer) on a Stratofortress. He really hated those long “alert” flights.
At the SAC museum, they have a training cockpit that you can sit in. I must have spent 10 minutes in there, twirling knobs, flicking switches, and pulling levers.
The wrinkles are the result of many, many pressurisation cycles.
The first link says 15 were lost overall in Linebacker 2
You second link says
"On December 26, 1972, the revised tactics came into play:…
The North Vietnamese air defense system, though still capable, was overwhelmed by the number of aircraft to track in a short period of time and a dense blanket of chaff that was laid down by Seventh Air Force fighter-bombers. Almost 950 SAMs had been fired previously, and the strain on the remaining inventory showed as only 68 were fired against the mission. Two of U-Tapao’s B-52s turned back for mechanical reasons but their cells continued the mission. As a consequence a B-52 in each cell was lost, including one that crashlanded at base, killing most of its crew.
On the next night 60 bombers flew the mission, with some attacking SAM sites. One B-52 was destroyed while attacking one of the sites, and a second damaged so heavily that its crew ejected over Laos, where they were rescued. Two further nights of missions were flown, each by 60 bombers, and were virtually unopposed."
First of new tactics 12/26 2 planes lost
12/27 1 plane lost
12/28-29 no planes lost.
According to this no bombers were lost on 12/29
Your third link gives no totals.
Believe me I was around in 1972. If 15 BUFFs had been lost on one day, it would have been front page news EVERYWHERE.
Were B-52’s dropping anything besides iron bombs in 1972? Carpet bombing seems a difficult way to take out a SAM site. I thought that Phantom wild weasels were taking on SAMS.
What planes? 
Not really related, but in another thread on this board questioning the authenticity of a photo I tumbled across two photos and a video of a B-52 crashing at an airshow. The photos show what looks like someone ejecting out of the plane so I feel its safe to say that the video was amazing. Go to this link and about halfway down on the left they have more links that say B-52down. Go take a look if you’re interested.
The B-52 wing was set at a high angle of incidence relative to the centerline of the fuselage. This was necessary because the long, tandem layout of the landing gear prevented rotation on takeoff. The wing had to have adequate angle of attack to develop take-off lift without rotation of the fuselage.
That accounts for the relatively low-nose attitude on landing and takeoff.
The preliminary design tests of the tandem landing gear for the B-52 were done on a modified Martin B-26(G) because the G model also had a wing with a high angle of incidence.
That’s one hell of a bank for a BUF. No wonder it flew sorta like a brick.
I grew up in Midwest City OK and my dad, in his USAF days worked at Tinker. So I’ve seen plenty of B-52’s, various fighters and AWACS.
Oh, it’s real. The 1994 Fairchild AFB air show practice. The pilot was well known for pushing the B-52 hard… And violating as many regs doing it as he could.
This is the Wikipedia article about him. This was the best article I found on the crash… I really don’t like that the page is basically just a laundry list of all of the errors the pilot ever made. I really hope that if I ever crash, I don’t end up with an article like this. The only positive thing it says about him is “Many considered him to be the best B-52 pilot in the fleet.” All the rest is all negative.
Thank you for that update.
From wiki:
His actions between May 1991 and June 1994 would foreshadow the end of his life, as well as the lives of his three crew members, when the B-52 he was piloting crashed and burned during the rehearsal for an airshow.
Although seeing something like that with a plane so large is still amazing, I was saddened to learn that there were no survivors.
Bloody hell, the second picture has a strangely muted tagline about loosing altitude :eek:
Is that a crew member ejecting I can see above the tail fin?
Here is a link from the Wiki article that analyzes the failure of leadership that lead up to the accident.