I’d argue that any B-52 still flying since 1961 doesn’t contain any components from 1961, including the frame. I’d think we’d be better off looking for an old ship still in active duty.
I don’t believe they are in the inventory anymore, but as recently as the 1990s recruits in Army Basic Training were issued shelter halfs and wooden tent pegs. The idea is that each soldier carries one half of a canvas pup tent, and they snap together. These were WW1 design, if not actually that old. Other than Basic we never used them again but vaguely recalled they were part of our TA50 for some time.
The coffee cups in a standard issue mess hall had a date on them, along with some of the trays, I used to amuse myself trying to find the earliest date on some of that kind of thing. Metal canteens were dated, although they had been phased out when I served. They made more noise, but the plastic canteens had a garden hose flavor.
The housing I lived in at Schofield Barracks, “B” Quad, were built around WW1 and were converted sometime in the 1960s from huge, open bay quarters to individual 2 or 4 man rooms. Allowable living space was allocated by regulation, and much argument would ensue as to how many people could be stuffed in one room. I was a hero with the rank and file troops when I discovered in the regulations, that only usable space were to be considered in the calculations, thus, the square footage necessary for the door to swing open, for example, could not be counted. But I digress.
Ammunition itself is rotated, oldest first. The military has large stockpiles not surprisingly, so when I was in the were shooting early 1960s vintage, during the war in South Vietnam they were probably using WWII era ammunition.
Pretty much all the metal is factory original. Engines and landing gears are removed and refurbished and some parts are replaced. Simple things like cowlings and access panels get more wear and tear and are often replaced.
But the “frame” and most of the skin is original. Plus or minus a few patches & doublers.
Had these in the 2000s, too. Used them at NTC but not in Iraq (though I’m pretty sure we brought them to Iraq anyway).
But while the design was old, I didn’t get the impression that the shelter halves were that old themselves.
Really, I would have thought even those would be rated for hours of operation and that sections of the aircraft would be totally replaced or upgraded over time. I would also think that just about everything would have been improved since 1961, including complete landing gear and engines. Still, as a military system the B-52 is pretty impressive in it’s longevity of service.
I think those article writers got a little carried away. The first .50 caliber Brownings were Model 1921 air cooled a/c guns produced from 1922 and water cooled anti-aircraft model of the same gun from 1924. The M2 model wasn’t produced until the 1930’s. If the serial number is 324 with no prefix, it was produced in 1935, still old.
Re: Si Amigo, B-52’s (and older KC-135’s) have plenty of original structure though parts of the skin and some supporting structure replaced, besides equipment. Anyway Colombia’s AC-47 turboprop conversions are combat planes built during WWII (though not armed combat planes when built), with little of their structure replaced.
The oldest operational warships not surprisingly operate in fresh water. The Paraguayan, Peruvian and Brazilian Navies all have river warships dating from the 1930’s. The eponymous gunboat Paraguay of 1931 is oldest. The Peruvian Navy’s hospital craft on Lake Titicaca, the 1879 built Puno, is an ex-warship but operational. This is excluding warship memorials, even if ceremonially considered ‘active’ like Constitution.
@Si Amigo:
Nope. Pretty much if it’s not an electronic box it’s original design if not original physical pieces. The current crop of B-52s are the newest (= least old) of the original fleet. And still have the newest = least old engine types they left the factory with.
USAF could have paid to re-engine them 5 times over now with the fuel savings they could have gotten out of newer engines. But at each point they dithered that they didn’t want to invest the extra lump of capital in a fleet they wanted to get rid of. Now they’re thinking again about re-engining since it appears they’ll be flying them to the turn of the upcoming century. Pretty silly.
Interesting, I thought they had shitcanned those by then. My roomate was extremely tall, and had to have a flight suits specially made for him. His feet were huge as well. When he drew his TA50 from supply, they found a very dusty new pair of jungle boots on the shelf from the 1960s, lol.
The invasian of Japan in 1945, prior to the use of atomic weapons, was expected to be a long and bloody campaign, in anticipation of this about 500,000 or so Purple Heart medals were produced. Virtually all of the Purple Hearts awarded since that time up until today, are from that stock.
Would you prefer a cite from army.mil?
And, famously, wrinkles. BUFFs have wrinkles in the wing roots from decades of flexing.
They did replace the vertical tails on some D models with a reinforced design after a spate of them falling off due to metal fatigue. The Gs and Hs were redesigned with a short fat vertical tail as a consequence. Which ruined the -52’s lines in my view. As did the chin barbels.
DPRK (North Korea) still uses the MiG-15 as primary trainer (if/when they can get fuel). It was FIRST produced in 1947:
(Note the name - which explains why the “i” is lower case while the “M” and “G” are caps).
The design is much like the AK-47 - copied by the thousands, with or without license from MiG and/or USSR*, which makes it real difficult to know when and where the last was made.
These and their successor, the MiG-17, are sometimes found on Ebay (or were- I understand the FAA has said “enough!” and refuse to issue licenses (Airworthy Certificate).
-
- which I miss - they made wonderful “adversaries” - the US does not use “enemy” except in shooting wars. Putin’s dream of a “New World Order” revolving around the restored Russian Empire, is too scary to enjoy.
On B-52’s:
I was raised (until age 12) in Dayton. home to Wright Patterson.
I remember seeing those monsters a few feet behind a chain-link fence, about 50-100 yars from the road (yes, it WAS a different time).
My guess is that these were fully fueled for a really long flight (I did know the fuel is in the wing) because the wingtips were about 2’ above the ground.
And here’s the part I have never been able to confirm:
I swear that there were external struts/dollies with rather small wheels supporting the wing. I remember seeing the entire strut/dolly, which means they were placed outboard the outer engine pod.
Can anyone confirm that there really were such struts ca 1956-57? These would have been the very first model iteration.
I sincerely hope the spars were quickly upgraded to eliminate the need for these things.
I can’t imagine having to carry two of these things for use at airbases not equipped for B-52’s.
“Hold on a minute while I brace the wing, then re-fuel…”
Anyone have any knowledge of such things? they were bright red, as in RBF things, and the wheels could not possible roll at any speed.
Make an old man happy and tell him he was not hallucinating?
NASA used B-52B s/n 52-0008, which first flew (as an RB-52B) on June 11, 1955.
Here is a B-52B in 1957, and you can see the outriggers.
ETA: Ninja’d by Johnny. And with good pix too. Nice job Johnny. Oh well, I gave some useful detail.
Those are built-in parts of the landing gear. Go to google image search and enter [b-52 outrigger wheels]. They’re bigger than you think they are; they’re just small by comparison to how big everything else is. I bet the tires are 2’ in diameter.
The wings are flexible on purpose; flex is better than stiff up to a point. On the ground they sag down with fuel weight. In the air the flex up a similar amount due to carrying the aircraft.
On takeoff the tips start flying at a fairly low speed so the outrigger wheels lift off the ground at a fairly low speed. On landing the opposite occurs and the tip wheels touch down fairly late in the landing roll.
In fact the span between the left and right tip-wheel is about the same as a standard 150 foot runway. SAC built 200 and even 300 foot wide runways, but more normal ones are 150 feet. So often the outriggers are rolling in the grass alongside the taxiway or runway.
The outriggers were permanent, hydraulically actuated, and withdrew into wheel wells in the wing undersurface at about the same time as the main gear.
And the main gear is a large part of the reason those outriggers were needed. The B-52 had a near-bicycle landing gear arrangement, in which there is a fore-and-aft set of landing gear (ultimately very narrow track) but virtually no lateral support. Even if the wing spars were cast from solid ultrarigid unobtanium and the wings had zero droop, you’d need some kind of rolling or sliding appendage at the wingtip just against the likelihood of a wingtip brushing the ground. (Never mind that between the steerable gear and the crazy trim capabilities, you can land a B-52 dead-level flat in a crazy crosswind… you just wind up pointing the nose a few dozen degrees off centerline. :eek:)
Bless you!
As I remember them, they were not incorporated into the wing, they were just props, such a sticking a 2x2 to hold something up against the ceiling.
Oh well, at least there WERE little wheels out there.
And: WP AFB and security.
That road past the “Moscow’s Incoming” led to a small bluff overlooking the entire base.
Want to guess what was on the top of the bluff?
A public “Picnic Park”, open to all.
There was real strong resistance to the idea of closing that park.
That response was written for Johnny.
Anyone else think it strange that, after 55 years, the US has still not come up with a strategic bomber to replace the B-52?
The B-1 was the “Republican Bomber” - a (kinda) flying Pork Barrel. It had major teething problems.
The B-2 is exoneration for Northrup’s “Flying Wing” design - it requires tiny computers to control the thing.
But the people who build/built the thing developed severe allergic reactions (most epoxies will do that to you - ask the guy who helped a buddy build a Varieze and then started one for himself), but (whoever built them) would not tell the MD what chemistry was used.
Maybe the bomber/missile debate has been settled and “missile” won.
Or the drone - best of both worlds (except for a slight time delay if you want to bomb people half a world away): the machine does not need a life-support system, and the User Interface in an air-conditioned building in Nevada (even if they don’t know how to pronounce their name).
The hardware is quite cheap and is thus disposable. A DOD fantasy come to life.
Need to type faster - yes, as a 7-9 year old, I may well have lost the detail over the intervening years.
These were not U2’s. Of that, I am certain.